1 25 10 https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/957fd80c19750d5f7262defb9ac85419.pdf 111121ed63ee1a8114657ec4d68fee14 PDF Text Text ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Present: • January 16, 1987 John Arcate, Chairman Frank Paolantonio Jane Hogan-Felix Aldo Ceconi Robert Ponzini, Counsel James Margotta, Building Inspector Absent: Edward Swaby Mr. John Arcate, Chairman, opened the hearing of January 15, 1987 at 8:10 P.M. Mr. John Hughes, counsel for Pedro Perez, 10 Andrews Lane, spoke in defense of Mr. Perez1 application for a variance. Mr. Hughes presented proof of notice to residents within 200 ft. of the property in question. He also stated that Pedro Perez of 10 Andrews Lane seeks to convert the use of his house to a legal two family house. The Building Inspector denied Mr. Perez' request for a variance because his property is in violation of Section 62-8-6 of the Zoning Code of the Village. The Code stipulates that an R-5 Zone, where this property is located, requires that a property be 40' wide and an area of 4,000 sq. ft. The Perez property is 36'9" wide and has an area of 3,600 sq. ft. Mr. Hughes continued to explain to the Board that Mr. Perez does not plan any new construction; he only wishes to have his house made a legal two-family house in an area where there are many, other twofamily houses. The property conforms in every respect except for the above-mentioned yard width and area measurement. Mr.. Perez and his wife plan to occupy one apartment in this house and his parents will occupy the other apartment. There is a third, basement apartment presently occupied in the Perez house, however, it will be vacated and the house willbe used s only as a two-family residence. Mr.Hughes advised;the Board that J there have been no complaints from anyone in the neighborhood regarding Mr. Perez property. Mr. Arcate asked Mr. Hughes to explain that there would-be no interior or exterior construction done on'the house. Mr. Hughes informed him that there would not be any construction, there are two separate entrances into the house, there is sufficient parking and there is a driveway on the property. Mr., Margotta advised that Mr. Perez should have;to eliminate the basement apartment; he could keep the bathroom in the basement but he should remove the kitchen. h Miss Ellen McDonough, 23 Kendall Avenue, is concerned about the many multi-family houses in the area which cause congestion on the streets with more cars requiring parking spaces. * Miss Marion Smith, '23/;Kehdall Avenue,.' asked\\ about ^construct ion on the Perez property. She said'that she had seen workmen oh-the roof and • • i ^ ^ ^ ^ : ^ ^ ^ �the rear of the house at 10 Andrews Lane. Mr. Robert Ponzini, counsel for the Zoning Board, stated that the Village Board of Trustees has passed a new Housing Standards Law which will require that summonses be given to home owners with illegal apartments. The Law includes;multi-family dwellings (three or more families) and commercial buildings. The Board members-had no further questions. Mr. Pablantonio made a motion to close the hearing arid Ms. Hogan-Felix seconded his motion. All Board members present voted in favor of the motion. Respectfully submitted, Marie Timmings Acting clerk �ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Present: January 16, 1987 John Areate, Chairman Frank Paolantonio Jane Hogan-Felix Aldo Ceconi Robert Ponzini, Counsel James Margotta, Building Inspector Absent: Edward Swaby The Business meeting of January 15, 1987 began at 8:30 P.M. The first matter under consideration was the approval of the minutes of the November 20, 1986,meeting. There were no corrections or additions to the minutes and therefore on'a'motion by Mr. Ceconi and seconded by Mr. Paolantonio, they were approved. Mr. Ponzini pointed out that Trustees have enacted a revision to the Code regarding the definition of a family. V Mr. Arcate informed the Board that he had written a letter to.the Trustees, (dated November 5), as the Board decided at our last meeting advising them that the Zoning Board of Appeals plans on reviewing and revising the Code and requested an allocation of $25,000 ? in the new budget. The letter also directed the Trustees attention to the need to make provision in the Code for residences in the'manufacturing zone. The Board confirmed the action of the Chairman, set forth in his November 5 letter. . , :' In regard to tonights Hearing, Mr. Arcate asked the Board members how they felt about the application for a variance on:Mr. Perez' property. He stated that the house now has three apartments with two \ entrances, there is a driveway on the property which has an* uob's true ted rear yard and undersized lot width and total square footage. Mr.--, Margotta pointed out that this house has been a two-family house for many years. Mr. Ceconi commented that there are many houses in the Village that are used as two-family houses however are not assessed as two-family houses. He suggested that in the future, when a variance is granted for a two-family house, that the Assessor receive a copy of the Board's decision. Mr. Ceconi said that he would require Mr. Perez to remove the bathroom from the basement as well as the kitchen. Mr. Ponzini advised^ him that in his opinion the Board could not require Mr. Perez to remove the bathroom from the basement. Mr.. Arcate stated that the deficiencies in the ^property are not extreme and that granting the variance would make the property more : conforming than it has been in the past. Mr. Margotta stated'that if the Board grants the variance there must not be more than two gas and electric meters on the house. '•-.-'.. Mr. Paolantonio made a motion, that the Board grant"this varianceMs. Hogan-Felix seconded his motion. Mr. Arcate pointed*out^to ;the Board that if we grant this variance we do so based on how this "property fits the Code requirements not based on what might be done with His'property Ai-:i.-jiA - jt -^i^XitSr^ ni^-- Ji;^-:MMir^5fa^^ ^^^%^'^"M -**&."£. •,"** «•=*= A^^j^jiii^&3aM9^aA �in the future. Preventing Mr. Perez from using his house as he proposes, does not correct problems elsewhere in the Village. The Board;amended the motion to require the elimination"of the basement apartment at 10 Andrews j Lane, the removal of the basement kitchen and'the assurance that there will be no more than two gas and!: • electric meters on -the house. The variance will not be effective until the above conditions are met. It was also proposed that a copy of this decision will be sent to the Assessor. The Board was polled and Mr. Paolantonio, Ms. Hogan-Felix, arid Mr. Arcate voted in favor of the motion as amended and Mr. Ceconi voted against the motion. The motion was approved, three to one. Mr. Arcate advised the Board that a request has been received from Roy & Mdndello, Attorneys atr Law, ,;f or a copy - of -the minutes of <the;|. , February 7, 1985 meeting of the ^Zoning*(Boardduring TwHich a ^varianceiwas granted to Samuel Viera. Following a discussion of this application?and the.Board's prior decision, the Board'reaffirmed its prior action in granting the variance for insufficient lot size'- arid .side yard requirements for Mr. SamueL Viera and for the continued two-family occupancy of his premises at 27 New Broadway, North Tarrytown, N.Y. Mr. Arcate informed thezBoard that he has completed a•review of a first draft .of a new Code. He has given it to.Mr. Mar gotta for his comments. Following this the draft will be rotated to each Board member. The next meeting will Be January 22 and the" meeting following that will be on March 5. The meeting was adjourned at 9:25. 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-1987 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_1987-01-16 Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1987 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1987 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/0d17b5715f0bd567a1cffea6de1514ca.pdf 97a80fb536bbc7fca542c078c7e9b453 PDF Text Text ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Present: March 12, 1987 Jane Hogan-Felix, Acting Chairperson Frank Paolantonio Aldo Ceconi Paul Phillips Robert Ponzini, Counsel James Margotta, Building Inspector Tom Homan, Village Administrator Absent: John Arcate Edward Swaby Ms. Jane Hogan-Felix, Acting Chairperson, opened the first hearing of March 12, 1987 at 8:10 p.m. in regard to the application of Mr. & Mrs. Robert Brown at 42 Lawrence Ave. Mr. Robert Brown presented proof of notice to residents within 200 ft. of the property in question. He explained to the Board that he would like to extend a bedroom, which is located on the second floor of his Lawrence Avenue address, into the backyard. With that, he would like to build an additional bathroom. Ms. Hogan-Felix asked if their were any questions or comments by the Board. All were favored in the negative. Ms. Hogan-Felix asked the building inspector, Mr. James Margotta, if he had any comments. Mr. Margotta commented only that the bedroom size would be legal. Mr. Paolantonio made a motion to close the hearing and Mr. Ceconi seconded the motion. All Board members present voted in favor of the motion. The second hearing under consideration was the application of Sharon Sousa for a variance to construct a fence that exceeds the five fee. height limitation requirement by 62-12 subsection F para. 2 of the Zoning Ordinance of the village of North Tarrytown. Al Sousa, 430 Bellwood Avenue, presented this matter by submitting pictures of the present fence and proof of notice to residents within 200 ft. of the property in question, to the Board. He explained to the Board that the incline of Devries Avenue and the design of the fence presented a problem and he would like permission to keep the fence. Ms. Hogan-Felix asked if their was anyone in opposition. Mr. Miller, counsel for Victor Albanese living at 62 Devries Avenue, spoke in opposition. Mr. Miller commented that the fence doesn't seem to be of economical value to Devries Avenue. Mr. Albanese questioned why it took so long to correct the ordinance. Mr. Albanese presented pictures to the Board for file. Mr. Sousa ended by giving a summarization of the reason for building the fence. He stated that their was a need for privacy for the patio in the backyard, problems in the past with the neighbor's dog, and the fact that it is a corner lot at a diagonal. Mr. Paolantonio made a motion to close the hearing and Mr. Phillips seconded the motion. All board members present voted in favor of the motion. &^i^iiiiiASiiiSaiJ^ai^E^SS3ti»^ �The third hearing under consideration was the application of Rodriguez Enterprises appealing the denial of a building permit by the Building Inspector for the premises located at 56 Clinton Street. Mr. John Hughes, counsel for Mr. Rodriguez, spoke in defenseof Mr. Rodriguez1 application. Mr. Hughes presented proof of notice to residents within 200:ft. of the property in question. He also explained to the Board that Mr. Rodriguez requests that lots 6a, 7 and 7a be considered as one building lot. Pictures were presented to the Board by Mr. Hughes, including plans of the building. Mr. Hughes commented that it would help in the appearance of Clinton Street and that it needs new construction. Ms. Hogan-Felix asked if their were any other comments for or against. Mr. Ceconi made a motion to close the hearing and Mr.Paolantohio seconded the motion. All Board members present voted in favor of the motion. The fourth hearing under consideration was the application of Mr. William Rountry for a variance to construct a two-story garage building oh the property located at 35 Lawrence Avenue. Mr. Hughes, counsel for Mr. Rountry, presented proof of notice to residents within 200 ft. of property in question. Ms. Hogan-Felix asked the Board if they had any questions regarding the application. Mr. Margotta questioned why the garage has to be two stories. Mr. Hughes commented that the original garage was two stories and the only reason was for storage. Ms. Hogan-Felix asked if anyone was in opposition. Ms. Caetano, Lawrence Ave. resident, also questioned why it has to be two stories. Mr. Hughes commented that it would only be 8 ft. 6 inches high and will purely be an attic. Ms. Hogan-Felix asked the board if they had any additional comments. Mr. Ceconi commented that he did not care for the second floor. Mr. Hughes pointed out again that it would only be for storage and that the height of the second floor is negotiable. Mr. Paolantonio made a motion to close the hearing and Mr. Phillips seconded the motion. All Board members present voted in favor of the motion. Respectfully submitted, Lynn Murray Acting Clerk �ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Present: March 12, 1987 Jane Hogan-Felix, Acting Chairperson Frank Paolantonio Aldo Ceconi Paul Phillips Robert Ponzini, Counsel James Margotta, Building Inspector Tom Homan, Village Administrator Absent: John Arcate Edward Swaby The Business meeting of March 12, 1987 began at 10:00 p.m. Their was no old business to consider. In regard to the first hearing of the night, of Mr. & Mrs. Brown, Ms. Jane HoganFelix asked the Board how they felt about the application. Mr. Paolantonio pointed out that their are no negative comments from any of the neighbors from all directions of the Brown's. Ms. Hogan-Felix asked the Board if their was any further discussion. Mr. Ceconi made a motion that the Board grant this variance; Mr. Paolantonio seconded his motion. All Board members present voted in favor of the motion. In regard to the second hearing of the night, of Sharon Sousa, Ms. Hogan-Felix asked the Board how they felt about the application. She pointed out that Mr. Sousa did provide the Board with pictures for file. The Board discussed the matter deciding that the fence will stay as is to give the village counsel more time for discussion and a chance to see the fence for themselves. It will stay open until the next meeting which is scheduled for April 9, 1987. Mr. Paolantonio made a motion that the hearing be closed until next meeting; Mr. Ceconi seconded his motion. All Board members present voted in favor of the motion. In regard to the third hearing of the night, of Rodriguez Enterprises, Ms. HoganFelix asked the Board how they felt about the application. Ms. Hogan-Felix had a question regarding the number of parking spaces accounted for. Mr. Hughes explained that their would be a total of 13 spaces; 12 being inside, 1 outside. Ms. Hogan-Felix commented that it would be odd to have one space on the outside of the building (by itself). Ms. Hogan-Felix asked the Board if their were any problems or comments. Mr. Ceconi made a motion that the application be granted; Mr. Phillips seconded his motion. All Board members present voted in favor of the motion. In regard to the fourth hearing of the night, of Mr. William Rountry, Ms. HoganFelix asked the Board how they felt about the application. Ms. Hogan-Felix pointed out that their was some concern regarding the second story. Mr. Phillips recommended that the Rountry's make a revision of the height on the second floor. A decision was made to make the garage 15 feet high; 8 ft. - 1st floor, 7 ft. - 2nd floor (sloped). ^aifc^i^a^is^^a#A^^5sM&^i ^ - ^ t ^ S g « 5 l ^ s>.4z&&* s_-£J^& &&aikaaf. �With the measurement changes, the Rountry's were asked to resubmit the plans for verification of measurements. Mr. Paolantonio made a motion that the hearing be closed; Mr, Phillips seconded his motion. All members present voted in favor of the motion. The meeting was adjourned at 10:45. Respectfully submitted, Lynn Murray 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-1987 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_1987-03-12 Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1987 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1987 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/6ab1988941e51440d27d868f80c482a0.pdf 34d364a3cde7532f1f6a2f0a7db07d44 PDF Text Text , ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS April 9, 1987 > Present: John Arcate, Chairman Aldo Ceconi Raymond Dool Frank Paolantonio Paul Phillips John Hughes, Counsel James Margotta, Building Inspector Mr. John Arcate, Chairman opened a brief organization meeting at 8:07 p.m. in regard to the election of a new Chairman and Vice Chairman for the Zoning Board of Appeals. Before the election, Mr. Arcate acknowledged a new Board member - Mr. Raymond Dool; and two departing members - Edward Swaby and Jane Hogan-Felix. For the election, Mr. Ceconi nominated to re-elect Mr. Arcate as Chairman; Mr. Phillips seconded the motion. A motion was made and passed to close renominations. All Board members present voted in favor of the motion to elect Mr. Arcate. Mr. Paolantonio motioned to elect Mr. Ceconi as Vice Chairman; Mr. Dool seconded the motion. A motion was made and passed to close nominations. All Board members present voted in favor of the motion to elect Mr. Ceconi. By a motion of Mr. Ceconi, seconded by Mr. Paolantonio, the Chairman was asked to send a letter of commendation to Mr. Swaby in recognition of his service. Motion approved by all members present. The brief organization meeting was closed by a motion by Mr. Arcate and all Board members present ."were in favor. Respectfully submitted, Lynn Murray Acting Clerk LM �4 - In Favor CARRY-OVER FROM MARCH 12, 198 7 MEETING RE: APPLICANT, MR. RODRIGUES, FOR VARIANCE CLARIFICATION OF Mr. Hughes, Village Counsel, withdrew from discussion of Mr. Rodrigues Variance Application as it presented a conflict of interest. He reminded the Board that he represented Mr. Rogrigues. Mr. Homan wanted the Board to be made aware of the fact that the Minutes of March 12, 1987 did not reflect an important aspect of that evening's granting a Variance to Mr. Rodrigues to construct a multi-family dwelling unit on Clinton Street. There was reference made at the time by the attorney representing Mr. Rodrigues that there would be a covenant to the deed of the property, that in the event the property was sold, the parking spaces that were granted in the Variance would run with the property. That condition should be reflected in the Minutes. Mr. Homan asked Aldo Ceconi to recall that it had been an issue and some time was spent in discussion. "This is not one lot; the owner may want to subdivide it. The point here is that we do not get into a situation that the old building would be without parking." Both Mr. Ceconi and Mr. Margotta agreed. James Margotta stated that one of the reasons why it was brought before the Board is that the owner was going to subdivide. John Arcate, Chairman, stated that he agreed with the requirement although he was not at the March 12th meeting. At that meeting, Mr. Hughes, representing Mr. Rodrigues, explained that there would be a total of thirteen spaces. Mr. Homan asked if anybody on the Board had any problems or comments on his request. Mr. Paolantonio agreed. The Chairman stated that it is his understanding that the motion carried a contingent requirement about the parking for both buildings but it was not so stated in the Minutes. James Margotta, Building Inspector reported that Larry Rodrigues wants to put up a building, raised above the ground, with parking underneath. He wants to subdivide that property and take the present office away from that property. I turned him down on that because for all intended purposes, it f s one lot. I wanted to be assured that his office would have parking. Mr. Homan advised what was necessary to do - Amending of the Minutes to reflect that - in the event that ownership of the �p property changes, that the new property owner not be allowed to take away the parking that was granted as part of the Variance. Board Member Aldo Ceconi agreed that's what its all about; we are not changing anything. The Chairman stated the Minutes will show that Mr. Homan brought to the attention of the Board that the Minutes of March 12, 1987, at which Mr. Homan was present, did not reflect a conditional requirement of the Variance granted to Mr. Rodrigues. Upon motion of Mr. Ceconi, seconded by Mr. Paolantonio and unanimously carried, it was FURTHER RESOLVED:That the Zoning Board of Appeals made the clear understanding that the Motion for the Variance granted on March 12, 1987 carried with it, the condition that a minimum of six off-street parking spaces for the proposed development be retained for the use of the pre-existing building as long as that pre-existing building shall stand. Mr. Homan said it goes without saying that if property was sold, the new owner cannot take away the six spaces that we are discussing now. It was also suggested that his requirement run with the Deed of the property as a filed covenant or easement - make it clear that a prospective buyer knows. Member Aldo Ceconi Voting AYE Member Raymond Dool Voting AYE Member Frank Paolantonio Voting AYE Member Jerry Sturgill Abstained The Chairman Voting AYE �ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Present: April 9, 1987 John Arcate, Chairman Aldo Ceconi Raymond Dool Frank Paolantonio Paul Phillips John Hughes, Counsel James Margotta, Building Inspector Mr. John Arcate, Chairman, opened the first hearing of April 9, 1987 at approximately 8:25 p.m. to consider the application of E. J. Schryber appealing the denial of a building permit by the Building Inspector for the conversion of their property from a one family dwelling to a two family dwelling on property located at 34 Hudson Street, North Tarrytown. Mr. Arcate asked if anyone would like to address the Board. Mr. Schryber presented proof of notice to residents within 200 ft. of the property in questions, to the Board. He also commented that the exterior of the house would not be touched. Mr. Paolantonio made a motion to close the hearing; Mr. Raymond Dool seconded his motion. All Board members present voted in favor of the motion. The second hearing of the night was in regard to the application of Frank Mangieri, 404 North Broadway, appealing the denial of a building permit by the Building Inspector for the construction of a ten (10) Unit Cluster Dwelling at 15 Chestnut Street, North Tarrytown. Mr. Arcate asked if anyone would like to address the Board. Mr. Donald Walsh, counsel for Mr. Mangieri, presented proof of notice to residents within 200 ft. of the property in question, to the Board. Mr. Mangieri's architect for the project presented the site plan to the Board explaining the location, parking, number of dwelling units, etc. A series of statements, questions and answers were exchanged among the public present, members of the Board and Mr. Mangieri's representative. �Mr. Phillips made a motion to close the hearing; Mr. Paolaritonio seconded his motion. All Board members present voted in favor of the motion. Respectfully submitted, Lynn Murray Acting Clerk LM �ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Present: . April 9, 1987 John Arcate, Chairman Aldo Ceconi Raymond Dool Frank Paolantonio Paul Phillips John Hughes, Cousel James Margotta, Building Inspector The business meeting of April 9, 1987 began at 9:25 p.m. The old business to consider was the minutes from the meeting of March 12, 1987. The minutes were reviewed and approved by the Board. In regard to the first hearing of the night, of E. J. Schryber, Mr. Arcate asked the Board if there was any further discussion. The Board closely reviewed the application in respect to the location and dimensions of the property in parking. Mr. Ceconi made a motion that the application be granted with the condition that the off street parking area be paved; Mr. Raymond Dool seconded the motion. Mr. Arcate and Mr. Phillips were in opposition to the motion. The application was granted by the Board by a vote of 3 to 2. Mr. Arcate stating that the Board is aware of the descriptives of paragraph 62-1OB which essentially say that there is no residence in a manufacturing district and that the Board is aware of the descriptives of paragraph 62-12B which says that a non-conforming lot can only be occupied by a single family. The Board nevertheless felt that in keeping with the purpose of code section 62-2 that, in recognition of the prevailing circumstances on the street, granting the variance satisfies the requirements for a variance in 62-40C. In regard to the second hearing of the night, Mr. Frank Mangieri, Mr. Arcate asked the Board how it felt about the application. Mr. Arcate asked the Board if there was a motion to continue discussion for the next meeting in the first week of May. p Mr. Walsh asked the Board to accept the application contingent on the county's decision. Mr. Phillips made a motion granting the variance subject to the county's decision; Mr. Raymond Dool seconded the motion. i^-i^^^^sM^J^^& i-k ^-^&£B^§Sgk: �Mr. Hughes stated that if the Board approved, this variance would not be final unless the Board receives a no action letter from the County. Mr. Arcate called for a vote. The application was passed with a three to two vote with Mr. Arcate against and Mr. Ceconi obstaining. The basis for approval is the same as Boards decision on this proposal of May 9, 1985. Respectfully submitted, Lynn Murray Acting Clerk LM � 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-1987 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_1987-04-09 Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1987 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1987 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/0d1e59fe40d430119adebbc9400125c9.pdf 90bb52122f03a1f97d19e334a5ab4090 PDF Text Text Chairman, John Arcate, recessed the Meeting at 8:35 p.m. as there were no other matters for public hearing and that a business meeting would be held to handle old business before the Board. All present were welcomed to stay. BUSINESS MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS VILLAGE OF NORTH TARRYTOWN HELD MAY 7, 1987 PRESENT: John Arcate, Chairman Aldo Ceconi, Member Raymond Dool, Member Frank Paolantonio, Member Jerry Sturgill, Member Steve Maceyak, Alternate Member John J. Hughes, Jr. Village Attorney Thomas Homan, Village Administrator James Margotta, Building Inspector The Chairman opened the business meeting at 8:45 p.m. and introduced new Board Member, Jerry Sturgill of 35 Palmer Avenue, North Tarrytown, and Alternate Member, Steve Maceyak of 22 Anderson Avenue, North Tarrytown. The Chairman reported to the Board that a letter was sent to Mr. Edward Swaby who had retired after serving twenty years on the Board and a motion was made to include the letter as an attachment to this meeting. Upon motion of Mr. Ceconi, seconded by Mr. Dool and unanimously carried, it was RESOLVED: That the letter commending Mr. Edward Swaby for twenty years of service on the Board be made part of the Minutes of this Meeting. VOTE - AYES - ALL CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES: The Chairman reported that the Minutes of the April 9, 1987 Meeting were not yet available and the Board would have to postpone acceptance of those Minutes. SOUSA APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE - CONTINUATION: A Public Hearing was held on March 12, 1987 and if possible the Board should come to a decision tonight. The Chairman stated that it was his understanding that there was a legal question concerning the rear and side yards of corner lots �raised by the Application for a Variance on a fence on the Sousa property in Philips Manor. A Hearing was held on March 12, 1987; the conclusion of that Hearing was that the Board requested a legal determination. The Chairman stated he was not present at that meeting and his understanding was that there was a question of what zoning regulations applied to a fence on the side yard of a corner property. A letter has now been received from Mr. Hughes giving the Board an opinion. Chairman Arcate said the first question is whether the fence, in part or all, occupies the rear or side yard or front yard. Counsel advised that Mr. Albanese had given Mr. Hughes a memo detailing a history of the fence as well as Sousa's application. Mr. Hughes took a look at the property. The Code is clear that the side yard and rear yard requirement is five feet and the front yard requirement is three feet. The three feet requirement applies forward of the structure. Mr. Arcate stated that the front yard on the Albanese house was easy to determine; the vacant property from the house to the front line of his lot. The issue is what is the front yard of a corner lot. This house is somewhat slanted on the lot. The fence starts in the rear corner of the house and it extends perpendicular to the side street and out to the property line on Devries and follows that property line east to the Northeast corner. If the Board decides to allow a five foot fence, then one property owner, Albanese, according to the Zoning Code, could only build a three foot fence and the other property owner, Sousa, on the other side of the property line, could build a five foot fence. Beyond this, the fence in part now exceeds five feet so the Board has necessary action to take. The extent of the action is to (1) reduce the fence to five feet or (2) if it is so determined, reduce it to three feet or (3) allow it to stay as it is presently constructed. "jhe Code, with respect to corner lots, requires a front yard setback and a sideyard setback of 30 feet in the R-2 Zone. Each street (Devries or Bellwood) has a 30 feet required setback. (Section 62-13, Paragraph E ) . This would prohibit constructing anything in a front yard other than a three foot fence, as provided by the Amendment. If the Sousa house were being considered as a plot plan today and the applicant proposed to face the house on Bellwood there would be a front yard requirement of 30 feet on Bellwood Avenue, but since the lot is a corner lot, the side yard of the proposed house (on Devries Avenue) would have to have a sideyard setback requirement from the property line on the Devries Avenue side which is at least equal to the front yard requirement of any other house on Devries Avenue whose front yard is on Devries (i.e. 30 feet). �Paragraph 62-13E or F concerning accessory use has a similar requirement. A fence is not an accessory use but this also indicates the intent of the Code. The Board further discussed the matter of three feet opposed to five feet. The Code is not explicit as to corner lots; it imposes a height requirement but with respect to corner lots, the purpose of the Code is to maintain a visual effect. The purpose and policy of the Zoning Code, as it applies to corner lots, is to protect the visual effect. Chairman John Arcate then proposed to amend the motion by Aldo Ceconi. He pointed out that the fence did not adhere to requirement of the Code in Section 62-13(F). He further stated that the Board, in considering corner lots, has decided that there are other analogous statements in the Code pertaining to corner properties which convince the Board that the side yard of a corner house has the same requirements of as front yards. Therefore, the height of fences on sideyards of corner lots will be restricted to the same height requirements as fences on front yards. The Board would then make it clear to the Building Inspector what to approve and not approve. Counsel: "On the building permit, was Sousa permitted a height, specifically, for the fence?" James Margotta: "Yes, absolutely." Chairman Arcate stated the Board could rule either way and this would be no reflection on the Building Inspector. Mr. Raymond Dool moved that since the side yard of a corner house must have the same setback requirements as the front yard; on corner lots, the height of a fence on the sideyard be restricted to the same height which applies to a fence constructed on a front yard. Motion made by Raymond Dool seconded by Frank Paolontonio - Four in favor of motion as Amended, one against as amended. Aldo Ceconi: "He can move that fence to the back of the house and keep it as a five foot fence." John Arcate: "The code is not explicit in regard to fences on corner lots and we are relying on the explicit portion of the Code, in regard to side yard requirements of corner houses matching front yard requirements.. We interpret the Code in a similar manner to fences so that, on corner lots, the height restriction of a fence located on the side yard must be bound by the same height restrictions as fences located on the front yards (3 feet)." Mr. Hughes: "May I say something just on this issue of a �building permit already being granted with a five foot fence. I think you said, Mr. Chairman, the usual process is an appeal in a situation where a Building permit has been denied, possibly as a result of a misinterpretation of the Code by the Building Inspector. It is clear, in this case, the permit was granted. We are asserting jurisdiction in this case, however, because the actual building permit was violated in that the permit called for a five foot fence and the fence now exceeds five feet. We must also, in asserting jurisdiction in this matter, render an interpretation of the Code. The applicant came before us and gives us jurisdiction to decide the issue of the height of the fence." John Arcate: granted." "Yes. He did not comply with the permit as Counsel: "We certainly have jurisdiction to decide to grant or deny the variance applied for. In so doing, we must also render an interpretation of the Code." John Arcate: "The Building Inspector issued a Permit for five feet. Upon inspection of the fence, he found this fence in violation of this permit; therefore, the applicant violated the permit. Instead of accommodating the Building Inspector which is an option he has - I am not saying he should have -and complied with the five foot requirement, the property owner elected instead to come before the board for a variance. The Board may reject this request for a variance, supporting the action of the Building Inspector. In so doing, the Board is also interpreting the Code to require maximum height of three feet on the side yard of a corner lot." Jerry Sturgill: "The point is that if the permit was granted for. five feet it seems to me the power of this Board in this proceeding, is confined to reducing the Sousa fence to five feet." John Arcate: "We are not driven by the action of the Building Inspector. We are driven by the Code; in our interpretation of the Code. The Board has had similar actions in the past where we have a stop work order, after a permit was granted." James Margotta: "If the Board didn't have that power, the Building Inspector could permit anybody to do almost anything - you would be powerless to then correct this situation." John Arcate: "To be sure that we have a vote on record, can I ask for a vote on the motion as previously made by Mr. Frank Paolantonio.n 1 - Oppose �APPLICATION OF MANGIERI Counsel for the Board reported a letter had been received from Westchester County Planning Department Re: the Mangieri application. After being reviewed under section 239, the Westchester County Planning Department found the matter to be a subject for determination by local authorities with the following comments: the off-street parking and the lot size in terms of the proposed density should be closely evaluated. Mr. Hughes informed the Board that Chairman John Arcate posed the question whether a vote of majority, plus one, is required in order to deviate from these recommendations. A review of Section 277.61 of the County Administrative Code, a review of the County Executive Order and discussion with Mr. John Kantor of the County Planning Department indicates this is a matter of local determination; there is no countywide or inter-municipal implications here - the County is not asserting jurisdiction here or issuing negative recommendations. What they are doing in regards to parking spaces is saying take a look at the parking configuration for your own benefit, and take a look at the density for your own benefit, but they are not involved in the decisions. The Chairman asked the Board to recall that they contingently granted the request for Variance; the contingent being that the County could possibly have required the majority vote plus one and in as much as the County has not imposed the requirement on us, the contingency is satisfied and, therefore, there is nothing to act upon. The Chairman asked as a matter of interest how does the plot plan as now approved compared with the county's suggestions. Mr. Walsh, representing Mr. Mangieri, addressed the board stating there are minor variations between the plot plan and County planning code, but those minor variations obviously have absolutely nothing to do with our local code. We will obviously be including some of the county's recommendations in our opening mitigating comments in our long form environmental submission being prepared now for the Planning Board. We do not anticipate any problems but we do feel that the County has given some valid points which we will be balancing against the plans of the developer in our Planning Board submissions. We expect to have that before the Planning Board in the next four to six weeks. We thank the Board for your attention in this matter tonight. The Chairman told the Board he believes they will all get a copy of the notice from Mr. Hughes on Environment Assessment Form Part I ("EAFn) and did not plan to discuss it but just to take note of it. Mr. Hughes informed the Board that when we have significant developments in the Village the EAF will have to filed by the Applicant with Mr. George Lackowitz, �Consulting Engineer for the Village. Mr. Walsh, attorney for Mr. Mangieri, asked about the conclusion of the matter. The Chairman advised him that the contingent granting of the Variance at the Board's last meeting has been satisfied. The contingency was granted unless the County had a disagreement in which the Board would require another vote. Variance was granted on a vote of three to two; three is now valid. Mr. Walsh thanked the Chairman and asked to have the Minutes forwarded to him. LETTER OF 4/30 FROM PLANNING BOARD RE: BRANA/SOLARI The Chairman went on to the matter of April 30th letter from the Planning Board Re: Brana/Solari. Counsel brought to the Board's attention that the Village was served with Notice of Petition in connection with this matter and formal litigation is now underway. He advised the Board to employ the Public Officers Law and later that evening consider entering into an Executive Session. HALES APPLICATION William Mollar, attorney representing Applicant, Thomas Hales, appeared before the Board concerning the hearing insufficiency this evening. He requested the Board to schedule another Hearing. < Upon motion of Mr. Paolantonio, seconded by Raymond Dool and unanimously carried, it was RESOLVED: That the Zoning Board of Appeals reschedule a Public Hearing upon Petition of Thomas E. Hales, to be held on May 28th, 1987 at 28 Beekman Avenue, North Tarrytown, NY. VOTE - AYES - ALL GUERIN APPLICATION The Board discussed the Hearing held earlier in the evening upon the Application of John Guerin for a Variance on his bicycle shed. It was voted that the Board had not heard any negative remarks on the shed. The requests in keeping with the purpose of the Code and Paragraph 62-2. The Board approved granting the Permit for a bicycle shed to be kept "As Is". All were in favor. � 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-1987 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_1987-05-07 Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1987 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1987 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/7a89ca324082b7b09286f3bb86c3cf83.pdf 8215d43209c1f82bba7531e4ede8afee PDF Text Text ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF NORTH TARRYTOWN, N.Y. Present: May 28, 1987 John Arcate, Chairman Aldo Ceconi Frank Paolantonio Jerry Sturgill John Hughes, Counsel George Lackowitz, Village Engineer James Margotta, Building Inspector The business meeting of May 28, 1987 began at approximately 9:10 p.m. The first order of business was the approval of the minutes of April 9, 1987. Mr. Arcate stated that Board members should have received a draft copy of minutes prior to this meeting, and that final copies were received this evening. Mr. Arcate asked if there were any additions or corrections. Mr. Sturgill had some technical corrections which were given to the clerk. The corrections to the hearing minutes were 1) Fourth paragraph, second line, strike "e" from "unit"; 2) fourth paragraph, last line, "questions" should be singular; 3) last paragraph, second line, "member" should be plural. The corrections to the business meeting minutes were 1) Middle of third paragraph, "their" should be "there"; 2) middle paragraph, third line from bottom, after "of the code" should add "(62.2)"; 3) second paragraph from bottom, "their" should be "there". Mr. Sturgill motioned to accept minutes as corrected. The motion was seconded by Mr. Paolantonio. The minutes were accepted by a unanimous vote. The next order of business was the approval of the minutes of May 7, 1987. Mr. Sturgill requested that approval of minuted be deferred since not all of the Board members had reviewed the minutes. Chairman Arcate denied request for deferral, but decided members should review minutes while the Board remained in session. After review by-members, Mr. Paolantonio motioned to accept minutes. Mr. Ceconi seconded motion. Mr. Arcate asked that the minutes show the correction of the spelling of Mr. William Null's last name. All were in favor of acceptance of minutes. Mr. Arcate stated that there was no other old business and there was also no new business. Mr. Arcate opened a discussion as to the scheduling of the next meeting of the Zoning Board. After a discussion among members it was decided that the next Zoning Board meeting be scheduled for Thursday, June 11, 1987 at 8:00 p.m. A discussion of proper notification procedures followed. Mr. Ceconi and Mr. Sturgill stated that there should be a checklist developed for applicants regarding proper procedures. Mr. Arcate noted that this already exists. A brief discussion followed on the events of this hearing insofar as failure of applicants to meet proper notification and time requirements. Mr. Ceconi motioned to adjourn. Mr. Paolantonio seconded the motion. All members were in favor. The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Arlene Maguire Acting Clerk �ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF NORTH TARRYTOWN, N.Y. Present: May 28, 1987 John Arcate, Chairman Aldo Ceconi Frank Paolantonio Jerry Sturgill John Hughes, Counsel George Lackowitz, Village Engineer James Margotta, Building Inspector Mr. John Arcate, Chairman, opened the first hearing at 8:16 p.m. to consider the application of Thomas E. Hales, Merlin Avenue, appealing the March 18, 1987 decision of the Building Inspector. Mr. William Null of Cuddy & Feder, 90 Maple Avenue, White Plains, New York, addressed the Board on behalf of Mr. Hales. Mr. Null presented receipts of registered mail as proof of proper notice to residents, but also stated that three of the property owners required to be notified of the hearing were not so notified. Mr. Null addressed those present at the hearing and asked that if those persons not properly notified were present tonight, if they would stand before the Board and waive notice. Counsel Hughes stated for the record that Section 62.44 of the Zoning Code states that no waiver provision can be implemented at this point, so there is no alternative but to not go forward with the hearing at this time. Mr. Null requested a postponement of said hearing and that a new date for hearing be scheduled. Mr. Ceconi questioned Mr. Margotta that this was the second time that property owners had not been notified. A brief discussion ensued relative to the fact that this was the second time residents were not properly notified. The decision of the Board to postpone the hearing stood. The second hearing of the night was in regard to an application submitted by Manuel A. Martin, 24 Haynes Avenue, Dobbs Ferry, N.Y., appealing the March 18, 1987 decision of the Building Inspector to refuse a certificate of occupancy for a two family dwelling at 65 Howard Street, North Tarrytown, N.Y.. Mr. John Pappalard, of Grossback & Boycoff, addressed the Board on behalf of Mr. Martin. Mr. Pappalard stated that although the said property fell 800 feet short of the required minimum lot size for a two family dwelling, he requests a variance be granted since the property could more than adequately accommodate two families (two baths, two heating systems, two hot water systems, two entrances, and room to construct a two car garage). As well, the house is 75 years old and has always been used as a two family dwelling. Mr. Pappalard also stated that the Town of Mt. Pleasant registered said premises as a two family dwelling since 1964. Also, most of the surrounding neighbors presently have two or three family homes. �Mr. Paolantonio asked if proper notice had been served.,.i4Mr. Pappalard could not furnish the Board with receipts of registered mail. Mr. Pappalard then stated that he was under the impression that Mr. Margotta would serve proper^ notice to those residents requiring said notice. A discussion regarding the proper procedure for notification of property owners followed. Mr. Pappalard request postponement of hearing. Mr. Arcate stated that although the hearing'had been opened, it could not be continued due to the fact that the applicant did hot provide proof of notice of hearing to property owners within 200 ft. in accordance with Paragraph 62.44 of the Zoning Code, although applicant acknowledges receipt of list from Building Inspector. The third hearing of the night was in •regard to the application of Kempton E. Webb, 252 Hunter Avenue, appealing the April 23, 1987 decision of the Building Inspector to deny building permit to construct a two car garage. Mr. Kempton E. Webb addressed the Board and showed proof of proper notification to property owners, such proof being receipts of registered mail and the signatures of those persons whom he properly served. Mr. Margotta looked over the proof submitted and noticed that the signatures which Mr. Webb had gotten from property owners were not on the notice of hearing. Counsel Hughes asked if Mr. Webb would provide an affidavit that he personally served notice. At this point, Mr. Arcate adjourned the meeting for a short time so that an affidavit could be obtained. Mr. Arcate reopened the hearing at 9:00 p.m. Counsel stated that most of the residents were personally served notice on May^18, 1987. However, two of the residents were not served until May 21, 1987. Mr. Hughes informed the Board that the hearing could not go forward since notice must be given to residents by certified mail or personally served with affidavit before a notary public 10 days prior to hearing. Those served oni May 21r 1987 did not meet this requirement. Mr. Jerry Sturgill questioned -Mr. Hughes if there was a waiver of notice provision whereby those who were served on May 21, 1987, if present at the hearing, could waive notice of hearing. Mr. Hughes stated that while this waiver provision exists at the State and Federal level, it could not be implemented at this Zoning Board meeting of the Village of North Tarrytown. Mr. Arcate asked if there were any comments from the Board. Since there were none, it was decided that the hearing be rescheduled for not less than three weeks. There being no further comments, Mr. John Arcate closed the hearing at 9:06 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Arlene Maguire 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-1987 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_1987-05-28 Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1987 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1987 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/4c2ab8997af2e6dcac92dd86e5464fe5.pdf 8e9ec8e9706cf950da99655c7dc0921c PDF Text Text ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF NORTH TARRYTOWN, N.Y. Present: June 11,1987 John Arcate, Chairman Aldo Ceconi John Dool Frank Paolontonio Jerry Sturgill John Hughes, Counsel James Margotta, Building Inspector Absent: George Lackowitz, Building Inspector Mr. John Arcate, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 8:13 p.m. He opened by explaining that the matters under consideration had been previously presented at the meeting of May 28, 1987, and were being re-presented in identical order due to technical difficulties at the former meeting. The first hearing of the night was in regard to the application submitted by Thomas E. Hales, Merlin Avenue, appealing the March 18, 1987 decision of the Building Inspector. Mr. Thomas R. Beirne of Cuddy & Fedder, 90 Maple Avenue, White Plains, New York, addressed the Board on behalf of Mr. Hales. Mr. Beirne introduced Leonard Sieverding, the architect of the proposal, who briefly explained the preference of terming the project as a "Planned Residence Development Group" rather than a "multiple dwelling" due to zoning allowances conferred to the former. He then described the proposal itself, emphasizing the fact that the scheme maintained the character of the surrounding structures in its expression as three separate structures rather than one large building. Mr/ Sieverding pointed out that the scheme also contains the required number of parking spaces. Mr. Beirne then explained the need to obtain the following variances as directed by the Planning Board of North Tarrytown: (1) a variance at the front of the premises only, reducing the required minimum width of the property from one hundred feet to seventy feet, (2) a variance increasing maximum lot coverage from twenty (20%) percent to thirty-six (36%) percent, (3) a variance reducing the minimum side yard in the rear of the premises from five feet on one side and fifteen feet on both sides to five feet on one side and ten feet on both sides, (4) a variance reducing the minimum rear yard from twenty-five feet to six feet, and (5) an interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance pursuant to Section 62-40.A. that a Planned Residence Development Group of one acre or less has a maximum density of twenty-nine units, where Petitioner proposes eighteen units, or, in the alternative, a variance pursuant to Section 62-40.Cs. increasing density from eleven units to eighteen units. Mr. Beirne stated the variance concerning lot coverage was requested so that the project may conform to the character of the neighborhood. The variance on the rear yard requirement was requested on the basis that a design purpose would not be fulfilled in observance of the code; ample room would be left for screening. The variance on the width requirement was requested due to the irregular shape of the land; it was asked that the Board interpret the zoning ordinance so that the width of said lot is measured so that it is congruent to the ordinance, or that the variance be �rewarded as requested as the proposed construction does not conflict with the development of the neighborhood. As parking for the proposal is on-site, a variance for parking is not requested. Mr. Beirne stated that because the project is a "Planned Residence Development Group" and not a "multiple dwelling," the applicant is not subject to the density calculations of the multi-family category. He submitted to Mr. Arcate a memorandum of law toward that end. Mr. Ceconi then questioned Mr. Beirne as to whether the required propert owners had been notified of the hearing.. Mr. Arcate stated that he received an affadavit concerning service of notice and Mr. Beirne asserted that proof of notice of all property owners within the designated radius had been submitted. Mr. Arthur Litt, Attorney of Law, 54 Main Street, Tarrytown, New York, then addressed the Board on behalf of the residents of the neighborhood adjacent to the site. He first submitted to Mr. Arcate a petition against the construction of the proposal. Mr. Litt then contested that the said variances are not slight, that the model presented by Mr. Sieverding was illusory, that the path of motor and emergency vehicles is not clearly defined, that the height of the proposal compounded with its location atop a six foot knoll caused it to "loom" over adjacent private properties thereby violating privacy, and that the existing traffic and parking problem would be exacerbated by the proposal. Mr. Litt submitted six photographs in support of the argument concerning violation of privacy. He added that as per Section 62-40.C.l. of the Zoning Ordinacnes, variances could be granted only in light of "special circumstances or conditions" applying to the land or building and related "practical difficulties." He argued that Mr. Beirne did not demonstrate fulfillment of these circumstances. Mr. Litt continued thataccording to Section 62-40.D. of the Zoning Ordinances a variance may be granted only if topographical conditions are such that application of the provisions of the ordinances would deprive the applicant of reasonable use of the land. Mr. Litt distinguished between "reasonable" and "profitable" use of the land, offering the testimony of another contractor that eleven units could be built profitably on said lot. He submitted text to Mr. Arcate in support of this statement. Mr. Litt also declared that the proposal is detrimental to the public good and impairs the intent and purposes of the Zoning Ordinances, thereby violating Sections 62-1 and 62.2 of the ordinances. He closed by stating that the proposal would damage the property values of surrounding homes. Mr. Beirne rebutted by repeating the absolution of the Planned Residence Development Group from density calculations pertaining to multiple-family dwellings, as cited in the memorandum of law. He also stated that the proposal maintains th existing character of the neighborhood, that the height of the project is within given zoning ordinances, and that the project complies with parking restrictions. Mr. Beirne cited the case of Wachsberger vs. Michalis in reference to the criteria defining "practical difficulty;" he stressed that the most notable concern of the case was maintenance of the character of the community,and that Mr. Hales' proposal complies as such. Mr. Beirne submitted an economic feasibility analysis upon the invitation of Mr. Arcate; Mr. Hales briefly explained the study and the source of its estimates. Mr. Jery Sturgill then questioned the method and facility with which motorsand emergency vehicles would enter the property. Mr. Sieverding stated that entrance would be made through a ramp down and that the structure could be raised to allow �twelve feet of clearance for emergency vehicles; he added that a fire hydrant and sprinkler system are included in the design. Mr. Litt then restated his contention that the residents1 concern was not with the height of the building itself, but with its proximity to the property line. He also briefly responded to the economic analysis submitted to the Board by Mr. Beirne by offering again the testimony of a contractor that the lot could be builtf upon profitably and within the Zoning Ordinances. He closed by stating that other cases have superseded the case of Wachsberger vs. Michalis. The Board then invited the residents of the community to address the Board. Mr. Sean Treacy, Mr. Nivaldo Cuevas, Mr. Albert Martin, Nr. Gerard Barry, Mr. Carlos Custodio, Mr. Carmelo Camilliere, and Mr. Richard Graff spoke against the proposal; Mr. Bob Corpenter spoke in favor of the project. Mr. Sturgill motioned to adjuourn the first hearing; Mr. John Dool seconded the motion. The first hearing was closed at 9:29 p.m. The second hearing was opened at 9:40 p.m. by Mr. Arcate. The hearing was in regard to an application submitted by Manuel A. Martin, 24 Haynes Avenue, Dobbs Ferry, New York appealing the March 18, 1987 decision of the Building Inspector to refuse a certificate of occupancy for a two-family dwelling at 65 Howard Street, North Tarrytown, New York. Mr. John Pappalardo of Grossback & Boycoff, 8 Northlawn Avenue, Elmsford, New York, addressed the Board on behalf of Mr. Martin. Mr. Pappalardo stated that although the said property fell eight hundred feet short of the required minimum lot size for a two-family residence, he requested that a variance be granted as the property could adequately accommodate two families (two entrances, two baths, two heating systems, two hot water systems, and ample parking). He claimed the house would not be an inconvenience for neighbors if registered as a two-family dwelling as all other homes on Howard Street are multiple family dwellings. The house is seventy-five years old and has been commonly recognized and formerly used as a two-family residence; the town of Mr. Pleasant has had it registered as such since 1967. Also, Mr. Martin purchased the home as a two-family residence. Mr. Aldo Ceconi questioned whether notice had been properly served; Mr. Pappalardo stated that notice had been sent through registered certified mail to all residents as required, and all but two receipts had been returned. Affadavits of service were submitted for the absent receipts. Mr. James Gottman, 70 Howard Street, addressed the Board in favour of"awarding the registration of said residence as a two-family dwelling. Mr. Sturgill asked if the contract under which Mr. Martin purchased the residence had any representation of zoning; Mr. Pappalardo stated there was no representation of the residence as a two-family dwelling. Mr. Frank Paolantonio motioned to adjourn the second hearing; Mr. Ceconi seconded the motion. The second hearing was closed at 9:47 p.m. The third hearing of the night was opened at 9:48 p.m. by Mr. Arcate. The final hearing was in regard to the application of Kempton E. Webb, 252 Hunter Avenue, appealing the April 23, 1987 decision of the Building Inspector to deny a building permit for construction of a two car garage. Mr. Webb stated that he had served proper notification to property owners by registered certified mail; seventeen of the nineteen receipts had been returned, and were submitted to Mr. Arcate. �Mr. Webb explained his interest in obtaining storage for his two cars, yard equipment, and various other accessories. He asked that a rear yard variance of the premises only, permitting the construction of a two (2) car garage within ten (10) feet of the property line where twenty-five (25) feet is required be granted for aesthetic purposes; he did not wish that his garage loom over his property and believed that the proposed location of the structure would be the ideal maximum distance for all concerned. Mr. Webb also requested a variance permitting the height of garage to be eighteen (18) feet where the maximum permitted accessory use is fifteen (15) feet so that a loft area over be used as storage. He also stated that his present garage tical, and inadequate. said two (2) car height of an the garage could was unsafe, imprac- Upon questioning by Mr. Arcate, Mr. Webb stated the garage would be slightly offset from the driveway. He submitted copies of plans to the Board, adding that the proposed location of the garage was the only possible and most practical site. Mr. Sturgill asked the location of the current garage; Mr. Webb claimed it was as denoted on the plan, and lacked adequate turning space for his cars. Mr. James Margotta asked if calculations concerning maximum coverage had been tabulated; Mr. Webb replied that the new garage would occupy 19.4% of the total lot area. The Petitioner desired construction of a gambrel roof both in accordance with the architecture of surrounding structures and so that a loft would be created. Mr. Arcate pointed out that Mr. Webb's home had a pitched roof. Mr. Webb submitted photographs of the current situation as well as similar neighboring garages to the Board. Mr. Webb also briefly explored the option of excavating below grade to obtain storage space. Mr. Frank Ceccarelli,;240 Hunter Avenue, spoke against Mr. Webb's proposed construction, complaining that the height variance would interfere with his view. He submitted his own proposal and related photographs to the Board. Mr. Frank Redican, 238 Hunter Avenue, registered a similar complaint concerning the height variance. He also submitted to the Board a copy of a letter written by him to Mr. and Mrs. Webb stating his opinion; it is included in the record of the hearing. Mr. Redican, however, was mistaken in the maximum permitted height of an accessory use, citing twelve (12) feet rather than fifteen (15) feet; Mr. Margotta corrected him on this issue. Mr. Webb submitted to the Board his calculations of the area of the roofed-in spaces, as well as photographs of similar structures in the area. There being no further comments, Mr. Paolantonio motioned to adjourn the final hearing. Mr. Dool seconded the motion. The meeting was closed at 10:10 p.m. �ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF NORTH TARRYTOWN, N.Y. Present: June 11, 1987 John Arcate, Chairman Aldo Ceconi John Dool Frank Paolantonio Jerry Sturgill John Hughes, Counsel James Margotta, Building Inspector Absent: George Lackowitz, Building Inspector The business meeting of June 11, 1987 was called to order by Mr. Arcate at 10:29 p.m. The first order of business was the approval of the minutes of the meeting of May 28, 1987. Mr. Sturgill motioned that they be accepted as written; Mr. Ceconi seconded the motion. The minutes were accepted by a unanimous vote. Mr. Arcate stated that there was no other old business. He opened the new business by proposing that the orders of business be arranged according to the degree of ease with which they be resolved. The first order of business proposed was the application of Manuel A. Martin appealing the March 18, 1987 decision of the Building Inspector to refuse a certificate of occupancy for a two-family residence at 65 Howard Street, North Tarrytown, New York. Mr. Margotta began by stressing the conventionality of the case, confirming the existence of a number of other houses being used as two-family dwellings without the minimum lot size of four thousand square feet. He favored granting the variance, especially in light of the fact that the residence in question complied with other regulations in most respects and that the Petitioner did not create the problem himself. Mr. Paolantonio then questioned why the town of Mt. Pleasant had the residence registered as a two-family dwelling while the village of North Tarrytwon had it registered as a single-family dwelling. Mr. Margotta stated this was not an unusual occurrence due to the different judgements of various assessors. Mr. Ceconi suggested that the town of Mt. Pleasant and the village of North Tarrytwon meet at some later date and compare respective evaluations of residences. Upon Mr. Margotta's recommendation of sending a letter, Counsel Hughes volunteered to correspond with the Board of Trustees of the Town of Mt. Pleasant. Mr. Arcate cautioned Counsel Hughes in his use of diction in the letter. Mr. Paolantonio motioned that ^because the building in question was constructed as a two-family dwelling, the neighborhood enjoys other such houses, and the application meets the requirements of Section 62-40.C. and the purposes of the Zoning Ordinances as stated in Section 62-2, it be accepted and registered as a two-family residence, thereby overriding the previous ruling of the Building Inspector. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dool. The motion was passed by a unanimous vote. The next order of business was the application of Kempton E. Webb concerning the construction of a two-car garage. Mr. Arcate recalled that the Board had heard a similar case at the meeting of April 7, 1987. He stated that the Board had granted a variance concerning the inordinate proximity of the structure to the �property line, but had refused the variance concerning1the proposed height exceeding the maximum permitted height. He therefore assumed the Board would conform to this precedent in the case of Mr. Webb. It was pointed out that the issue of the previous case was not one of aesthetics, but of the sincerity of the request; it was feared that the additional space in the garage would be used to house a second family. Mr. Ceconi clarified that the height variance was denied to negate this threat, not in favor of aesthetics. Mr. Sturgill questioned the justification of the request for the rear yard variance. The Board answered that the proposed site of the garage was the only possible location given the narrowness of the lot. After further discussion it was established that the zoning ordinance dictating a twenty-five foot distance from the property line was impractical in this situation and that the requested variance of the rear yard premises permitting construction within ten feet of the property line was reasonable. The issue of the variance in the height restriction was then discussed. Mr. Sturgill stated that the loss of the superfluous height was not substantial and that other designs could be found to construct the garage within the fiteen foot requirement of the code. He admitted, however that this did not address the concerns voiced by neighbors at the hearing. Mr. Arcate then questioned the reason for the request for additional height. Mr. Margotta stated that the need arose out of the design of the building and the desire for storge space. Mr. Arcate then questioned Mr. Margotta as to whether or not a building permit granting the variance on the rear yard but denying the variance on height was capable of being enforced. Mr. Margotta replied that his concern was to whether the fifteen foot height would be measured from the curb as dictated by the Zoning Ordinances, or from the .-.site; if the maximum permitted height were to be measured from the curb a functional garage would be impossible to construct due to the estimated six foot pitch of the land. Mr. Sturgill confirmed the absurdity of measuring fifteen feet from the curb, stating that it should be measured from the grade. Discussion ensued over where the maximum permitted height should be measured from; Mr. Arcate favored that out of practicality it be measured from the site of construction. Mr. Sturgill stated that if the Board specified a maximum height for Mr. Webb's garage as measured from the grade, it would be setting a precedent for the height of garages. In light of this, because the Zoning Ordinances assumes level grade and establishes a maximum permitted height of fifteen feet, the Board should maintain the maximum permitted height at fifteen feet. Mr. Sturgill therefore moved that the variance concerning the rear yard be granted and that the variance concerning the maximum permitted ^height be'granted up to fifteen feet as measured from the grade at the site of construction pursuant to Section 62-2 of the Zoning Ordinances. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dool. The motion was passed with four votes in favor of the motion and one vote against the motion. The final order of business was the application by Thomas E.fHales appealing the March 18, 1987 decision of the Building Inspector; Mr: Sturgill stated his endorsement of the variance concerning the frontage as Mr. Hales cannot be deemed responsible for the shape of the land. He admitted that the density �issue is more problematic. Discussion ensued over the use and implications of terms "Planned Residence Development Group" and "multiple dwelling" in regard to the density allowances conferred to each. It was resolved that the code requirement allowed eleven or twelve units to the Planned Residence Development Group, not eighteen. Mr. Sturgill then voiced his discomfort over the economic feasibility analysis submitted by Mr. Beirne, stating that the two positions in the case were not fairly represented as the members of the community did not have the opportunity to present their own economic analysis. Mr. Sturgill proposed the matter be suspended thereby giving the opposing counsel an opportunity to respond to the economic study submitted by Mr. Beirne. Counsel Hughes noted that any economic analysis would contain assumptions and future projections, and proposed that because economic considerations were only one aspect of the natter at hand, discussion move forward on the larger issue. Mr. Sturgill again suggested that the Board table the appeal of Mr. Hales until the next meeting, thereby also allowing the Board more time to review newly-submitted material. Mr. Ceconi expressed his desire that the respective attorneys meet and attempt to reconcile differences. Discussion ensued as to the schedule for the upcoming meetings. Mr. Litt had conflicting appointments and was unable to be present for the June 25 meeting; it was finally decided that the hearing of the case of Mr. Hales be moved to the meeting of July 2 and the issues previously scheduled for that meeting be moved to June 25. Mr. Arcate required that the economic study to be submitted by Mr. Litt on behalf of the residents of the community be submitted to the Board by June 29; Mr. Beirne requested he receive the same also by June 29. It was repeated that the hearing requirement was satisfied and that only Board consideration of the case remained. Mr. Arcate announced that Counsel Hughes would report on the Supreme Court ruling concerning reparations for denial of appeals made by property owvers at the next meeting. Mr. Paolantonio motioned to adjourn. Mr. Ceconi seconded the motion, members were in favor. The meeting was adjourned at 11:46 p.m. %v -v ^^--'^^*&&^s^^i^ -j&*&iiQBtiSt3&S££i&£E All � 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-1987 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_1987-06-11 Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1987 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1987 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/ed51b0572993fc035a4b416f1498afa9.pdf 1b219328a0e3a2e148fe921b95fddd6a PDF Text Text JT-" BUSINESS MEETING - July 2, 1987 • PRESENT: John Arcate, Chairman Aldo Ceconi S. J. Sturgill Frank Paolontonio Raymond Dool ALSO PRESENT: James T. Margotta, Building Inspector John J. Hughes, Jr., Village Attorney The minutes of the meeting of June 11, 1987 were approved as read. APPLICATION OF THOMAS E. HALES Mr. William Null, Esq. appeared for the applicant and indicated that he received written materials from the office of Arthur Litt, Esq. which pertained to the economic feasibility of the project for / with eleven (11) units rather than eighteen (18) units. Mr. Null asked for a one week adjournment in order to present a study prepared by the firm of Durkin Bros. and Dodge Cost Systems and for the applicant to consider possible changes in his plan. Mr. Sturgill observed that the requirement for a public hearing had been satisfied, that Mr. Hales had been given an adequate opportunity to submit economic data and that the hearing process had to end at some point. Mr. Arcate indicated that the issue of economic hardship to the applicant is not the only issue in determining whether to grant or deny a variance. A more significant issue is minimum deviation and divergence from the requirements of the Code - as to side yard, rear yard and density. Mr. Litt, appearing on behalf of neighboring residents, objected to any adjournment. According to Mr. Litt, his clients could not match the developer in terms of spending money on economic feasibility studies. Mr. Litt indicated that the applicant had an adequate opportunity to make his case with respect to economic hardship. The proposal, according to Mr. Litt, did not meet the intent of the Zoning Code or its specific requirements. ff Mr. Arcate stated that the hearing was completed on June 11, 1987. At that time, it was agreed without dispute that Mr. Litt's request to comment on Mr. Hales economic study would be submitted by June 29, 1987. Mr. Litt met that date. The Board would hear any comments now, as proposed on June 11, but will not entertain a series of rebuttals and rejoinders. Mr. Null responded that he was not prepared with comments now and needed more time. Mr. Arcate then asked Mr. Null what the Board could expect from his -^*^wl^A*^-i.^.^^ �reference to potential changes in the applicant's plan. If the Board had a basis for reasonable expectations that the applicant would propose substantial changes, the Board would be inclined to grant more time. Mr. Null replied that he has not had sufficient time to pursue such potential changes with the applicant. The Board then addressed the Code requirement (Section 62-47) which imposes a six month requirement before the applicant could reapply for the same or a substantially same proposal. If, however, the second application was substantially different, there would be no six month restriction. The conclusion from this discussion was that whether the Board granted an extension of time to allow Mr. Null to present a substantially different proposal or denied the variance now and allow the applicant to reapply with a substantially changed proposal, the end result would be the same. Mr. Sturgill commented that the cost to the neighbors would be less if they did not have to retain representation for the hearing that would result from a second application and proposed that the Board granted the requested delay. Mr. Null did not comment. Mr. Ceconi indicated that the proposal would be more compelling if the applicant addressed himself to minimizing the deviation from the requirements of the Zoning Code. Mr. Paolantonio, seconded by Mr. Dool, moved to deny the variances requested on the following grounds. The variances sought with respect to density, side yards and rear yards were extreme. On the issue of economic hardship, the burden of proof is on the applicant to demonstrate hardship. The materials submitted by the applicant were not convincing to the Board. Furthermore, even if the applicant had carried his burden of proof, the Zoning Board must consider the issue of minimum deviation of the Code. The proposal presented to the Board represented extreme deviations from the Zoning Code with respect to density, side yard and rear yards. Mr. Arcate then noted that the Board should act with respect to the applicant's proposal for development as a Planned Residence Development rather than a multiple dwelling. As part of this motion, the Board should rule whether Planned Residence Developments should be permitted on such a lot. It was concluded that this lot did not satisfy the requirement of 100 foot frontage or 20% density as specified in the Code for Planned Residential Development. Further, as displayed by the memo from Mr. Hughes, the prorata density allowed is �the same under both criteria. Motion carried by vote of three to two. In favor Dool, Paolontonio, Ceconi. Against - Arcate, Sturgill. Matter of John A. Arcate Mr. Sturgill observed that the proposed construction's compliance with code requirements was not is issue. The only reason this application was before the Board was because the size of the lot did hot conform to code requirements enacted in 1968, after construction of the houses which apparently compelled the Building Inspector to deny the building permit. After a brief discussion of the problems of nonconforming lots, a motion was made by Mr. Sturgill, seconded by Mr. Paolontonio, to grant the variance. Motion carried unanimously. Matter of Gioella j_ Rezza The Board recognized that the present variance was granted over 30 years ago and at a time when a different Code was enforced. Therefore, it was important to restate and clarify what is granted. The Board also noted that special circumstances documented in the Board's file of the 1956 action, made it necessary for Greene County to relocate from an urban renewal site in the Village. In order to remain in the Village a variance was sought and granted. The consequences of this variance, as shown by the record, has not resulted in a single complaint. After a brief discussion of the application, a motion was made by Mr. Paolontionio, seconded by Mr. Dool, that the variance applied for be granted and the 1956 variance, which was previously granted, be interpreted as follows: (1). That the condition found in the 1956 variance, (i.e. that it was granted to Greene County Importing Corp. only) was invalid as a matter of law. Any conditions imposed by the Zoning Board will relate to the use or occupancy of the land and not to the identity of the owner; (2) . That the condition;.found in the 1956 variance that there not be a "factory" on the premises is interpreted to mean that although there may be an exclusive retail use on the premises, pursuant to the Code, manufacturing use engaged in on the premises (preparation and purchasing of pasta and pasta-related products) must coexist with the retail use. »» , -'"™ Mi J*< l «^-T»£3«KlgSfefete&5i^>BrfS^^ �Motion carried unanimously. Next meeting scheduled for July 23, 1987. Being no further business the meeting adjourned. �July 2, 1987 PRESENT: John Arcate, Chairman Aldo Ceconi S. J. Sturgill Frank Paolontonio Raymond Dool ALSO PRESENT: James Margotta, Building Inspector John J. Hughes, Jr., Village Attorney Minutes of July 2, 1987 meeting of Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of North Tarrytown. Matter of John A. Arcate The Public Notice of the meeting was read by Mr. John Hughes, Village Counsel, acting as secretary to the Board. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Zoning Board of Appeals will hold a Public Hearing on July 2, 1987 in the Municipal Building, 28 Beekman Avenue, North Tarrytown, New York, at 8:00 p.m. to consider the application of JOHN A. ARCATE appealing the denial of a building permit by the Building Inspector for the premises located at 10 Hemlock Drive, North Tarrytown, New York. The applicant is requesting a building permit to permit the construction of an open deck on the premises. Section 62, subsection 8, paragraph B of the Zoning Ordinance of the Village of North Tarrytown requires lots which are situated within the R-2A District to contain 15,000 square feet, with a minimum width of 100 feet. The premises in question is non-conforming in that it contains 14,400 square feet and the width of the lot is 96.98 feet. Mr. Arcate addressed the Board and indicated that he wished to construct a deck extending from his house. The proposed construction will not violate any requirement of the Zoning Code. A variance is required only because his lot is non-conforming with respect to area (600 feet short of required 15000 feet) and width (short less than 4 feet). Mr. Arcate reviewed the history of the R-2A District, enacted in 1968 designed to control new development within Sleepy Hollow Manor. Mr. Sturgill been with respect explained that in where there was a for were granted. asked what the past policy of the Board has to similar applications. Mr. Arcate all cases that he could recall but one, rear yard problem, the variances applied �No other parties addressed the Board. hearing. Close of Hearing. Motion to close Matter of Application of Thomas Gioella and Christopher Rezza The Secretary to the Board read the Notice of Hearing: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Zoning Board of Appeals will hold a Public Hearing on July 2, 1987 in the Municipal Building, 28 Beekman Avenue, North Tarrytown, New York at 8:00 p.m. to consider the application of Christopher Rezza and Thomas Gioella to continue to use the premises located at No. 44 Beekman Avenue, North Tarrytown, New York to manufacture the package pasta, sausage and other food products. The premises in questions is located within the C-2 Zone, which does not permit manufacturing uses. Mr. Richard Deely, counsel to applicants, addressed the Board and explained that his clients were in the process of purchasing Greene County Importing Corp. ("Greene County") and the premises in which it is situated, located at 44 Beekman Avenue, North Tarrytown, New York. Mr. Deely explained that Green County currently manufactured pasta and meat products for sale of the premises and did so by virtue of a variance granted in 1956. Mr. Deely explained that the purpose of applying for the variance now was to clarify the 1956 variance as it related to the present use of the premises and the planned continued use by the applicants. Mr. Margotta asked whether the applicants intended to expand the business. Mr. Deely responded that they did not. They will continue the same business without change; same machines and same floor space used. Mr. Ceconi asked whether the leased lot across Beekman Avenue would be rented by the applicants to provide parking. Mr. Deely explained that the property is nonconforming,in that it does not provide on-site parking, but that the applicants had arranged to rent four (4) off street spaces behind the adjacent building. Mr. Hughes commented that the lot across the street has been rented by the Village for public parking. No other parties addressed the Board. passed - Hearing closed. Motion to close Respectfully submitted, IE, |f»r-. % . » .Hughes, Jr.* Attorney ^ ^ ^ ^ '" '*& - # -2fe-; -^•^*^-^>:.^iw?.*-^^^ . � 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-1987 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_1987-07-02 Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1987 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1987 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/9753e3ffa86003cf6be7e91efcce745e.pdf 07c4e8c4ea1b0e6792a8931157b5fdf2 PDF Text Text MINUTES OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS VILLAGE OF NORTH TARRYTOWN, NEW YORK July 23, 1987 Present: Aldo Ceconi, Acting Chairman James Margotta, Building Inspector John J. Hughes, Jr., Village Attorney Arthur Brady, Counsel S. J. Sturgill Frank Paolontonio Paul Phillips Raymond Dool The public meeting was called to order at 8:12 p.m. by Mr. Ceconi. Matter of Joaquim Taviera As Mr. Taviera was unable to attend the meeting, this order of business was postponed to the next meeting. Matter of David Mallik The Public Notice was read by the acting secretary of the Board. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to Section 62-44 of the Code of the Village of North Tarrytown, a hearing will be held by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of North Tarrytown in the Village Hall, 28 Beekman Avenue, North Tarrytown, New York, on July 23, 1987 at 8:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as petitioner may be heard on an application submitted by David Mallik, 138 Harwood Avenue, North Tarrytown, New York appealing the decision of the Building Inspector and requesting a variance from the requirements of Section 62-8B of the Zoning Ordinance of the Village of North Tarrytown which requires a 25 foot rear yard setback for those properties located within the R-2 Zone. Mr. Richard McCall, contractor for the proposed garage, spoke on behalf of Mr. Mallik. He stated that the proposed garage. was to be built on the foundation of a previous garage and was to be the same size as the previous structure. He further stated that it was practically difficult, if not impossible, to locate this garage anywhere else on the property. Mr. Charles Luberger of 160 Harwood Avenue, then spoke, saying that he had no objection to the garage if it was to be built the same size as the previous one. �I Mr. Margotta then inquired as to why no electrical wiring had been planned for the garage. He believed that it was wiser to include electricity in the original walls rather than add wiring to the existing structure later. Mr. Margotta suggested adding a light over the garage, as well as two grounded outlets. Mr. McCall agreed to make these changes in the plans. There being no further public comments, Mr. Dool then moved to close the hearing. The motion was seconded by Mr. Sturgill and passed unanimously. Matter of Stephen Maceyak The Public Notice was read by the acting secretary to the Board. • NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to Section 62-44 of the Code of the Village of North Tarrytown, a hearing will be held by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of North Tarrytown in the Village Hall, 28 Beekman Avenue, North Tarrytown, New York on July 23, 1987 at 8:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as Petitioner may be heard, on an application submitted by Stephen Maceyak, 22 Anderson Avenue, North Tarrytown, New York appealing the February 10, 1987 decision of the Building Inspector denying a building permit for failure to comply with the requirements of section 62, subsection 25, paragraph A of the Zoning Ordinance of the Village of North Tarrytown which prohibits a restaurant use within the Manufacturing District. The applicant seeks to expand the restaurant currently located at 266 Beekman Avenue, North Tarrytown, New York. Mr. Ronald Turnquist, the architect for the proposed addition, then presented a scale model to the board and described the project. He explained that the addition would be a modern one, in keeping with the style of the doorway to the nearby General Motors building, rather than with the traditional buildings on the opposite side of the railroad tracks. Mr. Maceyak then explained that he planned to meet the required number of parking spaces by leasing a parking lot owned by General Motors, located 250 feet from his business. Mr. Steven Serena, operator of a tax business adjacent to the restaurant, then expressed opposition to the expansion. He feared that Mr. Maceyak's restaurant patrons would further damage his vehicles as they had in the past. He also omplained of littering on the property and other isturbances which he claimed were a result of patrons of the restaurant. Mr. Maceayk responded by stating that while in -2- �the past, he had hired a disk jockey and had dancing on the premises, which was possible because of the movable tables inside, that recently he had ceased to do this, and planned to operate only a restaurant in the future. Mr. Paolontohio then raised the question of whether the seating capacity of one hundred seventy-five (175) implied that this was the maximum number of occupants of the restaurant. Mr. Maceyak stated that the number of standees was not an issue, as the zoning was based on the number of seats. Ms. Gwendolyn Carter of 175 Hudson Street then voiced here approval of the project. However, she had several complaints about the current operation of the restaurant which she believed would worsen if the proposed addition was approved. She claimed that the restaurant had attracted a number of rodents to the immediate area, that the driveways of her house and several others in the area were often blocked by the vehicles of Mr. Maceyak*s patrons, that litter left by those patrons on neighboring lawns often had to be cleaned up by herself and her neighbors, and that she feared that the restaurant would therefore depreciate the value of her home should she decide to sell it. Ms. Carter explained that she had had to call the police on numerous occasions to deal with the situation, but that they often arrived too late to apprehend anyone. Mr. Serena concurred on this point. Mr. Maceyak stated he had. an exterminator brought in weekly who found no problem with the rodents. He also stated that some of the litter could not be attributed to his establishment since he did not serve alcohol in cans. He claimed that in his three years of operation, the police had never notified him of these complaints. Mr. Serena, then inquired about the feasibility of valet parking in the General Motors lot, as Mr. Maceyak had described. The board agreed that the idea was indeed workable. Mr. Turnquist explained that the addition as planned might enhance the property values of the neighboring region. He explained that their intention was to change the character of the establishment for the better. Mr. Maceayak explained that he did already have a lease for another nearby parking lot on River Street, although he still did not have a lease for the General Motors lot. He was urged by the board to obtain the latter. -3- ,-L£ -"-L i- rU\~-_ -I'li^d?-* =£>- �Mr. Ceconi, in closing, then explained that since the area in questions was zoned for commercial property rather than residential, that homeowners there would continue to encounter problems trying to prevent the establishment of commercial businesses there. There being no further public comments, Mr. Dool then moved to close the public hearing. The motion was seconded by Mr. Sturgill and passed unanimously. Matter of Rodrigues Enterprises - Valley Street Project The public notice was read by the acting Secretary to the Board. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to Section 62-44 of the Code of the Village of North Tarrytown, a hearing will be held by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of North Tarrytown in the Village Hall, 2 8 Beekman Avenue, North Tarrytown, New York on July 23, 1987 at 8:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as Petitioner may be heard, on an application submitted by Rodrigues Enterprises, 56 Clinton Street, North Tarrytown, New York appealing the March 11, 1988 decision of the Building Inspector and requesting a variance from the requirements of Section 62, subsection 8, paragraph B of the Zoning Ordinance of the Village of North Tarrytown which requires for any building located within the C-2 district the following: (1) a rear yard of 20 feet. The applicant proposes a building with an 8 foot rear yard; (2) a front yard of 20 feet. The applicant proposes a building with a 5 foot front yard; (3) side yards of a total of 15 feet with a minimum side yard of 5 feet. The applicant provides a total of 12 feet on the sideyards and 3 feet on one side and (4) a minimum area of 18,500 square feet for twelve (12) dwelling units. The premises in question contains 13,000 square feet. Mr. Herbert Posner, attorney for Mr. Rodrigues, stated that the proposed Multi-Function Building would improve the appearance of the area and remove a gas station which the residents believe detracts from the appearance of the neighborhood. Mr. Posner further explained that the property is unique and that strict application of the Zoning Code would not permit any new building on the property. The building proposed would conform to and enhance the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Ron Turnquist, the architect for the project, then described the layout of the proposal. Mr. Joseph Emma of 62 Depeyster Street complained of the necessity of notifying the police to remove vehicles belonging to patrons of the nearby stores, which often block -4- �residents' driveways. He feared that the new proposal, allowing for more businesses as well as apartments with no plans for parking, would worsen this situation. He also noted the lack of a traffic signal on the street, making turning a problem and allowing many vehicles to speed down Depeyster Street. These complaints were supported by other residents of the street. Mr. Joseph Arrout suggested that the number of dwellings be reduced from twelve to eight or nine, to lessen the problem of parking. Mr. Posner stated that the number of spaces required for the building (35) had been allotted. Mrs. Clair Lang of 49 Depeyster Street spoke against the construction of such a tall building at this location. Her husband also disagreed with the proposal, claiming that the building would be unsightly; that traffic already travels too fast on the street, preventing pedestrians from crossing. Mrs. Lang claimed the traffic passed too close to her driveway already. Mrs. Eleanor Russo of 45 Depeyster Street noted that many families in the area own three of more vehicles, and lack any private parking area for them, and that the proposed development would only make the problem worse. Mr. Posner explained that the building would rise only fortyfour (44) feet above Valley Street, and would therefore not block the view or detract from the appearance of the street. Mr. Michael Malone agreed that the idea was a good one, but that the area was too crowded already. He suggested allotting the first floor of the building just for parking, and the second floor for stores or apartments. Mr. Turnquist explained that only the residential side of the building would be viewed from the street. He also dismissed Mr. Malone's idea as implausible due to convenience for elderly and/or handicapped patrons of the stores, or residents of the apartments. Mr. Arthur Brady, acting counsel, proposed that the number of dwellings be reduced to ten, since this would be in keeping with the zoning code for the amount of square feet in question. Mr. Turnquist explained that the present design was more economical in terms of waterproofing the roof, etc. Mr. Ceconi noted that only thirty-two (32) parking spaces were in fact allowed for in the design, because the other three (3) would be public parking, while thirty-five (35) private spaces are required by the Code. Mr. Turnquist noted in response that the zoning is currently based on the number of apartments where a more accurate method would be to base it on the number of bedrooms in the complex. -5• VWta «:•* trite* j.-^ai3,a:iii»'-JfeiBS&aSiifca; �Mr. Rodrigues, the contractor, then explained that the project was a rather costly endeavor, and that they would not have planned it as such without reason to believe it would result in a profit. He explained that the site is unique. A smaller building with less density is not economically justifiable. Second Matter of Rodrigues Enterprises Clinton Street Project Mr. Turnquist, Architect for the project, explained that Mr. Rodrigues previously obtained a variance from the Board as to density and parking. Subsequently, a survey was obtained which showed that the property in question, located at 56 Clinton Street, North Tarrytown, New York, was approximately 4400 square feet in area rather than 53004square feet, as previously represented to the Zoning Board when the variance was obtained. Discussion ensued regarding the previously granted variances. Mr. Brady, Counsel, explained that since applicant was also required to obtain a variance for the necessary subdivision of the property at 56 Clinton Street, that the present hearing was also for a variance to allow two buildings on the same lot. A separate motion to close this hearing was made by Mr. Dool, seconded by Mr. Phillips, and passed unanimously. The public meeting was adjourned at 10:41 p.m. -6- �EXECUTIVE SESSION 1. Minutes of Previous Meeting Mr. Sturgill then made a motion to approve the minutes of the meeting of July 2, 1987. It was seconded by Mr. Dool and passed unanimously. 2. Matter of David Mallik Mr. Sturgill reviewed the practical difficulties inherent in locating a garage anywhere else on the subject property. He further noted that a garage had existed previously on the same foundation. Mr. Sturgill moved to approve the variance sought by the applicant. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dool and passed unanimously. 3. Matter of Stephen Maceyak Mr. Sturgill then reviewed the Maceyak case by indicating that he himself has viewed the establishment in question and its surroundings, and believes the restaurant venture to be a better use of the property than any manufacturing use. Mr. Sturgill mentioned that the applicable section of the zoning code could be interpreted to state that the owner of the restaurant must also own or lease the corresponding parking area. Mr. Margotta stated that the need for a variance arose from the fact that the proposal was for a restaurant to be build in a region zoned for manufacturing only. Mr. Sturgill then moved to grant the variance to permit this proposed restaurant expansion wi thin the Manufacturing Zone with the condition that there would be sufficient parking provided at a distance of 250 feet from the restaurant. Mr. Paolontonio seconded, and this resolution was passed unanimously. 4. Matter of Rodrigues Enterprises - Clinton Street Property Mr. Sturgill reviewed the Rodrigues application by reminding the board that only two parking spaces were in question. Mr. Paolontonio stated that the variance, if approved, would allow much more density than the Code permitted, and that not enough parking spaces would be provided. Mr. Dool moved to deny the variance sought for by Rodrigues Enterprises. This motion was seconded by Mr. Paolontonio. Motion carried four votes to one. Mr. Sturgill voted against the motion. -7ic-fc -••i»eJi'ii"jr,^i4£6jSl �Mr. Sturgill then moved to rescind the former vote and grant the variance for four (4) dwelling units rather than five, since this proposal would be closer to compliance with the zoning code in terms of density and parking. This motion was seconded by Mr. Dool. Mr. Sturgill and Mr. Dool voted in favor, and Mr. Phillips, Mr. Paolontonio, and Mr. Ceconi against. Motion fails by a 3 to 2 vote. Since this variance for four dwellings was also struck down, Mr. Margotta reminded the board that the applicant could return only with a plan for three dwellings, or a complete revision. 4. Matter of Rodrigues Enterprises -^ Valley Street On the issue of the Rodrigues property located at Valley street, North Tarrytown, New York, Mr. Sturgill noted that if the property were zoned for manufacturing, the only variance that would be needed would be for the rear yard. Since the proposal was for a hybrid use (part commercial, part residential), it fell into this category. Mr. Margotta noted that the traffic estimates voiced by the residents were somewhat exaggerated, as was the speeding. Several board members concurred. Mr. Sturgill moved to grant the variances requested;.to wit, variances from the requirements of 62-8B of the Zoning Code as they apply to (1). Rear Yard Setback - whereas 20 feet is required, an 8 foot rear yard setback will be permitted; (2). Front Yard Setback - whereas 20 feet is required, a 5 foot front yard setback will be permitted; (3). Side Yard Setbacks - whereas a total of 15 feet will be required with a minimum of 5 feet on one side. The applicant will be permitted 12 feet on the sideyards and 3 feet on one side; (4). Density - whereas the Code requires a minimum area of 18,500 square feet, for 12 dwelling units, 13,000 square feet will be permitted: (5). Parking - whereas the Code requires 35 on site parking spaces for this project, 32 will be permitted. Mr. Sturgill reviewed the entire Project, indicating that the applicant had shown that the shape of the lot was unique, that there were practical difficulties involved in the construction of any new building, that the building proposed conformed to the character of the neighborhood (Valley Street - Commercial; Depeyster Street - Residential). This matter �was then referred to the Planning Board for review of the site plan. Mr. Sturgill's motion was seconded by Mr. Dool. carried unanimously. Motion Mr. Sturgill then motioned to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Paolontionio seconded. Motion carried unanimously. The executive session was adjourned at 11:48 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, R. Thomas Homan Village Administrator/Clerk Village of North Tarrytown -9- � 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-1987 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_1987-07-23 Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1987 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1987 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/eaf629763fdf917d3e5c35e9402f0a96.pdf 96b8b78eaa6eb449959640e4710cc1bc PDF Text Text I * MINUTES OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS VILLAGE OF NORTH TARRYTOWN, NEW YORK October 29, 1987 Present: John Arcate, Chairman, James Margotta, Building Inspector, Arthur Brady, Counsel, S.J. Sturgill, Frank Paolontonio, Raymond Dool. Chairman John Arcate called the meeting to order at 8:15 p.m. 1. Matter of Mr. Joaquim Tavares, 22 Lawrence Avenue Public notice was read at hearing by the secretary. Ron Turnquist of Turnquist Architects, 95 Beekman Avenue approached the board on behalf of Mr. Tavares. Mr. Turnquist presented Mr. Arcate with postal receipts of the notices to residents living within 200 feet of the property. The property in question is a 3 story; 3 family building with 2 existing garages back to back. The owner would like to remove the existing front garage, utilizing the north wall of the existing garage; thereby creating one large garage. Mr. Dool questioned how many parking spaces would this new garage provide? Mr. Turnquist stated that 2 onsite spaces will be available outside the garage. Mr. Margotta noted his concern if Mr. Tavares would be parking his trucks in those spaces. Mr. James McStay, 33 Lawrence Avenue questioned what the height of the new garage would be? Mr. Turnquist stated that the new gar- age would be no higher than the existing garage. It was also noted that the height of the garage is limited to the first floor windows of the house. Mr. McStay also asked what would be stored in this garage? . ^.'-Ai'.-AV ---.^t ^-'.C -.- — r ^ . ^ ^ ^ ^ - s - r ^ .-jrz:-^ -^JL ^i-i^i*^^^v<i^^-^:=^c=p™»-*£*.*. e*aT.a.-:jv».=..tE- .--.,vferi^:^i£-3!3i£li*^SVlj5a*«K^^ �2 Mr. Turnquist noted that due to the height of garage (exterior 12') and width of door (8') nothing larger than a van or small pick-up would fit. Mr. Arcate asked if the roof would be flat? Mr. Turnquist stated that it would be a flat roof. Mr. Sturgill made a motion to close the hearing. Mr. Paolontonio seconded the motion; motion carried unanimously. Matter of Mr. Jose da Silva,.104 Rice Avenue Public notice was read at hearing by the secretary. Mr. Arcate asked if there was anyone present to address the board. It was noted that Mr. da Silva was not present and no one spoke on his behalf. Mr. Arcate asked if there was anyone who could demonstrate that the requirements of the building code had been satisfied for a hearing, namely that property owners within 200 feet have been notified. Mr. Jim Timmings, 119 Rice Avenue addressed the board and stated that he lives within 200 feet of the da Silva property and was not notified of the hearing. The board determined that the requirements of the code prevailed and that a valid hearing could not be held. Mr. Margotta asked the board what the next course of action would be. Mr. Arcate stated that the applicant starts all over again. Mr. Margotta questioned whether there would be another hearing. Mr. Arcate noted that if the property owner remedies the situation there would be no need for another hearing. However if �3 the applicant persists in obtaining a variance then another hearing would be necessary. Mr. Paolontonio made a motion to close the hearing. Mr. Dool seconded the motion; motion carried unanimously. 3. Matter of Mr. Alberto de Carvalho, 283 North Washington Street. Public notice was read at hearing by the secretary. Mr. Philip Mondello, Attorney (office at 56 Main Street, Irvington, NY) approached the board on behalf of Mr. de Carvalho. Mr. Mondello presented Mr. Arcate with postal receipts of the notices to residents living within 200 feet of the property. Mr. Mondello noted that his client was never delivered a copy of the notice of the public hearing and the notice that was sent to the residents stated the wrong date. . A second letter was then sent out with the correct date. Mr. Mondello presented the board with supplementary information for their review regarding Mr. de Carvalho's proposed construction. Mr. Arcate asked what the depth would be of the rear yard after construction? It was demonstrated by a map (drawn to scale) the rear yard will exceed 40 feet after construction; requirement being 25 feet. Mr. Margotta asked Mr. Mondello what the rooms Mr. de Carvalho propose to add would be used for? Mr. Mondello stated that a family room will be added on the first floor and that on the second floor two bedrooms exist which will be enlarged and a sitting area would be added. Mr. Mondello also noted that the addition would be covered in the same vinyl siding that covers the house now. _ + w >-_j -_«, -_' ,^ai-P-^j | ^ - | ^ : ^ _ , ^ ™ ^ ^ > ^ : & ^ ^ w>» ^ » ~ ^ * * - ^ ; * ^ . ^ i ^ : r ^ ^ ^ �Mr. Paolontonio made a motion to close the hearing. seconded the motion; motion carried unanimously. -1-••'-. -J,.• -si-.iS- i-'A/ir, ^^^^^^tteSi&ifei-^ISfcSii'-^SiS^liSlsi^i.si WM^MlJ^iiAJ&iAAijLkAi^i^^^-^Ai^^^^^Mm^^^^imi^&i^^. Mr.Dool �Business Meeting Chairman Arcate opened the business meeting at 9:25 p.m. 1. Approval of Meeting Minutes, July 23, 1987—Mr. Paolontonio made a motion to accept the minutes with noted corrections. Mr. Sturgill seconded the motion; motion carried unanimously. 2. Matter of Mr. Tavares—Mr. Margotta stated that he feels the new garage will improve the looks of the area. Mr. Sturgill noted that it may also help the parking situation on Lawrence Avenue and strongly feels the variance should be granted. Mr. Sturgill made a motion to grant the variance as applied. Mr. Dool seconded the motion; motion carried unanimously. 3. Matter of Mr. da Silva—Mr. Margotta stated that Mr. da Silva contends that there was an existing fence which he replaced with a new 6' fence. However, Mr. Margotta noted that if he applied for a building permit he would have known the requirements only allow a 5' fence; he also built the shed without a building permit. Mr. Margotta stated that Mr. da Silva is in court for building without a permit. Mrs. Timmings voiced her concern with Mr. da Silva1s constant abuse of the zoning code. Mr. Sturgill questioned how long the fence and shed have been up. It is believed that they have been up for at least 3 to 4 months, The board urged the building inspector to have the village prosecutor to proceed with the court case and to have it known that "*r,--.r—*-^ �the board was available to consider his application but he failed to satisfy the requirements of the code. The board feels they must take a stand and does not want this to continue. 4. Matter of Mr. de Carvalho—Mr. Arcate noted that due to the depth of the lot there would be no problem extending in the back; the side yard is in question and feels that it is a reasonable request. Mr. Paolontonio noted that no negative comments were stated. Mr. Dool made a motion to grant the variance as applied. The motion was seconded by Mr. Paolontonio; motion carried unanimously. 5. New Business—Mr. Arcate stated that John Hughes informed him that there are matters that are pending and must be addressed. Next Meeting date is scheduled for Thursday, December 3. 6. Mr. Paolontonio made a motion to adjourn. be Mr. Dool; motion carried unanimously. The motion was seconded The business meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m. Respectively submitted, ;.-.' Mary C. Zimmermann Secretary »-T.;- • - - - - - * * ' ' ~ ^ - ^ ^ - - ^ ^ ; ^ ^ - ; " ^ * ^ « » ^ � 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-1987 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_1987-10-29 Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1987 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1987 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/b983c57844d7e4be7c90df6a0d5f6cee.pdf a06cad7dabaa2ac380b542d78f11f9e7 PDF Text Text MINUTES OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS VILLAGE OF NORTH TARRYTOWN, NEW YORK December 3, 1987 'Ci m Present: John Arcate, Chairman, James Margotta, Building Inspector, John Hughes, Counsel, Aldo Ceconi, Steve Maceyak, Raymond Dool, Frank Paolontonio Chairman John Arcate called the meeting to order at 8:05 pm. 1. Matter of Mrs. Adele Curtin, 1 Beekman Avenue Public notice was read at hearing by secretary. Mr. Thomas Curtin, 44 Harwood Avenue approached the board on behalf of Adele Curtin. Mr. Curtin asked the board to grant a variance to allow them to change the present restaurant (VITTLES) which is a fast food restaurant to an eat-in/sit down restaurant. Mr. Curtin presented the board with additional information regarding the new restaurant. Mr. Arcate asked Mr. Curtin if he had evidence of notice to property owners within 200 feet. Mr. Curtin presented the board with the postal receipts. Mr. Curtin noted that he had spoke with building inspector and was informed of the requirements needed to open the restaurant. Adequate parking already exists. Mrs. Florence Valcarce, 5 Beekman Avenue stated that the notice she received indicated that a fast food restaurant was going in the building and that Mr. Curtin indicates that it is going to be a sit down/eat-in restaurant. Mr. Curtin assured Mrs. Valcarce that it is not going §1; to be a fast food restaurant, it is going to be a Japanese Restaurant. Mr. Dool questioned whether the existing 8 parking spaces were adequate. Jim Margotta indicated that the -4*r*JSfr , ^ ^ . i V , f.*^-*^;:^^^ �0 spaces meet the code. Mrs. Valcarce also requested that the garbage dumpsters not be placed under her windows. Mr. Curtin indicated that should not be a problem. Mr. Ceconi asked if any exterior changes would be made. Mr. Curtin believed that possibly some plantings would be added and the sign would be changed. Mr. Paolontonio made a motion to close the hearing. Mr. Dool seconded the motion; motion carried unanimously. Matter of Mr. Jose da Silva, 104 Rice Avenue Public notice was read at hearing by secretary. Mr. David Dempsey approached the board representing Mr. & Mrs. da Silva. Mr. Dempsey presented the board with the postal receipts of the notices to residents living within 200 feet of the property. Mr. Dempsey indicated that the da Silvafs wanted to construct a concrete patio and walkway on their property. In order to do so, the existing fence had to be taken down (the fence posts remained) and then the fence was replaced. The shed was in such poor condition that an entirely new shed began to be constructed (the building inspector stopped the construction). Mr. Art Ceconi, Amos Street - representing his mother who resides at 119 Gordon Avenue, asked the board if a building permit was required for the replacement of the fence and shed. Jim Margotta noted that a building permit was required. Mr. Ceconi then asked if a building permit was requested. Jim Margotta said that no permit was requested �or issued and he stopped the construction on the shed; Mr. da Silva then applied for a/variance which was denied. Mr. James Timmings, 119 Rice Avenue questioned the need for the hearing because a month ago a hearing was scheduled and the applicant did not meet the necessary requirements. Mr. Arcate noted that the board came to no decision on the matter at the last meeting (October 29), Mr. da Silva did not demonstrate to the board the necessary requirements to hold a hearing and therefore no hearing could be held. Mr. Dempsey stated that the legal notice was not received in time in order to mail the notification of hearing to the residents in the area. Mr. Arcate asked Mr. Dempsey if he could show reason of hardship why the fence has to be 6 feet in height (rather than the required 5 feet)? Mr. Dempsey noted that the fence existed before and was replaced. Mr. Arcate indicated that the code states that if a non-conforming structure or use is more than 507o removed it can not be restored. Mr. Dempsey noted that the shed is used for storage of tools. The fence is used as a privacy barrier and also indicated that the retaining wall is quite high and therefore used as a safety precaution. Mrs. Grace Malandrino, 104 Gordon Avenue stated that she has no objection to the da Silva's fence or shed. In fact, she believes it improves the value of their property and does not take away from her property. Mrs. Timmings, 119 Rice Avenue stated that she does not object to the fence but objects to the idea of constructing the fence without inquiring about the code first and believes the shed is an eyesore and that the basement could be used for storage. ': '--^ : =^iS>v_^;^^^s*----w^~*i#JvSVi^iV- i l-r„- '„ v *-"»=^"'-**iss3i^teJ^SJ^fe^^i<BS#J^i^te^j^i«aii8 C^.*^i^*^*^-JJ- *' * ~^_ -* i. < * W^AX*-£=S �Mrs. Meade, 38 Gordon Avenue, stated the da Silva's maintain their property beautifully and has no objection with the fence. She also mentioned that her children play in that area and would not like to see them fall over the wall on the da Silva property. Mr. da Silva reported that there is not a foundation for the shed as Mrs. Timmings indicated. One side has stone along it for aesthetic reasons only. Mr. Aldo Ceconi believes since this is the second time the da Silva's have built something without a permit that they should know the rules and start living up to the zoning codes. Mr. Steve Maceyak made a motion to close the hearing. Mr. Aldo Ceconi seconded the motion; motion carried unanimous Matter of Frank Mangieri, 404 North Broadway Public notice was read at hearing by secretary. Mr. Donald Walsh, Attorney (office at 14 North Broadway, Tarrytown) approached the board on behalf of Mr. Mangieri. Mr. Walsh presented Mr. Arcate with postal receipts of the notices to residents living within 200 feet of the property. Mr. Walsh stated that the reason he is before the Zoning Board is because the Planning Board has made some changes on the site plan (for firematic reasons) and therefore need a new variance. The Planning Board has suggested that 4 parking spaces be relocated off the premeses (relocated to an adjacent lot). Mr. Walsh indicated that this is by no means a final approval of the project. This is an ongoing project and is still being reviewed by the Planning Board. �Mr. Arcate questioned whether the previous application for variances which were granted over a year ago and no action taken need to be renewed. Jim Margotta indicated that they need not be renewed because they are still before the planning board. Mr. Walsh stated they renewed the variances in April 1987. Mr. Walsh asked that while considering the variance, that the resolution be made in two parts. The first part stating that it will have no impact on the environment and the second being the resolution to grant the variance. Mr. Margotta indicated that on the original plans there were 8 parking spaces and now there are only 4 spaces. He asked if 4 more spaces could be added (on Gesner Place). Mr. Walsh said there would be no problem adding the 4 additional spaces. The boards suggested it be designed in such a manner that thru traffic could not go through the area. Mr. Anjenta, owner of ATC Building, 239 North Broadway stated that he believed too many variances have already been granted and no plans have been made for guest parking. Mr. Maceyak stated that the code does not require arrangements for guest parking. Mr. Amenta also noted that he wrote a letter to the board stating his concerns. Mr. Arcate indicated the letter will be part of the file. Mrs. Mangieri suggested that if there is a problem with people parking in Mr. Amenta's lot he should contact the Police Department. Mr. Steve Maceyak made a motion to close the hearing. Mr. Frank Paolontonio seconded the motion; the motion carried unanimously. �^• Matter of Dominic LaCaruba, 27 Maple Street Public notice was read at hearing by secretary. Mr. Donal Walsh, Attorney (office at 14 North Broadway, Tarrytown) approached the board on behalf of Mr. LaCaruba. Mr. Walsh presented Mr. Arcate with postal receipts of the notices to residents living within 200 feet of the property. Mr. Walsh stated the Planning Board referred this applicant to the Zoning Board to consider a restaurant in the C-l District. The proposed restaurant will be a family style restaurant/ sit down (50-60 seats); 10-12 parking spaces (located at 276 North Broadway). Mr. Margotta stated that the Exxon Station although it is in the C-l Zone is in a peculiar situation. The code states the area can not have a gas station within 300 feet of another gas station (that therefore eliminates the building used as a gas station). Jim also noted that the board denied the use for a used car lot on the same basis. Mr. LaCaruba stated that he has had the property for two years and has had a very hard time finding a tenant. Mr. Ceconi asked if any changes or additions would be made to the building. Mr. Walsh indicated that possibly brick face would be done to the outside (this project is still in the preliminary stages). Mr. Ceconi also asked if any additional parking would be added. Mr. LaCaruba indicated that employee parking would be on top. Mr. Walsh asked that when considering the variance to make the resolution in two parts. The first part stating that it will have no impact on the environment arid the second being the granting of the variance. Mr. Steve Maceyak made a motion to close the hearing. �« * Mr. Raymond Dool seconded the motion; the motion carried unanimously. / I m f: : J-. --v_-?.- tjsi.fe^rti^.^,-,_4i;5 isfjk:^ « ^lft--,^Csifis.*A^i*5*^i6^asrt^^Sa&S^iai^S �Business Meeting ' Chairman Arcate opened the business meeting at 9:50pm. Approval of Meeting Minutes, October 29, 1987: Mr. Frank Paolontonio made a motion to accept the minutes as submitted. Mr. Raymond Dool sedonded the motion; motion carried unanimously. Matter of Adele Curtin: Mr. Maceyak recommended that the board grant the variance because there is a need to revitalize and upgrade the area. Mr. Paolontonio also agrees the variance should be granted. Mr. Maceyak made a motion to grant the variance as applied in accordance with paragraph 62-2 and paragraph 62-40C of the code and be here by resolved that pursuant to Article 8 of the Environmental Quality Review Act, that the Zoning Board of the Village of North Tarrytown finds that thi project has no adverse effect on the environment. Mr. Paolontonio seconded the motion; motion carried unanimously. Mr. Arcate suggested that the Zoning Board ask the Village Board of Trustees to reexamine the definition of the C-l District of the zoning code. Matter of Dominick LaCaruba: Mr. Maceyak suggested that the board grant the variance. He believes the project would be an asset to the community. Mr. Paolontonio stated that Mr. LaCaruba established a hardship by having no income on the building for a long period of time. �Mr. Maceyak made a motion to grant the variance as applied in accordance with paragraph 62-2 and paragraph 62-40C of the code on the grounds that the applicant had demonstrated practical difficulties in locating a suitable tenant and be here by resolved that pursuant to Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and the implementing rules of that law, entitle the State Environmental Quality Review Act that the Zoning Board of the Village of North Tarrytown finds that this project has no adverse effect on the environment. Mr. Dool seconded the motion; motion carried unanimously. Matter of Mr. Jose da Silva: a) Mr. Arcate stated that he did not see any demonstration of the need for the extra foot in the height of the fence. A discussion ensued among the board members on whether the fence could be lowered to the 5 feet requirement. No solution could be resolved. No justification was made to why the fence had to be 6 feet. Mr. Aldo Ceconi made a motion to deny the variance as applied in accordance with paragraph 62-40C of the code on grounds that the applicant did not satisfactorily demonstrate the need for a 6 foot fence. Mr. Paolontonio seconded the motion; motion carried unanimously. b) Jim Margotta asked Mr. da Silva what covering was intended for the shed. put Tl-11 covering. is constructed. Mr. da Silva said he had planned to Steve Maceyak asked how much of the shed Jim Margotta indicated that the frame, siding and roof are completed. �Tarrytown finds that this project has no adverse effect on the environment. Mr. Paolontonio seconded the motion; motion carried unanimously. The Board also noted that screening should be done on the north side of the parking area. Meeting adjourned; next meeting is scheduled for Thursday, January 21, 1988 at 8:00 pm. � 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-1987 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_1987-12-03 Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1987 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1987 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