1 25 6 https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/7ae15711e85a684c1f8797ed3a3cafc0.pdf 0da96e81ba2c6a5b986c258026613e48 PDF Text Text Zoning Board of Appeals: March 19, 1984 & , Present: John Arcate, Chairman Aldo Ceconi Frank Paolantonio Martin Roane John Biros, Building Inspector Arthur Brady, Attorney The North Tarrytown Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on MDnday, March 19, 1984 to consider the request of the Irvington Hudson Corp. Lie., owner of the real property located at 239-241 N. Broadway, N. Tarrytown, N.Y. and designated on the Village tax map as Section 16, Block 7, Lots 4,5,6,7,8 and their proposed contract vendee Sebastian Anenta and Caroline Aaenta, for an interpretation of Section 62-8Bof the Village Zoning Ordinance with respect to the advisability and permissability of using said property for business and professional offices. This property is located in a C-l Zoning District, Highway Gonmercial. Chairman Arcate called the meeting to order at 8:00 PM, and asked if anyone present wished to address the Board. John Bamonte, attorney appearing on behalf of the Amentas, addressed the Board. He explained how the property at 239-241 N. Braodway has a large red brick structure, a garage, which is totally vacant. The Amentas wish to convert this property into an office building with "parking spaces. Mr. Bamonte asked the Board for an interpretation of "planned conmercial development". Would this interpretation allow for professional management development? He noted that C-2 zoning districts do allow for such buildings. He said that from his research, it appeared that such an interpretation has been made. It was Mr. Bamonte's feeling that Section 62-8B of the Zoning Ordinance would allow for professional management development in a C-l area, but that he wish to have this clarified by the Zoning Board. Chariman Arcate asked if all property owners within 200 ft. of the Irvington \ Hudson Corp. property had been notified of tonight's hearing. Mr. Bamonte presented an affidavit of service;and certified mail receipts to the clerk showing that all such property owners had been notified. �- 2- Mr. James Galgano asked the Board if tonight' s hearing was for the purpose of granting a variance. Chariman Arcate said no, and explained how the Zoning Board can also be called upon to interpret the codes. Mr. James Margotta addressed the Board, and said he felt that converting the present garage to an office building was a step in the right direction. He said he was in favor of such construction, as it would help to upgrade the neighborhood. Mr. Roane asked if parking would be a problem for the proposed office building. Mr. Bamonte said no, that 36 parking spaces would be provided. Chariman Arcate asked if the request for the interpretation was for the entire land parcel. The Amentas' said yes; that the request was for all five lots. Chariman Arcate asked if a variance would be needed, to which Mr. Bamonte replied in the negative. Giairman Arcate asked if any structural additions or alterations had been planned, to which the Anentas'replied in the negative. Building Inspector John Biros brought up the issue of parking, and that the use of property for parking was subject to continuous ownership. Chairman Arcate asked if the 36 parking spaces previously mentioned depended on the demolition of the present building. Ihe Anentas'said no. Chairman Arcate explained that the issue before the Board was if the Aneritas1 proposed plans to build and the intended use of the building concurred with the Zoning Board's interpretation of what the Ordinances allows. Chairman Arcate asked if anyone else present wished to address the Board. There being none, the public hearing ended with a motion by Mr. Ceconi, seconded by Mr. Paolantonio, which was unanimously approved. BUSINESS MEETING 8:35 IM Chariman Arcate invited all present to stay. Mr. Ceconi made a motion to accept the minutes of the last meeting, \diich was �seconded by Mr. Roane and unanimously passed. Chairman Arcate asked if any Board member wished to speak. Mr. Paolantonio . said he felt the interpretation wasn't entirely clear, but that he agreed with Mr. Bamonte, and that he felt the Amentas should be allowed to proceed with their plans. Mr. Ruane asked if tonight's decision would change any present Zoning ordinances. Chairman Arcate said that the Board is not being asked to change any zoning laws, but rather, is the property of five lots within the category of "highway commercial" use. Mr. Ceconi said that the "highway commercial" allows for personal business, which he felt should also cover private practices such as those of doctors, attorneys, etc. Chairman Arcate explained that "general commercial" does not allow for gas stations, whereas "highway general" use does - this appeared to be the only difference. Chairman Arcate explained that the Board is not defining "planned commercial development group"; but instead is addressing the question of whether the intended use for business and professional offices is allowed under Highway Commercial C-l. Mr. Ceconi made a motion to the effect that in accordance with Article 62-2, Statement of Purposes of Ordinance, use of property at 239-241 N. Broadway, can be for business and professional offices. This motion was seconded by Mr. Paolantonio, and unanimously passed. Chairman Arcate asked if there was any other business. Mr. Paolantonio asked if the Zoning Board was covered by liability insurance. Chariman Arcate said he didn't know, and asked attorney Art Brady to please look into this matter. There being no further business, a motion to adjourn was made by Mr. Buane and seconded by Mr. Paolantonio at 8:55 PM. The motion carried unanimously. Itesaectfully submitted, � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1984 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_ZONING_1984-03-19 Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1984 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1984 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/1304bbbe5ab8909fc1d79942d66f4c3f.pdf c7e4baf7abdb8e2cd11315cbf64e368d PDF Text Text Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting: °\>^ April 3, 1984 Present: Ifertiri:Kuane-Acting Chairman Aldo Ceconi Frank Paolantonio Robert Ponzini- Village Attorney/ John Biros- Building Inspector /6^fci ) ^ The North Tarrytown Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on Thursday, March 29th, 1984, to consider the request of Jack and Sonya Edelson for an appeal from the Building Inspector's decision in denying a permit for the use of their property located at 174 Valley Street as an auto body repair shop, as such use would be in violation of Section 62-8B of the Zoning Ordinances of North Tarrytown which prohibits an auto body repair shop in a C2 General Commercial District. Acting Chairman Fuane called the meeting to order at 8:05 PM and asked the clerk to read the Public Notice to all present. Attorney Ponzini explained to all present that tonight's board consisted of three members which consituted a quorum; yet all three would have to unanimously vote in favor of the request being sought by Mr. & Mrs Edelson. If the applicant so wished, he could reapply for a later date. Acting Chairman Kuane asked if all surrcamding property owners within 200 ft. of 174 Valley Street had been notified as to tonight's hearing. Mr. Edelson said yes, and presented the clerk with certified mail notices to all such-property owners, Mr. Ruane then asked Mr. Edelson if he would like to address the Board. Mr. Edelson addressed the Board saying he and his wife have been long time residents of the area. He said the property he owns at 174 Valley Street had been a garage ever since he bought the property in 1946, and that signs inside the building all indicated the building was originally a garage. He has used the building as a dress shop, which was moved last month to another location. Mr. Edelson noted there were various car related businesses on Valley Street at present, including a car wash, body shop and a car dealer - thus why shouldn't he be able to have a body shop. Attorney Ponzini explained how in 1964 a zoning law passed allowing new businesses to be boutiques or other small shops, but no garages, hfr. Edelson said r/ �- 2- he wished to help the Village by having the body shop to employ local residents. Georgianne Echeverria, sister of one of the prospective employees explained how the body shop would be a well run business with proper noise levels, good ventilation, and that neighbors need not worry. Mr. Galella of 40 Depeyster St. noted that Mr. & Mrs. Juan Hernandez, next door neighbors of the Edelson's property have worked hard to beautify and rebuild their house which is located next door to the Edelsons' property, separated by only a few feet. Mr. Galella said he has lived at his house for 30 years and has seen many changes take place in the "neighborhood, of which not all have been for the good. He was against the granting of a variance. He was concerned as to: (1) where would vehicles be parked? (2) where would towing vehicles be parked when not in use; and (3) where would the fumes and gases go? He expressed his concern over what has happened to the inter-village which was previously a residential area. Mr. Joseph Emma of 62 Depeyster Street was concerned where deliveries would be made. If Mr. Edleson moves his business upstairs which has the address of 61 Depeyster Street, will deliveries be made at 61 Depeyster St. or at the rear entrance of 174 Valley Street. He expressed concern over the lack of parking spaces, and where would space be for traffic? He said he was against the granting of a variance. Mrs. Teresa Cabezas of 60 Depeyster Street agreed with Mr. Buna. She was against what could happen with taa?ffie congestion and parking problems. She said she has invested heavily in the area and was against the granting of a variance. Mr. Juan Hernandez, of 172 Valley Street, said he was against the granting of a variance. He explained how his residence is next door to the Edelscn's property. He expressed fear over the possible noise and fumes of a body shop. John Hernandez, son of Juan Hernandez, explained how their house is only 2-4 feet from (the building at 174 Valley St.) Where their kitchen and dinning room are located. He expressed fear over the possibility of flamnable problems. He said the traffic is bad enough on Valley Street with Mike's Deli's deliveries and �the G. M. employees. Where would the ventilation go? This could endanger his family's investment. Georgianne Echeverria responded, saying the building at 174 Valley Street is very large. There is room for sufficient parking inside, and that no towing vehicles or large trucks would be on the streets. Ventilation would be changed and improved. Julia Vydareny of 259 N. Washington St., and who owns the property at 173 Valley St. said she was not against the granting of a variance. Claire Lang of 49 Depeyster St. expressed concern that fumes from an auto body shop would get into her house. Mr. Edelson explained that the body shop would be open from 7:30-11:00 AM. The building has been there for 75 years, and was initially built tor a garage. He spoke of the need for business in N. Tarrytown, and said he is not out to hurt the village, Valley or Depeyster Streets, and expecially not his neighbors. Mr. Galella said he felt the Board should look to the future, not the past, in that the ruling for zoning was changed in 1964 to stop such body shop businessses from opening in the future. Mr. Enma asked what the zoning is for Depeyster St., specifically 61 Depeyster and the zoning for 174 Valley Street. Attorney Ponzini explained that both addresses are in a general commercial zone. The building can still be used as such, as long as no structural change is made. Mr. Ruane asked Building Inspector John Biros if he wished to address the Board, to which Mr. Biros replied in the negative. Mr. Ruane asked if anyone else present wished to address the Board. John Hernandez said he didn't feel the surrounding neighbors should have to alter their way of living, and asked the Board to think on the needs of the people in the camnunity. Mr. Galella asked how could a body shop operate without a tow truck? Mr.Edelson said he would have someonei elso do the tewing. �_4 - As no one else wished to address the Board, a notion to end the public hearing was made at 8:45 PM by Mr. Ceconi, seconded by Mr. Paolantonio, and was unanimously carried. Mr. Ruane told all they were welcome to stay for the business meeting. Prior to the business meeting, discussion as to postponing tonight's business meeting took place so that the applicant would have the opportunity of having all board members present. Attorney Ponzini said that the meeting could be postponed up to a mayimnpi of 30 days from tonight's hearing/or 60 days fromthe date Mr. Edelson filed his application - this would leave May 7 th as the latest date allowed for a final decision. A motion was made by Mr. Ceconi to reserve decision and to delay, the business meeting so that Board members Mr. Arcate and Mr. Swaby could be advised and attend such meeting. The Motion was seconded by Mr. Paolantonio and carried with a unanimous vote. A tentative date of Thursday, ^>ril 5th, 1984 at 8:00 PM was made. Mr. Ponzini asked that the Village Clerk contact all Board members. There being no further business for the evening, the meeting ended at 9:00 PM. Respectfully siibmitteti, Linda T. Pukuchi �fifoi'l 5 iJH / ,- —^- zx i, �3pj> sf / W # - JM^( .'-.»%,: zi-.-.ie^*.i^^s£\ -'-- •- "--"i^tx^tSi � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1984 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_ZONING_1984-04-03 Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1984 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1984 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/f29f34ba7fc6952255ab74b79cd31cc8.pdf e7297efa3d118e2216c92f22ee97ae52 PDF Text Text NORTH TARRYTOWN. N. Y. June 21, 1984 " m *0 <* A meeting was held before the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of North Tarrytown, N. Y. on the above date. Present John Arcate, Chairman Edward Swaby Frank Paolantonio Aldo Ceconi Martin Ruane Robert Ponzini, Counsel * •> James Margotta, Building Inspector The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on June 21, 1984 to consider the application of Armando Volpacchio, 11 Cedar Street, No. Tarrytown to appeal the decision of the Building Inspector's decision refusing a building permit for the purpose of reducing the two apartment permit to construct a one apartment in an existing building formally a commercial bakery, in that the same would be in violation of Section 62-8 of the zoning code with lot coverage in excess of 30% of property known and designated as Section 16, Block 9, Lot 16 on the village tax assessment map. Chairman Arcate called the meeting to order at 8:10 P.M. Mr. Swaby noted that the work "formally" should read "formerly" in the public notice. ^ Building Inspector James Margotta explained how a permit had previously been"issued for the construction of two apartments, but that this initial request was denied when the owner requested the change to one apartment, The public notice was then read to all present at the hearing. Chairman Arcate asked if anyone would like to address the Board, Attorney Robert Giuntihiy representing;Mr. yolpacchio, presented certified mail receipts of notice to fthe Board, arid a petition signed by some of Mr, Volpacchio's neighbors claiming no objection to -his reducing the two (2) apartment construction to a one (1) apartment construction. Chairman Arcate asked if all property owners witHin 200 ft. of Mr. Volpacchio's property had been notified of tonight's hearing, Mr. Giuntini said all owners had been notified. Mr. Giuntini told the Board that Mr, Volpacchio had bought the property in 1963. There are three buildings on the property, with Mr. Volpacchio living in,the front building. When Mr. Volpacchio originally bought the property, the building in the rear was^a bakery, which was discontinued in 1978. In September of 1.983, Mr. Volpacchio asked for permission to construct two (2)^apartments on the other side of the building's former bakery - this request for a building permit was granted, Mr, Giuntini said. But in April, 1984, Mr, Volpacchio decided to change his plans to construct only'one apartment. Mr. Giuntini said this wouldhave required no outside work, butriew^walls would be needed inside. When this change of plans was submitted to the Building Inspector, the permit was withdrawn on the basis that more ^s*-' �than 307o (the maximum allowed) of the land was covered by buildings. The total land area is 10,198 sq.ft.\ with 3,843 sq. ft, covered by the dwellings, approximately 377o of the property. Mr. Giuritirii noted this property is an R-5 zone - commercial, but with residential use also permitted. He explained that Mr, Volpacchio had invested several thousand dollars in building renovations when the permit was withdrawn. 1 Mr. Volpacchio s planned apartment would benefit the neighborhood, Mr. Giuntini noted, yet there can be no benefit from-the use of the building as it now is. Also, Mr. Volpacchio would still have to pay taxes on this property. Mr. Margotta asked if the original house, the one Mr. Volpacchio"s family resides in, is a two-family house. Mr. Giuntini answered saying it is used only by one family. Mr. Margotta again asked, for all practical purposes, was His dwelling a one or two-family house? Mr. Giuntini said at present only Mr. Volpacchio's family uses the house. Mr. Giuntini said Mr. Volpacchio had"wanted to lease the bakery, but the village had not allowed him to do so. Chairman Arcate reminded all present that no judgment on reasonableness of taxes can be decided by the Zoning Board. Mr. Margotta noted that no more than 7-2,families could be allowed to use Mr. VolpaccHio's three buildings as 7T2 families would be the maximum allowed for the total number of square feet. Mr. Giuntini said he was at tonight's hearing to request a 7% variance over the 30% land coverage allowed. Chairman Arcate asked Mr. Margotta if any structural changes were planned, to which Mr. Margotta replied in the negative. Chairman Arcate asked Mr. Margotta how many families are allowed in an acre. Mr. Margotta said 29 families was the maximum, Chairman Arcate reminded all that the sole basis for tonight's hearing was the use of additional land space. Mr. Giuntini said 10-12 parking spaces will be on the Volpacchio1 s property. Village attorney Robert Ponzini said 1,2 spaces are needed per family, and that this requirement would be met with 10-12 parking spaces. Chairman Arcate asked if anyone present at the hearing wished to address the Board. Michael Hyland, of 128% Depeyster Street, No. Tarrytown, asked if Mr. Volpacchio would be allowed to build onto the apartment over the old bakery in the future, as that would increase the height of the building. Mr. Margotta answered, saying Mr. Volpacchio would not be able to make the building Higher or wider. Mr. Hyland then asked if an addition or extension'would be permitted in the future, to which Chairman Arcate answered, saying no. There being no further questions or discussion, a motion to adjourn the hearing was made by Mr. Paolantonio, seconded by Mr. Ruane, and was unanimously passed. - Business Meeting Chairman Arcate invited all present to stay if they so wished while the Board'held its business meeting. �-3Chairman Arcate asked if anyone objected to Mr. Volpacchio's request for additional land space? No objection was made. Mr. Ugo Checchi, 51 College Ave., No. Tarrytown was recognized by the chairman arid stated that Mr. Volpacchio is not going to change any of the four walls or the roof. He;said Mr. Volpacchio had originally wanted to raise the roof, but had since changed his plans, and that no structural change would take place. Mr. Margotta noted that as the original permit for Mr. Volpacchio was cancelled, a new permit (granting of the variance pending) will be issued. He asked Mr. Volpacchio to return the original permit that had been granted for the two (2) apartment, upon which the new permit will be issued, should the Board so rule. Mr. Volpacchio agreed to do so. Mr. Ruane said he had no objections to Mr. Volpacchio's plans. Mr. Swaby said he felt the owner must provide parking.spaces for tenants. Village Attorney Porizini said 8,4 spaces are needed for the seven families in Mr. Volpacchio's three .buildings. Mr. Giiintini had said there would be ten-twelve parking spaces. A motion to grant the variance being sought by Mr< A. Volpacchio for a 7% increase in land coverage was made by Mr. Ruane, in accordance with code provisions 62-2 and 62-40 and with.the Board's following stipulations: reserved^ .on property of 9 spaces for the exclusive use of each tenant on the property; no auditorial% enlargement to existing structure; and that the three premises,6n said property will not have more than seven.(7) families. Motion passed 7 to 0. Attorney Robert Giuritirii' asked that a copy of the minutes be mailed to him. ' Chairman Arcate'said a copy would be mailed to him, A motion-to accept the minutes/of the Board's last meeting was made by Mr. Swaby, seconded by Mr. Ceconi, and was unanimously passed. -Chairman Arcate congratulated James Margotta as the new Village Building Inspector, arid said the Board welcomed him and wished him goodluck . There being no further buisiness, a motiori to adjourn tonight's meeting was made by Mr. Paolaritoriio, seconded by Mr. Swaby, and was unanimously passed. Respectfully submitted, LindaT. i Fukuchi Acting Clerk � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1984 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_ZONING_1984-06-21 Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1984 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1984 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/2a0480ea35438c657fa8d86842de5bd2.pdf de35beddef64ad5d25df3cc94fb68400 PDF Text Text NORTH TARRYTOWN N. Y. September 25, 1984 ^ £ A meeting was held before the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of North Tarrytown, N.Y. on the above date. Present John Arcate, Chairman Aldo Ceconi Frank Paolantonio Edward Swaby James Margotta, Building Inspector Chairman Arcate called the meeting to order at 8:15 P.M. public notice was read to all present. The The Zoning Board of Appeals of North Tarrytown held a publicj hearing to consider the application of Achilles Ligeras of 15 Irving Place, No. Tarrytown, N.Y. from a decision of the Building Inspector in denying the construction of two parking spaces which would be in violation of Section 62^-4 of the General Code of North Tarrytown. Chairman Arcate asked if anyone present wished to address the Board. Mr. Ligeras, of 15 Irving Place, said he would answer any questions Board members might have in regard to his amplication for a variance. Chairman'Arcate explained that it was Mr. Ligeras1 resnonsibility to explain to Board members why a variance is needed for his property. Mr. Ligeras noted that the present ordinances say a space that measures 20' x 9' is needed for a parking space. Other houses in his area have less space, yet they have garages. He only is seeking the same, equal rights to be able to park his cars on his property, as his neighbors do. Chairman Arcate explained that the present building ordinances were established in 1964. Many, if not most, of the houses in Mr. Ligeras' area were built before these ordinances went into effect. Mr, Ligeras said the location of present parking spaces block him from obtaining access to a possible driveway to his property. If the present parking spaces could be moved a few feet, as shown on his plan sheet (copies were given to all Board members), such a driveway could become a reality, Mr. Ligeras feels. ' Chairman Arcate asked Mr. Ligeras if all property owners within 200' of the Ligeras' property had been notified of tonight's hearing. Mr. Ligeras said they had been so notified, and submitted the certified mail receipts to the clerk. Building Inspector Margotta explained that an R-4 area (for one and two family residences), such as where Mr. Ligeras resides, calls for a 20' setback from the sidewalk to a house; Mr. Ligeras' property measures 16.87', short of this required distance. �-2Mr. Ligeras drew a diagram for all Board members, showing where there are presently six parking spaces on Irving Place. He would like to see spaces 1-5 rearranged and moved about two feet to the south, which in turn would give Mr. Ligeras enough space to use a presently unused public area as access to his house. He showed how two cars could be parked at approximately 45"in relation to his house on his front yard. Chairman Arcate asked Mr. Ligeras if there was enough space behind his house for possible parking and/or could he share1 an existing driveway with a neighbor to obtain access to the Ligeras backyard. Mr. Ligeras said parking behind his house would not be possible. Chairman Arcate explained;to all present that the Zoning Board has no jurisdiction over street parking. Such a matter would have to be taken up with the police and the Village by Mr. Ligeras. Mr. Ceconi asked Mr. Ligeras for a clarification. A Village map 1 showed two lots, 24 and 24Ajwere both of these lots Mr. Ligeras property? Mr. Ligeras said His property consists of only one lot, number 24, which is 15 Irving Place. At 8:50 P.M. the hearing closed. Chairman Arcate invited all present to stay for the Board's business meeting. Business Meeting * • « ••• " " • - • • • • ' ' • . — . . . . , , « , • • • Section 62-4 defines a parking space as the area required for one 1 car, an area 9' wide and 20' long, noted Mr. Swaby, a length Mr. Ligeras property does not meet. Section 62-14, paragraph B-2 states no more than two vehicles may be located in a front yard in R districts such as Mr. Ligeras', said Chairman Arcate. Page 6229 calls for access drives or driveways to have a 10' width, slightly more than Mr. Ligeras would have. Chairman Arcate said he feels a property owner should not be denied access to the road. Mr. Swaby again expressed the fact that the Ligeras family had bought their home knowing they had no access or driveway road. Chairman Arcate asked Board members if they were willing to grant the variance for a parking space to Mr. Ligeras in that he does not have the required 20 foot setback', only 16:87 feet. Mr. Ceconi suggested that should the Village move parking spaces 1-5 over two feet, Mr. Ligeras could^park one car in his yard, using ; the public road as an access to reach his property. Mr. Ceconi was against the Board granting two parking spaces on the front yard, as that would upset the aesthetics of the neighborhood. Chairman Arcate noted that lots 24 and 24A:on rlrving Place"have no access at present for front yard parking that might be granted. Lots 25 and 26 do have access to the rear area of their lots for '"^j- v^^'i^/^"^-*^- 2 i**r v-*v-~* .- -i. ->" -•-*-" r^-£i -% * m's-i.* ^nr***"v*f £•**. •*„*'r l^-^->^^Si^fe^&^S^^si^^^^^^^s&i ^4^^^*^^fti.*i*^te£ V b ^ j ^ S & & S £ �-3parking. Mr. Ceconi then made a motion that the Board grant a variance to Mr. Ligeras allowing him access to park one vehicle perpendicular to the line of the street, not angled, on the southern end of his front property, seconded by Frank Paolantonio. Chairman Arcate called for a vote. There were three ayes and one abstention. Motion carried. Section 62-4, p. 6213, calls for an^area of 20' by 9' for one vehicle. The Board is granting a variance for a parking space of 9' wide by 16.87' long• also, for the orderly development arid to. eliminate congestion"as found in Section 62-2, paragraphs A and B. The variance was also based on Section 62-40, paragraph C that states if an extraordinary condition exists on a lot which,the Board deems applicable, as reasonable use of property is to have access to it, and to park the car straight in, perpendicular to the road. A motion was made by Mr. Paolantonio to accept the minutes of the last meeting, seconded by Mr. Swaby, and was unanimously passed. There being no further business, a motion to adjourn tonight's meeting at 9:45 P.M. was made by Mr. Paolantonio, seconded by Mr. Swaby and was unanimously passed. Respectfully yours, Linda'Fukuchi Acting secretary :: � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1984 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_ZONING_1984-09-25 Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1984 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1984 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/f75cdca24eef8636e5c4239e47d82f8e.pdf 617cdef24492d5746e1b6a73fd7f4cbc PDF Text Text NORTH TARRYTOWN, N.Y. November 13, 1984 ^ ' A meeting was held before the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of North Tarrytown, N.Y. on the above date. Present John Arcate, Chairman Aldo Ceconi Frank Paolantonio Martin Ruane James Margotta, Building Inspector Robert Ponzini, Counsel Chairman Arcate called the meeting to order at 8:15 P.M. The Zoning Board of Appeals of North Tarrytown held a public hearing to consider the request of William Smith Memorials, Inc. of North Tarrytown from a decision of the Building Inspector in denying use of the premises located on the north side of Dell Street and east of North Broadway in violation of Section 62-8B of the Village's Map as Section 17, Block 1, Lot 8. Said property is presently designated as residential. Chairman Arcate explained to all present that a quorum was present, but if they were willing to wait fifteen minutes, another Board member would be present. At 8:35 P.M. the hearing began. Chairman Arcate had the Clerk read the public notice to all present. He then asked if anyone might wish to address the Board. Attorney Inc. owned by a list of all residents had Arthur Litt, representing the William Smith Memorials, Richard*Mihozzi and his brother, presented papers with residents within 200 feet of the company, showing all been advised of tonight's hearing by registered mail. Mr. Litt explained that a variance is not being sought, but to ask the Board to rule that there is a nonconforming use of the rear part of the property that is shown to be residential. The property measures about 175 feet deep, with 100 feet being zoned as commercial, and the remainder is residential. All this property is one lot. Mr. Litt explained how the rear wall of the building, located on the commercial portion, is almost on the line that divides the two zones of the lot, the commercial and the residential portions. At present the rear lot, which is the residential section, is being used by Edward Monks Inc. for storage purposes. Mr. Litt stated that it doesn't matter who uses the lot, as long^as the property continues to be used in substantially the same way as in the past, thus the nonconforming use of the residential area for commercial use continues and should be allowed to continue. Mr. Litt read how the Zoning Ordinance defines "nonconforming use", which* is "a building, structure or use of land existing at the time of enactment of this ordinance, arid which does not conform to the regulations of the district or zone in which it is situated". �-2- • Mr. Litt said the Building Inspector had served an order to remedy violation to his clients, which claimed a business is being operated from a residential area. Mr. Litt gave copies of this form to all Board members. Mr. Litt said there were two mistakes in serving this violation: 1. The residential property has always been used for commercial purposes, dating back to just after the Civil War, long before zoning ordinances existed. Thus, the nonconforming use should be seen as a legal use of the residential portion of the lot. 2. Mr. Monks, who presently is using this residential section of the property, is not operating a business on the property. He rents the space to only keep his trucks there, and to load and unload;stored materials. No money or orders are taken by Mr. Monks at this property, thus the nonconforming use of the property should remain, as over the years this property has so been used for parking and storage. Mr. Litt said the question is, if property has always been to be used for parking and storage, this should not change as long as no significant difference exists in the use of the property. Mr. Litt acknowledged that Mr. Monks has annoyed the neighbors in the past. Mr. Litt said he does not condone this. However, he noted, a nuisance is not a violation of the zoning. Village officials and authorities should handle this part, and get them to cleanup. But, he said, that is very different from abolishing the commercial use of the property, and if the land is not used for commercial business, it is questionable whether there is enough space for residential use. Mr. Litt said the facts are: the present owners of William Smith Memorials, Inc., the Minozzis, bought the business from Mr. Smith in 1973, a business dating back to around 1850. Access to the property was through the backyard. Mr. Litt asked the Board to recognize this as a legal continuation of a nonconforming use. Chairman Areate then asked if anyone else present at the hearing wished to address the Board. Maureen Patten, of 12 Dell Street, asked if an extension had been built on to the original building on the commercial lot. Mr. Smith replied in the affirmative,.that an extra six-feet had been added in September, 1963, so that a crane would fit inside. Ms. Patten complained that Mr. Monks workers make loud noises beginning around 6:00 A.M., six days a week. Mr. William Patten, of 12 Dell Street, spoke, saying his property is directly opposite to the property in question. He noted how when Mr. Smith lived there the property had always been well taken care of. He said the present owners don't take care of the leaves or weeds, and - ;.,*-<T5-"-* -^ijc'Jt ii.t^a'^i^^JrJ^it^f^SAiSiiS^'^isie&A^i^&^Mt^i^^^i^^^^^^ �-3- • that it's a mess. He also noted tar was once burned on the property, which is against the fire code, He said he holds the Minozzis responsible for allowing Mr. Monks to carry on such activities. Mr. Patten said he fears devaluation of his own property due to theappearance of the portion Mr. Monks rents, and because of the loud .noises Mr. Monks makes. Mr. Patten told Board members that the landlord has said he wasn't there to see these happenings, and that he (the landlord) wasn't responsible. Mr. Patten asked if the fire department should not look into such things, and that there is wood lying around and other flammable materials. Chairman Arcate advised Mr. Patten that he in no way condoned such action but that such matters are not within the Zoning Board's jurisdiction. Mr. Patten noted that a large dump truck is there at the property almost daily. Daniel Malone, of 44 Dell Street, told the Board that when Mr. Smith ran his business there was little traffic, somedays he never used his truck at all, compared to now, with several trucks and one dump truck. It was noted that the present lease with Mr. Monks is 18 months old. Prior to then there had been no other tenant. The property has always been used for only one business until 18 months ago. Mr. Minozzi is in the monument business as was Mr. Smith. Now the property is shared by Mr. Minozzi and Mr. Monks. Mr. Monks is a roofing contractor. Mr. Patten explained that when Mr, Smith owned the business the production of monuments took place inside the building and only used the garage and outside for storage, whereas now the rear yard and the garage are used for storage. Mr. Ponzini asked Mr. Smith what kind (s) of vehicle did he use for his business. Mr. Smith said "it was a flatbed with a crane", that was on the property everyday, but not used everyday. Mr. Ponzini then asked him how many vehicles were parked on the property by employees, to which Mr. Smith said two vehicles at the most. Mr. Ponzini asked Mr. Smith if this was the level of operation when he owned the business, to which Mr. Smith replied in the affirmative. Mr. Patten said Mr. Smith put letters on the monuments he sold for 35 years. When the Minozzis bought the business, the work wasn't done at this location. Mr. Ponzini the property for used for parking building, but it asked Mr. Patten-what Mr. Smith used the rear part of when he owned the business. Mr. Patten'said it was and for a small pile of sand on the side of the storage was always clean, and never noisy. Mr. Ponzini asked Mr. Smith what he had stored in the rear yard. Mr. Smith said there was a small sand pile, along with sometimes keeping his truck parked there, as he had to use that part of the yard to gain access to the road. Mr. Ponzini asked what kind of vehicle Mr. "Smith . >avx jvsrik'i v SrsA-=:j-sw.4-„. _'f^-^.ih-!t!Sr«Si/fj&;«^ ! *^'•**,^'^*-:-^'^^Ari<M-iii-ixlMiMM^ia^^^^»^^^^Si �-4had, to which Mr. Smith said he used a 2% ton Chevy truck with a crane. Chairman Arcate asked if deliveries did not come in all at once, which Mr. Smith verified. Mr. Patten noted the sand and gravel was on the southeast side of the property. Mr. William Minozzi said black granite was also stored in the rear when the business was bought by them. He said he feels he and his brother haye done all that is needed to maintain the property. They have painted, made various repairs and put in new concrete where needed. They no longer have a sand or gravel pile. The garage is used for storage. Maureen Patten said there is no backyard to be taken care of any longer, trees and grass are no longer seen, only weeds. Mrs. Mary Patten, of 12 Dell Street, told the Board that she tried to sell her house last year, but was told by a broker they could never sell their house and lot due to the sight across the street (where Mr. Monks presently leases the land), there are ususally three trucks, but at times up to five trucks aire across the street from her house. Trees on the property that is leased have been knocked down. Mrs. Patten spoke, saying the reason we are here is that we shouldn't have to put up with the noise that begins at 6:00 A.M., six days a week, or four hours of tar burning, loud radios or all the trucks. Chairman Arcate said that regardless of what has happened before, and the numerous complaints for actions he does not condone, the question is, can you give the Board facts;that business now takes place on the property that is leased to Edward Monks.? Mr. Ceconi asked Mrs. Patten how long has the business been.going on that has been bothering heir. .Mrs. Patten said only the last 18 months have been a bad time. Otherwise, there were ten good years since the Minozzis came. Mr. Patten said the Edward Monks business has ten to twelve people and three to five trucks on this piece of land. He said this is not at all like when Mr. Smith and one helper used the property. Mr. Smith's truck wasn't in and out on a daily basis. Mr. Smith's backyard was nice and well taken care of, but not anymore. Mr. Ceconi asked if the burning of.the tar was on the police blotter. Mr. Minozzi said tar. burning has not occurred since the complaint was filed. He and his brother, owners of the property, "have it at best shape ever now". Pat Damin, of 14 Dell Street addressed the Board, telling how some of the Monk employees have made rude; comments at her. Her patio faces the property, but she no longer feels comfortable using it due to the lack of privacy with the Monk employees right across the street �during the day. Mr. Minozzi said either he or his brother are there everyday, and it has been very rare that any Monk employees have been at the property except to unload in the late afternoon. Mr. Patten said Mr. Monks has even had a dumpster on the property. Ee feels mice have been caused by this, as never before did the area have a problem with mice. Maureen Patten also said Monk employees have come back on their lunch hour at times. Attorney Litt made some concluding comments. He suggested that the problem is one of nuisance, but not a violation. If the Board does riot rule favorably, this property could never again be used for a commercial business. The neighborsf complaints are for acts he in no way condones. Arid, should the Board decide to rule that residential use is all the lot can be used for, that would still be no guarantee that grass would be cut, or leaves raked. Mr. Litt siad this would not address the problems that the neighbors have. He said the problem seems to center around how business is being carried on - not that there is a business. Chairman: Arcate said Mr.' Litt had characterized Mr. Monks as a contractor, but his business is in roofing, which would explain the tar. Mr. Patten stated that the Minozzi changed the character of the property by who they rented it out to. Mr . Patten said he feels Mr. Monk '^s company has, done wrong,; as have the* Mirio zz is in leas ing the land * to him. Should' Mr . Monks leave, who would come in next if the rear part of the property remains to be allowed for commercial use, or if all the land were commercial? Chairman Arcate said the Board cannot change the zoning, nor can the land be changed. This hearing is for a clarification ruling that the Board is being asked to make. Mr. Ponzini asked Mr. Litt if a new survey had been done, or one he could provide the Board with. M r • Litt saidno recent survey had been done, but he did give the Board a copy of a 1907 survey. Chairman Arcate asked if anyone else wished tp address the Board. If not, the hearing would end "so the Board could hold its business meeting. Chairman Arcate invited all present to stay for the business meeting if they so wished. A motion to end the hearing was made by Mr. Paolantoriio, seconded by Mr. Ruane and was unanimously passed. BUSINESS MEETING Chairman Arcate called the business meeting to order. there were any comments from members of the Board. He asked if �Mr. Paolantoriio said he felt the space in question has been rented to people doing business on a residential portion of the lot. There had never been complaints until Edward Monks, Inc. began to rent the portion they use. This has all changed the character of the property, and he felt the application should be denied. Mr. Ceconi said he felt, it would be of no hardship to the owners that the rear property;remaih*resideritial. As this space is not needed for the operation of their business in monuments, the property's classification should be left as is. Mr. Ceconi then made a motion to leave the present zoning as is. Chairman Arcate explained that the portion that is residential, yet used for commercial business, is a nonconforming use. This raises questions: Does nonconforming use mean that land could be used for a different business than before? The present use of this residential section is not in keeping with the zoning ordinances, or is this a prevailing nonconformity? Mr. Ponzini said part of the property appears commercial and the other part residential. In nonconforming use of residential property for commercial reasons, such non conforming use can cease through improper use. Chairman Arcate asked if the cessation of the use of the residential portion of the lot from the monument business, interrupts the nonconforming use on the residential portion of the lot. He said the zoning ordinances say if nonconforming use is interrupted for,twelve months, such use can no longer resume. Is the use of the land by the Edward Monks business consistent with nonconforming use of property? Mr. Ponzini said the Board has time to come to a decision. It would be advisable, he felt, to get the minutes of tonight's hearing, have a work session, and be able to do some law research. He suggested such a motion be made. Mr. Ruane asked if there was any variance to be denied, to which Chairman Arcate said a variance is not being sought. Tonight's meeting is for a clarification. Mr. Ruane noted that when Edward Monks began renting the property it was to be for use of storage space only. Chairman Arcate said he would like the Board to have a chance to go over the minutes of the request that is before the Board. He said he would entertain a motion to defer, that the^Board adjourn and hold a subsequent meeting at a date in the near future. Mr. Ceconi withdrew his motion and the Board agreed to defer consideration of tonight's hearing. Chairman Arcate asked that; copies of the minutes be sent to Mr. Arthur Litt, Mr. William Patten at 12 Dell Street, and to Mrs. A. Lawski, at 34 Dell Street. �Mr. Ruane made a motion to approve the minutes of the Board's last hearing, which was seconded by Mr. Paolantonio, and unanimously carried. PART II OF BUSINESS MEETING Chairman Areate then addressed the second topic of tonight's business meeting, for a clarification of the Board's last hearing on September 25, 1984. At that time the Board granted a variance to Mr. Achilles Ligeras of 15 Irving Place in North Tarrytown. This variance would allow Mr. Ligeras to park his car on his southerly property line, perpendicular to the street. However, Chairman Arcate said the Board had explained at that time that the Zoning Board had no jurisdiction for moving Village parking spaces to create a curb opening for access to Mr. Ligeras's property. Chairman Arcate told Board members that Mr. John Biros had written a letter to the Board saying he had to deny Mr. Ligeras's request to create a curb opening by moving the location of present parking spaces. Chairman Arcate said there is nothing for the Board to act upon tonight, as the Board has ho power over street parking. Nor can the Board review its decision without an Appeal. Mr. Ruane said he felt the Board cannot add anything further that would alter the situation in any possible way. Mr. Paolantonio said the Board has granted Mr. Ligeras a parking space on the contingency that he get the proper permission from local Village authorities. The Zoning Board went as far as it could go by granting the use of his property for a parking space. Beyond that, it is not in the control of the Board. Mr. Ligeras said that for 10 months he has been trying to get this variance. He said the Building Inspector should give him a building permit to construct the parking area. Chairman Arcate asked what good is a parking space without access to it? The Board has no control oyer giving Mr. Ligeras access. Maybe the curb access should have been/granted before the Zoning Board granted their variance, he noted. Mr. Ligeras asked if Mr. variance. He read his letter will be denied". Mr. Ligeras to go on with his plans\as he he have his decision put into Biros is able to deny the use of the from Mr. Biros, quoting " your request asked why could he not obtain a permit had met all the requirements? Why can't action? Mr. Ligeras made a drawing to show Mr. Biros arid Board members to see his point. He showed; a fire hydrant, and how if five parking spaces were moved over, three feet each, he would be able to have the required width and still be three feet from the hydrant. Mr. Ligeras said Mr. Biros told him the parking spaces at the Van �-8Tassel apartments don't measure 9' x 20', the required size space. So why does everyone make it so hard for him, he asked? Mr. Ligeras said there are three feet of public property next to space 5 that is not used. If all five spaces were moved over three feet each he would meet the required width. Mr. Warner, of Tarrytown addressed the Board. He, as a friend of Mr. Ligeras, spoke on his behalf, asking if there is not something the Village could do to move these parking;spaces over by three feet. Couldn't the laws be bent some, he asked? Chairman Arcate said Mr. Biros finds these five parking spaces one foot short in width each, at present, and that Mr. Biros is concerned about the safety of the use of the street. Mr. Margotta said a curb cut would be needed before a driveway could be paved, and then a building permit would be required, aside from the variance granted. Mr. Ceconi asked Mr. Biros if the Police Chief has anything to do with the laying out of parking spaces. Mr. Biros said the Police enforce, but do not lay out parking spaces, the highway department does. Chairman Arcate said maybe Mr. Ligeras should have had'' to show the Zoning Board evidence that he had.obtained access from the street to his property before the Board^granted the ^variance.He added that r the Zoning Board;has no;authbrity to rule<over the street. Mr. Biros is concerned with the use of ' the street'and * the safety of the s treet. The Board respects Mr. Biros experience and judgment in such matters. Chairman Arcate asked if there was any further business to be taken care of. There being'none, a motion was made to adjourn tonight' s meeting by Mr. Ceconi, seconded by Mr. Paolantonio, and unanimously carried. Respectfully submitted, Linda Fukuchi Acting Clerk � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1984 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_ZONING_1984-11-13 Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1984 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1984 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/041fab76162bf5ec9bac8f7431dc02b8.pdf 211145ca203a8b3396e099235b84c6ca PDF Text Text NORTH TARRYTOWN, N.Y. December 10, 1984 ^ A meeting was held before the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of North Tarrytown, N.Y. on the above date. Present John Arcate, Chairman Aldo Ceconi, Frank Paolantonio Martin Ruane James Margotta, Building Inspector Robert Ponzini, Counsel Chairman Arcate called the meeting to order at 8:15 P.M., stating thatthis was a continuation of the Board's last session on November 13, 1984. At that time, Mr. Ponzini had been asked to check the code and laws pertaining to the nonconforming use of residential property for commercial purposes by the William Smith Memorial, Inc. on Dell Street, owned by Mr. Minozzi and his brother. Their attorney, Mr. Litt, had asked the Board to rule there is a nonconforming use of the residential portion of their property. Building Inspector Margotta had ruled to deny use of the premises in that Section 62-8B of the Zoning Code had been violated. Chairman Arcate asked if anyone present wished to ask Mr. Ponzini any questions. Mr. Ruane asked Mr. Ponzini to elaborate on his findings for the Board. Mr. Ponzini said the issue before the Board is not a variance, but for a clarification of what the use of the Minozzi's property is for. Several points were made for the Board to consider: 1. Nonconforming this lot, the only business Ponzini said the neighbor's helped show what the land's use of property, and what that means. For use has been for making monuments. Mr. testimony and the applicant's testimony nonconforming use has been in the past. 2. This raises a question - was the nonconforming use of the property extended for a greater and/or different use than it was originally used for? And if so, were these uses of the nonconforming property permissable? 3. Has any nonconforming use of the property been abandoned? 4. Split-zoning, such as on the Minozzi's lot, with both\ residential and commercial portions and whether it should or should not be allowed to remain zoned this way, is not an issue in front of the Board. It is a question of facts as towhether the nonconforming use exists, what it is, and if it is!being violated. The Board should ask what was the use of the land prior to the leasing to Edward Monks, Inc.? Has the use of the land been extended or changed? If so, then the nonconforming use of the lot can be made to conform. Chairman Arcate said Board members should ask if the notice issued �by the Building Inspector was a proper one. Mr. Ponzini said the applicant wanted to know what he would be allowed to do with and on his land in the future. Mr. Ruahe said if the owners of the property would operate as Mr. Smith had, little, if any furor would be caused for the neighbors. Mr. Ponzini stated that any subsequent owner of the lot can use the property as Mr. Smith had with his business when the Zoning Code went into effect in 1964. A nonconforming lot that existed prior to the code should be allowed to remain that way. Chairman Arcate noted a possible remedy would be to have the residential portion changed to a commercial portion so that the entire lot would be commercial. Mr. Ceconi asked, if the property wasn't used for 12 months as the land had originally been used, couldn't the nonconforming use be taken away and hot allowed to resume again? Mr. Paolantonio said he felt the time period of 12 months (the land was leased to Edward Monks, Inc. for 13 months) and the alteration in how the land was then used would apply so that the nonconforming use of the residential portion could no longer be used for business. He read from the Zoning Code, "any future use must be in conforming". The land was leased to a business not related to that of monuments, roofing is not the same business. Mr. Ruane said the research had been very good. leasing the property goes against the zoning code. He too, said that Chairman Arcate asked if the Board's decision could be divided, as there are really two issues before the Board: 1. Is the present use of the property with a roofing contractor leasing land proper? 2. What would be considered as "proper use" of the property? Mr. Paolantonio asked if the Building Inspector wasn't seeking to stop business on the residential portion of the lot. Chairman Arcate said Mr. Margotta was seeking to stop the leasing of the land to a nonconforming business. Mr. Ponzini said if the land were to become a^conformirig lot, it would become a residential lot,:and no business could take place on said property. But as long as the use of the land does not change, the nonconforming use for the monument-business can continue as in the past. Chairman Arcate stated that the intent of the Zoning Board is not to destroy property and what it is used for. A motion was then made by Mr. Paolantonio that the Zoning^ Board find the Building Inspector's decision proper, and should be upheld; that the existing tenant is violating the code to extension and change of the code �The motion was seconded by Mr. Ceconi, and unanimously carried. Chairman Arcate then asked the Board to consider what is "proper use" of the property in question, and what can it be used for? Did the owners interrupt this use of their nonconforming property? Was this use ever interrupted before leasing their rear lot to a tenant? Mr. Ceconi said he was in favor of having this property zoned as entirely residential. Chairman Arcate asked what would be the impact on the Village if it 5 forced the business to leave? He said this property which is split has the residential section of the lot that serves as a buffer zone for the neighborhood. Should the Board decide to rule the entire lot as residential, the buffer zone might be gone. Mr. Ceconi said he was.against having anymore commercial property in a residential area. Chairman Arcate noted that would not be within the Zoning Board's power anyway. Mr. Ponzini said the residential portion of the lot as it is now serves as a buffer between the monument business and the neighborhood. Also, if the business were to be abandoned and the lot became purely residential, another house might be built on the lot. Mr. Ceconi said he didn't feel there was enough land to build another house on, and asked Building Inspector Margotta if this was a possibility. Mr. Margotta said hypothetically, no, as there is too much land erosion. Mr. Ceconi noted that at present there is an apartment above, could another apartment be built in the future? Mr. Ponzini said no, that such would not be allowed by today's code. Chairman Arcate reminded all that the Zoning Code promotes the orderly development of businesses. The use of the Minozzi' s property has always been for the nonconforming use of the monument business, no other business has taken place on this property. Thus, no change or ruling is needed by the Zoning Board. This would leave the property as it was prior to the tenants. The only use of the land can be for the monument business. Mr. Ruane Made a proposal that business on this nonconforming lot remain as it was previously used,before 1973. Only businesses associated with the monument business maty use this nonconforming lot for commercial purposes. Mr. Paolantonio seconded the motion. Chairman" Arcate asked if there were any questions. There being none, the motion passed with a unanimous vote. Chairman Arcate asked if there was any further business for the Board to consider. There being none, the meeting was adjourned at 8:55 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Linda T..Fukuchi Acting Clerk � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1984 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_ZONING_1984-12-10 Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1984 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1984 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text