Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984_10_09 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF MAMA.RONECK HELD OCTOBER 9, 1984, IN THE AUDITORIUM OF THE WEAVER STREET FIREHOUSE, WEAVER STREET AND EDGEWOOD AVENUE, LARCHMONT, NEW YORK. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 8:15 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Mr. A. William Boraczek, Chairman Mr. Egbert R. Hardesty Mr. Peter Mosher Mr. J. Rene Simon Mrs. Anne McAndrews Also present: Mr. William Paonessa, Building Inspector Mr. Steven Silverberg, Town Counsel Dr. Lawrence Lerman, Town Councilman APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the meeting of August 22, 1984 were pre- sented and on motion duly made and seconded, approved as submitted. QThe Chairman asked the Secretary to read the first application. APPLICATION NO. 1 - CASE 670 Application of Mr. and Mrs. Louis Marmo for modification of Article VI Section 89-35 Subsection B 2 (a) "Construc- tion Requirements for an R-6 One Family Residence District" which requires a minimum side yard of 8 ft. to maintain an existing one story addition at the rear of the dwell- ing having a side yard of 4 ft. more or less on the pre- mises located at 14 Dean Place and known on the Tax Assess- ment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 505 Parcel 400 on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unneces- sary hardship. Mr. Marmo explained that he had constructed the addition about a year ago when his wife was pregnant and there was an existing screen porch which because it was rotted he intended to replace. Mr. Marmo said at the time he did not know that he needed a permit and most of the work was com- pleted and when he became aware he needed a permit. The applicant said he decided to finish the work and then ap- ply for the permit. Mr. Marmo stated that he had done most of the work himself with the help of his father-in- law. The Board questioned the applicant as to what line of work he did and Mr. Marmo said he was an auto mechanic. The Chairman and other members of the Board expressed their views on cases like this where the work has been completed dfr without a permit. Mrs. McAndrews expressed concern about the electrical work that Mr. Marmo had done without being © inspected by the Board of Fire Underwriters. The Board, also, advised Mr. Marmo that when he goes to sell his house the title search will show that there was a violation and the new owner would not be able to get a mortgage. Mr. Marmo said that attached to his application was a letter from his neighbors at 18 Dean Place and the letter was read aloud by Mr. Boraczek. Mr. and Mrs. Aponte in their letter said that the extension is in no way an eyesore nor has it caused them any inconvenience. Further they said it in no way encroached on their property. Mr. Marmo pointed out that all of Dean Place was built before zoning and most of the houses are nonconforming. The Board questioned Mr. Paonessa as to whether he had made any inspection of the premises and he said he had not. Mr. Marmo said when the Architect drew the plans they had to make some changes to bring the work up to stan- dard and he had completed the work. Mr. Boraczek said he felt there should be some penalty and Mr. Silverberg explained that State Law provides that if they make application for a variance automatically there is a stay of any violation prosecution. On motion made by Mrs. McAndrews and seconded the Board voted on the application. On a 4 to 0 vote with Mr. Bora- czek abstaining the application was approved with condi- tions and the following Resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Louis Marmo have submitted an application to the Building Inspector to maintain an existing one story addition at the rear of the dwelling having a side yard of 4 ft. more or less, together with plans; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has refused to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with Article VI Section 89-35 Subsection B 2 (a) "Construc- tion Requirements for an R-6 One Family Resi- dence District" which requires a side yard of 8 ft. on the premises located at 14 Dean Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 505 Parcel 400; and WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Louis Marmo have submitted an application to this Board for a variance on the ground of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship for the following reasons: C1. Rotted extension was removed to rebuild additional living space for large family. ( 2. Four children were born within © a two year period (2 sets of twins) . 3. House needed to be expanded for living space which was not nearly enough for a family of 7 people. WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, reviewed the application and has heard all per- sons interested in this application after pub- lication of a notice thereof, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this Board granted the applica- tion on the following grounds: (a) That there are special circumstances and/or conditions applying to the land for which the variance is sought, which circumstances and/or conditions have not resulted from any acts of the ap- plicant subsequent to the date of the Zoning Regulations appealed from. (b) That the said circumstances and/ or conditions are as follows: 41) 1. Because if the appli- cation was denied it would cause an unusual hardship on the applicant to tear the addition down. 2. The applicant did come forward himself and the Board took into account that because of the size of his family he did need the extra room. 3. That said circumstances or conditions are such that the particular application of the Ordinance with res- pect to Article VI Section 89-35 Subsection B 2 (a) "Construction Requirements for an R-6 One Family Resi- dence District" would de- prive the applicant of the reasonable use of the land ® and/or building and that the variance as granted by this Board is a minimal adjustment that will accom- plish this purpose. Or 4. That the granting of ® the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhhod or other- wise detrimental to the pub- lic welfare;and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that a variance is hereby granted and that Article VI Section 89-35 Subsection B 2 (a) "Construction Requirements for an R-6 One Family Residence District" be varied and modi- fied so as to maintain an existing one story addition at the rear of the dwelling having a side yard of 4 ft. more or less on the premises located at 14 Dean Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 505 Parcel 400 in strict conformance with plans filed with this application subject to the fol- lowing conditions provided that the applicant complies in all other respects with the Zoning Ordinance and Building Code of the Town of Mama- roneck. 1. That the applicant have the appro- priate inspection to insure the safety ® of the structure. 2. The applicant also file with the Board of Fire Underwriters for an elec- trical inspection for the electrical work that was done at the time of the addition. FURTHER RESOLVED, that in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Zoning Ordinance where a variance is granted the applicant shall obtain a building permit within three months of the filing of this Resolution with the Town Clerk. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six months and completed within two years of the date of said permit. FURTHER RESOLVED, that this decision be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267 of the Town Law. The Chairman asked the Secretary to read the next appli- cation. ® APPLICATION NO. 2 - CASE 671 Application of Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Wiener for modifica- tion of Article X Section 89-56 "Nonconforming Use of Buildings" which does not permit the enlargement of dwell- 4r ings unless proposed use conforms to Zoning District where ® it is located to permit additions to a nonconforming dwell- ing located in a "One Family R-10 Residential District" on the premises located at 733 Forest Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 220 Parcel 389 on the grounds of practical difficulty and/ or unnecessary hardship. Mr. and Mrs. Wiener appeared before the Board and Mrs. Wiener said the house is presently a nonconforming two family resi- dence. The applicant said the house was constructed about 80 years ago and there are two bathrooms that are very small and the fixtures were in the original house. Mrs. Wiener stated that they want to renovate the bathrooms and because of their present size modern units would not fit. The ap- plicant also said that the ventilation is inadequate in both bathrooms and because the roof is leaking they want to replace it. Mrs. Wiener further said they want to extend the kitchen to allow a "sit in" space and improve the access to the second floor since the headroom is tight. Mrs. McAndrews questioned as to whether it was always a two family house. On motion made by Mr. Hardesty and seconded the Board voted ® on the application and on a vote of 5 to 0 the application was approved and the following Resolution adopted: WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Wiener have sub- mitted an application to the Building Inspec- tor to permit additions to a nonconforming dwell- ing located in a "One Family R-10 Residential District" together with plans; and WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Wiener have sub- mitted an application for a variance on the ground of practical difficulty and/or unneces- sary hardship for the following reasons: 1. The existing bathroois are extremely tight, fixtures leak. 2. There is no heat or proper light. 3. Existing windows are old and drafty. • 4. Inadequate ventilation in both bathrooms. © 5. Roof is in very poor condition and leaks. 6. South wall of kitchen to be moved to provide eating area, proper light and ventilation. This will also Or 11 improve access to the second floor. WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, reviewed the application and has heard all per- sons interested in this application after pub- lication of a notice thereof, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this Board granted the applica- tion on the following grounds: (a) That there are special circumstances and conditions applying to the land for which the variance is sought, which circumstances and/or conditions have not resulted from any acts of the ap- plicant subsequent to the date of the Zoning Regulations appealed from. (b) That the said circumstances and/ or conditions are as follows: 1. The proposed addition is a modest request for a two family residence. C 2. That said circumstances or conditions are such that the particular application of the Ordinance with res- pect to Article X Section 89-56 "Nonconforming Use of Buildings" would deprive the applicant of the reason- able use of the land and/ or building and that the vari- ance as granted by this Board is a minimum adjustment that will accomplish this purpose. 3. That the granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or other- wise detrimental to the pub- lic welfare; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that a variance is hereby granted and that Article X Section 89-56 "Non- ® conforming Use of Buildings" be varied and modi- fied so as to permit additions to a nonconform- ing dwelling on the premises located at 733 Forest Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 220 Par- cel 389 in strict conformance with plans filed 114 with this application provided that the appli- cant complies in all other respects with the Zoning Ordinance and Building Code of the Town of Mamaroneck. FURTHER RESOLVED, that in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Zoning Ordinance where a variance is granted the applicant shall obtain a building permit within three months of the filing of this Resolution with the Town Clerk. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six months and completed within two years of the date of said permit. FURTHER RESOLVED, this decision be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267 of the Town Law. After the Board finished with the second application Mr. Siegel, who was one of the representatives for the next case requested the Board to wait a little longer as their Attorney, Mr. Joel Sachs had another meeting and was delayed. The Board took a ten minute recess and when they returned proceeded to hear the next application. The Chairman asked the Secretary to read the application. © APPLICATION NO. 3 - CASE 662 (This application was adjourned from the regular meeting of July 18, 1984 and the Special Meetirgs of July 31, and September 4, 1984) Application of Garfield Housing Corp. for modification of Article VI Section 89-39 "Construction Requirements for Tower Apartments R-TA District" namely, Subsection A (1) required minimum lot area per dwelling unit 1500 sq. ft. and 136 dwelling units, proposed 1211 sq. ft. per dwelling unit and 168 dwelling units; Subsection A (3) maximum permitted lot coverage 20%, proposed lot cover- age 33%; Subsection D (1) maximum permitted height in stories six (6) , proposed building height in stories seven (7) ; Subsection E required"Off-street Parking" sub- ject to the requirements of Article I Section 89-33 "Defi- nitions" and Article XI Section 89-67 Subsection B "Lay- out and Location of "Off-strut Parking Facilities" which requires a minimum of 252 outdoor spaces having a mini- mum dimension of 9'x20' and located not less than 25 ft. from front property line, proposed 91 outdoor parking spaces will have a minimum dimension of 8'5x20' and will have front setbacks of 10 ft. from North Chatsworth Ave- nue and 13 ft. from Madison Avenue on the premises located ® at 35 North Chatsworth Avenue and known on the Tax Assess- ment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 133 Parcels 148 and 299 on the grounds of practical difficulty and/ or unnecessary hardship. NOMMMO00/ 111, A Public Stenographer was present and his minutes will be part of the record. The Board heard the application and on motion with find- ings made by Mr. Mosher to deny the application and seconded by Mr. Simon a vote was taken. On a vote of 4 to 1 the application was denied with Mr. Hardesty voting in favor. Mr. Mosher's findings as adopted by the Board were as follows: I agree with the Petitioner's attorney, Mr. Sachs, that application for the several vari- ances should be taken as a unit and either granted or denied as a unit since it would make no sense to divide them up and grant some and deny others. This is a total package and should be treated as such. The Petitioner is an enterpreneur, an experienced developer and knowledgeable in all of the aspects of obtaining requisite variances and permits. Its experience is indicated in the agreement with adjoining owners, etc. , which is specifi- cally conditioned upon obtaining requisite variances, etc. ® The Zoning Ordinance as it presently exists, permits a six-story tower apartment on these premises with prescribed number of stories, height, density, lot coverage and parking, both in reference to the number of spaces and location. If the applicant was prepared to build within the structure of the ordinance, no variance would be needed. The applicant, for reason of its own, has entered into an outside agreement to which the Town of Mama- roneck is not a party and whereby certain ad- joining land owners, neighborhood organizations and nearby tenant organization agree not to oppose the variance applications, provided that the applicant would or would not do cer- tain things deemed desirable. The application before us is in large part the result of this outside agreement. This outside agreement in essence gives neighbors' approval to vari- ances that substantially alter the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, and the applicant seeks to have the Board approve such variances on the grounds of the agreement reached with the neighbors. The Board, however, cannot be parochial in its viewpoint, but must decide on the basis of the Town Zoning Ordinance and the scheme of that ordinance. A review of the agreement between the appli- cant and the adjoining land owners, neighbor- hood organizations and tenant organizations, \'''"'smomminnomr I If • indicates that most of the variances requested by the applicant are a direct result of this C agreement. If this Board does not grant these variances, that agreement falls and would have no effect on the respective parties to it. This is of particular import with reference to the number of dwelling units. The appli- cation is for 168 dwelling units and it has become clear that the applicant could build 142 units without a variance. Several other portions of the application may not be required if the applicant conforms to the number of units. I do not believe that a mutual admira- tion society effect between the applicant and the other parties to the agreement should be a basis for the granting of a scheme of vari- ances such as the one herein requested which does such violence to all aspects of the or- dinance. The applicant attempts to show economic hard- ship and practical difficulty. I do not see such. Any hardship or difficulty has been self-created by the voluntary acts of appli- cant. Nothing truly indicates that a build- ing cannot be built in accordance with the ordinance and that such a building is not econo- mically viable. To the extent that the appli- cant attempted to show that an average unit would have to be priced some $10,000.00 over current market value if only the permitted number of units were built, and as such could not be sold,_ the applicant was not persuasive. By and large the comparables used by the ap- plicants experts were either co-operatives with a different pricing structure because of the underlying cooperative financing, or garden-type apartment units not similar to this type of high rise building. The Town Board over the years has refused to revise the R-TA zone, leaving it unchanged since its adoption in 1959. The Town Board has approved other zoning ordinance amendments; and has received recommendations for change in the R-TA zone, but it has conspicuously failed to act in this regard. The application before this Zoning Board is not for a minor modification in one way or another of the R-TA zone. It is a comprehen- sive package in effect changing almost every aspect of the R-TA limitations; to wit: number of stories; percentage of lot coverage; form, amount and location of parking; per unit and density zones. The application in effect re- writes the R-TA zone. This is not our func- tion; it is more properly the function of the 6' V Town Board which has refused to so act. Q Under all of the foregoing circumstances, and for the reasons stated, I believe that the entire application should be denied. Mr. Hardesty stated that he believed the applicants had made a reasonable offer and their statement that for a reasonable profit the 168 units were recommended. Mr. Hardesty further said he had been a member of the Zoning Board for over 12 years and felt that the Garfield group had cooperated with the Board and with the needs and wishes of the neighbors and their variances were within reason. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before this meet- ing it was adjourned at 10:15 P.M. Rita A. John n, Secretary