1 25 13 https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/b24af55085ab7434fd997af6807215fd.pdf 0d3ec900c745e1617528c182468f68bb PDF Text Text ZONING BOARD MEETING FEBRUARY 13, 1986 Present: Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. John Arcate, Chairman Edward Swaby Frank Paolantonio Martin Ruane Aldo Ceconi James Margotta, Building Inspector Mr. Arcate opened the hearing at 8:10 p.m. and advised those in attendance that they were welcome to address the Board. Mr. Michael Weinstein, Attorney representing Mr. Jose DaSilva, introduced himself and advised the Board that the house in question, located at 104 Rice Avenue and owned by Mr. Jose DaSilva, was constructed as a three family residence and Mr. DaSilva now wishes to receive a variance to return it to a three family dwelling. This house was never structurally changed and there is no internal access from one apartment to another. The previous owner removed the sink and the stove from the kitchen in the third floor apartment but the water and gas supply pipes were never removed. Mr. DaSilva now wishes to install a sink and a stove and refurbish the kitchen so that he can;rent the third floor apartment. Mr. Carmen Capossela, 100 Rice Avenue, addressed the Board stating that the Fire Department is concerned about the excessive number of automobiles that are parked on Rice Avenue and the difficulty that the fire trucks have turning into and out of the street. He pointed out that two new houses in the area have multiple garages and driveway spaces; also, that if Mr. DaSilva receives permission to have a third floor apartmnet in his house, it will add to the many three family houses already in Webber Park. Mr. Capossela strongly expressed the view that this house should be kept as a two family house. Grace Malandrino of 104 Gordon Avenue said that she had no objection to Mr. DaSilva having a third floor apartment and stated that she thought two small apartments would result in fewer cars to be; parked than one large apartment. She also pointed out that she felt Mr. DaSilva had improved his property and that he should be allowed to go ahead with his plans. A letter was read from Marie and James Timmings, 119 Rice Avenue, stating their strong objection to the granting of a variance for a third floor apartment in Mr. DaSilva's house. Mr. Mario DiFelice, 35 Gory Brook Road, questioned whether this house was ever conforming? Mr. Margotta advised him that when the house was built, it was conforming; then the Zoning was changed and the area became a two family zone. The previous owner reverted the house to two family thereby making it a conforming residence. Mr. Weinstein then explained further that Mr. DaSilva purchased this house with the understanding that approval could be obtained to use the house as a three family dwelling. When he discovered that the Building Inspector would not allow him to do this, he went to the Zoning Board for �-2a variance. (The Building Inspector denied his application based on the Code which states that any nonconforming use which falls out of use for twelve months reverts to a conforming use). The Board was advised by Mr. Capossela that Mr. DaSilva was conducting a business in the basement and Mr. Margotta replied that he knew this and has given Mr. DaSilva sixty (60) days to shut down the operation. There were two employees working in the house and the DaSilvas were advised that they cannot employ anyone to work in their house. Mr. Capossela said that if there are industrial machines in the house, the Fire Department must inspect it. Mr. Weinstein informed the Board that the DaSilvas did not know they were in violation when they began their business. Mr. Weinstein concluded by stating that since this house was constructed as a three family house he was asking for a variance; he informed the Board that he felt that the concern about increased traffic and that another apartment would cause additional traffic and parking problems was not persuasive. Mr. Aldo Ceconi emphasized that only two family homes were allowed in this area and therefore the burden of proof is why this house should not remain two family. Mr. DaSilva was reminded that he should have checked on the possibility of obtaining a variance before he purchased the house. To emphasize this point, Mr. Arcate stated that the Code addresses "use" not "type of structure", therefore, when the house was not used as a three family house for a year, it reverted to a conforming use, i.e. two family. Mr. Arcate reminded Mr. DaSilva and his attorney that there have to be very substantial reasons for granting a variance, not reasons for denying a variance and that they should have clarified what the Code stipulated before purchasing the house. It was pointed out by Mr. Weinstein that the DaSilvas were under great hardship at this time and would not be able to keep the house if they could not rent the third floor. Mr. Weinstein felt that this was a substantial reason for granting a variance and the fact that Mr. DaSilva did not anticipate a problem before he purchased the house. Upon a question from Mr. Swaby, Mr. Weinstein informed him that the DaSilvas purchased the house approximately a year and a half ago. Hearing closed at 8:45 p.m. Business meeting followed. BUSINESS MEETING Mr. Arcate polled the Board for their views on this application. Mr. Swaby felt that any hardship has been self-imposed and that it is not the concern of the Zoning Board. Mr. Ruane questioned how many parking spaces are allowed per family. Mr. Margotta said that two spaces are allowed for two families; three*spaces for four families or 1% spaces for two or more families. Mr. Ruane felt that it would be improper to grant a variance for a three family.house in a two family zone under these circumstances. Mr. Cecorii pointed out that there are other houses in the area which do not conform but those three family houses predate the Code and have not fallen into disuse for twelve months. �-3Mr. Swaby felt that any hardship must be substantiated; Mr. Weinstein disagreed. • Mr. Arcate stated that Mr. DaSilva had received the wrong impression and should have applied for a variance before purchase. He pointed out that the code addresses the use of the property, not the individual buyer; also that often prospective buyers inquire about the need for a variance before they proceed with their plans to purchase property. There was no further discussion. Mr. Arcate asked the Board members if they felt the Building Inspector's decision should be affirmed or overruled. Mr. Swaby made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ruane, to affirm the Building Inspector's decision; motion was unanimously approved. Citation for decision was based on 62-40C and 62-2 of the Code. Hearing closed at 8:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Marie Timmings Acting clerk ••.-Ki.'ATWPrft- - : ^.lii^i J=i%ii^iis^ � 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-1986 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_1986-02-13 Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1986 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1986 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/a37e3c7f7599a2874e0ff148748531a3.pdf 1fcbd46bb0d983c31c2b43f4ca20292c PDF Text Text Zoning Board Hearing of March 13, 1986 Jfe Present: ^B John Arcate, Chairman Frank Paolantonio Martin Ruane Robert Ponzini, Counsel James Margotta, Building Inspector Absent: Edward Swaby Aldo Ceconi The Zoning Board hearing of March 13, was held to consider an appeal by Merle L. Rickles of the denial by the Building Inspector of her application for a single family home to be constructed on the easterly side of Evergreen Way. Mr. Arcate informed those residents present that the Board had met to hear their comments after which there would be a business meeting and possibly a decision made regarding the application in question. The Clerk then read the hearing notice. Mr. John Hughes, attorney representing Merle Rickles, presented evidence that notice had been sent to all those residents within 200 feet of the property in question. Mr. Hughes informed the Board that the purpose of the request for an application was to build a single family home on the property listed as Section 11, Block 1M, Lot 13 on the Village Tax Assessment map. ^^ Mr. Hughes explained that the Building permit was denied based on ^Requirements of Village Code 62-8B which stipulates that lot size must be 15,000 square feet and 100 ft. in width; the lot in question is 12,632 sq. ft. and 80.35 ft. Mr. Hughes pointed out that this was one of the original lots in Sleepy Hollow Manor at the time of subdivision. He presented a copy of a deed dated 1967 which was passed from the previous property owner to the Rickles. Mr. Hughes reminded the Board that in 1967 the Zoning Code was amended and it increased the requirement of lot size from 10,000 sq. ft. to 15,000 sq. ft. and the width from 75 ft. to 100 ft. He pointed out that this lot was conforming in 1967 and was thereafter nonconforming when the Zoning Code was amended. Mr. Hughes submitted copies of minutes of the Board of Trustees meeting when the Code change was approved. He quoted from the minutes indicating that the Trustees were aware that there were quite a few lots which did not fit into the need code requirements and that the purpose of the change was to regulate new subdivisions. Mr. Hughes pointed out that the applicant is seeking to make an improvement. to her property and, if she is not allowed to do so, will suffer a hardship; a house on this property would not be a detriment to the neighborhood. • Several area residents then spoke out strongly against any approval of this application. Dr. Jacquelin McNaughton, 7 Pokahoe Drive, pointed out that the location of this property was incorrectly stated in the notice; it is actually on the westerly side of Evergreen Way. Mr. Hughes acknowledged that the designation of the location of this property was indeed incorrect, however, the section, block number, and lot number were correct. (The proper location of the lot was established; it is off Hemlock Drive, toward the South, on the westerly side of Evergreen Way) . �-2Mr. Gary Malunis, 25 Hemlock Drive spoke strongly against granting this application and felt that there was no hardship in this case. He pointed out that there are very few houses like the Rickle' house in this area and that to put another house on the property would diminish the value of the Rickles house. He felt that the Rickles house requires the amount of property that surrounds it at present. • Grace VanBergh, 24 Evergreen Way, Alice Moran, 26 Evergreen Way, and one other resident from Evergreen Way voiced agreement with Mr. Malunis's statement. George Hawes, 29 Hemlock Drive is also very concerned that if a house is built on the lot in question, it will be grossly out of proportion. He pointed out that if there is hardship involved here, the Rickles house could probably be sold for approximately $400,000 to $500,000.and the extra lot for approximately $200,000. He questioned if the Board was 'hearing' the comments being made by the residents. In response to a question from Mr. Walder, Mr. Hughes informed him that the intention is to build a house on the lot and if they are allowed to do so, the structure would have to meet all zoning requirements. The variance to be considered at this time is solely lot width and square footage. Mr. Mark Rogers, 26 Hemlock Drive stated that the spaciousness of Sleepy Hollow Manor is most desirable and to build a house on this lot would lower the standards of the area. ^P Mr. Walder expressed the view that when the Rickles purchased this property they knew that this particular lot was too small to build on and emphasized once again how strongly he opposed granting this application. Mr. Hughes then advised him that when the Rickles purchased the property it was with the understanding that there were three lots and this particular one was nonconforming. Mr. Arcate informed Mr. Walder and the others present of the history of this situation and a similar nonconformity applies to many lots in the area. After more discussion regarding this application and the condition of the property, Mr. Ponzini asked whether or not the Sleepy Hollow Taxpayers Association had been informed of this application. Mr. Arcate said that Mr. Leonard Hyman, a director of SHTA INC., told him that he had only heard of this situation recently. He also mentioned the fact that the hearing had been advertised in the newspapers so that all interested parties could be aware of it. A question asked as to what could be done legally by the neighbors if this application was^granted. Mr. Ponzini advised that an appeal could be made on various grounds to the State Supreme Court and if the application is not approved, the Rickles can appeal or could come back after six months for another application. ^P Mr. Hughes pointed out that there are many lots of similar size to the one in question in this area and Mr. Hughes said that is why the Zoning Code was changed in 1967. Ninety-five percent of the property at �that time exceeded the previous lot size requirements and, therefore, the prior Zoning Code was not representative of the development. Mr. Arcate informed the audience that before the hearing closed, if anyone knew of a substantial reason why this lot is different from any other, nonconforming lot they should inform the Board. Mr. Walder reiterated that there is a strong feeling against granting this application by many residents and he felt it would be wrong to grant a variance just because variances had been granted in the past. The hearing closed at 9:20 on a motion made and seconded by Martin Ruane and Frank Paolantonio, respectively. Respectively submitted, Marie Timmings Acting clerk �Zoning Board Hearing of March 13, 1986 Present: John Arcate, Chairman Frank Paolantonio Martin Ruane Robert Ponzini, Counsel James Margotta, Building Inspector Absent: Edward Swaby Aldo Ceconi ^ 9 The Zoning Board Business Meeting of March 13, 1986. The minutes of the meeting of February 13 were unanimously accepted on a motion made by Frank Paolantonio and seconded by Martin Ruane. Based on the Hearing this evening regarding the Rickles' application, Frank Paolantonio spoke first and said that he felt the decision of the Building Inspector should be upheld and the application denied based on the fact that the lot does not meet the code requirements. • A survey of the property was requested by the Board, however, Mr. Hughes advised that there is no survey available. There was a discussion regarding the rear yard footage, and a clarification of how the existing house was situated on the lot, and the possibility of taking part of the property from the improved lot and adding it to the lot in question. It was also pointed out by Mr. Margotta that the .Village map is not intended to show accurate measurements but only identifies property. The property owner must have a survey done; even the deed does not locate a structure. Mr. Ruane suggested that the question be tabled until accurate measurements are obtained and until the Board knows just how the lots might affect each other. Since application was filed on February 6, the Board has until April 6 to make their decision. The applicant must supply the Board with the necessary data as soon as possible so a decision can be made. Mr. Hughes agreed to a postponement until April 17th. Mr.. Ruane made a motion to adjourn the business meeting and to postpone any decision on this application until April 17th so pertinent information can be received and reviewed. Motion was seconded by Mr. Paolantonio and passed. There was then a short discussion regarding the applications to be reviewed at the Board's next meeting. Board members will inspect the properties involved before the meeting; (V. Albanese, Devries Avenue and Serina, Cedar Street). Mr. Ponzini advised the Board that there is a provision at this time (in Village law) that enables the Zoning Board to have an alternate who can fill in when a member is absent. Mr. Arcate stated that he would wish an alternate to be present at every meeting so if the need arose for the alternate to fill in for a member, he would be cognizant of current topics. ^^ Mr. Ponzini also informed the Board that in the future all applications flptbr variances, subdivisions, site plans must be forwarded to the County. ^H^lanning Board; they have thirty days to render a decision. If they oppose �-2an application and the Zoning Board of Appeals wishes to approve it, the Zoning Board of Appeals must vote a majority plus one. If the County Board wishes to approve and the Zoning Board of Appeals wishes to reject it, the Zoning Board of Appeals must also vote a majority plus one and advise the County of the reasons for overriding their decision. The County must review any application filed after April 1. Mr. Ponzini will send a memo to the Board regarding the above. Business meeting adjourned at 10:00 P.M. Respectively submitted, Marie Timmings Acting clerk �UJestehester County ANDREW P. O'ROURKE County Executive DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING March 14, 1985 PETER Q. ESCHWEILER, AICP Commissioner JOSEPH R. POTENZA, AICP Deputy Commissioner Filomena Fallacaro, Clerk Village of North Tarrytown 28 Beekman Avenue North Tarrytown, N.Y. 10591 Ref. File. No.'s NTN 86-01, 86-02 Dear Ms. Fallacaro: Thank you for the notice of the April 12, 1986 public hearing concerning the following actions: NTN 86-01 Ref. File No.: Action: Side yard variance - garage addition Location: Devries Avenue (local road) Municipal Tax Map: Section 14, Block 29, Lot 2 NTN 86-02 Ref. File No.: Action: front yard variance - parking Location: Cedar Street (local road) Municipal Tax Map: Section 16, Block 8, Lot 5 These matters were referred to the Westchester County Planning Board, and will be the subject of a public hearing to be held by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Our preliminary review of these matters indicates the Westchester County Planning Board has no jursidiction over these proposals, pursuant to the wording of Section 277.61 of the Westchester County Administrative Code. 432 County Office Building • 148 Marine Avenue, While Plains, N.Y. 10601 • 914 285-4404 u J *-:> -.- *•:&-• ^ws ifr.--a;«=^-i.ss-«-.-i. • �Thank you for calling these matters to our attention. If you wish, we will be happy to review any of these matters and give you our professional opinion on their merits. Unless we hear from you to that effect, however, we will take no further action. Peter Q. Eschweiler Commissioner PQE/vyn � 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-1986 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_1986-03-13 Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1986 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1986 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/20185c5335397c8a352faf131913b086.pdf f6771c9951e80dcb164318541e87edcf PDF Text Text The Zoning Board Business Meeting of April 17, 1986 Present: John Arcate, Chairman Frank Paolantonio Martin Ruane Robert Ponzini, Counsel James Margotta, Building Inspector Absent: Edward Swaby The minutes of the meeting of March 13th, 1986 were accepted by a motion made by Mr. Martin Ruane and seconded by Mr. Frank Paolantonio. The first topic of discussion was the disposition of the Rickles' application which was postponed from March 13th in order that a survey of the Rickles property could be made and presented to the Board. Mr. John Hughes presented a copy of the survey of the Rickles1 property to all members of the Board. A discussion followed about lot #12 which is 5.6 feet short of the necessary footage to satisfy the rear yard requirement of the Code. Mr. Hughes also presented to each member of the Board copies of minutes of the Board of Trustees meeting dated October 2, 1967, and copies of Zoning Board meetings dated April 25, 1968, August 21, 1975, August 9, 1977, August 9, 1979. Mr. Hughes stated that these minutes concerned instances similar to the Rickles' application in that the lots under consideration were made non-conforming by the 1967 amendment to the Code. Variances on these lots were granted in every "nstance. w Mr. Phillip Blecker, speaking as a representative of the Sleepy Hollow Taxpayers Association, questioned if the residents could be assured that if this variance is approved, a house built on this property would not be overburdening. Mr. Margotta responded that any house must be built in accordance with Code restrictions even if the lot is under-sized. Mr. v Blecker wished to know if there is any portion of the property that could be added to lot #13 to make it conforming? He was informed that: as shown on the survey presented lot #12 is inadequate as to rear yard and\,no adjustments to bounds could be made to satisfy the insufficient width of lot #13. It was, however, pointed out by Mr. Hughes that some lots in the same vicinity are smaller than lot #13 and have been improved. Mr. Blecker said that the Sleepy Hollow Taxpayers* Association^would go along with the majority of the neighbors who are against granting this application. Mr. Ruane pointed out that the residents in tKis areajpay a premium for their property and do not want to see it become too congested. He said he did not see how the Board could grant this variance. Mr. Arcate advised the Board that they must consider past precedents^ if they are applicable to present circumstances. As Mr. Hughes pointed out, the prior practice of the Board has been to grant such variances. The only" difference in this case is that the applicant is also the owner of the djacent property. Mr. Arcate said that the Board needs to decide on a clear basis to grant or deny the variance. To deny the variance because the rear yard of �-2lot #12 if short less than 61 may be significant enough. Whether there is a question of denial or approval, we require a substantial reason. Mr. Ceconi said that the owner of the property should have known the restrictions of the Code regarding this property when it was purchased. He stated that it is his understanding that the intent of the Village was to upgrade this area when they amended the Code in 1967. Mr. Ceconi also said that he thinks the Board would be differential between residents if it granted this variance after having denied other requests for variances which he thinks are similar to this application. Mr. Ruane made a motion which was seconded by Mr. Ceconi to deny this application. In consideration of the motion to deny the application for the variance the Board reviewed the presentations made at the hearing on March 13th 1936, the minutes of that hearing and the presentations made to the Board at todays meeting. This review was summarized by the Board as follows: 1) The applicant purchased the property several years after the 1967 change in lot width and area requirement. 2) The applicant owns and controls adjacent property (lot #12) which, without the use of land from lot #13 is noh-conforming in regard to the rear yard requirement of 25 feet. The applicant has not made a;demonstration of hardship if the application is not granted. The Board concluded that these factors are circumstantial to this applicant and not typical of the past decisions of the Board cited in the hearing and at todays meeting, that the going requirements were in existence at time of purchase and to presume that a variance would be granted was at the purchasers sole risk. Further, the dependence of the adjacent lot (lot #12), under the same ownership, for rear yard would in effect create two non-conforming lots if the variance were to be granted. Further, based upon these and other presentations at the hearing the Board finds no basis to satisfy the Code provisions of paragraph 62-40C. Finally, the Board concluded that to grant the variance would?not be in keeping with the purposes of the Code as defined in paragraph 62-2. Following the motion the chairman called for the vote of the Board. It was unanimous to approve the motion to deny the request for variance. Mr. Hughes asked for a certified copy of the minutes of this business meeting. The April 17, 1986 business meeting The next discussion was in regard to Mr. ^fcittached, side-yard garage. As shown on ^ s i d e yard of 5'4". The Board recognizes the neighborhood with side yards of less f: . . continued with new business. Albanese's request to buildfari' the site plan, this will leave a that there are otHer houses in than the Code requirement of lO'. . :: �-3There was not any negative opinions presented about this request from the neighbors. Mr. Ceconi said he thinks the Board should grant Mr. Albanese's request; the use is consistent with the prevailing use in the area, it is in keeping with the Code provisions of paragraphs 62-AOC and 62-2 and will not be a detriment to traffic. Mr. Ruane made a motion to grant this variance and Mr. Ceconi seconded it; all the Board voted in favor. The next discussion was on Mr. Serina's request for permission to construct parking for more than two vehicles in an R-5 district. Mr. Ponzini pointed out that parking is allowed in the Code only as an accessory use for residential property. Mr. Paolantonio pointed out that there is a building on this property now and asked Mr. Serina what it was used for. Mr. Serina informed him that the building was used for storage arid that he has owned this property for two years and has been parking automobiles there. Mr. Arcate stated that the Code does permit off-street parking in an R-5 district, if it is related to a conforming use and asked if any member of the Board could see a basis for approval of this request. Mr. Ruane said it should not be used for dead storage; he then made a motion, seconded by Mr. Paolantonio, to deny Mr. Serina's request. The discussion of this application and the circumstances presented at the hearing reveal: 1) at the time Mr. Serina purchased the property its use as a junk yard was a prevailing non-conformity. 2) Mr. Serina upon purchase and since (a period in excess of 12 months) discontinued the non-conformity use. 3) The effect of granting this application would create a new nonconforming use. That is the parking of automobiles solely as off-street parking and/or storage without any related residential use. The Board concluded that none of these circumstances or anything else presented at the hearing satisfied the Code requirements of paragraph 62-40C or met the purpose of Code as defined in paragraph 62-2. Therefore, the property should be used as it is zoned namely, residential zone R-5 and the Board voted unanimously to deny the application and not grant the variance. Mr. Arcate distributed copies of a notice from the Westchester County Planning Board, who must review all requests that come before the Village Zoning Board, that are within 500 feet of a State or County road or a Village boundary. Further, if the Board wishes to decide such matters in a manner different than the County, it will require a vote of four members (majority plus one) . Mr. Arcate told the Board that in view of the County requirement arid as a matter of convenience he proposes that the Zoning Board recommendl to the Board of Trustees that they appoint another member to the Zoning Board to act as an alternate. The Board agreed that this be proposed to the �-4Trustees. Mr. Frank Paolantoriio and Mr. Aldo Ceconi have been reappointed to the Zoning Board by the Mayor and Mr. Arcate extended to them his , congratulations. Mr. Arcate acknowledged Mr. Martin Ruane's letter of resignation and thanked him for his many years of dedicated:service to the Zoning Board. Mr. Ruane made a motion"to adjourn the meeting at 10 p.m: , Mr. Ceconi seconded the motion; all voted in favor. Respectfully submitted, Marie Timmings Acting Clerk �Zoning Board Hearings of April 17, 1986 Present: • John Arcate, Chairman Frank Paolantonio Martin Ruane Aldo Ceconi Robert Ponzini, Counsel James Margotta, Building Inspector Absent: Edward Swaby Mr. John Arcate called the hearing to order at 8:10 p.m. and the Clerk read the hearing notice for Mr. Victor Albanese's application. Mr. Arcate advised those in attendance to state their names and addresses before they spoke to the Board and he explained the order of business for the evening. Mr. Victor Albanese, 62 Devries Avenue, spoke to the Board regarding his application for a variance to build an attached, one-car garage on the east side of his house. Mr. Albanese explained that although there is room for a garage on the back of his house (south side), it will enhance the appearance of the house if it is on the east side. He also presented pictures of his house, a site plan prepared by Turnquist Architects as well as evidence that notices were sent to the surrounding residents regarding his request for a variance. Mr. Robert Powers, 26 Devries Avenue, spoke in favor of Mr. Albanese's application and said that he thought the addition of a garage on the side ^ ^ o f the house would enhance the property. Mr. Paolantonio questioned if there is a garage on the Albanese property now and he was advised that there is not. The chairman asked if anyone else present wished to address the Board. No one responded. Mr. Paolantonio made a motion to close the hearing. It was seconded by Martin Ruane; the Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. The second hearing was in reference to Mr. Stephen Serina's application for a variance. The Clerk read the public notice and a letter received from Arthur Martone, 26 Cedar Street, stating his opposition to the granting of the variance applied for by Mr. Serina. - Mr. Serina addressed the Board and explained that there is adequate space in the front of his property for three or four cars. However, he, stated that since the area is zoned residential, there is a parking'limitation. He presented evidence that notices were sent to the surrounding residents regarding this application. | t | I |; Mr. Margotta asked Mr. Serina how he plans to use this property. He also inquired as to the status of unlicensed and disabled cars parked in this lot. Mr. Serina said that he bought this property so he would have ^storage space for cars. Mr. Margotta also inquired of Mr. Serina his plans ^R;o clean up the rubbish on this property. fe:|g-- - - - Mr. Serina advised the Board that the lot was a junk yard when he �-2- • bought it; he cleaned it up so he could use it for parking. He stated that the cars parked there can be put into working order within a day. When further questioned, Mr. Serina stated that he would not be repairing cars on this property. He said he wants to build a retaining wall and eventually a two or three family house. He has 6,300' of property on Cedar Street. Mr. Arcate-asked*Mr. Serina what the building presently on the property is being used.for. Mr. Serina said{the building is being used as a storage garage. Mr. Arcate also told him that if the property has not been used as a junk yard for twelve months, it cannot in accordance with the code, be operated as a junk yard again. Mr. Arcate said that there must be a distinction made between overnight parking and a principle purpose of storage of cars. Margaret Kantowitz, 18 Cedar Street said there has been a junk yard on the property for 40 years. She said that she is trying to upgrade her property and would like the junk removed because it draws rats into the neighborhood and into her house. Annie Lucas, 32 Cedar Street, said the area looks terrible; there is plenty of junk there that should be cleaned up. .Katherine Krolicki, 16 Cedar Street, wanted to know what kind of , business Mr. Serina is running. If he is running a commercial taxi business, she is concerned about the volume of traffic through Cedar Street which already is burdened with General Motors employee traffic. ^fc Barbara Young, Cedar Street, recently purchased a house on Cedar Street ^^because it is residential and she wishes it to remain that way. She asked if the property in question is us eld for parking unlicensed, undriveable cars will it be considered "commercial"? Mr. Ruane asked Mr. Serina if two parking spaces would be sufficient and Mr. Serina said he needed three or four. The chairman asked if anyone would like to address the Board. responded. No one A motion was made and seconded by Mr. Ruane and Mr. Ceconi, respectively, to close the hearing; the Board voted in favor. Respectfully submitted, Marie Tiiamifigs 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-1986 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_1986-04-17 Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1986 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1986 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/bc19f84781bd6a9f03a0cefc1031b90a.pdf 992ea546fd00d355f190b346e7a3e135 PDF Text Text ZONING BOARD HEARINGS, June 26, 1986 Present: John Arcate, Chairman Edward Swaby Frank Paolantonio Jane Hogan Aldo Ceconi Robert Ponzini, Counsel James Margotta, Building Inspector Mr. Arcate opened the hearings at 8:15 p.m., welcomed everyone, and with the consent of the applicant, the Clerk read the three Public Notices. Mr. Arcate asked if there was anyone who wished to address the Board and then acknowledged Mr. Ralph A. DeRosa, counsel for Mario Brana.. Mr. DeRosa presented evidence that notices were sent to residents within 200' of Mr. Brana's property on Beekman Avenue. The first request for variance, as explained by Mr. DeRosa, applies to the new building that is being erected. Application was submitted to the Zoning Board to have a retail store in the basement of this building. This was not part of the building plans when the Board granted a variance May 9, 1985. The parking facilities for the new building contain fourteen spaces and, with the addition of the proposed retail store there would be four additional parking spaces required. Mr. DeRosa pointed out to the Board that Mr. Brana rents a lot across the street from the premises which contains over twenty spaces which could be used for additional parking. He also expressed the view that many of the fourteen spaces for the dwellings in the new building would be available for use during retail hours. The second variance is for the three dwelling units proposed for the existing Greene County building; again, there is no available parking on the premises other than the present twenty spaces on the north side of Beekman Avenue which are rented by Mr. Brana from Mr. W. Luberger. Mr. Ceconi suggested that perhaps it would be beneficial for Mr. Brana to obtain a long term lease on this property. Mr. DeRosa presented 1 the third application for variance to the Zoning Board for a 'use variance in regard to the Greene County store for storage, packaging, and manufacturing but no retail business on the premises. Mr. DeRosa asked that the Board consider this use variance on its own merits and not as an amendment of the 1956 variance on this property. It was pointed out by Mr. DeRosa that Mr. Brana is not considering enlarging his manufacturing plant which has been in the present building for over twenty years. The change in the use variance would not negatively affect the character of the locale. Mr. Brana has shown the foresight of improving and enhancing Beekman Avenue and would be willing to work along with the Village to improve the area. Edward Swaby and Jane Hogan questioned the nature of the retail business in the basement area referred to in the first application. They were advised that the proposed retail business in the basement would be largely stock storage. On a question from Mr. Swaby, Mr. DeRosa stated that the existing retail business will move into the new building and nothing is proposed "for the front'of the present Greene County store other than storage and packaging, Jane Hogan questioned Mr. Brana about the �front of the present store. She was advised that the windows would be treated with care and no machinery would be visible. The Chairman questioned Mr. DeRosa regarding whether the use variance application is a request to extend the present variance. Mr. DeRosa said it is not but it is a request for a new use variance. It was pointed out by Mr. Arcate that on June 13, 1956 the prior variance was stated in specific terms in a letter to Irving Neimark and a portion of that letter and the Board minutes were read. On a question from the Chairman, Mr. DeRosa stated that he was requesting the Board to make a new and separate determination. Mayor Philip Zegarelli was recognized and he addressed the Board. Mayor Zegarelli stated that it is his desire and the desire of the Board of Trustees and the Economic Council that private investment be;encouraged to upgrade Beekman Avenue, to broaden the tax base, provide additional business and employment, and create additional spending as well as providing additional housing. The Mayor stated that the proposed use of the property and buildings is beneficial. Mr. K. Shoene, 13 Chestnut Street was recognized. Mr. Shoene questioned what is being planned for construction behind Mr. Brana's building. The Chairman informed him that the Village approved plans to improve property on Chestnut Street, however, no building permit has been requested. It was drainage in being drawn for bid and grant. also pointed out that the Zoning Board is concerned about the the Chestnut St. area and Mr. Margotta said that plans are up for improvement of the storm drains. The work is going out the County has awarded money for the work in the form of a The Chairman presented the notices received from the Westchester County Planning Board indicating that they reviewed these applications for variance and found them to be matters for local determination. : The Chairman asked if anyone wished to address the Board; no one responded. A motion was made and seconded to adjourn the hearings. Respectfully submitted, Marie Timmirigs Acting Clerk �Zoning Board Business meeting of June 26, 1986 Present: John Arcate, Chairman Edward Swaby Frank Paolantonio Jane Hogan Aldo Ceconi Robert Ponzini, Counsel James Margotta, Building Inspector The minutes of the April 17th meeting were approved on a motion made by Frank Paolantonio and seconded by Aldo Ceconi. All Board members voted in favor. Mr. Arcate welcomed Jane Hogan to the Zoning Board, the new appointee to the Zoning Board. He also explained to Ms. Hogan that applications for variances must be presented to the Westchester County Planning Board and explained the regulations involved. The Chairman advised that communication had been received from John Hughes, counsel for the Rickles, stating that the applicant does not agree with the April 17, 1986 decision of the Zoning Board. Applicant has not offered any new matters of substance and Mr. Arcate advised that the Board should view this as a matter of record. Discussion followed regarding the hearings on applications made by Mario Brana. In reference to the request for a new variance on 42-44 Beekman Avenue to utilize the premises for manufacturing, storage, and packaging. Mr. Swaby said he did not know why additional manufacturing should be granted. The Chairman read from a letter dated June 13, 1956 addressed to Irving J. Neimark from Patrick J. Powers, J., referring to a variance (manufacturing) as an adjunct to the grocery store. In the February 16, 1956 minutes, Mr. Gerlanc explained that the manufacturing was a secondary part of Mr. Brana's business and the sale of the merchandise was the primary source of business. Mr. Ponzini commented that the April 18, 1985 meeting was based upon the continued use of the existing manufacturing facilities and the retail store. The Chairman restated the earlier decision of the Board to grant approval of application with the provision that off-street parking be provided and space for loading and unloading. Mr. Arcate questioned whether the new applications affect the Board's expectations when we made our approval on May 9, 1986. He questioned whether the Board considers these applications an enhancement. The Board agreed to consider all of the applications in a single discussion since they pertain to the same site as to use and parking. Mr. Arcate pointed out that on May 9, 1986 the Board commended Mr. Brana for his*improvement of his property. However, at the hearing in April 18, 1985, Mr. Brana had no plans for additional use of space and . that in granting the prior request, the Board rightfully assumed a status quo regarding the existing building. Ms . Hogan " pointed out that Mr. Brana does not wish to enlarge his business, simply spread out. Mr. Arcate asked whether manufacturing could be conducted without raw material, without packaging, loading, etc? What is in keeping with the Code? :'- j r*^^^4.*:l*^v-j^r^^^ �Mr. Swaby stated that there is a variance on this property and that the Board would be remiss in altering the variance unless there is reason to do so. On a motion made by Mr. Swaby and seconded by Mr. Cecorii, the Board voted in favor of supporting the decision of the Building Inspector to deny additional manufacturing. All Board members voted in favor. In regard to the application to include retail space in the partially constructed building, the Chairman questioned the Board if they thought the rented parking spaces on the north side of Beekman Avenue would satisfy the Code. Mr. Swaby stated that the space in question is not under the applicant's control and therefore it cannot be bound to a variance. On a question from Mr. Swaby, regarding loss of street parking at the site, he was advised that the May 1985 variance granted a shortage of four spaces, the applications before us carry shortages of four for retail and four for rental units. During the discussion, it was pointed out that it is difficult to make a decision before construction is completed. The applicant is free to reapply for a variance at a later date. Ms. Hogan stated that after construction is completed, it will be obvious who will be using the spaces. The Chairman pointed out that residents and the retail business will utilize most of the space; the difficulty will be with loading and unloading. Mr. Ponzini stated that the parking requirement is very generous, however, if there is a huge demand on a few spaces by residents and retail shops, it will be burdensome. He pointed out that plans are in the making to improve parking from Washington Street to Lawrence Avenue which will provide additional parking. Mr. Arcate stated that Greene County is presently nonconforming because thereis no off-street parking. Mr. Swaby made a motion, seconded by Mr. Paolantonio, to support the decision of the Building Inspector to deny additional retail use. All Board members voted in favor. The next application to be discussed was the one regarding the three dwelling units which are being proposed for the existing building and which will require 3.6 parking spaces per unit. The number of spaces required for the present Greene County retail store is one per 200 sq. ft. The retail store is nonconforming because there is no off-street parking. Mr. Swaby stated that he does not favor : the suggestion that Mr. Brana continue to lease the lot on the north side of Beekman Avenue. Mr. Arcate said that such a plan is not a remedy since the owner would make a permanent addition to the building but the off-street parking would be temporary use of an others land. Mr. Swaby stated that he supports the decision of the Building Inspector and made a motion to that effect, seconded by Mr. Paolantonio; all Board members voted in favor. In deciding each of these applications the Board considered the facts �-3- presented with no arguments of,hardship on the;part of the owner or benefit on the part of the Village. It's findings in all three decisions are based upon the Code as stated in paragraphs 62-2, 62-25 and 62-40C. Mr. Arcate"pointed"out.that the hearings scheduled for July 3, 1986 have been rescheduled for July 10, 1986. He also suggested that the Board members;individually visit the Maceyak property on Anderson Avenue before the July 10th"meeting. Mr. Margotta will point out to the Board members deficiencies in the lot in question and why more than one variance will be required. Business meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, -i? 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-1986 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_1986-06-26 Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1986 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1986 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/873c443bbc1bb19950bb74b189a16cbf.pdf 70fe94779a03ad1432b2f06ff49f386b PDF Text Text \ Zoning Board Meeting of July 10, 1986 Present: John Arcate, Chairman Aldo Ceconi Frank Paolantonio Edward Swaby Jane Hogan Arthur Brady, Attorney James Margotta, Building Inspector Chairman Arcate called the meeting to order at 8:10 P.M. The clerk read the public notice regarding Stephen Maceyak's application from a decision by the Building Inspector in denying a building permit for the construction of a two-family residence in that the required area for the construction of a two-family residence is 4,000 sq. ft., together with a side yard requirement of 25 feet. The instant parcel contains an area of 3,400 sq. ft., together with a proposed rear yard of 7 feet. A letter dated July 9, 1986, to the Board from Mr. Maceyak was then read to all, in which Mr. Maceyak stated he was withdrawing his request for a zoning variance. The Board took notice of both the public notice and Mr. Maceyak's letter. Chairman Arcate asked if anyone else present wished to address the Board regarding the above. There being none, a motion made by Mr. Ceconi, seconded by Mr. Swaby was approved by the Board to end the hearing for Mr. Maceyak and to proceed to the next item. The clerk read a public notice to all present regarding an application of Mr. Manuel Rodriguez from a decision of the Building Inspector in denying a building permit to construct a two story addition to his house in an industrial district that permits no residential use. The property is located at 21 Hudson Street. Mr. Rodriguez addressed the Board, explaining how the two story addition was needed due to the number of people in his family, and that moving to a larger home would be an economical hardship. Chairman Arcate asked Mr. Rodriguez if he had proof of notice that all neighbors within 200 feet of his property had been notified"of tonight s hearing. Mr. Rodriguez said he had, and submitted such certified mail forms to the clerk. It was noted that the proposal is for an extension to the rear of his house. i- i Mr. Margotta advised the Board that the proposed would be built on a lot purchased from the Village. Mr. Margotta also said that an architect is designing the proposed addit ion. The new rear lot Mr. Rodriguez purchased is 20 feet long, which more than satisfies residential zoning requirements for a rear yard. Mr. Ceconi asked if this house is presently a two family house, to which Mr. Margotta said it was. _=-^v->-^,- ->'_-M ^;^-^j^*^i^fe,^>br..--^- ^--^^^^^^J^^^^J; ~yt^j^:Pii~^i-E^eA^^hii:.:i.i, ^^•>.^fej^^.itf-a4^<Ja-^fa,aiMiM �-2Chairman Arcate noted the various reasons on Mr. Rodriguez's application for seeking the variance as before noted: a) He can no longer accomodate his growing family, and b) He cannot afford to buy a larger house. Chairman Arcate asked and Mr. Rodriguez confirmed that said reasons were why an extension to his present house was needed. Mr. Paolantonio asked Mr. Rodriguez how long he has been living at 21 Hudson Street. Mr. Rodriguez said it has been 7-8 years. Mr. Ceconi noted that in spite of the area being classified as industrial, Hudson Street is a residential area. Chairman Arcate asked if there were any further questions or comments for the hearing. There being none, a motion to end the hearing was made by Mr. Paolantonio, seconded by Mr. Ceconi and was unanimously approved. Chairman Arcate invited all present to stay while the Board would hold its business meeting. BUSINESS MEETING Chairman Arcate noted that minutes of the June 26th, 1986, meeting were not yet available, but would soon be mailed to all Board members. He noted the Board's next meeting is to be pn July 24th, 1986. He asked if there was any old business to discuss. Chairman Arcate suggested and the Board agreed that the members will consider a revision to the present Zoning Codes. Village attorney Robert Ponzini has been asked to provide a copy of available model codes. Mr. Swaby suggested that a specialist in Zoning codes help with a new code. Chairman Arcate responded that the Board should first make an attempt and learn more before seeking outside help. Mr. Margotta noted that a county building code will be adopted by the Village. This can be put in booklet form, easily legible and understandable for the general public. Chairman Arcate asked Mr. Margotta to please send copies to all Board members once the booklets are issued. The Board moved on to new business. It was asked if anyone had questions re: Mr. Maceyak's request which Had been withdrawn. Mr. Margotta explained to Board members the reasons stated in his June 12, 1986, letter to Mr. Maceyak for denying his application: a) The required lot size is 4,000 sq. ft. and a rear yard of 25 ft., which wouldriotbe met as required in Section 62-8B of regulations, and b) his 4 lots cannot be divided into 2 lots, which would violate Section 62-12, area A & B. �Mr. Galgano, Chairman of the Planning Board, was present. He explained to the Zoning Board members how Mr. Maceyak approached the Planning Board first and had been denied by them. Re: The Rodriguez's request: Mr. Margotta said even though Hudson is zoned for industrial use, the Board should consider letting people improve existing homes. Chairman Areate suggested that the Zoning Board could present the Board of Trustees with a letter stating that the Zoning Board feels Hudson Street should not be zoned as an industrial area, but returned to its original residential area. Mr. Paolantonio commented that the extension would help the owner's family on the first floor, but is a second floor needed? a move would allow for an increase in rent. Such Chairman Arcate said the granting of a variance would be in keeping the house in character with the rest of Hudson Street. ' Mr. Ceconi noted that if Hudson Street was zoned residential, Mr. Rodriguez would not have to seek a variance. Mr. Swaby noted that such a move would cut into possible use of industrial space. Chairman Arcate read Chapter 62-25 from the Zoning Code, pages 6246 and 6259 that say when required findings show that due to certain circumstances one is kept from use of his (or her) property, such relief shall be granted. Ms. Jane Hogan asked'if the Board was creating an impairment by granting such a variance? She; stated she could see no such impairment. Mr. Swaby said that the same point could be used for keeping the lot industrially zoned. Ms. Jane Hogan noted that said lot had never been used for industrial purposes. Mr. Swaby said that he felt the Zoning Board would be defeating the purpose of that land being for industrial use should the Board grant the variance. Mr. Margotta said he felt as long as the number of families allowed to live in the house remains as is now, he could foresee no problem. Mr. Swaby said he was concerned this might call for parking spaces being needed. Mr. Ceconi then made a motion that the Zoning Board grant the x applicant (Mr. Rodriguez) a variance and reverse the Building Inspector's decision. This variance would be granted in accordance with Paragraph 62-2, 62-25 and 62-40C and the understanding that the house remain a two family dwelling. The motion was seconded by Mr. Paolaritonio, and the vote was unanimous. Chairman Arcate then read a note'.. from Village Clerk Filomena Fallacaro that some applicants Had informed her that they had been told by a Board member that no Building permit (s) were needed. Such is not the case - building permits are required. Chairman Arcate asked if there was any further businessrfor the Board to consider. There being none, a motion to adjourn tonight's meeting was made by Mr. Paolantonio seconded by Mr. Ceconi and �-4- carried unanimously. Respectfully submitted, Linda Fukuchi Acting clerk « Plf m -- -JJ y.t- ..-.JA'JSO •J&^S:v^~^«fA-;rOT-i4^v»j;i%^,4^ � 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-1986 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_1986-07-10 Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1986 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1986 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/14945600e8d20bb1bd1af796a3720b91.pdf c1b7a8a46db3530c69a7eb5cae2b30f9 PDF Text Text ZONING BOARD HEARINGS, July 24, 1986 Present: • Jane Hogan, Acting Chairwoman Edward Swaby Frank Paolantonio Aldo Ceconi James Margotta, Building Inspector Absent: John Arcate, Chairman Robert Ponzirii, Counsel Acting Chairwoman Jane Hogan opened the hearings of July 24 at 8:15 p.m. with three applications to be considered. The Clerk read the Public Notice regarding James H. Karr's application. At the request of the Chairwoman, Mr. Karr presented his reasons for applying for a variance. He wishes to build a house and believes he has ample property. Mr. R. Turnquist, Mr. Karr's architect, drew the plans which were forwarded to the Village. The proposed house would divide the existing 25 foot frontage on Webber Avenue.. Mr. Karr stated that he has received no opposition to his plans to build a house on this property. Mr. Karr presented evidence that he informed residents within 200 ft. of his property of his application for a variance. The Village Clerk has received a letter (copy attached) from the" New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, stating that "As this parcel is in ^^the most southerly portion of the future Preserve and away from any trails ^Por vistas, a building will not affect or alter the public use of the Preserve". The letter received by the Village Clerk from Westchester County Planning Board was read which indicated that this matter is for local determination, however, they listed two items which should be considered by the Zoning Board. Copy of this letter is also attached. Mr. Karr presented his plans to the Board members for their review. Mr. Edward Swaby stated that it seems that Mr. Karr is requesting two variances; one to allow a frontage of 12% ft. for the existing house and one to allow a frontage of 12% ft. for the proposed house. Mr. Karr informed him that the present driveway is 25 ft. which can be left as is or divided, whichever is decided upon. Mr. Swaby questioned whether or not Mr. Turnquist gave any consideration to building rooms above the existing residence or building on the back of the existing residence. Mr. Karr said that they did give consideration to these possibilities but decided a separate building would be more feasible. Mr. Karr's daughter, Kathleen Navarrete, 153 Webber Avenue, explained that her father's property will have to be divided at some future time and she thinks it will be easier if it can be accomplished at this time. • Mr. Paolantonio questioned whether Mr. Karr received..a variance when he : built his residence with a 25 ft. frontage instead of 50; ft. Mr. Karr said is house is approximately 30 years old and when he built his present house, is property had a 138 ft. frontage. �-2There were no further questions or discussion. Mr. Swaby made a motion to close the hearing and it was seconded by Mr. Ceconi. On a unanimous decision, the hearing was closed. The second hearing referred to an application by Heinz and Marja Kloecker of 22 Hemlock Drive. Mr. Kloecker spoke to the Board and pointed out his reasons for requesting a variance. He and his family have lived in the Village for 7% years and now have three children and need another bedroom and bathroom. Mr. Kloecker has considered other alternatives, however, they were unaffordable. The proposed addition is minor and the architectural character of the existing.residence will not be changed nor will it have a negative affect on neighboring property. Mr. Kloecker stated that he believes that the addition will not decrease rather the value of neighboring homes and the value of the property will increase. Mr. Kloecker presented evidence that he informed all residents within 200 ft. of his request for a variance and he has not received any negative responses. Notice has been received from the Westchester County Planning Board stating that this matter is of no concern to the County but is a matter for local determination. Copies of the site plan were given to the Board members to review. Ms. Hogan asked the Board for their comments. Mr. Swaby questioned whether or not the Sleepy Hollow Taxpayers Association had been notified and if so, what if any response they made. He was informed that the SHTA was notified and no response has been received. ^P Mr. Ceconi informed the Board that the Village Clerk sends notification of applications for variances to the SHTA and suggested that an applicant send notice to the Association himself. Bonnie Abruzese, 14 Lakeview;Avenue, spoke in favor of,the addition Mr. Kloecker wishes to build. She stated that the immediate neighbors are all in favor of allowing Mr. Kloecker to make this addition. Ted Widmayer, 15 Lakeview Avenue, stated that the Kloeckers have been responsible residents and have kept their property in.excellent condition. He thinks the proposed addition 'will'/not negatively :af feet the area arid l stated that Mr. Kloecker has gone about the process of requesting a variance in an appropriate manner and all the neighbors have had ample opportunity to review his proposed building plans. He also stated that he thinks there would be very little visual impact with this addition. Mr. Paolantonio made amotion to close the hearing on this application; it was seconded by Mr. Swaby and unanimously approved. m &~ Ifc n The third hearing was to consider the application of Jerry Garafalo for a permit for a new floor, paneling, couritertop, table/chairs, and an oven in his deli. ; .-v*i: Mr. John Hughes, Counsel representing Mr. Garafalo,.; presented evidence at residents within 200 ft. of the property in question were riotifiedvbf is application. Notice was received from the Wes tchester County Planning • Board and he explained to the Board that Mr. Garafalo, who does business as "Uncle Jerry", operates a deli at 364 No. Broadway where he has been for five �-3years; he has been in business in the Village for 15 years. On January 17, Mr. Garafalo applied to the Building Inspector to install a new floor, paneling, countertop, table/chairs, and an oven. This request was denied based on the fact that this would change the description of the business from a deli to a restaurant which is not allowed under C-l of the Code. • Mr. Hughes informed the Board that he is asking that Mr. Garafalo be allowed to continue using his deli; he is not changing the character of his business, only refurbishing the existing store and providing a place for customers to sit while waiting for orders. There are no waiters/waitresses in the deli and it should not be considered a restaurant. Notice was received from the Westchester County Planning Board that this matter is for local determination. To allow Mr. Garafalo to make these changes would have no adverse affect on the area; in fact, this is a higher use than the surrounding businesses. To deny this application would be to deny Mr. Garafalo the ability to conduct his business. There will be no additional traffic as a result of this change. Mr. Garafalo has a neat looking store, quality food, and loyal customers. Therefore, Mr. Hughes stated, he requests the Board to allow Mr. Garafalo to continue the operation of his deli and to make the necessary improvements. • Mr. Paolantonio pointed out that Mr. Garafalo has been using this oven for the past eight months and installed it without permission from the Building Inspector. Mr. Margotta stated that a building permit is necessary before any improvement of over $100 is made. Mr. Garafalo agreed that the oven was purchased and the improvements begun without a permit, however, he indicated ttiis-was not done intentionally. Mr. Margotta said that his main concern is that there is one table and one counter but that in the future there may be more tables, etc. He is concerned about the take-out business; if the pizza business increases, there is insufficient parking for customers. Upon a question from Mr. Swaby; Mr. Garafalo explained that before he had the present oven, he used a steam table to heat food; he also needs the new oven for his catering business. f ~f' . \ - %ti'/ fr gV Mr. Ceconi pointed out that it is not the oven nor the fact that the store has been fixed up but the fact that there is a table and chairs that is the cause for concern. Table and chairs make a business a restaurant which does not comply with the Code. ' • - _ _ - Mr. Hughes stated that the table and chairs are used only for people who are waiting for orders and there is no intention of placing additional tables and chairs in the deli. There were no further questions from the Board. Mr. Ceconi made a motion to close the hearings; Mr. Paolantonio seconded the motion. Respectfully submitted, Marie Timmings, acting �wo%. • g w vow STATE * N»w York Slate OHIce of Parks, Recrtttlon and KIttoric PrwervaMon Taconic Region—Staatsburg, New York 12580 914-889-4100 Orin Lehman, Commissioner Uluss (Gus) Thompson, Regional Director Commiwion Members: J—nm F. Lawisohn. Chairman l«on R. Bloom. Vice Chairman P»u« R. Montana Charlvt E. Tarhune J. Hanry N M I O . Jr. Thomas D. McCann WWiam Sloan Qnwnawalt Rockefeller S t a t e Park Preserve 132 Bedford Road North Tarrytown, N.Y. 10510 J u l y 2 3 , 1986 Miss Filomena Fallacaro Village Clerk Village of North Tarrytown Dear Miss Fallacaro, f> This letter is in reference to the appeals application of James Karr to obtain a building permit in the Village of North Tarrytown. He wishes to construct a residence on a piece of property which is adjacent to what has been identified as a "subsequent gift" of land to the State of New York, establishing the Rockefeller State Park Preserve. As this parcel is in the most southerly portion of the future Preserve and away from any trails or vistas, a building will not affect or alter the public use of the Preserve. In addition, consistent with the Environmental Impact Statement, development of adjacent areas will help to mitigate the tax loss as more gift property leaves the tax rolls. Although the issue at hand is the lot width, I hope that these comments are helpful. fincexely. cc : Ray Goll Robert Snyder An Equal Opportunity Employer "i&' ••*-.j-«.'i jbti ,tBS«Si*ffl^fc*teV:S*C^e3SJ«ttal riMZh&U&^iSttitf^Jism t&S-£e£&£4t?Sf& '^k^m^^^^k^^^^^^^^^ �ZONING BOARD BUSINESS MEETING July 24, 1986 Present: Jane Hogan, Acting Chairwoman Edward Swaby Frank Paolantonio Aldo Ceconi James Margotta, Building Inspector Absent: John Arcate, Chairman Robert Ponzini, Counsel In regard to the first hearing of July 24, on an application submitted by Mr. James Karr, Mr. Swaby made a motion to hold off on a decision until the August 7 meeting because the Board was not complete in that there was an acting Chairwoman and Counsel was not present. Mr. Paolantonio seconded this motion; all Board members voted unanimously in favor of the motion. The second hearing regarding Mr. Kloecker's request for a variance to add a bedroom and bathroom to his home was considered next. Mr. Swaby stated that there did *not seem to be any difficulty with this request; there is no encroachment of any significance. The SHTA has not contacted the Board with an opinion and therefore Mr. Swaby made a motion to grant this request in accordance with Section 62.40 (C) (1). ? (1) Required findings for variances. • Every variance granted by the Board of Appeals shall be by resolution and shall contain a specific finding or findings, establishing _that: -, :, (a) There are special circumstances or conditions, fully described in the findings, applying to the land or buildings that do not apply generally to land or buildings in the neighborhood. (b) I !£: | fc; p H'X g?^ Said circumstances or conditions are such that the strict application of!the-provisions of jthe"ordinance would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the land or building. (c) For reasons set forth in the findings, the granting of a variance is the only means for the reasonable use of land or buildings. (d) The variance as granted by the Board of Appeals is the minimum variance that will permit the reasonable use of the land or building. (e) Such relief can1be granted without substantial detriment to the public good arid without substantial impairment to the intent arid purpose of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Ceconi seconded, to prevent undue economic hardship, the motion and all Board members unanimously approved the motion. �After a short discussion on the third hearing regarding Mr. Garafalo's request, it was pointed out by Mr. Paolantonio that there is no difficulty with Mr. Garafalo continuing his business as he is doing at this time; this includes the use of the new oven, the countertop, and new .flooring. The matter.of concern is the possibility of additonal tables and chairs which would require additional parking spaces. Any addition of tables would cause the business to be classified as a restaurant and this does not meet with the Board's approval. Mr. Margotta advised the Board that each additional table would require an additional; parking space. Additional^retail business would also require more parking spaces. The Board is concerned that Mr. Garafalo made the improvements to the deli without a permit. At the end of -'a short discussionr Mr. Ceconi made a motion to grant Mr.Garafalo's request with the stipulation that only one table and four chairs be permitted for the convenience of the customers. It was further understood by the Board that such limited additions would not change the character of the business from a deli to a restaurant. Mr. Paolantonio seconded this motion and the Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. The business meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. on a motion by Mr. Ceconi, seconded by Mr. Paolantonio. 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-1986 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_1986-07-24 Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1986 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1986 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/a6b2880329362048d2fcd901a7e68ed5.pdf 0ec6c4a03b2e30a09e1ca566ba355eae PDF Text Text f ZONING BOARD HEARINGS - August 7, 1986 Present: Jotfn Arcate, Chairman Edward Swaby Frank Paolantonio Jane Hogan Aldo Ceconi Arthur Brady, Counsel James Margotta, Building Inspector Chairman Areate opened the Zoning Board Hearings at 8:05 p.m. There were two hearings scheduled and the Clerk read the Public Notice regarding the application made by George Kuntz. The;Clerk also read a letter dated August 2, from Mr. Kuntz requesting a postponement of the hearing due to his absence from town on August 7. Mr. Kuntz stated that he would be back August 18, 1986. Mr. Arcate asked if there was anyone in attendance who was representing Mr. Kuntz; there was no reply. Mr. Arcate then stated that the Board was open for a recommendation that the hearing be closed and another hearing scheduled on or after August 18 when Mr. Kuntz would be available, at the convenience of the Village and Mr. Kuntz. It was pointed out that the postponement will make it necessary for Mr. Kuntz to notify, once again, all property owners within 200 ft. of his property and another Public Notice will have to be placed in the newspaper. Mr. Brady reiterated that the Village must advertise the time and place of whatever hearing is rescheduled. lrf: : Mr. Arcate suggested that'[ the hearing?be postponed to whatever evening the Zoning Board has another scheduled hearirig, i.e., the next scheduled date after August 18. Mr. Paolantonio made a motion that the Kuntz hearing be rescheduled on or after August 18 at the convenience of the Village and Mr. Kuritz. Mr. Swaby seconded this motion and the Board agreed unanimously. First hearing closed. The Clerk read the Public Notice regarding the application made by Attilio Praino, 26 Hudson Terrace, for the construction;of a single family residence. The Clerk also read a letter received by the Board from Mr. John J. Foglia, 33 Hudson Terrace, stating that, "....tKe construction of a house on the property in question"(Sec. 17, block 13, lots 4N, 4P) would create more congestion and a bigger parking problem on our street". Mr. Foglia is against allowing construction on this property. | ;I Mr. Margotta pointed out the details of'the plot plan and clarified that lot number 4P is shown as 4 and 4N is shown as 5 on the plot plan. |e |5 Chairman Arcate questioned whether or riot anyone wished to address the Board and if there were any questions about what was before the i^-i-'- Board. Hi--. f Miss Janet Gandolfo, 35 Beekman Avenue, Counsel for the Power family, 30 Hudson Terrace, addressed the Board in reference to lot #4P. 4v:^?-'Vi-'iW'i^, V « - S ^ J i ^ �-2- fe w Miss Gandolfo stated that lot #4P would also need a variance, and perhaps a number of variances, depending upon what the owner plans to do with the property. She requested that the Board consider both pieces of property, lot 4N and 4P at this time. There are objections to certain items of this proposed building. Miss Gandolfo pointed out that the front property line of lot 4P, is 40' wide while the rear, property line is 39.95'. Also, she stated that the architect indicates 3' on one side and 9' on the other side of the proposed building. She stated that therefore, one of these properties has a shorter side yard. She also stated that perhaps a variance should be required for the rear yard and she questioned what provision had been made for parking. Mr. Arcate informed Miss Gandolfo that the Board will consider this application in its totality. Mr. Ralph Cellante, 34 Hudson Terrace, stated that he would be happy to have a new home on the street and he did not feel it would be detrimental since Mr. Praino will provide his own off-street parking. Miss Gandolfo asked where Mr. Praino planned on putting the off-street parking. She was informed that there will be a two-car garage in the front of the proposed house and that the rear yard would exceed 25'. Miss Gandolfo stated that the Power house is about 6 1/3' from Mr. Praino's property and, if the house is constructed as planned, the new house will be about 9' from the Power house. Miss Gandolfo said that the proposed house should be closer to Mr. Praino's house rather than closer to the Power house and she requested that the house be made smaller or ^ ^ moved closer to Mr. Praino's house. Miss Gandolfo also stated that the ^ ^ Board should restrict the proposed building to a one-family house. Mr. Praino was requested by Mr. Arcate to answer the questions being posed regarding his proposed building. Mr. Praino said he is only asking for permission to build a single family house with a two-car garage in the front of the house. Mr. Arcate asked Mr. Praino why he wished to locate the house with a side yard of 9' to the south and 3' to the north. Mr. Praino said that he did not care if this is changed. Mr. Swaby pointed out that there would be nine feet between the Power house and the proposed building and 10.56 feet between the proposed building and Mr. Praino's residence since the Power house is 6' from the property line. Mr. Margotta indicated that there are no measurements for the rear yard on the plot plan and there should be; he also requested that he be advised in writing of the height of the proposed building. • If Mr. Praino intends to use the proposed house as a single family dwelling, Miss Gandolfo said that.she does not feel it would cause a hardship to move the proposed house closer to the existing house. Miss Gandolfo also said that there should be a stipulation in the variance, if granted, stating that this building should only be a single family dwelling. The Village Clerk received a communication from the Westchester �-3County Dept. of Planning, indicating that this matter is for local determination. There were no further questions from the Board, therefore, Mr. Arcate requested that a motion be made to end the hearing. On a motion made by Frank Paolantonio and seconded by Aldo Ceconi, it was unanimously agreed to end the hearing at 8:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Marie Timmings, acting clerk m �ZONING BOARD BUSINESS MEETING - August 7, 1986 Present: John Arcate, Chairman Edward Swaby Frank Paolantonio Jane Hogan Aldo Ceconi Arthur Brady, Counsel James Margotta, Building Inspector The first order of business was to approve the June 26 minutes. Upon a motion made by Mr. Swaby and seconded by Miss Hogan, the minutes were approved. The minutes of the July 24 meeting were received; at the August 7 meeting and before they were approved, Jane Hogan pointed out a section of the business meeting of July 24 which she felt should be clarified. She asked the Board if they understood her statement which appeared in paragraph three on page 2. The Board understood the statement as written and Frank Paolantonio made a motion to accept the minutes. Motion seconded by Aldo Ceconi and the entire Board approved the minutes. Mr. James Karr's application was considered next. Mr. Arcate who was absent from the July 24 meeting, was advised of what had transpired during that meeting. Mr. Swaby pointed out that the property under consideration is nonconforming and, in effect, Mr. Karr wishes to subdivide his property. Mr. Margotta informed the Board that Mr. Karr has gone to the Planning Board and they in turn referred him to the Zoning Board. Mr. Arcate was then apprised of the arguments for and against the granting of this variance: The letter from the N.Y. State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation which stated that they had Westchester County setting forth two cautionary measures: (1) ".... require special care and*design during site planning since the second house would basically be in the rear yard of the other"......" they are not considered as a best planning practice at this density". (2) "Detailed plans for modification of curb cuts on Webber Avenue should be forwarded to the Westchester County Dept. of Public Works for their review and approval". Mr. Paolantonio asked if we could choose to go against their recommendation. He was advised that the County only'issued a 'caution' and a vote of three members from the Zoning Board could decide the matter. If the County stated a definite recommendation, then we would have to have a vote of four. Mr . Arcate pointed out that the • existing. Code was not * in: effect when Mr. Karr bought his property. The Code is designed to prevent this type of construction. He stated that the Zoning Board "may not be in a position to make a decision if it results in two houses on one lot. There needs to be a subdivision. �-2Mr. Turnquist, Mr. Karr's architect, said that he understood that the Planning Board did not have a problem with this proposal. If the Planning Board grants a subdivision, Mr. Arcate said that the Zoning Board might have no option. If the'Planning Board does not allow a subdivision, Mr. Karr will not be able to build. Counsel Arthur Brady stated that before the Planning Board made a decision, they wanted it to be conditional upon a proper building permit. Property should hot be subdivided when a building permit is unobtainable. If the Zoning Board grants a variance, the Planning Board could act. Mr. Turnquist said that there are many nonconforming lots on Webber Avenue and he does not consider that it would be a problem if the Board granted a variance nor would it be establishing a precedent. There are almost 10,000 sq. ft. of property being proposed, conforming in every way other than the frontage. Mr. Swaby pointed out that this property has unusual features, i.e., size and shape, and these features seem to have been self-imposed. This self-imposed hardship is not a basis for a decision; economic hardship is. If a variance is granted, it should be with the stipulation that the driveway remain at 12%' rather than a 25' driveway. Mr. Swaby is concerned about future owners. Mr. Margotta is in'agreement with a 12%' driveway. He quoted from the Code, pg. 6244, COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL USES. Mr. Swaby also said that a family relationship should not be a reason for granting a variance, that the Board should consider a requirement for an easement, so that there would be difficulty for two parties in the future. Mr. Arcate said that the Board could grant a variance and state that: . the driveway should not be altered. In the future, as long as the neiv loi: is nonconforming, any future owner wishing to alter the driveway would require a variance. Since the property is nonconforming, future Boards would have to make a decision about the driveway. The Board should not make a driveway easement conditional to granting a variance. Mr. Paolantonio made a motion to grant a variance to Mr. Karr to build a one family house, seconded by Mr. Cecorii. The motion was that the variance would be conditional upon the Planning Board approving the subdivision to create the new parcel as shown on the site plan dated June 9, 1986. The reason for proposing the granting of this variance is that the Zoning Board gives attention to practical difficulty of the use of this new parcel when created by the Planning Board, in that it meets all other requirements of the Code, does not impact the character of the community adversely, and to deny it would deny the owner of the use of his property. The Board also takes note that the applicant does not intend to build a second driveway and, therefore, this should not be included in this'building permit, however, this is not a requirement of the variance. Building a second driveway would require another variance since the property is nonconforming. All Board members voted in favor of granting this variance. In regard to the hearington Mr. Praino's application, Mr. Swaby indicated the concern is the distance between houses and that he could see thing wrong with the plan as rendered, i. e. , 6 ' plus 3' or 9' between the oposed building and the house to the north; this 9' would also be suitable for fire apparatus if necessary. Jane Hogan agreed with Mr. Swaby. �-3Mr. Ceconi said it should be 4' on the north side of the proposed building. Mr. Arcate commented that there is nothing that says that the house cannot be moved one foot one way or another. The garage as shown on the plans and the rear yard are in accordance with the Code. If the application is granted, the builder should state the fact that the proposed building meets the 35' height requirement. • Mr. Swaby made a motion in accordance with Code Paragraph 62-2 and 62-40C, seconded by Mr. Paolantonio, that the side dimensions should be., 1 4 on the north side of the proposed house and 8' on the south side, that the construction will meet the 35' height requirement, and the rear yard dimensions be shown on the site plan. All Board members voted in favor of this motion. Discussion on hearing closed. Mr. Arcate called the Board's attention to correspondence received from Robert Ponzini regarding the Boards powers and concerns in granting variances. The Board members were requested to refer to this correspondence from time to time when making decisions. There will be two hearings on Thursday, August 14, 1986. Mr. Swaby made a motion to approve the minutes of the July 10, 1986 meeting; Jane Hogan seconded this motion and all Board members voted in favor. The next item Mr. Arcate discussed with the Board was that of reviewing the Zoning Code to see if any changes should be made. The chairman is in receipt of two actual codes, Gne from Tarrytown and one from Briarcliff, sent by-Robert Ponzini. However, after Mr. Arcate studied these codes he said that the one from Briarcliff is not sufficient enough for a complex village like North Tarrytown and The Tarrytown code is overly verbose. Mr. Arcate requested what the Board would like to do about reviewing our Code. As mentioned previously, Mr. Arcate has drafted a letter to the Board of Trustees recommending that we appoint an alternate member to the Zoning Board and advising them that we are considering reviewing the Code. Mr. Arcate said that we would not be reviewing the Code because it is inadequate but we do find new circumstances in many cases and there are sections that could be reworded to better describe current circumstances. Mr. Brady suggested that he would obtain for the Board a copy of model codes from the PACE UNIVERSITY MUNICIPAL LAW RESEARCH CENTER in White Plains. With the Board's approval, Mr. Arcate signed the letter to the Board of Trustees. The Board noted the receipt of another piece of correspondence from Terry Rice regarding the definition of a family and one family housing. 0 Business meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ^m 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-1986 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_1986-08-07 Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1986 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1986 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/7256cb689b6f835620aeb033024ca964.pdf a4f5b6488cfda79bcedce92d46b28ee4 PDF Text Text J? ZONING BOARD HEARINGS August 14, 1986 Present: % Edward Swaby, Acting Chairman Frank Paolantonio Jane Hogan James Margotta, Building Inspector Absent: John Arcate, Chairman Aldo Ceconi Acting Chairman Edward Swaby opened the hearings at 3:15 p.m. The Clerk read the Public Notices for tonights hearings; the first hearing on the application of Stephen Maceyak, the second on the application of Adelino and Elvira Santos. Evidence was presented to the Board that Mr. Maceyak has advised his surrounding neighbors of his application for a variance to construct a two-family house on his lot Sec. 17, Block 16, (Lots 1 and 2). There were five residents who live within 200' of Mr. Maceyak's property who came to request that the Board deny Mr. Maceyak's application for a variance. %•:•: J.'- • Mr. Thomas Malone, 21 Tappan Avenue, addressed the Board and pointed out that when the subject property was sold, it was not a building lot and he questioned why it should be considered a building lot presently since there is not enough land to build on. Mr. Malone does not feel that there is a case of hardship here, also that he thinks Mr. Maceyak knew this property was not a building lot at the time of purchase. Mr. Malone expressed the concern that this area is one of the tightest in Webber Park and, if another house is built here, the problem would only become worse. He is concerned about the ability of fire apparatus negotiating this corner, where there is also a fire hydrant. Mr. Carl Gerlanc, 11 Tappan Avenue, also spoke against granting this application because of the tightness of the corner and the property is too small. Mr. Gerlanc pointed but that in 1974 he requested a variance and since his property was lacking 84 square feet, arid his neighbors felt it was inappropriate to build on, he decided not to build, he requests that Mr. Maceyak do the same. #v: a Mr. A. Sirois, 25 Tappan-Avenue, said he cannot see how building another house in this area would open up the street. Another neighborhood resident suggested that Mr. Maceyak add to his present house to accommodate his family. Mr. Modica, also from .,'the immediate '• area, questioned the size of the proposed house and how it will be situated on the lot. Mr. Margotta explained this to him. Anna Ciancaglini of Tappan Avenue is concerned about how close the proposed house will be to the^property line in the rear. This also was xplained to her. With 25* between the proposed house and the rear property line and Mrs. Ciancaglirii's driveway there would be approximately 30+' between her house and the proposed house. i iC*4BV ii'i£ =fi -"ijJaS&aSsfe £ & i i t i H @ £ K & & l & �f&~- ~fcv -2fc- Steve Maceyak spoke to the Board next and pointed out that his plans were drawn in accordance with the Code and that ,the Building Inspector and the Architect felt a small house would be suitable; the house conforms with the Code. The frontage would be 20' and he would include off-street parking. He is requesting an application for a two-family house, however, actually plans to include a studio apartment in the basement. He stated that his proposed paved driveway would relieve the parking problem on the corner. Mr. Maceyak also pointed out that his survey shows his property to be two separate pieces and, as a result of a subdivision in 1925, he pays separate taxes on each lot. Water service was installed by the Village which he assumes was done so the lot would be a building lot. Mr. Maceyak said that he thinks this lot is a good lot to develop for tax purposes and the proposed house would conform more than some houses on the street. Mr. Emmanuel Lobato, 21 Anderson Avenue, spoke in Mr. Maceyakfs favor and requested that the application for a variance be granted. The proposed house would not alter the character of the area and a new house would improve the tax situation in the Village. He also pointed out that the last five -houses built in Webber Park were granted variances. Mr. Lobato suggested that parking problems could be alleviated by prohibiting parking a certain distance from the corners. • Mr. Swaby, Acting Chairman, read Mr. Margotta's letter of July 15, 1986, denying the application in question, into the record of this hearing: 1 "Your application for a building permit to build a two family residence has been denied since it violates the following provisions of Chapter 62 of the Zoning Code: 1. 62-8B schedule of regulations, in a Dist. R-4, the required lot size is 4,000 sq. ft. 2. Lots 1,2,3,4 are 6,335 sq. ft. If this was divided into two lots, they would violate Sec. 62-12, Area A and B. 3. 62-7 application of Regulation C M . Mr. Margotta explained the meaning of these regulations in more detail. Mr. Malone stated that-the proposed construction would create a nonconforming lot. Mr. Margotta said both lots would be nonconforming and the Board would either give Mr. Maceyak a variance for both lots or turn s him down. Mr. Malone further questioned how these lots would be in the future; would they be nonconforming forever? Mr. Malone also suggested that Mr. Maceyak could expand his present house to meet his need and asked Mr. Maceyak if he had considered this possibility. Mr. Maceyak said he had and found that it would be more expensive than constructing a new house. Mr. Maceyak also stated that he understands his lot is an undersized lot and stated that there is not a house oh Anderson Avenue that |lS? A ^ u conforms u i i J - u j - u i o to L.\J CILLJ any vx. of the m c osetbacks.' ci.uai;No . Mr. nx. . JSwaby w a u y reminded X. e i U J L l l u e u him ilXUl that LUelU a el two-family LWO'I f||f •Chouse should not be built on this property. Mr. Maceyak said that in f|: ^reality it would be a two-family house, but he only wants a studio apartment in the basement; the height of the proposed house would be that of a single family house. -?P •j&' " ™ '"' •-*-''-*• .-=-'•- "-• .--,.-,•-._. T_w,*--i^'i,-.«J-.„-, j S W a a s . M j s . ^ s ^ j j ^ ; �t?,; -3 if.: Miss Janet Gandolfo questioned the exact size of the lot in question and Mr. Margotta went over these details with her. Mr. Margotta also stated that the architect designs a house in accordance with the code as far as room size, etc., however, the lot in question is too small for a house. Mr. Paolantonio asked how high this proposed house would be from the curb and Mr. Margotta informed him it could be 20' - 25'. On a motion made by Jane Hogan, seconded by Frank Paolantonio, the hearing was closed. The second hearing, in regard to Adelino and Elvira Santos' request for a variance had to be rescheduled until September 18 because according to Miss Gandolfo, their counsel, appropriate notices had not been mailed to neighbors within 200' of the property in question. The rescheduled hearing will have to be readvertised. Miss Jane Hogan made a motion to close the hearing, seconded by Frank Paolantonio; approved unanimously. Respectfully submitted, > OhASL Marie Timmirigs, acting clerk P *-A&r.-i==UbA&s. *i:'~ • i~4^-'^''--.irXii~zsA^J&M^^S^teiS!*^J»I4^i^^T5iS»ifcfeiii.^ � 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-1986 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_1986-08-14 Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1986 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1986 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/5c46e6ac627a9b68a8cc7173afdf7538.pdf 192ae446a2eb70833e1670fcbdaac985 PDF Text Text ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HEARINGS # Present: September 18, 1986 John Areate, Chairman Edward Swaby Frank Paolantonio Aldo Ceconi Robert Ponzini, Counsel James Margotta, Building Inspector Absent: Jane Hogan The hearings The first hearing 59 No. Washington Washington Street # of September 18, were opened at 8:10 by Chairman Areate. was to consider the application of James 0'Roiirke, Street, to allow him to use liis premises at 260 North as a carpentry shop. Mr. O'Rourke explained to the members of the Zoning Board that he was in the process of redecorating and restoring his building at 260 No. Washington Street. There are carpentry tools in his basement which belong to a friend and he is using them for the restoration of bis building. The Building Inspector advised Mr. O'Rourke that because his friend uses the tools in the basement for commercial jobs, it is considered a jobbers shop and, therefore, not a permitted use. Mr. O'Rourke continued to explain that, although there are more tools in his basement at the present time than he had expected would be stored there, he is only using these tools until his restoration work is completed; then the tools will be removed. Mr. O'Rourke advised the Board that he is applying for a special use permit. Mr. O'Rourke said he would like to do so in order to use this equipment which he agreed is also used commercially. Mr. Arcate asked Mr. O'Rourke if he had notified residents within 200 ft. of the property in question,of this hearing; he replied that he did not realize that this was necessary and because of the cost, he did not do it. Mr. Arcate advised him that it was necessary and because he did not notify them, this hearing was not valid and no decision can be made. Mr. Margotta informed Mr. O'Rourke that as long as he applied for proper building permits as he restores his building, there is no problem with using the tools. However, the Building Inspector objects to the large quantity of lumber and scaffolding that is stored under the porch as well as the commercial use of the tools in the basement.: Mr. Ceconi said this situation might create a fire hazard and questioned whether or not the Fire Chief has inspected the premises. Mr. Swaby made a motion to table this hearing and the mot ion was seconded by Frank Paolantonio; all Board members voted unanimously to table. The second hearing was to consider therapplication of Dominick LaCaruba, 27 Maple Street, for a used car showroom on his property on the east side of No. Broadway between Bedford Road and Hudson Terrace. e- -. ivc*- iifcii ^ £-'.^T.-^i. ;,S;-:- y-:-'r--Axr-giG3~ ~~*r»~^i*«ik:»-> ti^seii-^M^M^^^iiMS^B^i^S^^^^^ �Mr. LaCaruba pointed out to the Board.that this piece of property has always been used as a gasoline/service station and he wishes to have a used car lot here. Mr. LaCaruba presented the appropriate receipts indicating that he had notified residents within 200' of the property in question. Katherine Lingardo, Pine Close, spoke as : President of the Webber Park Association and explained that she had spoken to many members of the Association and all of them said they were opposed to a used:car lot on this property; it Had been a gasoline station a long time and they were glad to see it close. The W.P.A. does not think the intended use will be appropriate for such a difficult corner location. Edward Fiala, Hudson Terrace, spoke as a member of the W.P.A. and a resident of the immediate area. He advised the Board that he has no objection to having a showroom on this piece of property. Mr. LaCaruba pointed out that the building will be improved inside and there will be landscaping*done but no additions will be madeVto the existing structure. Mr. David Feinstein, leasee, addressed the Board regarding his plans for improving the structure. The interior will be completely renovated and there will be shrubbery planted. Automobiles (BMW's, Mercedes, Jaguars) will be reconditioned and offered for sale; there will be a leasing operation on the premises as well. .There will also be an office in the building. Mr. Feinstein said that he thinks there will be less traffic on this hazardous corner with a used car business than there would be with any other type of business. On a question from Mr. Arcate, Mr. Feinstein advised that ,he estimated spaces for parking 18-25 automobiles in the front, space for a maximum of 15 cars in the upper lot, and space for 4 to 5 employees cars. Mr. Feinstein would have a five year lease oh this property and that this is not part of a franchise. A resident of Bedford;Road, Mrs. Gaydos, told the Board that she and her husband do not approve of having*a used car business on this property. There is a parking problem in this area at the present time which they do not wish to see become worse. On a motion made by Edward Swaby, seconded by Aldo Cecbhi, the Board voted unanimously to close the hearing at 8:45 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Marie Timmihgs, acting clerk �ZONING BOARD BUSINESS MEETING Present: * September 18, 1986 JoHn Arcate, Chairman Edward Swaby Frank Paolantonio Aldo Ceconi Robert Ponzini, Counsel James Margotta, Building Inspector Absent: Jane Hogan The first order of business was to approve the minutes of the September 4 meeting. Mr. Swaby mentioned a few corrections: page 2, paragraph 3, "....owner cannot sell Off (instead of, of)"; ".... nonconforming BECAUSE (instead of since) the 1969 Code...."; and paragraph 4, the work ASSESSABLES was incorrectly spelled. With these corrections, the Board unanimously voted to accept the minutes. In regard to the O'Rourke hearing, Mr. Swaby said that he would advise the Board to deny this application.based on its merits and because the requirements of the Code were not satisfied. However, he would like to discuss this matter even though there can be no decision. • Mrs. Vydareny; 259 No: Washington Street, spoke for several of her neighbors as well as herself when she said that Mr. O'Rourke has been doing a fine job of restoring;his building. The neighbors wish the buildings on the street kept well because there is some consideration being given to granting the street a historic designation. . M r . Arcate pointed out that the question regarding this application is whether or not the house is;being used for a commercial operation. Mr. O'Rourke applied for a special use permit, however, the Code does not provide for special permits for "use". Mr. O'Rourke said that if the Board would allow him six months, he would have all the tools removed from his house. Mr. Swaby made a motion that the Board not.act on;this application tonight because Code requirements had not been fully satisfied; Mr. Paolantonio seconded the motion'and all members voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Arcate explained to Mr. O'Rourke that No. Washington Street is of deep concern to the Board and that the homes need to be protected by not allowing commercial use. Mr. Ceconi recommended that the Fire Chief be requested to inspect this house and property. li |v |4 f Mr. O'Rourke requested that he be given a few months to work and he would have the tools removed from the basement. said that the length of a grace period is up to the Building Mr. Margotta said he would give Mr. O'Rourke sixty (60) days r A^ools out of the basement. finish;his Mr. Ponzini Inspector. to have the The business meeting proceeded to Mr. Dominick LaCaruba's application. Mr. Ponzini quoted from Code, section 62-20a which prohibits the sale of used automobiles within three hundred feet of a similar business, a firehouse, .e^f^afc.jsv- i-t-^V-C**-': v . "-,-j-Hj-" i r"^ ^ , . ^ . j ^ ^ M ' » i ^ ^ - ^ i ^ f e i ^ ^£&M^jJ2%M£?-?4 ^M^' �-2- t a church or a school. Mr. Swaby questioned what use could be projected for this property. Mr. Arcate reminded the Board of the small size of the property and asked if the Board wished to allow this used car business on this property. Mr. Pohzini advised the Board that the Planning Board has stated that there are to be no further service stations in this area and the -,„ present ones should be reduced by attrition. Mr. Arcate stated that this is an inadequate piece of property and a very, difficult intersection; there is also very little space for landscaping. Mr. Arcate also questioned whether there will be sufficient parking for employees and reminded Mr. Feinstein5 that the Board had not been presented with a parking plan. Mr. Feinstein said that the parking has been taken into consideration and his proposed business will not be as large an establishment as others on Route 9 in the Village and, therefore, will draw less traffic. Mr. Ceconi reminded the Board of the two pieces of unused property along Route 9 at the present time. Mr. Arcate stated that the Village should encourage business that is not automobile related because we have an excess number of them already. Mr. Ceconi said that a used car business might have fewer cars entering and leaving the property than any other kind of business. Mr. Margbtta pointed out that a personal service business would provide better parking for customers. # Mr. Arcate stressed that the Code provides that there will not be an automobile row and asked the Board if they wished to extend this or phase it out? Mr. Feinstein was advised/that the Board does not have a site plan to study regarding employee parking or the proposed egress and ingress. He was also advised that the Board can give a conditional variance and limit the space for parking. Mr. Arcate said he did not think there is enough information to favor the applicant and he is ready to deny the application. ,}j Hej said that the property is not now causing the' Village - any problems and in time there will be an opportunity to find another use for it; there is no reason for haste. Mr. Swaby did not agree that there would be "a better; use for the property. Mr. Ceconi said there are other businesses that would cause moire problem than a used car business. ; * ».'--: Mr. Arcate asked Mr. LaCaruba to find'some other use.for this property and, if in six months he cannot, then re-apply to the Zoning Board. Mr. Feins tein said this would be a hardship if he cannot proceed with his plans. Mr. Swaby s tated that the property is an eyesore as it is now. l Y4, Mr. Swaby made.a motion to defer a decisioni until October ,9 • and his .motion was seconded by 1^. Ceconi. The Board instructed the applicant to ^^^pprovide a siteplari layout indicating!where carsffor sale will^be located, ^^where provision isHto beYmade for employee parking,| arid customer parking as well as the layout "for the proposed "landscaping. The plan should also indicate where passageways will be located to enter and leave the property. �Mr. Feins tie iii was advised that this plan will be necessary for presentation to the Planning Board and the Zoning Board should also study it before a decision is made. All Board members voted unanimously in favor of the motion. Mr. Ponzini advised the Board that there is to be a Public Hearing on September 25 to authorize an alternate member to the Zoning Board, to provide for a revision of the code of the Village of North Tarrytown to add a definition of "family". Also on that date Mr. Ponzini would like to have all the members of the Zoning and Planning Boards and the Board of Trustees present to discuss the development of property on Bedford Road. Further, representatives from Phelps Memorial Hospital will;be present on September 25 to discuss with the three Boards their future plans, which are: To establish a day care center for hospital employees, residents of the community, and supporters; to establish a women's health center. Mr. Arcate said the hospital should have a master plan. Mr. Margotta advised theBoard that oh Septeinber 25, there will be a hearing regarding an application of Eugene Buonahno of Gordon Avenue. There is also,a question regarding another house on Gordon Avenue, however, no further discussion was held. Business meeting was adjourned at 10:30 P.M. on a motion made by Mr. Swaby and seconded By Mr. Ceconi. Respectfully submitted, Marie Timmings, acting � 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-1986 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_1986-09-18 Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1986 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1986 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/0bb11b0a0acb68882fe9ba7bed17be4c.pdf af73e9a4cfff5c27270365e12d2e9335 PDF Text Text ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS hearings of September 25, 1986 PRESENT: Edward Swaby, Acting Chairman Frank Paolantonio Aldo Ceconi Robert Peirce, Counsel James Margotta, Building Inspector ABSENT: John Arcate, Chairman Jane Hogan Mr. Swaby, Acting Chairman, opened the meeting at 8:10 p.m. The Clerk read the public noticeson the three hearings scheduled for the meeting. The first hearing was in regard to the application of Adelino and Elvira Santos of 34 Continental Street for a permit to raise the elevation of the roof on their existing house to construct an additional bedroom. Ms. Janet Gandolfo, representing the Santos',presented to the Board the receipts indicating that all residents within 200' of the Santos * property had been notified of this hearing. She proceeded to advise the Board that the Santos' would like to raise the roof of their existing building for two bedrooms. The center of the roof when raised would be 4' higher with the sides being 2* higher. The building is non-conforming at present, therefore a variance is necessary. Mrs. Fanny Stone of 118 Van Tassel Avenue addressed the Board as follows: "As a homeowner and also a committed member of this community, I am concerned at the whittling away of the Village Code legally by applying and obtaining variances? or illegally, either deliberately or without knowing the proper procedure to follow, by persons adding to present structures or building new ones. Approval of variances brings on a density which adds to the parking problem and the need for more municipal services. I am not in favor of granting variances to build on insufficiently sized lots. I see an eroding of the Village with the crowding. We should be concerned with the welfare and the esthetics of the Village, if we wish to maintain the quality of life." Janet Gandolfo pointed out to the Board that the family presently living in the house at 34 Continental will be the same after the addition is built; they need two additional bedrooms. Mr. Swaby questioned whether or not the measurements of the side yards and the front and back yards of the building will be changed in any way and Ms. Gandolfo said they would not be changed. Mr. Margotta said that this is a request for a minimum variance; it is a one family residence that will continue to be one family. Mrs. Lydis Michaelides who lives in the immediate area said that she sees no reason to deny this application. Mr. Paolantonio made a motion to close the hearing; Mr. Ceconi seconded it. All the Board voted in favor of the motion. �-2The second hearing was in regard to Mr. George Kuntz' application for a permit for the construction of a metal storage shed on his on Farrington Avenue, property/ Mr. Kuntz presented to the Board a letter he had written and personally presented to his neighbors within 200 ft. of his property, as well as signatures of all but three whom he could not contact,in lieu of postal receipts indicating that these neighbors had been contacted through the mail. Mr. Peirce advised the Board and Mr. Kuntz that this hearing could not continue because there is no written, appropriate evidence that the neighbors were contacted at least ten days before this hearing date either by registered mail or by personal, hand delivery. Mr. Swaby reiterated that since the notice presented by Mr. Kuntz was defective, this hearing could not proceed. The third hearing was in regard to the application of Kathryn and Eugene Buonanno, 29 Gordon Avenue, for a building permit for the construction of an addition to their existing one-family residence. Mrs. Stone spoke to the Board again saying that she feels the same way about this proposed addition as the addition to the Santos house. Mr. Buonanno advised the Board that he wishes to build this addition to accommodate his own family and his in-laws. Mr. Margotta asked Mr. Buonanno whether or not there is to be a kitchen in this addition and Mr. Buonanno said that there would be eventually. Mr. Peirce and Mr. Swaby said it appears that Mr. Buonanno is putting two structures on the lot and the area is only zoned for one principle structure per lot. There is to be a hallway between the two buildings but no separate entrance. The existing house is non-conforming since there was a variance granted on it some time ago. Mr. Ceconi pointed out that Eugene Buonanno received a variance to extend his garage which makes this building non-conforming. Mr. Swaby questioned the side yard measurements. Mr. Buonanno presented the Board with plans however, the necessary side yard measurements were missing. the Board needs to have exact measurements, the hearing could not continue. Mr. Margotta requested that Mr. Buonanno obtain a new survey of the property. Mr. Paolantonio made a motion to close the hearing; motion seconded by Mr. Ceconi. All Board members voted in favor of motion. Respectfully submitted, ~h Marie Tinmings Because �ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Business meeting September 25, 1986 PRESENT: Edward Swaby, Acting Chairman Frank Paolantonio Aldo Ceconi Robert Peirce, Counsel James Margotta, Building Inspector ABSENT: John Arcate, Chairman Jane Hogan The first topic under discussion was the application of Adelino and Elvira Santos. Mr. Paolantonio said that he would like to hear some of the history of this building; it looks as if it is non-conforming on top of noncomforming. Mary Vizvary, New Broadway, spoke to the Board and said that she lived in this neighborhood years ago and originally the building in question was put up as a garage but, according to Mr. George Fitzpatrick, Hunter Avenue, it has been occupied as a house ever since 1946. Mrs. Stone questioned whether or not there ever was a Certificate of Occupancy. Mary Vizvary pointed out that the concern at this time is over the possibility of more people living in the building than at the present time. She told of residents erecting decks on their homes and then, unexpectedly, there are two basement apartments. Mr. Swaby said that when the 1962 Ordinance went into effect, it recognized the lots and buildings in existence at that time, as they were. Mr. Margotta also pointed out that most houses in the Village predate the Ordinance and therefore, there are no Certificates of Occupancy. Mr. Paolantonio wished to know how this building is listed on the tax rolls, as a house or as a garage. Ms. Gandolfo said that this has nothing to do with the situation at present; this building is now a non-conforming house and the Santos1 are applying for a variance to add onto a one-family residence. Mr. Ceconi said that this building was still put up as a garage and he pointed out that there are a number of buildings in the Village like this and they are now being used as two-family homes. Mr. Arthur Ceconi, Amos Street, pointed out that there should be records in the County which would show how this house is listed on tax rolls. Mr. Swaby wished to know if this building meets side yard requirements. Ms. Gandolfo said she doubted that it does because it is an accessory building. Mr. Margotta said there are two principal buildings on this property where there should only be one. �-4Mr. Peirce said that the Santos1 are not extending the use of this building. Mr. Swaby agreed with him that the requested addition would not extend the nature of the non-conformity; there will not be another principal structure. Mr. Fitzpatrick said that the Santos' are trying to make their house more livable and he does not feel it makes any difference to raise the roof 4 feet . Mr. Paolantonio made a motion that the Board grant the required variance with the stipulations that only 4 feet will be added to the roof to make two bedrooms and that it will be used strictly as a one family residence without a kitchen in the addition. Mr. Ceconi seconded this motion; all voted in favor. Mr. Kuntz' application was defective and the Board will reschedule his hearing. Mr. Buonanno's application did not supply sufficient information and he was informed to see the Building Inspector to clear with him just what is needed to comply with the Code. be Mr. Buonanno's hearing will/carried over until October 9. The minutes of the meeting of September 18 were received by the Board members on September 25; because all of them did not have time to read the minutes, the approval of the minutes was put off until the next meeting, October 9, 1986. Respectfully submitted, >?« Marie Timmings � 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-1986 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_1986-09-25 Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1986 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1986 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/23b23a8afc6813a5704cb47799ffd8c1.pdf d796b1acb5c660bc19c5399c37a516fd PDF Text Text ZONING BOARD Present: OF APPEALS MEETING of October 9, 1986 John Arcate, Chairman Edward Swaby Frank Paolantonio Jane Hogan-Felix Aldo Ceconi Robert Ponzini, Counsel James Margotta, Building Inspector The continuation of the business meeting (Sept. 25) began at 8:15 p.m. Mr. Arcate asked for the approval of the minutes of the meetings of September 18 and those of the meetings of September 25. Both sets of minutes were approved on motions by Edward Swaby and Aldo Ceconi, which were seconded and all Board members voted in favor of the approval of the minutes. Mr. George Kuntz' hearing has been postponed until October 23 because his notice to property owners was defective. Mr. Kuntz had requested an extension of time but he has not complied with the order issued by the Building Inspector to clean up his property. Mr. Arcate advised the Board that Phelps Memorial Hospital representatives wish to come before the Board; this may take place after the Zoning Board meeting of October 23. Mr. Arcate informed the Board that in the future the Westchester County Planning Board will respond to notices of Village Zoning issues by returning a copy of our letter to them with a rubber stamp reply i.e., that they are not concerned with a particular application. Mr. Arcate addressed Mr. David Feinstein, leasee, and Mr. Dominick LaCaruba, owner of the property on the east side of Broadway between Bedford Road and Hudson Terrace. This decision deferred until October 9 because the Board requested a site plan. Mr. Feinstein presented his plan at this meeting. Upon a question from Mr. Swaby, Mr. Feinstein stated that his fiveyear lease on the property in question was conditional upon the granting of a variance. Mrs. Peggy Slavin, 40 Bedford Road-addressed the Board and said she had not received notice of the first hearing arid wished to express^her opposition to granting;a variance on Mr. LaCaruba's property for a used car showroom. Mrs. Slavin said that to allow this type of business-on the property in question would be perpetuating a bad situation with automobile-related business all along Route 9 in North Tarrytown. She also asked if the State had been advised of the curb cuts that would be necessary with this type of business. Mr. Arcate said that the Westchester County Planning Board did not give any direction to the Village in this regard but left the decision up to the Zoning Board of Appeals.Mrs. K. Lingardo, Pine Close, spoke again to the Board and restated �that there were some residents in Webber Park in favor of granting this variance, however many were opposed. Trustee Alan Williams spoke as a representative of the Board of Trustees and advised the Board that the Board of Trustees does not wish to see this variance granted. The Village is trying to upgrade property and does not wish to have more business of this type established. This property along the east side of Broadway between Hudson Terrace and Bedford Road has been vacant about one year. Mr. LaCaruba said that a green grocer expressed interest in the property as well as the N. Y. State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation along with the Philipsburg Restoration. On a question from Janet Gandolfo, Chairman Arcate advised that the Westchester County Planning Board has indicated no concern in regard to this request for a variance. Mr. Arcate also read a portion of the minutes of the Planning Board meeting of July 31, 1986 in which they state: Whereas, numerous enterprises located on Route 9 in the Village of North Tarrytown deal with automotive related activities, and Whereas the Planning Board of the Village of North Tarrytown views the number of these businesses as excessive, and Whereas the excessive number of these businesses adds to the Village's traffic problems and increases the public perception of this section as a "gasoline alley", therefore be it resolved, that the Planning Board of the Village of North Tarrytown go on record supporting a reduction in the number of these enterprises by attrition, and be it further resolved that this Board (Planning) requests that the Mayor and Board of Trustees determine a satisfactory number of these automotive enterprises and enact appropriate legislation which will effectively accomplish the goal of fewer of these businesses in this industry located on the Route 9 section of the Village. Mr. Arcate said that through messages from the citizens, the Board of Trustees and the Planning Board, it is very clear how other groups in the Village feel about granting a variance for another automobile related business in the Village. If the Zoning Board approved this variance, the Planning Board might not approve the site plan. Mr. Arcate then questioned the Board as to whether or not they wished to grant this variance and why. Ms. Hogan-Felix stated thatshe is in 'agreement with Mrs. Slavin and said that the people were glad when the Esso Station closed on this site. It is a very hazardous intersection; the whole area looks like a parking lot and to consider another automobile related business would be rediculous. The suggestion-to put an Information Center on this site is an excellent one; it would fit in well. Mr. Swaby said that he has never heard of another use proposed for this site and would recommend granting a variance to Mr. LaCaruba. Mr. Arcate suggested that if the^ Board - denied this reques t, Mr. LaCaruba could appeal to the Zoning Board again in six months. In the interim Mr. LaCaruba could seek out other uses for his property. �Ms. Hogan-Felix made the motion to. deny Mr. LaCaruba's application in accordance with para. 62-2 and 62-40c and to support the decision of-the Building Inspector. Mr. Aldo Ceconi seconded the motion. There was no further discussion and Mr. Arcate polled the Board as follows: Mr. Swaby, opposed Mr. Paolantonio, abstained Ms. Hogan-Felix, in favor Mr. Arcate, in favor Mr. Ceconi, in favor Request for variance was denied. " Mr. Ceconi stated that although he was originally in favor of granting this variance, he voted to deny the request-for variance based on the opposition of many residents who spoke to him regarding this. The next portion of the meeting,was a continuation of the discussion on Eugene Buonanno's request for a vjttiance. to build on his property on Gordon Avenue. The Zoning Board required a survey and a site plan in order to determine side yard measurementsi. The site plan as shown to the Board on October 9 indicated a side yard of 8% feet. Mr. Swaby reminded the Board that the applicant said at the Hearing that he would put in a kitchen eventually. The proposed building.has the appearance of a separate structure and he reiterated the Code as stating that only one principal structure may be on one piece of property. The proposed structure would be connected to the;.existing structure by a covered hallway,.-but that, in his opinion, this does not make the proposed'structure an extension. Mr. Arcate reminded Mr. Buonanno that his request does "not indicate hardship as he has one structure on this lot^ presently. He also[,pointed out to Mr. Buorianho that -since there is to be no common wall between the existing and proposed structures, it cannot be considered an extension. Mr. Arcate presented a letter from Mrs. LeRoy Stone, Van Tassel Avenue, which will be included in this file and which indicates her opposition to granting this variance. Mr. Swaby made a motion that the Board support the decision of.the Building Inspector in denying this variance as "the proposed^structure does not meet the requirements of paragraph.62-4 of the Code /definitions of Buildings, Building principal and structure or paragraphs 62-2, 62-25 and 62-40c. Mr. Paolantonio seconded the motion. Meeting adjourned at 10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Marie Timmings, acting clerk �&>/l F* L£ ///" f2^/cLu^c .*y tC<u^C£ &£* -•A:.^ &£gk£&£*J&ge£i£&M �— > tLttcb^ tu /C»c^X •U^ 4>l^ (U-^c •*£~ ^^n^-^Siv ^Jk ^f- &-i j&ufr /^ /Q&Ty^ %4k.h «iS5lsaifcfla=iii^1MiaafeSi^ �606-x<^> -^L -&<^*~ (Lye. ,? <?4+<^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-1986 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_1986-10-09 Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1986 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1986 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/480a4a588ab34a1191bd01e17b3fd67b.pdf 570aca09f49fbc80c47cf6b25ac7bb1f PDF Text Text \j ZONING BOARD MEETING - October 23, 1986 PRESENT: John Arcate, Chairman Edward Swaby Frank Paolantonio Jane Hogan-Felix Aldo Ceconi Robert Ponzini, Counsel James Margotta, Building Inspector The first order of the October 9 meeting. be made, therefore, Mr. his motion was seconded approval. business was the approval of the minutes of There were no corrections or additions to Swaby made a motion to accept the minutes and by Mr. Paolantonio and received unanimous The next meeting of the Zoning Board will be on November 20. Mr. Arcate advised the Board that he had established with the Village Clerk that if Village needs permitted the Zoning Board would not have meetings more often than two weeks apart and that no more than three hearings would be considered per meeting. There was a short discussion regarding Mr. Kuntz1 application. The Board reviewed the facts and photographs as well as a photo copied drawing of Mr. Kuntz1 property, with his proposed shed location. Based upon a review of the facts and Code paragraph 62-2 and 62-40C, Mr. Arcate proposed a resolution: the shed should be located in the rear yard; there are reasons to warrant waiving the 5 foot side yard requirement in this instance. Mr. Kuntz was advised that the best use of the property would be to bring the shed closer to Farrington Avenue and line it up with the rear wall of the house, approximately 23 feet from the rear property line. Mr. Paolantonio made a motion to grant a variance based on Mr. Arcate's above statement and Mr. Swaby seconded the motion. The Board voted in favor of the motion. The Board pointed out to Mr. Kuntz that this variance applies only to the life of the shed as it exists at this time; any change would require another variance. Mr. Kuntz was advised by Mr. Ponzini to move this shed promptly because at this time he is in violation of the Code and therefore he should consult with Mr. Margotta as to the exact location that has been approved. Further he advised Mr. Kuntz that this matter will move into Justice Court if it is not taken care of promptly. Ms. Hogan-Felix moved to adjourn the business meeting at 9 p.m. and her motion was seconded by Mr. Ceconi and was approved unanimously. Respectfully submitted, Marie Tiironings, acting clerk 33--.*->«3S». u;^fe^sfe^:ieSa^a^ �ZONING BOARD HEARING - October 23, 1986 PRESENT: John Arcate, Chairman Edward Swaby Frank Paolantonio Jane Hogan-Felix Aldo Ceconi Robert Ponzini, Counsel James Margotta, Building Inspector Chairman Arcate opened the hearing at 8:10 p.m. to consider the application by George Kuntz, 7 Farrington Avenue, to move a metal storage shed to the northwest corner of his property. The clerk read the Public Notice of hearing and Mr. Arcate addressed the Board stating that the first Public Notice was for a hearing scheduled for August 7 which was postponed at the applicant's request; the second Notice was for a hearing scheduled for September 18, however, the applicant failed to satisfy the requirement of notifying property owners within 200' of his property. The October 23 hearing is the third hearing for which the Village gave notice. Mr. Arcate requested that Mr. Kuntz notified property owners of this hearing Kuntz did so. Also, he presented a list no objection to the proposed move of the present evidence that he had and of his application; Mr. of names of neighbors who had shed. Mr. Kuntz explained that the shed is a metal shed which is bolted together and which he has had to move from the east side of his property because it was on the paper street. He wishes to keep it at the northwestern corner of his property. Mr. Kuntz was questioned as to whether or not the paper street has been cleared and if the wood will be removed as well. Mr. Kuntz replied that the property would be cleared. Mr. Arcate asked Mr. Kuntz what constraints he saw that would require that the shed be placed on his property line and if the western or eastern property line would be equally preferable. Mr. Kuntz said either side is fine, however, if the shed cannot be on the property line, it will be in the middle of his back yard. The Chairman then stated that the Code paragraph 62-13E requires that the shed be placed 10 feet away from the principle house, 12% feet from the rear property line, and no closer than 5 feet from the side yard line. Mr. Paolantonio made a motion to adjourn the hearing; Mr. Swaby seconded the motion and the Board voted in favor of the motion. Respectfully submitted, Marie Timmings, acting clerk feft^jfiSiSWtaik i^^'i^^&ls^ysiss* *£as4?.. g&zjkJtti&a£j£aik$&kl^^ � 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-1986 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_1986-10-23 Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1986 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1986 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/92dcd581be2b3b3f0d0605d35072c737.pdf a61be573889b130df0806ec935f4f364 PDF Text Text ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Present: HEARING-November 20, 1986 John Arcate, Chairman Edward Swaby Frank Paolantohio Jane Hogan-Felix Aldo Geconi Robert Peirce, Counsel James Margotta, Building Inspector The meeting of November 20 was called to order by Chairman Arcate at 8:05 P.M. The first hearing to be considered was the application of Mr. John Malandrino of 11 Francis Street. .Mr. Malandrino presented receipts of notices sent to the neighbors within 200 ft. of his property. He explained to the Board that there was a swimming pool on the property that he bought at 11 Francis Street which the previous owner disassembled before selling the house to Mr. Malandrino; he would like to reassemble the pool for his own use. The pool was originally put on the property at 11 Francis Street without a permit. Mr. Malandrino is now applying for a variance to use this pool legally. The pool is an 18 foot circular above-ground pool; the yard is approximately 25' wide by 30' deep. There will be approximately 3%-4% feet on each side of the pool and the yard is fenced in. Mr. Margotta said that the depth of the property at 11 Francis Street s sufficient for the pool, the side line is questionable. (Check Code, paragraph 62-17B). Over the years that the previous owner used this pool there were no complaints from the neighbors. There was no one at the hearing of November 20 that objected to Mr. Malandrino setting up the pool for his use. Mr. Paolantonio made a motion to close this portion of the hearing; Ms. Jane Hogan-Felix seconded his motion and it was unanimously approved. The second hearing was in regard to the application of Ester and Miguel Diaz, 216 Beekman Avenue, requesting permission to construct an addition on their house. The house is located in an."M" (manufacturing) zone which excludes commercial and residential use, (Code paragraph;62T10B). The addition requested by Miguel Diaz .would include an extra room on the first and second floors with an extent ion to a third floor dormer which was previously built on the house. Ms. Hernandez, daughter of Mr.. Diaz, showed the board copies of a plot plan of their property which indicated that the house is in Zone C-2. Chairman Arcate explained to her that the C-2 designation was an error and the house is actually in an "M" zone. Ms . Hernandez * explained their need for this addition \ and;- advised ^ the Board that the dormer was built in 1980 with 'the jpermission of the Building Inspector. Mr. Hernandez questioned why Mr .Margotta, Building Inspector, denied their application now when the Building Inspector for the Village ^jgave them approval to build the dormer in 1980. Mr. Arcate said that'he ^pxmld not explain the reason for the approval .in 1980. He advised!Ms: ^Hernandez that it was appropriate;for,Mr. Margotta to deny their application at this time based on the fact that their house is in an "M" zone.* Ms. Hernandez continued to explain their need for one more bedroom on the first �I -2and second floors of the house and an enlarged kitchen on the third floor. She stated that the house is presently being used for one family on the first, second and third floors with a family in the basement as well, (four families) . ' <•-- ~_ . , • Ms. Louise Carter, 54 Hudson Street addressed the Board and expressed her disapproval of the Board granting this application. Mrs. Elizabeth Mikulasek of 218 Beekman Avenue also expressed her disapproval of the proposed addition. Mr. Michael Highland, 220 Beekman Avenue said he is concerned about how fire trucks could get into the back yards of these houses along this section of Beekman Avenue. No one else elected to speak for or against this application, therefore, Ms. Jane Hogan-Felix made a motion to close the hearing. Motion was seconded by Mr. Swaby and approved unanimously. Respectfully submitted, Marie Timmings Acting clerk �ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Business Meeting - November 20, 1986 The minutes of the October 23 hearing/business meeting were approved without any corrections or additions on a motion by Ms. Jane-Hogan Felix and seconded by Mr. Aldo Ceconi and approved unanimously. Old business: The application made by George Kuntz, Farrington Avenue, has been decided upon by the Board. New business: In regard to Mr. Malandrino's application to reassemble a swimming pool in his back yard, Mr. Swaby asked for specifics regarding the rear yard measurements. Mr. Paolantonio questioned whether or not there was any opposition to the use of this pool by any neighbors ; he was assured that there was not, either through correspondence or by their presence at this hearing. It was noted that the adjacent property to the rear was unused Village land. Based on the fact that there is no opposition to Mr. Malandrino's request, and there is no reason to deprive him of the use of this pool, nor will it harm any of his neighbors, Mr. Paolantonio made a motion to grant the variance for the use of the pool based upon Code paragraph 62-2 and 62-40C. The motion was seconded by Ms. Jane Hogan-Felix. Mr. Malandrino was advised that this variance is only for the life of the existing supporting structure of the pool and if and when he wishes to construct another pool, he will have to reapply for a variance at that time. Board voted unanimously in favor of motion. In regard to the hearing on Ester and Miguel Diaz1 application and after a great deal of concerned discussion, the following considerations \tere reviewed by the Board: t -The Diaz house is located in an "M" zone. -The "M" zone regulations do not stipulate set back, required square footage per family, or number of required parking spaces. -The Board questioned whether it should of itself apply restrictions to house in the "M" zone. ; -Should the Board in keeping with the code allow extensive additions to houses which are not permitted in an "M" zone? -Mr. Swaby pointed out that this house has already been changed into a four family house. -Would the Village be better served if the Village rezoned the area? -There are not any code requirements upon which to base an approval of this application. -The Board could attempt to treat this property as if it.was not in an "M" zone and treat it as being a multiple dwelling, however, the house cannot satisfy lot size, side yard requirements, or off street parking regulations under zone R5. -The Board should request the Village to consider rezoning this area and to provide guidelines for such situations. • Mr. Swaby made a motion to deny :this application'tased on the fact'that the "M" district does not allow for residence use per code paragraph 62-10B. Mr. Paolantonio seconded the motion. Upon a roll call for votes, there was a three to two decision to deny the application; Mr. Swaby, Mr. Paolaritbiiio nd Ms. Jane Hogan-Fel ix voted in favor of the Motion and Mr. Ceconi voted against it Mr. Arcate was also opposed. Mr. Arcate advised the applicant that he will draft a letter to the �-2^ ^ Planning Board and the Board of Trustees pointing out that there are no ^^provisions or regulations in the code upon which to base a decision to grant this application. Depending upon what the Board decides to do, the applicant may re-apply in six months or appeal this decision in State Court. Upon a motion by Mr. Paolantonio and seconded by Jane Hogah-Felix, the meeting was adjourned at 10:20 P.M. All Board members approved the motion. Respectfully submitted, Marie Timmmgs Acting clerk �VILLAGE OF NORTH TARRYTOUN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS December 5 1986 Mayor and Board of Trustee: The members of the Zoning Board of Appeals have asked me to bring to your attention the natter of appeal of November 20, concernirig Mr. and Mrs. Diaz of 216 Beekman Avenue, (minutes attached). As is clear from these minutes of the hearing and the business meeting the Zoning Board of Appeals complied with the clear prohibition of the code paragraph 62-10B arid did not substitute any standard of its own which might be in keeping with the purpose of the code. The question we put before you is whether, the code definition of the Manufacturing District is consonant with the Board of Trustees view of the best interest of the Village? The Zoning Board of Appeals suggests that the defacto circumstances are that residences do exist in the greater portion of this area and the code should be revised to provide for them. You as Trustees have the option of pursuing a change in the Zoning Map. However, it may be equally effective and less troublesome to simply revise the code to provide for residence by incorporating the requirements of Zone R4 or R5 as applicable to residences in the "M" Zone. We urge you to act on this matter and await your decision. In regard to other matters of current interest; (1) The Zoni ng Board of Appeals appreci ates the Trustees action in creating the positions of alternate member of the Zoning Board of Appeals and would be pleased to offer advice in the selection of candidates. (2) The Zoning Board of Appeals welcomes the Trustees action in revising the Code to include a definition of "family" as a much needed standard for not only the Zoning Board of Appeals but also the Building Inspector and citizens in general. (3) The Zoning Board of Appeals previously described plans for a review of the code in its entirety are progressing \toithe point of requiring professional support in 1987. We, therefore, request that such expense be included in the next Village Budget. We are told that such expense nay be in the order of $25,000. Yours truly, John A. Arcate, Chairman Att: Minutes of November 20, 1986 - . - ^ . j ^ - - --abr-'-i U i ^ i ^ - ' J - ^ ^ U : - •atse v ^ 4 £ C £ E r £ b C £ ^ £ ^ e & & ^ ^ £ l & rVJti&&&&»£fattj&M^ �ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HEARING-November 20; 1986 •> Present: John Arcate, Chairman Edward Swaby Frank Paolantonio Jane Hogan-Felix Aldo Ceconi Robert Peirce, Counsel James Margotta, Building Inspector The meeting of November 20 was called to order by Chairman Arcate at 8:05 P.M. The first hearing to be considered was the application of Mr. John Malandrino of 11 Francis Street. Mr. Malandrino presented receipts of notices sent to the neighbors within 200 ft. of his property. He explained to the Board that there was a swimming pool on the property that he bought at 11 Francis Street which the previous owner disassembled before selling the house to Mr. Malandrino; he would like to reassemble the pool for his own use. The pool was originally put on the property at 11 Francis Street without a permit. Mr. Malandrino is now applying for a variance to use this pool legally. The pool is an 18 foot circular above-ground pool; the yard is approximately 25' wide by 30' deep. There will be approximately 3%-4% feet on each side of the pool and the yard is fenced in. Mr. Margotta said that the depth of the property at 11 Francis Street is sufficient for the pool, the side line is questionable. (Check Code, paragraph 62-17B) . Over the years that the previous owner used this pool there were no complaints from the neighbors. There was no one at the hearing of November 20 that objected to Mr. Malandrino setting up the pool for his use. Mr. Paolantonio made a motion to close this portion of the hearing; Ms. Jane Hogan-Felix seconded his motion and it was unanimously approved. The second hearing was in regard to the application of Ester and Miguel Diaz, 216 Beekman Avenue, requesting permission to construct an addition on their house. The house is located in an "M" (manufacturing) zone which excludes commercial and residential use, (Code paragraph 62-10B) . The addition requested by Miguel Diaz would include an extra room on the first and second floors with an extention to a third floor dormer which was previously built on the house. Ms. Hernandez, daughter of Mr. Diaz, showed the board copies of a plot plan of their property which indicated that the house is in Zone C-2. Chairman Arcate explained to her that the C-2 ,t designation was an error and the house is actually in an M" zone. Ms. Hernandez explained their need for this addition and advised-the Board that the dormer was built in 1980 with the permission of the Building Inspector. Mr. Hernandez questioned why Mr. Margotta, Building Inspector, denied their application now when the Building Inspector for the Village gave them approval to build the dormer in 1980. Mr. Arcate said that he could not explain the reason for the approval in 1980. He advised Ms. Hernandez that it was appropriate for Mr. Margotta to deny their application at this time based on the fact that their house is in an "M" zone. Ms. Hernandez continued to explain their need for one more bedroom on the first �and Second floors of the house and an enlarged kitchen on the third floor. She stated that the house is presently being used for one family on the first, second and third floors with a family in the basement as well, Jpfflfour families) . Ms. Louise Carter, 54 Hudson Street addressed the Board and expressed her disapproval of the Board granting this application. Mrs. Elizabeth Mikulasek of 218 Beekman Avenue also expressed her disapproval of the proposed addition. Mr. Michael Highland, 220 Beekman Avenue said he is concerned about how fire trucks could get into the back yards of these houses along this section of Beekman Avenue. No one else elected to speak for or against this application, therefore, Ms. Jane Hogan-Felix made a motion to close the hearing. Motion was seconded by Mr. Swaby and approved unanimously. Respectfully submitted, Marie Timmings Acting clerk �^ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Business Meeting - November 20, 1986 The minutes of the October 23 hearing/business meeting were approved without any corrections or additions on a motion by Ms. Jane-Hogan Felix and seconded by Mr. Aldo Ceconi and approved unanimously. Old business: The application made by George Kuntz, Farrington Avenue, has been decided upon by the Board. New business: In regard to Mr. Malandririo's application to reassemble a swimming pool in his back yard, Mr. Swaby asked for specifics regarding the rear yard measurements. Mr. Paolantonio questioned whether or not there was any opposition to the use of this pool by any neighbors; he was assured that there was not, either through correspondence or by their presence at this hearing. It was noted that the adjacent property to the rear was unused Village land. Based on the fact that there is no opposition to Mr. Malandrino's request, and there is no reason to deprive him of the use of this pool, nor will it harm any of his neighbors, Mr. Paolantonio made a motion to grant the variance for the use of the pool based upon Code paragraph 62-2 and 62-40C. The motion was seconded by Ms. Jane Hogan-Felix. Mr. Malandrino was advised that this variance is only for the life of the existing supporting structure of the pool and if and when he wishes to construct another pool, 1 he will have to re -apply for a variance at that time. Board voted unanimously in favor of motion. In regard to the hearing on Ester and Miguel Diaz1 application and after a great deal of concerned discussion, the following considerations were reviewed by the Board: -The Diaz house is located in an "M" zone. -The "M" zone regulations do not stipulate set back, required square footage per family, or number of required parking spaces. -The Board questioned whether it should of itself apply restrictions to house in the 'Ttf" zone. -Should the Board in keeping with the code allow extensive additions to houses which are not permitted in an "M" zone? -Mr. Swaby pointed out that this house has already been changed into a four family house. -Would the Village be better served if the Village rezoned the area? -There are not any code requirements upon which to base an approval of this application. -The Board could attempt to treat this property as if it was not in an "M" zone and treat it as being a multiple dwelling, however, the house cannot satisfy lot size, side yard requirements, or off street parking regulations under zone R5. -The Board should request the Village to consider rezoning this area and to provide guidelines for such situations. Mr. Swaby made a motion to deny this application based on the fact that the "M" district does not allow for residence use per code paragraph 62-10B. Mr. Paolantonio seconded the motion. Upon a roll call for votes, there was a three to two decision to deny the application; Mr. Swaby, Mr. Paolantonio and Ms. Jane Hogan-Felix voted in favor of the Motion and Mr. Ceconi voted against it Mr. Arcate was also opposed. Mr. Arcate advised the applicant that he will draft a letter to the �-2Planning Board and the Board of Trustees pointing out that there are no provisions or regulations in the code upon which to base a decision to grant this application. Depending upon what the Board decides to do, the applicant may re-apply in six months or appeal this decision in State Court. Upon a motion by Mr. Paolantonio and seconded by Jane Hogan-Felix, the meeting was adjourned at 10:20 P.M. All Board members approved the motion. Respectfully submitted, >u 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-1986 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_1986-11-20 Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1986 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1986 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