1 25 7 https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/1c0f5cc6c8463a3726f5719beabdc757.pdf 6f379e43b905cf5e6ca9cef26fa255a4 PDF Text Text Zoning Board North Tarrytown, N.Y. March 7, 1985 Present: John Arcate, Chairman Aldo Cecorii Frank Paolahtonio Mar t in Ruaiie Edward Swaby Arthur Brady, Attorney James Margotta, Building Inspector Chairman Arcate called the meeting to order at 8:30 P.M. Linda Fukuchi, acting clerk, read the public notice of hearing to consider the application of Marcello and Susan Viscogliosi, for an appeal from the decision of the Building Inspector which denied a building permit on their property at 183 Valley Street for an addition to their house. Said addition would violate the side line regulations in a C-2 zone where they live. Chairman Arcate asked if anyone present wished to address the Board. Mr. Viscogliosi, the applicant, explained to Board members that he needs to build a utility room addition to his house that would enclose a gas fired burner for a central heating system at his house. Chairman Arcate asked Mr. Viscogliosi if all neighbors within 200 feet of his house had been notified of his plans and of tonight's hearing. Mr. Viscogliosi replied in the affirmative and gave the certified mail receipts to the clerk. Building Inspector Margotta explained that at present, the house is heated by piped gas into individual heaters. The house was built without a central heating system, and this causes the house to be very cold during the winter months. The utility room would measure 6'x6'x7' (feet), and would utilize the existing chimney. It was noted that the house has no basement. It is designed as a two family house, and there is no available space inside the house where a central heating system could be installed. Mr. Ceconi asked where the hot water heater would be, to which Mr. Viscogliosi said the same utility room that will enclose the gas fired burner. Chairman Arcate asked Building Inspector Margotta if the variance were to be granted, would there be,a violation from a safety standpoint. Mr. Margotta said there would be no such violation. Since no* other person wished toraddress the Board\ Mr. Ruane motioned that the Board end the hearing and go into the business meeting. Mr. Paolantonio seconded the motion, which was unanimously passed. �-2Chairman Arcate invited all present to remain for the businees meeting. BUSINESS MEETING Chairman Arcate noted the addition is to be built on the southerly side of the house. Mr. Margotta said about 6 extra inches should be added to the 6 feet in width being considered for the utility room. The extra 6 inches would be for giving better protection and insulation against the house. Chairman Arcate noted that tlie building plans with the extra .6 inches being added, 5' 4" of property would remain as a sideyard between the utility room and the property next door, and a 4' sideyard on the other side of the house. Mr. Ruane said if the sideyard requirements are still met where the proposed utility room will be, will the property meet the 12' total side yard requirements? Chairman Arcate said after the extension, the 12' total needed for the side yards would not be met. Mr. Swaby asked how many tenants are presently living in the house. Mr. Viscogliosi replied only:one tenant is"presently*there. Mr. Margotta noted two families had been there when he -• went to inspect the property. Chairman Arcate reminded all that the Board's decision is in regard to the violation of side yard requirements in a C-2 zone. Mr. Swaby made a motion that the _; Zoning: Board - grant the variance to Mr. Viscogliosi due to the fact that the present physical conditions of the house do not serve the needs f for central-: heating and Hot water systems. The variance is to be granted according to paragraphs 62-40, 62-25 and withthe purpose of the ordinance, Said motion was seconded by Mr. Paolantonio, and was carried by the Board's unanimous vote. Chairman Arcate made a motion to accept the minutes of the Board's previous meeting, which passed unanimously. At 8:55 P.M. Chairman Arcate adjourned the meeting. : 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-1985 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_1985-03-07 Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1985 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1985 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/c61a2fe5a661f3df7a1f7f3989559fba.pdf 07781657b53e2d2cd4720e1b72ddb020 PDF Text Text ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Hearing: April 18, 1985 Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr.' Mr. Mr. John Areate, Chairman Mr. Robert Peirce, Counsel Aldo Ceconi Edward Swaby Frank Paolantonio Martin Ruane James Margotta Hearing began at 9 P.M. to consider an application for a variance by Mr. Frank Mangieri to reduce a front yard setback to 10' and a lot size of 4,200 sq. ft. Clerk read the Public Notice. Mr. Robert Turnquist, architect for this proposed construction, gave a brief description ofithe project: the property is on the north side of Chestnut Street, 228* x 50.5V; one property.line is common with Mr. Brana's property; the two proposed buildings will contain four and six dwelling units, four at grade level with a walkway from Chestnut Street to Beekman Avenue and there will be four garages at grade level. The walkway will be lighted and the buildings will be brick exterior; parking spaces will be assigned to tenants - the proposed construction will provide 15 parking spaces where only 12 are required. Mr. Turnquist explained that the requested variance for a 10' front yard was to permit the open area between the buildings to be 10' wider. Mr. Swaby questioned whether there would be a solution to the storm water/sewer line problem and Mr. Turnquist said he would like to see the three property owners (Brana, Amenta, Mangieri) join in the construction of drainage lines and run them into Chestnut Street. The Village would take it down to Washington Street. Mr. Turnquist stated that he felt the proposed construction planned by Mr. Brana and Mr. Mangieri would enhance each other. Mr. Margotta asked what would happen if one project does not go through - what would happen then about the drainage problem. Mr. Peirce asked Mr. Mangieri if his building would be rental or co-op and when a decision would be made. Mr. Swaby commented that the tax might be different on rental property than on co-op buildings. A resident of Gesner Place, Mr. George Yosifides, brought up the problem of traffic on Gesner Place and the danger to the children in the neighborhood. He felt there would be too much traffic moving at too great a speed, if egress and ingress are to remain as shown oh the building plans. There were alternatives suggested to change the flow of traffic in this area to alleviate the danger. Mr. Galgano questioned Mr. Mangieri about what type of building is on this property at present; he was informed that there are.wood frame buildings and garages. Mr. Ceconi was assured by Mr. Turnquist that there would be a storm sewer at the driveway. Mr. Amenta supported this building project and looks forward to a �-2solution of the drainage problem. Hearing adjourned at 9:45 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Marie Timmings Acting Clerk �ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Hearing: April 18, 1985 Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. John Arcate, Chairman Mr. Robert Ponzini, Counsel Aldo Ceconi Edward Swaby Frank Paolantonio Martin Ruane James Margottta Hearing to consider an application requesting a variance by Cras Real Estate (Mr. Mario Brana) began at 8:20 P.M. Mr. Arcate requested the clerk to read the Public Notice and informed those in attendance that they could address the Board. Mr. Robert Turhquist, Architect, presented his drawings of the proposed building and parking area Mr. Brana wishes to build. Mr. Turnquist gave some background on how the project developed and how it would ; fit in with the Master Plan of the Village of North Tarrytown. These drawings showed one builcling: with three levels providing 5 dwelling units with retail space on the ground floor and 14 parking spaces in front. The three non-conforming frame buildings between Ross Hardware and Greene County would be razed for this construction. The building would be constructed in conformance with the architecture of the area, traditional with brick exterior. The variance is being requested because the plans for the proposed construction only provides 14 parking spaces and the Code requires 18 spaces. Mr. Arcate questioned whether future use of Mr. Brana1s business would change; also, how would loading and unloading be handled. Mr. Brana replied that he had no plans for any different use of his space; he would have more room for a greater quantity of his manufactured product, he will most likely use one section of the proposed new building. Mr. Turnquist explained that loading and unloading would be done in the parking area, away from Beekman Avenue. Parking would be for retail customers during the daytime and for tenants at night. Mr. Paul Amenta, Scarborough, spoke of the possibility of the Zoning Board establishing a precedent by allowing Mr. Brana this variance for less than the required number of parking spaces. Mr. Margotta informed Mr. Amenta that when people cannot live with the Code, their only" recourse is to apply for a variance and each request is considered individually. The question was raised by Mr. Paolantonio about the number of parking spaces in the lot east of the Post Office. Mr. Brana said that he rents this property and there would be no change in the number of spaces (approximately 20) available there. In reply to a question from Mr. Ceconi, Mr. Brana stated that the driveway will be 16' wide; the present three buildings require five parking spaces-this proposed construction will increase parking in the area by £, ^L fo » Mr. Swaby reminded the Board that Greene County is now operating under a limited use variance and he felt this should be looked into before any further variance is considered, Mr. Arcate suggested that the previous �-2variance should be examined before a decision is made. Mayor Philip Zegarelli spoke next. He spelled out many reasons why the Board should consider the variance favorably: the need to upgrade the area which would create an increase in the assessment roll; the importance of tax incentives to those who develop and improve their property; the need for additional housing, new construction meets building codes; new building will improve the Village's business district and will encourage others to improve their property and keep their business in the Village. The Mayor pointed out that government funds may be available to those who wished to upgrade their property. When questioned by Mr. Arcate, Mr. Brana replied that he had contacted property owners within 200' of the property in question to inform them of his application. Mr. Armando Galella, Depeyster Street, spoke in favor of the Board granting this variance because it would be a great improvement to the area. A resident of Chestnut Street, Mr. Frank Occhipinti, stated that there is a water problem now arid he wanted to know which way surface water will flow after construction. Mr. Turriquist explained;that three properties, owned by Amenta, Brana, and Mangieri will take surface water and run it out to Chestnut Street to link into the Washington Street storm sewer for drainage. The Mayor pointed out that funding will be available for the construction of a storm sewer on Chestnut Street. Hearing closed at 9 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Marie;Timmings Acting Clerk �ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Business meeting opened at 10:00 P.M. April 18, 1985 Mr. John Arcate, presided. There was a motion made and seconded that the minutes from the previous meeting be approved. Discussion followed on Mr. Brana's request for a variance. Mr. Martin Ruane felt that only being four parking spaces short of the Code requirement should not hold back the Board from granting this variance. Mr. Robert Ponzini reminded the Board that the previous variance, given to Mr. Br ana for his food manufacturing business, must be considered. He also suggested that to make parking for trucks loading and unloading more feasible, perhaps spaces should be marked off for mini-sized cars in one section, thereby leaving more room for trucks. Mr. Arcate said he was more amenable to providing short spaces where the space was otherwise unusable but was not in favor of creating more spaces solely by reducing the size. The Board discussed the possibility of the Village putting in parking meters, however, this would mean the Village would have to maintain the parking area and the property would be tax exempt. It was felt that tenants would park elsewhere rather than use the meters. The Board considered what area would be used for 'unloading1. Could deliveries be made in a space marked NO PARKING designated for between 7 and 8:30 a.m. Mr. Ponzini set forth a question regarding the solution to the water drainage problem, if either Mr. Brana or Mr. Mangieri did not build. would be required to provide drainage? Who Mr. Margotta suggested pitching the driveway toward Beekman Avenue. Mr. Margotta must approve the site plan. Again concerning loading and unloading, Mr. Ceconi suggested using the west side of Greene County's present building. Is the driveway wide enough? Is it owned by Mr. Brana? The Board expressed concern that there be a loading zone. Mr. Ponzini suggested that perhaps the parking could be beneath the building; both Mr. Brana and Mr. Turnquist replied negatively. The second part of the business meeting'concerned the Mangieri property. There was a discussion on whether or not the Board can require that the 1800 ft. parking area (spaces 4 - 9). be'' consolidated and that two pieces of property owned by different individuals be deeded as one parcel. The questions were raised as to the safety of people using the Mews area and whether this property will be rental or co-op. Mr. Ponzini feels the community needs tHis type of building but it must be �-2done right. There was a lengthy discussion"about the possibility of rerouting traffic through this area for more safety. The Board decided that there should 1 be a site inspection of these two properties before any decisions can be made. They will meet on Saturday, May 4 at 9 a.m. at the Municipal Building. Reminder notices will be sent. The meeting was adjourned until Thursday, May 9th at 8:00 P.M. Business meeting ended at 10:50 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Marie Timmings 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-1985 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_1985-04-18 Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1985 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1985 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/380225f20f19c5218a1fcb7c23cd3ef5.pdf 0b2053b5d6d6ee4db9a9165e8e1d0b07 PDF Text Text ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Present: May 9, 1985 John Arcate, Chairman Edward Swaby Frank Paolantonio Martin Ruane Aldo Ceconi James Margotta, Building Inspector Robert Ponzini, Counsel - Brana application Robert Peirce - Counsel - Mangieri application The business meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals met on May 9, 1985 at 8:20 p.m. to make a decision on Mr. Brana's and Mr. Mangieri's requests for variances (see minutes of April 18, 1985). Mr. Arcate asked if there were any additions or corrections to the minutes of April 18 meeting: there were none and the Board unanimously accepted the minutes as written. In addressing the purpose of the meeting, Mr. Arcate made the following statement: The Zoning Board of Appeals commends both applicants for the development of such good quality proposals.for the use :of their land. They clearly offer the Village far-sighted and longlasting improvements to the commercial, residential, and general character of the area. These actions are entirely in keeping with the purpose and best intent of the Zoning Code. Beyond their individual proposals, the Zoning Board-of Appeals is presented with the added enhancement of viewing two coordinated proposals which have promise of serving as a model for, similar improvements on the part of other property owners. The Zoning Board'of Appeals also notes the responsiveness of the Village in taking the opportunity to solve storm water problems by the construction of street drainage. We seem to have before us the best of all conditions and the . Zoning Board of Appeals is most anxious to ensure that all steps within our collective ability to anticipate are realized so that the full benefit of such desirable improvements are brought about in the most ideal way. It would be disappointing if after such attractive plans are implemented, there remained an unresolved problem. With these views in mind and a desire to carry forward the*purpose of the Code and progress for the Village, the Zoning * Board of Appeals did not attempt an immediate decision, following the April 18 hearing, but instead met on May 4 and inspected both sites. We meet now in an effort to reach a decision. We recognize that there are two decisions before us but that due to the coordinated planning and the common problem of storm water drainage, we need to discuss both applications prior to deciding on either. The members of the Board have indicated several items of specific interest: a) Storm water drainage b) Off-street loading/unloading �c) Flow of vehicular traffic d) Applicants' control of all involved land parcels e) Definitive Village plans for street drainage improvements. The Board members expressed concern regarding storm water drainage. After some discussion it was agreed that the parties involved must submit evidence of their stated intent to construct adequate storm water drainage and submit their plans to the Building Inspector and the Village Engineer for their approval before starting work. Mr Margotta said it would be helpful to him if the Village specified the plans for new and increased storm sewers before the anticipated construction begins. Mr. Arcate commented that, based on the May 9th letter from Mayor Zegarelli (copy attached), it seemed reasonable that the Village would follow through and do the necessary work on the sewer system in a timely fashion. Referring to the variance requested by Mr.Brana, it was noted that the 1956 variance remains in effect. After some discussion by the Board,.it was agreed that it will be necessary for Mr. Brana to provide off-street parking for loading and unloading within the parking area shown on the site plan. Referring to the flow of vehicular traffic through Mr. Mangieri's property, several ideas were expressed which differed from the plan for parking and traffic flow according to the site plan. After some discussion, it was decided that the flow of traffic and the parking as shown on the site plan is probably the best possible plan for this property. It was recognized that if, after experience it was deemed necessary to change the flow it could be done so without hardship. In regard to the Brana variance, Mr. Martin Ruane made a motion to grant the variance based on the following contingent requirements: a) Building would proceed according to site plans submitted and ^. storm drainage improvement plans must be submitted for approval of the Building Inspector and the Village Engineer before start of work. b) Space to be allocated for loading and unloading on property. c) 1956 variance to remain in effect. ,. d) That the applicant controls all of the parcels of land involved and all are commited to the proposed use and site plan. Motion seconded by Mr. Paolantonio. Mr. Swaby made the motion that the Board grant approval of Mr. Mangieri's variance contingent upon the following requirements: a) Front yardsetback to be 10' father than 20' b) Common control of all parcels of land committed to this proposal and site plan. . . c) Site plan to remain as originally submitted. d) Approval of drainage plans prior to start of work. e) No change in traffic flow or parking from site plan. Motion was seconded and approved unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 9:30 on a motion by Mr. Ruane, seconded by Mr. Paolantoiiio. .--- r-- -• .-'••.":.... �-3Both variances are granted in accordance with the purpose and provisions of the Zoning Code including paragraphs 62-2 and 62-40C. The board also took notice that throughout these hearings and meetings it enjoyed the counsel of Mr. Ponzihi in regard to the application of Mr. Brana and the counsel of Mr. Peirce in regard to the application of Mr. Mangieri. Respectfully submitted, Marie Timmings cc: Planning Board �VILLAGE DF NDRTH TARBYTOWN, NEW YORK 2 8 BEEKMAN AVENUE P H I L I P E . ZEGAREL.LI. MAYOR J A M E S J . T 1 M M I N G S , CHAIRMAN MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET JAMES J. TIMMINGS DEPUTY MAYOR R A N K M A N G I E R ] , J R . , CHAIRMAN GOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS MISS FILOMENA FALLACARO VILLAGE CLERK S T E V E S A L M A N . CHAIRMAN PUBLIC WORKS MRS. IRENE AMATO VILLAGE TREASURER S U S A N J . G A L G A N O . CHAIRMAN RECREATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES ROBERT J. PONZINI VILLAGE COUNSEL P H I L I P E . B L E C K E R , CHAIRMAN ADMINISTRATION " A L L E N T . W I L L I A M S . CHAIRMAN PUBLIC SAFETY INCORPORATED 1S74 9 May 1985 Mr. John A. Arcate, Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals 28 Beekman Avenue No. Tarrytown, N.Y. Dear John: This letter is provided as further substantiation of the Village's willingness and intention to provide for new and increased storm sewer construction for the entire length of Chestnut Street from Broadway (Route 9) to North Washington Street. This decision is in keeping with our desire not only to provide relief to the present residents and owners of the are but also to provide an incentive for the redevelopment of the neighborhood. While we are fully prepared to bond for this capital expenditure, we have been notified that monies have been awarded to tie Village as part of our Urban County Block Grant request for this'specific use and design. In addition, we have discussed this specific sitntation and simi 1 ar conditions in North Tarrytown with the Westchester County Deparrmpnt of Planning in our desire to help correct similar situations arid provide help in potential need and/or redevelopment. Our requests will be undertaken on a case by case basis with their assurance that earmarked funds are avail able. I hope this letter provides any further information needed for the deliberations that the North Tarrytown Zoning Board of Appeals is undertaking. Please feel free to contact me at your convenience if there is a desire for additional information. With warm regards, PEZ:ff cc: Members, Zoning Board of Appeals Board of Trustees Hiilip E. ZegareUi Mayor "where the Headless Horseman rode" � 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-1985 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_1985-05-09 Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1985 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1985 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/99bf44249784ea3e9e908c5ade1506c2.pdf 82a473fa7a3aaf5f8d47dcee142e93d1 PDF Text Text Zoning Board North Tarrytown, N.Y. June 27, 1985 Present: John Areate, Chairman Aldo Cecorii Frank Paolaritonio Martin Ruane Edward Swaby Robert Ponzini, Attorney James Margotta, Building Inspector The Zoning Board of Appeals-of North Tarrytown held a public hearing on June 27, 1985, to consider two applications for appeals from the Building Inspector decisions to deny building permits. Chairman Arcate called the hearing to order at 8:10 P.M. and asked the clerk to read the first public notice to all present for the Board to consider. Rafaelo and Elda Piscopiello, of 69 College Avenue, North Tarrytown, applied for an appeal from the Building Inspector's decision in denying them a building permit for a one car garage on their property located at 69 College Avenue, in that the garage would violate the rear yard requirement of 5 feet in an R5 district. Chairman Arcate asked if anyone present wished to address the Board. Mr. and Mrs. Piscopiello's daughter spoke on her parent's behalf. She explained to Board members that a shed had always been on the property since Mr. & Mrs. Piscopiello purchased the property. Mr. Piscopiello, she explained, was not aware that a building permit was needed to replace a former structure (the shed) when he began to construct a new garage oh the site. Mr. Margotta informed;them that a building permit was needed, and that side and rear yard requirements were being violated. Chairman Arcate asked if Mr. & Mrs. Piscppiello hacl advised all neigbors within 200 ft. of their property oftonight's hearing. , The . daughter said they had been so advised, and gave all"certified mail receipts to the clerk, noting that one letter had not been claimed, which was also submitted. Attorney Robert Ponzini asked if the new building would be the same size as the former storage shed, arid if there is.a driveway. The Piscopiello's daughter said the new garage is.to be somewhat larger, measuring 18' wide by 20' deep. She said an existing driveway does exist to the street. Mr. Swaby asked how high a s trueture the garage would be. noted that the garage would be one story. It was Building Inspector Margotta stated that zoning requirements in this area call for a 10 feet from the sidelines, and for a 25 foot rear yeard setback. Chairman Arcate asked Mr. Margotta if a need for a retaining wall �-2exists, to which Mr. Margotta replied in the negative. Chairman Arcate also asked if the proposed garage would be next to the neighbor's garage (on the east side), and would the proposed garage face the south side? Mr. Margotta answered in the affirmative to both questions. Mr. Swaby asked if.the proposed garage could possibly be moved out from the east corner of the rear property, towards the west, and still be easily accessible. Mr. Margotta responded that if the garage were moved towards the west, the garage would be very close to the house. Mr. Ruane mentioned that the property to the west is a 2-3 family house, a building once owned by the Tarrytowns newspaper. Chairman Arcate s'aicl he felt two abutting garages would be better esthetically vs. having a 10' piece of land separating the two garages. Chairman Arcate asked if there were any further questions for the Board. There being none, he asked that the Board proceed with the second hearing. The clerk read the public notice to all present. The second hearing was an appeal from a decision of the Building Inspector in denying a bulding permit for.the renovation and alteration of an accessory building on property owned by August in Triana-, located at 144 Beekman Avenue, North Tarrytown, in that .said:accessory building would violate a zoning ordinance of the village that states there can be no- more than one principle residential building on any one lot. Attorney Ponzini told all present that he had once represented Mr. Triana, and if the Board; members felt this might cause any conflict of . interest, Mr. Ponzini would not involve^himself in this hearing. Chairman Arcate and all Board members told Mr. Ponzini this would not be a problem, and that he need not remove himself from Mr. Triana's hearing. Mr. John J. Hughes, of 49 Beekman Avenue, North Tarrytown; addressed the Board, identifying himself as Mr. Triana's lawyer. He presented the clerk with certified mail receipts, showing that all property, owners within 200 feet of Mr. Triana' s property had been advised of tonight's hearing. He then gave all Board members copies of=the survey showing Mr. Triana's property and its layout. Mr. Hughes said the property, has a main"house that can be a residence for one, two or three families, and an accessory building. Mr. Triana, he explained, began repairs and renovations on the accessory building. At present, two families live in the main residence. Mr. Triana's accessory building is a garage, yet this garage is three times larger than other garages in the area. It measures 45 feet x 25 feet in size, and can hold three cars and still have a storage space area. This garage, said Mr. Hughes, is on;land tliat is easily accessible, especially so for the elderly and/or those who are disabled. The conversion -*-«*---•!.;«?.=:••. ''-2--, VJ," -W«'J'. .i„^-"*..*.»»>„--Viitj« ^^^.^i4A%^C&*^^.A'^AibMi4&MJi^^^Mfi^^^MiM �of the garage in living quarters would have all rooms on one floor. Mr. Hughes asked the Board for a conditional certificate of occupancy for the newly converted building. He submitted pictures to show the interior of the converted building. Mr. Hughes said that Mr. Joel Levy, Director of Special Needs and Housing from the county's Department of Social Services, has helped Mr. Hughes with North Tarrytown's need for the elderly, sick and/or disabled. Mr. Hughes asked the Board for a permit that would bind Mr. Triana or any future owner to use the converted accessory building on the property , for such people as the:elderly, sick and/or handicapped. Mr. Hughes noted the construction work Mr. Triana has done to convert the garage into living quarters is of top quality. Without a certificate of occupancy,, this renovated garage cannot be used. The structure could hold a family instead of cars. Mr. Hughes said Mr. Triana is willing to rent the hew apartments at a minimal rate, so that the elderly and/or handicapped could afford the rent. Such plans, said Mr. Hughes, are not detrimental to anyone in any way. He noted that Mr. Triana would be willing to pay increase taxes. Mr. Joel Levy, Director of Special Needs and Housing with the Department of Social Services, addressed the Board. He noted that Westchester's population is rapidly increasing of those of 65 years of age and older. Along with the increase of the elderly, lies the problem of available housing that has diminished considerably, and is of great concern to the County. Affordable rental property for these people is very hard to find, said Mr. Levy. "Affordable", he noted, is, the key word, as many of the elderly and disabled cannot meet this affordability with today's rents. The need for low cost housing for such peoplef is a great one, and Mr. Levy asked the Board to please consider Mr. Triana s application. He noted that the structure is safe, easily accessible, and would be a great help to an elderly couple, or a disabled person. Chairman Arcate asked if anyone else present Board. wished to address the Mr. Joseph Ruscigno, of 273 North Washington Street, North Tarrytown, asked if this new building would be used to house the mentally retarded. Mr. Hughes said plans for the building would hold two individuals at the most, and that the Board can restrict in any way it wants as to who would be allowed to live there. Mr. Hughes asked for the Board's help in finding a way to see this property used. Mr. Hughes explained that this hearing is solely for^the construction of the interior of an existing structure. At present, only*one of the •; ._] original four bays is being used as a garage, with the rest of the building blocked off for the residence. Chairman Arcate asked what kind and what rooms the proposed building would have. Mr. Hughes said there would be a Hallway, a hot water system, a bathroom, bedroom (10' x 12'), and eating area (10V x 13') and a kitchen. �-4Mr. Hughes said parking would be no problem, as the driveway is 30 feet long, and that no street parking would be needed. Mr. Swaby asked if there were any plans to construct a second story on the converted structure. Mr. Hughes said there were no such plans. Mr. Ruane asked if the structure would have any problems as far as water and sewage are concerned. Mr. Margotta said no, that the lines could be hooked up to the present system in the house. Mr. Ponzini said conditions could be made by the Board that the converted garage be rented to a local senior citizen. Mr. Hughes said he and his client would be willing to let it be rented only to local residents. Mr. Margotta noted that the construction began illegally. Mr. Triaria, he said, wants to make a proposal to the Board rather than tear down the new structure. Mr. Hughes said they had come in good faith arid asked the Board to please consider their proposal, even if on a trial basis. The building would be dedicated for use by the elderly or handicapped. Mr. Ruane asked if this case should go to the Planning Board instead. Mr. Ponzini said no, as this is not a site plan being sought, but the use of an existing structure. Chairman Arcate asked if anyone else wished to address the Board: There being none, the Board closed the hearing, and proceeded with the business meeting. BUSINESS MEETING The Board members first discussed the request of Mr. & Mrs. Piscopiello for an appeal from the 10 foot sideyard and 25' rear yard setback requirement for their new garage. Chairman Arcate noted that the house doesn't appear to:Kave a 10i"foot'" sideyard now. Mr. Ruane asked how much isithe structure presently off the property lines? Mr. Margotta said only a few feet. Chairman Arcate said 'he would rather have,two garages close together in that they would look better. Mr, Margotta noted '• that the Piscopiellos have improved their house greatly over the years, and that their.improve- . ments are good for the neighborhood. Mr. Swaby said he didn't want to impose a. Hardship, but that-he doesn't want this to seta precedent; so that anyone who starts building without a permit "can just come to the Zoning Board arid expect a4variance to be granted". • The Board"recognized"tHat this garage;will be in the same relative location as others in the immediate neighborhood, will provide added off street parking and is the best use of the available land. �-5- Mr. Ruane made a motion that the Zoning Board grant the variance and allow Mr. & Mr. Piscopiello to continue the construction of their one car garage in accordance with code provisions 62-2 and 62-40C. The vote was unanimously in favor. The Board proceeded to consider Mr. Triana's appeal to convert an accessory building into a residence. Mr. Levy noted that many accessory buildings in the County have been converted into living quarters. Some were two car garages with a second story. This would not be a "dumping ground" for^the indigent or the mentally ill. Anyone could live in this apartment. He noted it would not compound any present problems. Rent would be for no more than $300.00, and a local village resident would easily apply. Chairman Arcate stated there would be a conditional provision saying this structure would be for the use of local residents. Mr. Margotta noted that the fireproof construction is of good quality, and the workmanship is better than most places in the area. Mr. Paolantonio asked how does the Board get around having two residences on one lot? Chairman Arcate said, by granting a variance. The lot, 50 feet x 150 feet, allows for three families. One purpose of the code is to help control population density. The Board could require that only two families could be allowed to live in the main house, if one family is allowed in the accessory building. Mr. Ponzini noted that the third family could otherwise be in the main building. . . Mr. Ruane said if all 5,500 sq. ft. on Mr. Triana's property can be used, a decision could be reached tonight. Chairman Arcate said he felt the Board should limit the use of living quarters on Mr. Triana's property to a maximum of three families. Another condition should be that * the new,structure be for use;only by the elderly (those 62 years of age or more) and/or thV disabled (those confined, or need a device, or use walkers, for example). Attorney Ponzini said a one year variance that could be granted and reviewed annually would be another possibility. Mr. Mario Belanich, 153 North Washington Street, North Tarfytowh, asked the Board what happens to the three families as far as parking is concerned, since the conversion of the garage meant a loss of three'garage spaces. Mr. Hughes said that would be of no problem to the neighborhood, as the property grounds would still provide ample parking space. Chairman Arcate said that the conversion of the garage had been done �without a change in the building's structure, nor would there be a change in the number of families allowed to live on the lot (three).. Mr. Ceconi said he wanted certain conditional agreements written into the variance. Mr. Ruane concurred. Attorney Porizirii suggested the following conditions to be included with the granting of the variance: 1) This would be a temporary conditional variance, to be renewed every two years by an application for renewal to the Zoning Board. 2) That the dwelling be leased to a senior citizeri(s) (62 years of age or older), and /or to a disabled person, through the proper county agency. 3) That the dwelling be leased to one person, or to two persons at the most. If rented to two people, both must be 62 years of age or older. 4) First preference is to be given to a resident(s) of North Tarrytown who has lived in the village for the immediate 24 month consecutive period. 5) The Department of Social Services and the Department of Mental Health would see that the person(s) to rent the apartment are those with moderate income. 6) That as long as the lot is so used, the total number of. families on the land is to be no more than three families. 7) Prior to occupancy, permits that are needed from Building Inspector Margotta must be obtained. 8) 1.2;parking spaces per unit is to be provided. With the above conditions understood^ arid included a motion to grant 1 Mr. Triana a variance was made by Mr. Ruane arid seconded by Mr. Paolantonib in accordance with code;provisions 62-2 arid 62-40C. The Vote was four in favor and one abstention. The minutes from the prior meeting5 of May 9, 1985, re: the Mangieri application, were unanimously approved. Chairman Arcate asked if anyone had any further business for the Board. There being none, the meeting was adjourned at 10:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Linda T. Fiikuchi 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-1985 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_1985-06-27 Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1985 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1985 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/d320271681c6869b6220533f571485d5.pdf c67dc194ec4e6e4e4a246486923d8f40 PDF Text Text \ .oning Board North Tarrytown, N.Y July 18, 1985 Present: % John Arcate, Chairman Edward Swaby Frank Paolantonio Aldo Ceconi Robert Peirce, Attorney James Margotta, Building Inspector Absent: Martin Ruane The Zoning Board of Appeals of North Tarrytown held a public hearing on July 18, 1985, to consider the application for a variance regarding the property owned by Olive Degina, 282 North Washington Street. Chairman Arcate called the hearing to order at 8:00 P.M. and asked the Clerk to read the first public notice to all present for the Board to consider. Mr. Arthur A. Litt, Attorney for Contract Vendee, Leonard Losier and Olive Degina, owner, explained the reasons for their request for a variance to permit the use of a building at 282 North Washington Street as a five-dwelling residence. The property in question belonged to the Foley family years ago and the rear building (proposed five-dwelling residence) was the dairy. Mr. Litt stated that there is sufficient square footage of property to legally allow six dwelling units and applicant is only proposing five units. He also stated that there will be sufficient space for parking and the applicant wishes to be granted a variance to put this building to legal.use. The building in question is not the principle structure and is a noh-conforming structure built before 1964. Mr. Litt quoted from the Village Code (62.23) and stated that according to the ordinance, applicant should be allowed to use this building as he wishes: The building will not be extended in any way and there will be no change in the building. Mr. Margotta called attention to his memo to,Mr.:Losier (copy attached) setting forth reasons (Code 62.7C) for'refusing * application for a variance; Mr. Margotta also distributed copies of the survey of property to members of the Board. Mr. Litt stated further that he felt the,key word is, 'hereafter', this should only apply to a new building, not one that has been on the property for years. Mr. Litt asked the Board to make a ruling that the building is nonconforming and that applicant be allowed to use his property for dwelling units. He stated that the building is unique and can only be used for dwelling units. Mr. Michael Frascati, 250 Kelbourne Avenue, representing Mr4>. J. Beni of 290 North Washington Street, stated ;that7this area has previously beeii'zoned for 'moderate density' and, if the Board grants this variance and issues a . building permit, the long-range affects of this decision*could be devastating to the Village of North Tarrytown. It could He a precedent-setting decisioh° and, therefore, a 'moderate density' area would become a 'high density' area �-2which would create parking and traffic problems. Village Code 62. 7C states, "... only one principle residential building and its accessory buildings shall hereafter be erected on any one lot". He argued that only a prime residence can be altered, not an additional building on property. There were many objections to granting this variance heard from residents of the area: Mr. D. Caetano agreed wholeheartedly with Mr. Frascati as did Mr. J. DiFelice, who stated that to put five dwelling units in the building in question would create what he called, "alley houses". Mr. C. Occhipinti said that the bulding in question overhangs his property which creates a drainage problem and the building is too close to the property line. Mr. Sean Tracy also objected to the Board granting a variance because he agreed that it would cause the area to become one of 'high density' and he is concerned that the amount of traffie, parking problems, and number of people would become unbearable. Mr. James McStay, 33 Lawrence Avenue, said his property is directly behind subject property and he feels that with dwelling units in this building there would be an invasion of his privacy. Mr. Litt advised the residents that he appreciated their statements and suggested that the Board of Trustees change the zoning regulations. Mr. S. Labruzzo, 300 North Washington Street questioned whether or not every house on North Washington Street could be made into a six-family dwelling. Mr. Margotta advised that New York State Code on multi-family dwellings allows 3 to 4 families in one house in this zone. Mr. Litt also advised that the Zoning Ordinance allows an owner to have three dwelling units in a lot of 5,000 sq. ft. The lot in question has 10,000 sq. ft. and therefore he stated that it should be possible to have six dwelling units there. Mr. Swaby requested the Attorney's opinion on this situation arid asked if a non-conforming building can be put to use again. He was advised that it can be if it is not in use for twelve consecutive months. Mr. Peirce said that the structure was non-conforming before 1964, useage was nonconforming in 1964, and the proposed use will not be non-conforming. Mr. DiFelice reminded the Board that the owner was turned down years ago when a request was made for a variance. Mr. Arcate advised that the differences of interpretation are drawn from Code 62.7C. Mr. Litt said, 1) that section does not apply, i.e., "hereafter erected", 2) regardless of Ordinance, Mr. Litt stated that he made a case for a variance from that Ordinance. On a question from Mr. Ceconi, he was informed by Mr. Litt that Mrs. Degina has owned this property for 21 years. Mr. Litt also stated that if there are anyiproblems,that*can be taken care of in regarding to construction, the owner would be happy to do the alterations. Mr. Caetano questioned whether there is. sufficient space for fire apparatus entering and exiting the property. Hearing closed at 8:55 P.M. • �-3BUSINESS MEETING % Mr.Swaby made a motion1that a decision be made tonight after the Board conducts their business meeting; motion seconded by Mr. Ceconi. Mr. Arcate said the Board should consider 62.7B also. Mr. Litt argued that sectiori(62-7C),?whichprohibits the existence of more than one principal residential building on any one lot, was not controlling for purposes;of considering this application since, it was not the intention of the applicant to "hereafter" erect a building; as set forth in sub-division B of that same section. However, a careful review of the entire sub-division B reveals that it further provided, to wit: ... (nor shall any) building or portion of a building be used ... unless in conformity with all regulations herein specified. (emphasis added) Accordingly, since the applicant does intend to modify the use of the accessory structure to that of a second principal residence, he ..is now governedby the provisions(of 62-7B. Furthermore, since the intended use is not in conformity with 62-7C.the application must be denied. It is noted that there was a failure of proof by the applicant with respect to any allegation of hardship or practical difficulties with the property and its structures as they presently exist. • Mr. Swaby does not feel a variance should'be given and Mr. Ceconi agreed. After the Board's discussion, Mr. Ceconi.made a motion to deny the request for a variance which was seconded by Mr: Paolantoriio. Oh the question: Is the Board satisfied that the"application would be inconsistent with 62.7B and C; Code 62.2A should be considered. Mr. Arcate polled the Board and their vote was 4-0 not to grant variance based on Code 62.7B, 62.2, and 62.40C. Mr. Arc ate * added that the Zoning Board;should draw the a ttention of the Planning Board to - North Washing tori'.-' Street (as to whether the R5 zoning 1 is appropriate and suggest to them that u^-zoning might be in order to maintain the present character of this portion of North Tarrytown. Respectfully submitted, Marie Timmings Acting Clerk �Zoning Board meeting of July 18, 1985 Present: % John Arcate, Chairman Edward Swaby Frank Paolantonio Aldo Ceconi Robert Peirce, Attorney James Margotta, Building Inspector Ab s en t: Mar t in Ruane The Zoning Board met at 9:10 p.m. to consider the application for variance by the Tarrytown Realty Corp. and Jandrea Realty Corp. Mrs. K. Lingardo, Pine Close, representing the Webber Park Assoc, was the first to speak. Mrs. Lingardo read a statement (attached), signed by herself as President of the Association and by Grace Buonanno, Vice President; she also presented several pages of signatures on a petition in strong opposition to the granting of any change in the present variance or allowing further expansion of car dealerships in the Webber Park area. In response to several questions from Mrs . Lingardo, Mr. John Pappalardo, Attorney representing Mr. George Kahn, explained the meaning of "contract vendee" and further explained that Tarrytown Realty Corp. is no longer involved and application should be amended to read George Kahn, owner. Mrs. Lingardo was also informed that the Jandrea Realty Corp. is a registered corporation in the State of New York. Several concerns of Webber Park residents were,voiced by Mrs. Lingardo: Where will employees of Tappan Motors park,,during work hours? 'k What parking is allocated to the Animal Hospital? Why does Tappan Motors want this property? Has an environmental study been made? Mr. Arcate stated that the only questions to be considered is whether or not the owner may proceed with the proposed 10 foot front yard and the type of use for which he is applying. Mr. Pappalardo made a statement to the Board regarding the proposed use of this property by George Kahn and will present to the Board a report on environmental impact. Application for variance is being made for a single variance which stems from his client's wish to build a new building which would be in violation to the set-back requirements. Applicant also wishes clarification on two issues: Does a service/repair station fall into the category of a .. gas station and could it be construed to be an auto sales (62.20) place which would be affected by the 300' limitation? 0 The building on property .presently will be torn down. Applicant is requesting a variance of the 20' set-back; all other requirements will be met. A 10' set-back would allow parking in the rear and space for auto repair and would also bring building in line with others on the block. There were several questions directed to Mr. Pappalardo regarding .. <^>*-,^-;rA;>jvArv<y. »5T^««- ^iii^^AaEfeiKaftss^iasaSaifeSSfi^S T,>J �-2whether or not the property would be used as a service center, if gasoline would be sold, if this would be a sales place. He informed the Board that there will be no gasoline sold on the property. % Mrs. Lirigardo further stated that the Webber Park Association is concerned about additional traffic through the Park and the added noise and fumes. She also asked if the Zoning Board has the power to withdraw a decision on a variance if terms and conditions are found to be untrue. Mr. Arcate informed her that parties must bring an appeal before the Board. Mr. Patrick Munroe, 63 New Broadway, urged the Board to do what it can to deny variance and keep proposed use of this property from coming into being. Mr. Munroe pointed out that he had walked the area between 7 and 8 p.m. and found 238 cars parked along Rt. 9 with the potential of 337 cars. He urged the Board to block this variance. Mrs. H. Napolitano, 122 Van Tassel Avenue, spoke of the lack of sidewalks on Gordon Avenue, her concern about cars parked on the sidewalk on the west side of New Broadway, and the fact that the auto dealer conducts business in the street thus causing traffic and pedestrian hazards. Mr. Frank Hrotko, Gordon Avenue, advised the Board that he feels the present Tappan Motors repair shop is a "dump" and that the new site will look the same in a few months. He also stressed the fact that there is insufficient parking space now on Gordon Avenue. Mr. Richard Green, 65 New Broadway, wanted to know how many parking spaces would be available at this site. He was told there would be 32 spaces outside and 16 spaces indoors; (only 25 spaces are required). He said that residents are concerned about where employees will park. Eileen Meade, 38 Gordon Avenue, expressed her concern over the lack of sufficient parking space on Gordon Avenue arid the danger of additional demand on available space as well as possible test driving on Gordon and nearby streets. Mrs. Beatrice Taxter, Holland Avenue, wished to know what kind of protection she would have for her property. Mr. Pappalardo assured her that there would be plantings at the rear of the property and the hill would be untouched. He explained that there was no plan for construction on the hill and only the installation of a fence. Mrs. Gerry Green, 65 New Broadway, wished to know if there would be any new employees hired by Tappan Motors and whether their employees would be requested to park in a specific place. Mr. Kahn informed her that he could not require his employees to park in a special space and could not guarantee that they would not park on Village roads. He stated that no new employees will be hired for the new facility. Mr. Pappalardo said that employees will park off the streets if variance is granted; this offered as a condition. Mr. C. Caposella, 100 Rice Avenue, expressed His concern for the children in the neighborhood with heavy traffic on narrow roads. $ Mr. Mario DiFelice, Gory Brook Road, advised that there have been 'riji#* -?-£•-£?» £?- --5*r : ^^--i^^l^^i^^i^KsE-^ii^^ �many meetings with Tappan Motors and at no time was there ever a resolution regarding parking. He stated that apporximately 33 cars park on New Broadway every day and there is no guarantee where employees will park. Mr. E. Fiorella, 48 Gordon Avenue, pointed out the fact that there is only one-side-of-the-street parking on Gordon Ave. now and sometimes cars park illegally on the other side and the curve of the road makes for poor visibility. He questioned if Mr. Kahh plans to develop the property next to Mr. E. Buonanno. Mr. John Malandrino, 104 Gordon Avenue, voiced his opinion that no offices should be allowed on the third floor of the proposed building. Mr. E. Solari,47 New Broadway, stated that>there has been nothing but trouble from Tappah Motors because they show no concern about pedestrians or vehicular traffic and are a constant obstruction to both. Mr. & Mrs. V. Buonanno, Van Tassel Avenue, expressed their lack of trust in George Kahn and pointed out that they feel he has created unsafe conditions on our streets. Mr. Buonanno stated that he feels the Board cannot review this application unto itself; there are associated impactstwo repair shops back to back and we should look into the traffic pattern that will be created and find out how these proposed facilities will be used and where his employees will park. Mr. Frank Rey, Holland Avenue, pointed out that he felt no one in attendance at this hearing was in favor of granting this variance. Hearing closed at 10:30. BUSINESS MEETING Mr. Arcate set forth some questions to be considered: Applicant suggests the building would be used for repair/service center, therefore, 62.19 and 62.20 are of interest. Would repair/ service center be solely for the preparation of cars that were used or new cars being prepared for sale? How will we see the difference? Mr. Kahn advises that the purpose of this new property is only to service customers cars not to prepare new cars. Mr. Swaby noted that while a 20 foot setback would meet the Code, there will be five fewer parking spaces in rear. Mr. Kahn stated that the office space will also be used for bookkeeping and will contain computers for his business. He advised Mr. Swaby that there will not be any body work done in the building. Mr. Ceconi suggested that we should stay with the 20' setback because he feels Route 9 will be widened in the future; Mr. Swaby agreed. Mr. Paolantonio made a motion to deny application for variance^with 10' �-4setback; Mr. Swaby seconded the motion. % Mr. Arc ate stated that the granting of the variance is on the condition that the building will not be used for preparation of cars for sale, either new or used; as Code requirements, 62.19 and 62.20 would apply. Also, the variance requires that the proposed building not qualify as gas/service station in that no gasoline or other automobile fuel may be stored or dispensed from this property. All Board members present voted in favor of denying the variance for the 10' setback and the conditions pertaining to Code sections 62.19 and 62.20. It appears that beyond collateral issues raised by the applicant, requiring it to conform with the present setback of 20 feet will present neither hardship nor practical difficulties with the intended use. Since no proof was offered to establish hardship or practical difficulties, in the absence of any compelling reason to permit a 10 foot setback, the, application is denied. However, it is clear from a reading of sections 62-19 and 62.20, that under a strict construction of those provisions contained therein, the business contemplated by the applicant is.governed by neither section. The board decides that the applicant's business is neither that of a gasoline service station or a business engaged in the sale of new or used automobiles. Meeting adjourned at 11:30 P.M. Respectfully, submitted, Marie Timmings Acting clerk �« n ~ > " -o a> pH ^ H «-< »-• 0} < u « (X. p^ r-i < P § « § »-} c i?5P „ « aH-c a. 2 *>• «Qw •o 00 P 4-» a> *w 01 O S 2 c I V 5 < 5 2.W ~*P? o •J y c g r I fi S i ^ o b ~ < w *- H C 5 M q} o O U &» *• —• 8. « E.-SC V 4IH o v O •C O w & * J CO 'o B 5 *-" •u CO .C 05 H-« (0 ^ c a 5 t> W) • <U r-i •H r-l CD OS , C C_> f*,<M M I - i ^ M • «} O 4J 0) O OSSggSS ««M O O P . O U < M Of e x o• • • 06U5 *• • O i 0 j <U*tt Oj CMr-IM-l O C - 90S O . * «H "O I-i •H o *J w c*n o _ .. c JZ <» *» . —— *» «-T O in *> MS W h. Xi <y 2 p c E. a *5 H§ ° s y v ej o 5 u 4J 0) (0 m c o o u a H 0 Of > 06 *o H £ O Xi « §*-5 W ' * 4/ O £j P, 5 . 5 C"S Q.= '2 "C JS " « 8*5 o •c « ° 5 * « «o 5 - » ft) & XiO H U 8. a. >* — -*= £ *• * -k ?r 4J "0 1 o» \*J CI .c W 4J I O •s a o w w > « « SP C « O *H to •H My ? B§i*s Ml CL. u I 1 i I >• z oo i-»m c £ ON 03M-I 0| 0) CMfeOi-)S5 8 ^fe-. i:^S&&-»M&M^&£^&S^^^^^^^&^^^^^A �UJ tu cr 2E UJ __» h - U i - J LU lO ~J l-X < < O UI to z be x Z o •-4 o o < z -J Q UJ < O to cr z cr UJ o to o -J •-« > o o z o < z UJ 3 o z -» z o c_> o to z •-» CC K z - i co o to UJ cr t<o cr < X CD to 3£ •-* 3c < CL tO 3 tocc »~i J UJ O C T X X Z < 0 < oa o o io cc a: o -J oz •-. l - » - ~ * x z cc •-• < u, I— cc UJ UJ tcr CC 10 UI J D U J h-to o cr I— ui c c x z CCUJI-** O </) UI U I UJ o UJ o < UJ < hl-K ui <c 21 •-« z cr ui z z o o . UJ O > • > co u to -oo xo o zz <cc cu a. cc a: \n *o * >- > UJ o UJ ^ I} o o o H * 4 H H H J. N N N N N N « n n n i , i n n i « ) * ' » - * UJ e> *— < i— 0. z 111 o s: Z D »—t cr O Io o UJ cc ic cr UJ -J o 2 »-t UJ £ U. o h- < z o >- K l - *% z a. 13 O w o *• cc UJ X < ui (9 H < (/> 0 . tu X «/> O »* H £ </>lUJ ^ Ml I- UI O < £ IZ Itf £ 3 K I- k. O {.' o o kt < 3 V) £ j ft E * UI ac < hi O 5 5 c: 3 m CC < o z o K o u o z u z ill Gt w u. w ac 8 c o UI ac , n -_iKT '#*Tfi"« \^^^^mt^M,w^i%^md;ta^m^M^ '***&& ^~^a^%5is^*^^J^^^ �igfc-fp-* APPENDIX B i* SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM / INSTRUCTIONS: (a) In order to answer the questions in this short £AF is is assumed that the preparer will use currently available information concerning the project and the likely impacts of the action. It is not expected that additional studies, research or other investigations will be undertaken. (b) If any question has been answered Yes the project nay be significant and a completed Environmental Assessment Form is necessary. (c) If all questions have been answered No it is likely that this project is not significant. (d) Environmental Assessment 1. 2. Will project r e s u l t in a large physical change to the project s i t e or ohysically a l t a r more than 10 acres of land? *. Will there be a major change t o any unique or unusual land form found on the s i t e ? • • • • • Will project a l t e r or have a large effect on an existing body of water? • • • • • • • • • • U» Will project have a p o t e n t i a l l y l a r g e impact on groundwater quality? . » • • • • . . . . . . 5. Will project s i g n i f i c a n t l y effect drainage flow on adjacent s i t e s ? . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. Will project affect any threatened or endangered plant or animal species? • • • • • • • • • • • Yes X No y______ Yes _____ No 3. Will project r e s u l t in a major adverse effect on a i r quality? . . 6*. Will project have a major effect on visual character of the community or 'scenic views or v i s t a s known to be important t o the community? • • • ___ ^ ea X _ _ - . No «__ *es Yes X No A jjo X ______ Yes _____ No 7« 9« 10. -~ 11. 12. 13« ..-_;-'i£ ^ ^ . . 14. 'M'lfimESESsSP^'-'^'-C ' ~£f^^S^'?^'r r \ ^ ' ^ *-^'"•;"'*^li*^&£i~^'^r - •: ^-^ " ' " 15 • Will project adversely impact any s i t e or s t r u c t ure of h i s t o r i c , p r e - h i s t o r i c , or paleontological importance or any s i t e designated as a c r i t i c a l environmental area by a l o c a l agency? • • • Will project have a major effect on existing or future recreational o p p o r t u n i t i e s ? • • • Will project r e s u l t in major t r a f f i c problems or cause a major effect t o e x i s t i n g t r a n s p o r t a t i o n ' systems? • • ' • • • • • • • • • • Will project r e g u l a r l y cause objectionable odors, noise, glare, v i b r a t i o n , or e l e c t r i c a l disturbs ance as a r e s u l t of the project*s operation? • Will project have any impact on public health or safety? • • • Will project affect the existing community by directly causing a growth in permanent population of -ore than 5 percent over a one-year period or have a tea.jor negative e f f e c t on the character 0 *" t h c community or neighborhood?. • I s theDepJblifl^ontrovJ^rly c/mce#ning the p r o j e c t ? »ARER'S Sl&LkVti&drulAJ^ TING: . / / George H. yagn ____ Yes X No - Yes X No ____ Yes v No _—» * e s ^ H° - Y ____ Yes A ' ___ * n0 Y es No X ____ Yes Mo .. . Yes X Yes x /.:- ?, *Mo Mo TITLE: A t t o r n e y DATE: December 1 1 , 1985 j.~" r ^K^fei#Ss& *^m � 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-1985 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_1985-07-18 Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1985 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1985 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/d2aeec3b76703cebb2ad39e4251929e3.pdf 934e0a424ab0dded50aa243c8651b535 PDF Text Text Zoning Board Meeting of November 19, 1985 * \ Present: Absent: John Arcate, Chairman Aldo Ceconi Frank Paolantonio Martin Ruane James Margotta Edward Swabv The Zoning Board met at 8:10 PM to reconvene arid continue the business of the November 7, 1985 meeting concerning the matter of the Mobil Oil Corporation appeal. Mr. John J. Hughes (Lawyer for Mobil Oil) addressed the Board stating that his client would remove the free standing sign at the curb on Broadway and have the new sign in its place. On the canopy the word MOBIL will be in five 16 inch high letters. (Picture of sign shown). Mr. Ruane asked how many such signs there would be. Mr. Hughes answered that there will be one sign which will face north and one will face south depending on the visability. Mr. Arcate asked what will be the square foot area of all signs at the station. Mr. Hughes stated that the signs on the canopy will be 12 square feet and the total will be less than the specifications of the code. Mr. Ceconi asked that the footage requirement as stated in the code book be read. (Mr. Arcate read para.62-15E). Mr. Ceconi made a motion to accept the prints of the applicants architect subject to the agreed to compliance with paragraph 62-15E of the code regarding signs. Motion was seconded by Mr. Ruane. Upon unanimous approval of the Board the applicants request for variance and relief from denial of the permit by the Building1 Inspector was granted in accordance with the code provisions of paragraphs 62-2 arid 62-40C and the findings of the fact from the Hearing and Meeting of November 7. Meeting was adjourned at 8:40 PM. Respectfully submitted, <r Karen McCarthy Acting Clerk -'- t ^*;„.«y; ,», , ^^-.ri ; i<^; ; . ; «:^i--^iK,!;^^ i «.: i , - * « ^ « ^ ^ - " ^ ^ ^ ^ �Zoning Board meeting of November 7, 1985 Present: John Areate, Chairman Edward Swaby Frank Paolantonio Martin Ruane Robert Ponzini, Counsel James Margotta, Building Inspector Absent: Mr. Aldo Ceconi The Zoning Board of Appeals met on November 7, to consider the appeal of Mr. George Kuntz to extend a fence on property which is mapped as a street. Mr. Arcate welcomed all present and the Clerk read the Public Notice. Mr. George Kuntz spoke in his own behalf (copy of his;statements attached to file) explaining the reason for the need of a fence on his property. He also presented the Board with several photographs and written notice of approval from three neighbors. Mr. Kuntz advised the Board that he had notified all residents within 200 ft. of his property of his intent. However, he did not present postal receipts to the Clerk but gave a list of names to Mr. Margotta. Mr. Swaby made it known that this lack of proof would not be considered a precedent. Mr. Thomas Brown of 1544 Bellewood Avenue said that he had no objection to the fence in Mr. Kuntz yard nor did Mr. P. Shaefer of 124 Hunter Avenue who said that the fence is preferable to not having one there at all. Mr. Margotta explained that the Village Code stipulated what can and cannot be fenced in. He pointed out that the Code allows the storage of a boat in the rear yard. Mr. Margotta had previously spoken to Mr. Kuntz and advised him to clean up the area. Mr. Kuntz complied and Mr. Shaefer said he feels the yard looks much neater now. Mr. Arcate told Mr. Kuntz that he and another Board member had inspected his property. The next speaker was Mr. Davis Zimmerman, 360 S. Broadway, Tarry town, who represents Mr. Kennedy, owner of property next to Mr. Kuntz on Bellewood Avenue. Mr. Zimmerman pointed out that the application to build a house on the property was granted by the Planning Board in March, 1985. He also mentioned that the Building Inspector had issued a notice of violation to Mr. Kuntz regarding the fenced in area on the paper street right-of-way. Photographs were presented showing equipment stored on the right-of-way behind Mr. Kennedy's property and two trucks parked on the right-of-way beside Mr. Kuhtz' house. Mr. Zimmerman presented a 1915 map, (showing 50' of land designated as Philipse Avenue) to the Board. He questioned whether Mr. Kuntz owns this paper street or if anyone else can use it? He also feels the property is unsightly and doubts if the Board has jurisdiction to approve Mr. Kuntz request. Mr. Swaby questioned whether or not it is a fact that Mr. Kuntz owns the paper street property. The Board questioned Mr. Kurtz as to whether or not he had a deed to this property (paper street) and if he had it surveyed. Mr. Kuiitz replied, "Yes" to both questions. �-2Mr. Margotta stated that the paper street is supposed to be left open, free and clear, unencumbered, with no storage and no fence. Mr. Ponzini said that this determination is correct, however, Mr. Kuntz disagreed. Mr. Zimmerman pointed out that the fence is on the paper street, and whatever is stored behind the fence, as well as two trucks. Mrs. Olga Blumenfeld, 11 Highland Avenue, spoke to the Board and said that she is in agreement with the Building Inspector and feels that this property should be preserved as originally planned. Mr. T. Brown said that he purchased his home in 1977 and that when it was built in 1960, part of the structure was on the paper street. Mr. Arcate pointed out to him that before 1963 there were no zoning regulations and this situation could be a prevailing non-conformity. Hearing was closed at 8:50 p.m. After a short recess the Board held a business meeting and resumed discussion on Mr. Kuntz request. Mr. Swaby and Mr. Paolantonio agree that the paper street is available to the Village and anything put on it is an encroachment. They also agree this property is now unsightly and should be cleared. Mr. Swaby and Mr. Arcate expressed the view that encroachment on this paper street would hamper the Village if they wished to use this property. Mr. Ponzini advised that there are two problems, 1) storage sheds appear as buildings and must comply with the Code and, 2) the fence appears to be a structure itself used for storage. Mr. Ruane stated that Mr. Kuntz is blocking the right-of-way with his fence and material. Mr. Paolantonio made a motion to deny Mr. Kuntz' request and to confirm the action of the Building Inspector based on Code 62-2. The two storage sheds are on the property line and therefore violate side yard requirements. Boat storage is only permitted in the rear yard. Residential use does not permit storage. The totally enclosed fence constitutes a structure which violates the code in both type of use and location on the site. In addition to these code violations the'use of the right-of-way for material, trucks and a boat constituted an encumberance on the paper street. The paper street now contains a nonconforming structure. Therefore the Board decided that the paper street should not be encroached upon arid that it is a threat to use by the Village. Motion was seconded by Mr. Ruane; all Board members voted in favor of the motion. The Board gave Mr. Kuntz a time limit of 60 days to clear the right-ofway property. The Board informed him that if he made every effort to meet this schedule but needed additional time he could request an extension. Respectfully submitted, Marie Tiramings, acting clerk �Zoning Board meeting of November 7, 1985 Present: John Arcate, Chairman Edward Swaby Frank Paolantonio Martin Ruane Robert Ponzini, Counsel James Margotta, Building Inspector Absent: Aldo Ceconi The Zoning Board of Appeals met on November 7 to consider the application of Vieira's Mobil Service Station for permission to install new fibreglass fuel tanks and construct a canopy over the gasoline pumps. Mr. Arcate welcomed those present and the Clerk read the Public Notice. Mr. John Hughes, counsel for Mobil Oil Corp/Vieira1s Service Station, introduced Mr. James Moran, Senior Real Estate representative from Mobil Oil Corp. and Mr. Richard Ciccotelli, Project Engineer for Mobil. Mr. Hughes also presented to the Clerk, seventeen postal receipts indicating that residents within 200 feet of Sec. 16, Block 13, Lot 3 were notified of applicant's intent. Mr. Hughes explained what changes were to be made by Mobil/Vieira if this application is granted: the addition of new fibreglass gasoline tanks and the construction of a canopy over the service pumps. He proceeded to innumerate several reasons for these changes; 1) the construction will be compatible with the surrounding architecture, 2) there will be improved lighting and improved appearance with state-of-the-art equipment, 3) equipment needed to operate service station will be concealed, 4) there will be no advertising oh the canopy and no price information, 5) the canopy will provide nrotection from the weather to attendants and customers. The Board inspected several photographs which Mr. Hughes presented showing the station as it is at this time and a similar station which has a canopy over the service pumps. The applicant also received an opinion from ALAN GOLDBERG/ELIOT NOYES ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTS, indicating that the flat deck canopy would be an improvement. In reply to many questions regarding the fibreglass fuel tanks, Mr. Ciccotelli, Project Engineer, Mobil, pointed out the advantages of the fibreglass tanks, i.e., they are safer, corrosion proof, state-of-the art and there has not been a problem with the fibreglass tanks or fibreglass piping which is also used. The fibreglass tanks and pipe have been proven sound with an indefinite life. Steel tanks last between 15-30 years. The tanks on the property presently are over 30 years old. Regarding the matter of taking test borings, it was stated that it would be costly to go through this process and the installation of the tanks was explained to the Board. Mr. Arcate suggested that it would be advisable to place the tanks closer to the road than the residence next door, Mr. Arcate stated that the present signage at the Mobil Station is in violation of the Code. He questioned the owners regarding their plans for signs presently on the property. Mr. Hughes and Mr. Moran both stated that although present signage does not comply with the Code, Mobil will conform to Code with the new canopy. There will be no problem controlling signage and there is a mutual agreement �between Mobil and Vieira to limit signage. Hearing closed at 9:30 p.m. After a recess the Board held a business meeting. There was a question about how far the canopy would be from the street. Reply, "it will be 6" from the sidewalk and the smallest canopy will be used". Mr. Swaby felt the large sign at the curb should be removed. Mr. Hughes pointed out that this sign is important to the leasee and reiterated that Mobil will comply with Code and when Mobil' s Marketing people^ have plans for the station they will be given to Mr. Margotta. Mr. Hughes also suggested that work begin on the tanks and canopy and hold off oh a decision regarding signage. Mr. Arcate informed him that the Board will meet again when, they receive the Marketing plans because nonconforming property cannot be given approval unless signage is satisfactory. It was agreed by the Board members that a meeting should be held on Tuesday, November 19 at 8 p.m. at which time the applicants would submit a plan for signs which would conform to the Code. A motion was made and seconded by Mr. Paolantoriio and Mr. Swaby, that a decision be deferred until November 19; all members were in favor of this motion. Mr. Ruane made a motion, seconded by Mr. Swaby, to accept the minutes of the July 18, 1985 meeting. Meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Marie Timmiiigs, acting clerk �— -<««+?--'• APPENDIX B SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM INSTRUCTIONS; (a) In order to answer the questions in this short £AF is is 'assumed that the preparer will use currently available information concerning the project and the likely impacts of the action. It is not expected that additional studies, research or other investigations will be undertaken. (b) If any question has been answered Yes the project may be significant and a completed Environmental Assessment Form is necessary. (c) If all questions have been answered No it is likely that this project is not significant. (d) Environmental Assessment 1. Will project result in a large physical change to the project site or physically alter more than 10 acres of land? *. 2. _ Will there be a major change to any unique or unusual land form found on the site? • • • • • «__* 3. Will project alter or have a large effect on an existing body of water? • • • • • • • • • • 10, 11, 12, es x No y«__, No X ____ Yes ____ No 4* Will project have a potentially large impact on groundwater quality? ....•••••••• 5« Will project significantly effect drainage flow on adjacent sites? •••••• 6. Will project affect any threatened or endangered plant or animal species? • • • • • • • • • • » 7t Will project result in a major adverse effect on air quality? ............ 8. Will project have a major effect on visual character of the community or 'scenic views or vistas known to be important to the community? • • • 9» Yes ____ Yes X No ____ Yes * No X _____ Yes ____ No _ _ * es X No ____ Yes X No Will project adversely impact any site or structure of historic, pre-historic, or paleontological importance or any site designated as a critical environmental area by a local agency? ••• _ *es X So Will project have a major jeffeet on existing or future recreational opportunities? ••• _____ Yes X Ho Will project result in major traffic problems or . cause a major effect to existing transportation ^ systems? •••••••••••• ____ Yes Will project regularly cause objectionable odors, noise, glare, vibration, or electrical disturbance as a result of the project*s operation? • _ *es x No „ N° 13• Will project have any impact on public health or X safety? • • • • • • • • • • • • Yes _ _ _ Mo s --«,•-.1 4 . Will project a f f e c t the e x i s t i n g community by X: ^ *$d2§0'~ ~ ^directly causing a growth in permanent populai?.?$&8&f&&&'-r~ tion of more than 5 percent over a one-year . --vvivv^;;--/..£ period or have a aajor negative effect on the . . x i ^ l r / r .-i-, character of the community or neighborhood? • • V .___, lea Wo ^*~"A''*''- 15. Is tbtot^^i^cp^TovMj yiicefning the project? _ X _ lea »o 'ARBi'rsiGMATT^^ TITLE: A t t o r n e y ! ' • V ;• - aiftv^---'- ^^p^REPRESEirriNC: 7r*// ,/ / r—u I! Geo/gfe H. gatfn •-- -• DATE: December -- " 11/1985 g-? fg&.---.-"-V*-i �z o U. • r3 • c ^ «c .£• o c t; w o t - 2 ci. 3 —, •t~t I* »4-t o 8 > £/ ^* 3 5J~ ** o X sy =m *** rt 5 c^ IT p. -2 CO 2 u « <c3 »-* £i 3 o c35 *it^ J •2 g Z M 3^§ «-» J X s~£ i C r (C ."= vi " 3 Q) & u r** >> cr» M «+-i < J CN s> c o c .£> «H 3 —: a <^ r-l • 'O <u >* rH E-| r H i-3 id < U « vj PU to «,c t: c tovc a i r , o u £ o +J Ov £S CN «H C O M O M O ^ 3 « iWH'rtl) « o y > o S <0«n -«H W C<y» 0 . 0 0 a ^ m OOCM 0 *H to COCM S H •r £ „ 3: .S 2 "5 ^ ^ - t-i C X Q t * *H V O z «: 2 t, 8 J* JK*^-£ X • « — s « y«nu H r cyoso H 00 3 O O i J O O ft. >» *: r-* 4JCM C r H CO - O 2 C B Z ET2 « rt w -s e party and nssi sccor * O c 9 - O • • — "£.<£ • r-* OC-C « « - o 3 ) . c ^ r H CJ\ « AJ *T) CO -S - = C4 0 \ i H M S cc «M (MH«H O g -S " O • *H O O ^ J£ C8XI> « H i s O (3 ©OS O tnS * -.r 5ETH, s. -o 2. <d •^ £_ n-oc 5? = 5 - 8 2 §^ c w w VI • - • «C „"2 %i »; « I-} • * ~ Ji a «*- « c -n O •* a e rt vn T3 J-l O JC t-» 4J Jl ".£.5-2 5 , £ ui *o a» S C C «« n w 4J Q) CO m - J =i 3 4J<X> h < M C •J= <-^ o O O N cam «o cy U ^ c M f c O i J S c - I"B| " -s e - §£ > c o I o c c c w o. S P J= " 6 3 U M -5-.25SK o o u 80 n a> •a-811 cy > • O (4 rH,C ^o: «0 • a>2 X -aS w 5 - s. "o w. rt CO 4-J C0^0)r-« 0 0 « M Pu O Cci CM CO O f-i \C cy • tg,cu >*c* U N c S3 S 1*5 >^ 5~ | V <y r H JC <0 i J CO * £ k ^ J W) • v^lH'OSf c o CCrH p — OCN^I c n CO CQ to 0 ° 5 5 t rt. ~ on •P co o if a» • H 4-» C < U - M cd m C c o •c^ "a M co u o u ^ O P r i O,>>0 W c i i co CN 10 U -H z X : ^ « t>0 <y O & O - P »"5 * J O •; O c 2 « • J : 4J 4J y *ltl« 2 «Q>I <J «H - > to u m ovo<H: cTlg .. 5 P « M f O CW'I O C OC^Ctl H ^ p H O J r T J 41 0) O *U W O 4J U * * r - l CO «H >» « r » - d « H ctftM h Z H O I ^ f l H M CMi-l O O qt I H * 4 J - 4 J - h c s* jz £ c: a»vttJ h +J » S pt T3cy* a> eo £ cy c. o CM a 3 3 J * E > rH < • O rSPs+J » 2 f • zs ex >, > ~» ~ o E j ; a a •* " K > - S z I 8 j,a-*s^^-a«ii«ii&fe*iiaS bM&As:>aMi^sms^ss^S&, �-**- ; HUI _> h- Ui 2 in -1 hh Oo r z aoe uoi o c< oZo H_ l UI X < <. o Q ( / ) => o o o < z coo o t o z »-• co o to ui cc < o Z •-» to cc M J U J o c c or < x ui or { } Q Z U CD CO O J O U. K K oirt/) uj O < CD O l i l U J CC o X 1 CO LU LU QZ UI X X Z ui z > UI Z -I 1—4 < cc Z *r 2: M O O t / 1 - J to < o OH-to a: a. co 3: or ui ^ x z i. 1 -J'. o ui u i < 2: or o O >- >- 0 0 ui uit- on or co UI - I 13 J or < UI UI o oco UI UI o x Ui<(-|-II I Z z z z o OL CL O. or or to to H *£ k o o H W H H H o u. M Z C C N N N N N N N n n n n n n i nX ^O4 O* < UI 0 ^ < 1- cr o u a. zLU 0 z »•* LU 2: D cc 0 K CC O O ** UI or UJ 2 ^ cc cr t o o UJ t/> UI IL _J 0 0 > H frit •». UJ z 0. 13 O (A O *• or LU UI O l- < X < UJ < a hi x < 2 O «J < 1•* o I- cc o o z u ** U to < i 1 A a z UJ 10 a. UI z (A D r to H Ul ** 1- x 0 l- i-» a IZ ki hi X D K < o oc < 8 5 > o z o a o u ^p^'-rgHin rjs w o z u u z III K. hi h. hi _2=-J ac in N. IK hi o UJ IT O Ik hi U hi ac 8 m o z o o LU X I- o 5 t « S * 0 i * S 3 ^ ! • .-S»*^«c*^*-^ wi-fetoiaks HiiAsaia^lss^Efc^feSSe&iafesiSiS^fe^^^S;^^^^^^*' � 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-1985 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_1985-11-07 Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1985 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1985 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/ba73aabbbb245378f85993097ecafce7.pdf b2600c95881b7d93d6217fed3768b21c PDF Text Text Zoning Board of Appeals meeting of December 19, 1985 • Present: John Arcate, Chairman Frank Paolantonio Martin Ruane Chairman Arcate-called the meeting to order . T h e Board met at Village Hall, and there being no new business, considered the minutes of hearings on November 7, 1985 and meetings of November 7, and 19, 1985. November 7th<the Board decided the appeal of Mr. George Kuntz and on November 19th the appeal of Mobil on Broadway. The minutes have been available to the members. No revisions were proposed. Mr. Ruane moved that all of the above referenced minutes be approved as submitted. Mr. Paolantonio seconded the motion. Motion was approved by all members in attendance. No other matters before the Board, Mr. Paolantonio moved to adjourn. Mr. Ruane seconded the motion. Motion approved. Respectfully submitted, John Arcate, Chairman I - A&..: ,^-r i-^;...- ^ - ^ A ^ & ^ f e J ^ : v-aisfe^^^^ � 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-1985 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_1985-12-19 Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1985 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1985 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