Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board of Appeals 1955/1956 740AIN4 BW'%D OF APc FAW Town of Rye, New York linutes of hearing hold in Town Rooms, is Peatl Street, Port Chester, New York, October 42, 1956 in the utter of the appeal, of Daniel ke Riecio owner of Lots 41 to 44, inclusive, Block bF, SoOlon 1, Tax zap of the Town of Rye, New York, from deoision of the Building Inspector denying permit for the erection of a dwelling on part of said premises boo mm the same will not comply with the prescribed rear yard set bank required by the 74ning Ord inanee of the Town of Bret and for a variance upon said premises. The hearing was called to order by the+ Chaltua at 6:15 P. M. Present: Aar►ey S. quigel, Chairman, Clarence A. Campbell ) Sabers or the Board Charles 0. Smith } of Appeals Richard. Z. O'Co"all, Town Attorney lamas P.. Neilson. Building Inspector libsent Charles L. Patton Members of the Board Theo. 0. Henninger of Appeals Also Present- Daniel M. Riooio, appellant Jerome R. Rosenthal, attorney for appellant. David Mo Kahn No one appearM iz opposition to appeal and application for variance. The Chairman read the Notices of Hearing as advertised in the Paily Itea wider date of October 13, 1956. The affidavit of publication of said notice of hearing was received and filed. The Chairman acknowledged receipt of cheek from attorney for the property owner in the dmouat of J 5.10 representing charge for advertisement of notice of hearing and issued receipt for said amount. The Chairman salle:d attontioct to the feast that is submitting application for hearing the attorney for the owner had failed to set forth fully the information required by Sec. b-C of the Ordinance (Appeals - How Taken ) and requested that he do so orally for the informtion of the Board. pr. Posenthal did so, using glans filed with the Board to illustrate conditions and explain the steed for variance. Daniel h. Riooio is the owner of a parcel of property at the north- west corner of Ridge Btulovard and Tamarack Road, designated on the Tax kap of the Town of Ryo as soutiOn 1, block i 7, Lots 41 to 44 inclusive. y it fronts obliquely 139*56 feet on Ridge Boulevard, 98,41 feet on Its easterly frontage on Tmwack Road, with a rear lot line distance of 113.22 feet, and a distance along its westerly line of 185,11 feet, and cdatainiteg as area of 150514 scuare feet. It Iles in district R 7 which proscribe* a "minivAm size of Lot" BQ feet in width and 100 feet in depth. The Zoning -1- Ordinance defines depth as "The mean horizontal distances bet"*& the front and rear lot lines, measured in the general direction of the side lot lines. For the evident purpose of erecting two dwellings on the parcel, one fronting on Ridge Boulevard and the other oa Tamarack Road, the owner divided the property. For convenience of reference, the area fronting on Ridge bouletard is hereinafter designated as Parcel 1 and that fronting on Tamarack Road as Parcel w. The latter has a frantage of 59. 0 foot on Tamarack Road, s ri i"M depth of 112.2k feet, and Qontalas an area of 7504 square feet. The di.mmalons and area of Parcel B sleet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for a dwelling In the district in which located.. On yuly 5, 1956, the Building Inspector issued perait No. 991 for erection of a dwelling on Parcel B. The Building Inspector refrained from issuing permit for eroctioa of a dwelling on Parcel 1 because of certain deficiencies in distances. Because of references by-the attorney for the owner to discussions at a previous hearing and for a proper understsading of all elements involved, an historical review is conslderei a scessssT. The owner applied for zoning variance a,"sating Parcel 1 on three different occasions. .First, on November 29, 1955 for rear yard variance permitting a distance between the proposed dwelling and the "divided" rear loot line of loss than the 50 feet proscribed by the Ordinance. A hearing on the application for variance, scheduled for December 28, 1955 was on said date adjourned to January z3, 1956. on the date originally scheduled 19 persons residing and having property interests In the area appeared in opposition to granting the variance primarily beesause of the shape assuf! shallow depth of the parcel, When the Chair- man announced the adjournment a number of the objectors present protested the ad journweAt, alleging the unlikelihood of 'being, aisle to be present on the doe announced as that to which the hearing was adjourned. They were assured that their presence and attitude with respect to the variance for which application was ^Me would be recorded and duly considered by the Board at any subsequent hearing, By letter dated 7asuary 18, 1956 the attorney for the property owner advised the Board that he had been requested by the owner to withdraw the application for variance. The Board zet on the date and at AUWtimo scheduled for they adjourned hearing. Several property owners residing in the area were again present in opposition. The Chairman announced that the property owner had withdrawn his application for variance and the hearing was adjourned. on April +i3, 1986 the owner submitted a different plan with request for variance on appeal from the decision of the Building Inspector who declined to issue perm% because the plan showed a front yard coot back of less than that established (30 test) by the other dwelling theretofore erected in the Block (8s0 B (1) -j- yzeeption for '�,xisting alignment of buildings - page 15 of ordia,astce)o A hearing on application for variance was scheduled and held on June 28, 1956 at which time four property owners (Ralph �. Marasco, Lrs. Wthel gine�e, Brans, Howard S, Baron, and August DIdden) residing in the area again appeared in opposition to granting any variances to permit the erection of a dwelling on Parcel le One of the objectors present also represented other owners residing in the area who were not present. Subsequent the filing of the original application for variance as to Parcel 1 there had been change of owner- ship of the adjoining property in tho block, fronting on Ridge Boulevard, The new owner was present at the hearing and was moot emphsstle in his opposition to granting the variance, There was also renewed objections by others present because of the shallow depth of the divided Parcel 1, During the hearing, and -2- `betore the Board had opportunity to formally salt Von the application, the attorney for the owner stated the aapplicatloa then before the Board was withdrawn and that a different plain would be submitted. By letter dated Xuly S. 1956 the attorney for the owner submitted a plan and request for hearing for a variance permitting a lesser distance titan pre- scribed by the ordinance between the proposed dwelling and the rear lot 11,Aes as established by the owner's division of the original parcel. A hearing as the application was Meld October 22, 1956 at which time the attorney for the owner briefly reviewed the history of the previous effo is to obtain variance as to Parcel l and stated he and/or the after had concluded that discussion at the previous hearing ideated that the Hoard, would act favorably upon the new plant he proposed to submit for variants, and that subsequent to said hearing the owner had applied for and obtained from the Building Inspector permit for the erection of a dwelling on varoel g, wb4ah dwelling has been, substantially completed, but conceded that the owner proossded with the Improvement of Parcel. 2 knowing that the question of variants with respect to Parcel 1 had not been, resolved. The Chairnan stated that anyone presuaalAg to predict the prabaable: decision of the Board did ec at h?.s ovm risk and should be prepared to accept the consequences if the desision when rendered were ulfavorable. ( The records of the Building Inspector show that Permit No. 991 was issued July 5, 1956 for the dwelling erseted on Parcel 2*) With respect to tk,e feet that in addition to the variance requested for reduction in distant* betweeen the proposed dwelling and the rear lot line resulting from division of the original psrosl, the plan failed to meet the a equirssents of the Ordinance in that when applying to Parcel I the rule prescribed for dete2vdaing depth of lot ( mesas depth Of lot measured in the general direction of side lot lines) , it showed a deficiency of approzimaltely 2? feet in depth (approximately 73 feet as against 100 feet required) the owner stated that it was his understanding that measnremrett is a different direction, giving aatixinm distance, was permissible, and his ftitorney staged that he was answers of the deficiency in distance in lot depth. The attorney for the owner called attention to the fact that ZO one appeared of the heaar4ng in opposition to granting the veriaaese. The Chairman stated that property owners in the area had appeared in opposition on the occasion of previous hearings and had been assured by the Board that their praessneati aa ®ppositi.an to granting vnri asses would be recorded sac} considered by the Board. on motion of W. faith, seeois! by Mr. tgigel, that the application for variaaoe be +denied, the members of the Board present noted as followsa Ur. Cie,, NO Mr. with Too Ur. r&i e! "sass The Ghairmazs mAnousced that the avpplicatics for variaanne halving failed to receive a Pavorabls vote of a majority of the keaabars of the Board of Appeals, the request for various was denied. Fjpoa announnewat by th5 Chnirraan of the dsaisioa of the Bawd, the attorney for the owner reauested that the minutes of the hearing be read. Be was informed thst the seinaates of the hearing veers not in final form, that the clerk of the Board dial not take statements verbatim, that he mama note of Appearances, twaa custo4j%n o* wthlbits sari other records, sto. and that the mitaaxtes of the hoarisg when written in final form, signed by the Chairman and filed with the Town Clerk became offioial and were available for inspection by say interested parson. The attorney then requested that the minutes contain a recital to the effect that no one eppeared in opposition to graaaating the variaeette, and also his reference to discussion at a previous hearing, presumably relating to the conclusion said to haves been reached that the Board would act favorably upoasa plan which he proposed ikereaftor to submit. Attached hereto are; MEWWT A - Lotter datod July 9, 1956 from the attorney for the owner re(aussting variance eitd bearing with respect thereto® IMBI81T H - Plat Plana of"divided"Parcel 1 with loeatiou of ;posed dwelling shown hereon; 7.i-CBT7' C - Plot Plan dalluoating the entire parcel showwlag line between parcel 1 and 2 as "divided" and looatioa of dwelling erected *a divided Parcel 3, =Aer permit Issued July 5, 1956 shaws thereon. The findings as oWessed by meAars of the '.4oasA, on which their decision was based. are as follows. kr. Campbell stated his decision was based upon the fact that in first faproving Marcel Ja the owner had outstarted the Board, aml oreatod a condition where hardship could be claimed with respect to Parcel 1 and that coasiquently he reaord;ed his vote la opposition to the m- ti¢n to deny on the basis of undue hardship. Messrs. Smith and Wigol stated their desistas was based upon the fact that the casandition. with ro*gset to Parcel 1 was voluntarily sslf-UMosed by the owner IA dividing the original parcel and ooasequ eatly he was not entitled to relief under the language of the Otdiaaanee which states that w adaustmeat in the stria3t application of tine provisioa of the ordinance shall be granted if the circumstances or coualtious for which adjustment is sought have " rosultod from g aair act of the applicant subsequoat to the date of adoption of the regulation or regulations appealed from" (Sea. i (2)-a). The meeting adjourned at 9:30 P. ii. Chairman, Zoning Hoard of Appeals. Town of Rye$ low York. IT "A" COPY MOVEE R. ROSINTEVa, Counselor at Law Rye National Bank Building Harrison, 1% Y. Harrison B-3211 July 9, 1956 !Ire Harvey S. Quigel, ChairrLan Board of Zoning ,"appeals Town of Rye Woodlands Drive Port Chester, New York ,Dear Sir: Along the lines of the hearing of Tune 28, 1956, tire Riecio, the owner of Lots 41 to 44 inclusive, Section 1, Block 6F Tax Map, Town of Rage, Is submitting a new plot plan as enclosed. Please treat this letter as an application for a variance for a twenty-five foot rear line as shown on this plot plan for the proposed construction. Lindly set a date for a hearing on this request, and in this connection you will find my check in the sun of $5.10.to the order of the Daily Item to cover publication costs. please advise by mail the date this hearing is to be held. Very �truly yours, T T y� �u gp- JT..Tr}��OWEE Re RaSii�l�"7tLL, -l'r- ig*n'ed) enc. a1 1IO Re R{��, ( YPed) CL as QC ❑ L=7-3 OF I=ING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF RYE, NEW YORK Q Z Place: Town. Hall, 10 Pearl Street, Port Chester, N. Y. [l) Date : Monday, Xanuary 2.3, 1956 Agenda: Adjourned meeting in the matter of property owned by Mr, Daniel W, Riecio and known as Section 1, Block 6 F, Part of lots 41, 42, 43 and 44, on the tax and assessment map of the Town of Rye, N.Y. BOARD =3 RS: Harvey S. Quigel, Chairman - Present Clarence A, Campbell - Absent Charles D. Patton - Present Charles C. Smith - Present Theodore G. Henninger - Absent Ralph tarasco and John T. Doyle, property owners in the area, were also present. The meeting was called to order by Harvey S. 'wuigel, chairman, at 8:00 P. k. The Chairman reported that on December 29, 1955, the day following the meeting held on the evening of the w8th, he telephoned Mr. Rosenthal, attorney for the property owner and was advised by Lr. Rosenthal that a neither he nor his client had received notice of the hearing and that he had not seen the notice that appeared in the Daily Item, issue of December 17th. Subsequently the Chairman discussed the matter with the Town Clerk and was Q informed by the latter that he had not notified the property owner or his attorney as he had not received from the Town Counsel's office the address M of the property owner or the name and address of the latter's attorney. CL The Chairman further reported that he had received from Vr. Rosenthal 05 a letter dated January 18, 1956, advising that he had been instructed to withdraw the application for the requested rear lot variance. The Chairman thereupon contacted the Town Counsel for advise as to whether the adjourned W hearing should be held and the responsibility of the Board with respect to d notifying adjoining property owners. He was advised by the Town Counsel © that there was no need to notify y adjoining owners but was advised to hold. the Q adjourned meeting as announced at the original hearing on December 28th, read the letter of withdrawal of the request for variance, and file the papers. The Chairman then read the letter of withdrawal of the request for variance. The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 P. b-. HARVEY S. WIGEL Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals, Toum of Rye, New York. MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPRAIS OF THE TOWN OF RYE, NEW YORK, IN T-HE MATTED OF PROPERTY OWNED BY MR. DANIEL N. RICCIO AND KNOWN AS SECTION 1, BLOCK 6 F, PART OF LOTS 41, 42, 43, AND 44, ON THE TAX AND ASSESSMENT MAP OF THE TOWN OF RYE, NEW YORK. PLACE: Town Hall, 10 Pearl Street, Port Chester, New York. DATE : Wednesday, December 28, 1955 at 9:00 P/ M. The meeting was called to order by Harvey S. Quigel, Chairman, at 9:05 P. M. The following Board Members were present: Harvey S. Quigel Clarence A. Campbell Charles D. Patton Charles Co Smith Also present was James R. Neilsen, Building Inspector. Members of the Board not present were: Theodore G. Henninger George 0. Becker, Town: Counsel Mr. Quigel read the public notice of the meeting and the affidavit of publication showing the notice appeared in the Daily Item on December 17, 1955, Neither the appellant nor his attorney were present. A number of property owners in the area were present. The hearing was recessed during which the chairman attempted to contact the appellant and the latterls attorney, but was unable to do se. Assuming that the appellant or his attorney had not received notice of the hearing, the Board concluded to adjourn the hearing to a later date. Some of the property owners of the area stated it might be inconvenient for them to attend a hearing at a later date. The chairman inquired if they were all in opposition to granting the relief sought by the appellant. The spokesman for the group, Mr. Marasco, answered in the affirmative, whereupon the chairman announced that their names would be recorded as being present in opposition to granting the variance requested by the property owner. The names and addresses of the property owners present in opposition are attached hereto as Appendix A. The Board also received a letter from a property owner, Mrs. Elizabeth L. Hisle, in opposition to the granting of the variance. This letter is also attached. The chairman then announced that the adjourned hearing would be held at 8:00 P. M. in the Town Board Rooms, on Monday January 23, 1956. iARVEY S. QUIGEL, Chairman, Zoning Board ppeals, Town of Rye, New York. APPENDIX "A" Re: Appeal of Daniel M. Riocio PROPERTY OWNERS PRESENT IN OPPOSITION Miss Nary Bough Mr. & Mrs. Harold Co Barlow 54 Tamarack Road 8 Ridge Blvd. Liss Ethel Hines Mr. & Mrs. John T. Doyle 47 Valley Terrace Road 7 Ridge Blvd. Mr. & Mrs. Emil Stark Mr. 'e Mrs. Frank Marasco 45 Valley Terrace Road Valley Terrace Road Mr. Edmond Lofaro Mrs. H. W. Biggs & Harry Biggs 62 Windsor road 14 Ridge Blvd. Mr. Robert Olson Mr. August Didden 61 Tamarack Road 54 Tamarack Road Mr. William Telesoa Mr. & Mrs. William Shaeffer 66 Tamarack Road 17 Ridge Blvd. Mr. & Mrs. Olaf Hallengren (by F. Marasco, atty.) Tamarack Road Mr. George Weeks 57 Tamarack Road.