1 25 11 https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/552d58415025ec78c6a8383e359b9977.pdf 5b2a6330f27a5f4562f85ce9e190144a PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING -APPROVED January 19, 2005 The meeting was called to order by Robert Anello, Chairman at 8:07 pm. The Chair noted that a quorum was present. Present: Robert Anello, Chairman Eliot Martone Wes Trunko James Galgano Peter Koffler Absent : Linda Moiron Also Present: Phil Zegarelli (Mayor, Village of Sleepy Hollow) Sean McCarthy (Village Architect/Village of Sleepy Hollow) Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Agenda: 1) Angel Gonzales 2) Pedro Urgilies 3) Carol Neidtch 4) Minutes 14 Andrews Lane 12 Clinton Street 263 Farrington Avenue Announcements: Mayor Zegarelli swore in Wes Trunko as a new member of the Zoning Board. 1) Angel GonzalesThis is a continuation from previous meetings. Sean McCarthy stated that the supporting financials were submitted to the Board. The Chair summarized the application for the members that were not present at the last meeting. There was an open discussion on the financial documents submitted. The Chair referred to the minutes to recap the last meeting. He reviewed the documents submitted. The Board agreed that the documents were enough proof of financial hardship. �2) Pedro UrgiliesThis is a continuation from previous meetings. Jeffrey Shumedja is representing this application along with Pedro Urgilies. The Chair acknowledged a 01/10/05 letter from Jeffrey Shumedja that provided a financial breakdown of the claimed construction expenses related to the 2-family conversion. The Chair also noted a parking tag issued by the Rock of Salvation church allowing the applicant to park in their Clinton Street parking lot. The parking permit submitted allows one car to park on the property for one-year. Jeffrey Shumedja stated that the church would allow another car to park in the Clinton Street parking lot once a tenant occupies the renovated apartment. Jeffrey Shumedja summarized that application for the members that were not present at the last meeting. The Chair stated that required supporting backup financial documents were not submitted. Jeffrey Shumedja responded that the documents could be provided. The Chair stated that the documents are needed. He also stated that the Rock of Salvation Church parking tag is not sufficient evidence to support parking requirements. Sean McCarthy summarized the Building Department history with the applicant and with the property. The Chair referred to Jeffrey Shumedja’s letter regarding the list of items performed exclusively for a 2-family conversion. He noted a few items mainly the removal of the staircase leading to the upper floors and the addition of the utility meters. Jeffrey Shumedja referred to the addition of the bathroom. He stated that only one bathroom existed previously. The Chair asked if the house was used as a 2-family residence with only one bathroom prior to the construction. Jeffrey Shumedja responded yes. Jeffrey Shumedja stated that the addition of sprinklers is specific to the renovation to a 2family residence. Sean McCarthy responded that based on the extensive renovations, sprinklers were required even for a 1-family house. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, January 19, 2005 2 �The Chair stated that the applicant knew that the house was a one-family residence when he purchased it, as the applicant has confirmed to the Board. Eliot Martone stated that the application needs clarification or a statement from Bob Stiloski. The Chair stated that the applicant was using the house illegally and knew that it was illegal even prior to seeking permission for an additional use. Peter Koffler stated that the Village should not be obligated to issue a Certificate of Occupancy based on Bob Stiloski’s statements. Particularly the applicant admits that the house was a legal 1-family house when he spoke to Bob Stiloski. The Chair stated that parking is a problem in the area. He stated that the proposed parking plan is not adequate. Jeffrey Shumedja responded that the applicant could propose the parking plan in 5-year increments. The Chair referred to the Board for comments. Eliot Martone stated that the apartments were not separate according to the Building Code. Jeffrey Shumedja responded that 2-families were living in the house. Peter Koffler asked what the basis for the variance is. Jeffrey Shumedja responded that there is no undesirable change to the neighborhood. He stated that the footprint of the building is not changing and that the property was being used as a 2-family residence prior to the renovations. The Chair responded that the parking issues would be a change for the neighborhood. He stated that this application is a self-created hardship since the applicant knew that the property was a legal 1-family residence. He stated that the applicant has not met the requirements for the variance. Peter Koffler stated that he agrees with the Chair. Wes Trunko stated that if the work was not done, it is unlikely that a variance would have been granted. Peter Koffler made a motion to deny the application. Jim Galgano seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). 3) Carol Neidtch – This is an application for an area variance to construct a two-story addition where the proposed construction creates the following non-compliances: Lot Width Minimum required = 75-feet APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, January 19, 2005 3 �Actual lot width = 59.9-feet Side Yard Minimum side yard setback = 10.0-feet Existing side yard = 9.8-feet Combined side yards Minimum combined yards = 25.0-feet Existing combined yards = 20.5-feet Lot Area Minimum lot area = 10,000-square-feet Existing lot area = 8,985-square-feet Also: a) Application of Regulations - a variance is required (per the Village Zoning Code) regarding adding to and altering an existing non-conforming building and lot. The Chair asked if the returns were received. Sean McCarthy responded yes. The public notice was read aloud. The Chair stated that the Board had received the following: 1) Application 2) Plans dated 02/23/04 Jeffrey Shumedja is representing this application along with Carol Neidtch. Jeffrey Shumedja stated that the Board previously approved this project in September 2003. He stated that the previous owners (Cammarota) did not perform the work and the variance has expired. He stated that the new owners want to perform the same work as submitted in the original variance request. The Chair asked for a copy of the September 2003 minutes. Sean McCarthy provided a copy of the minutes to the Board. The Chair asked if the building plans were the same. Jeffrey Shumedja responded yes. He stated that the plans have been re-dated by the architect. The Chair asked if the plans have been reviewed. Sean McCarthy responded yes. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, January 19, 2005 4 �Peter Koffler asked if the work had been started. Jeffrey Shumedja responded no. The Chair opened the public hearing. Since there were no public comments, Eliot Martone made a motion to close the public hearing. James Galgano seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). The Chair noted that the application was not out-of-character with the neighborhood. He also stated that this application is not a self-created hardship and that this would be the minimum variance granted. Eliot Martone stated that he has no issues with the application. Wes Trunko made a motion to approve the request for a variance. Eliot Martone seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). 4) Minutes – The minutes for December 2004 were reviewed. Eliot Martone made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. James Galgano seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). Adjourned at 9:27 p.m. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, January 19, 2005 5 � 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-2005 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_2005-01-19 Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2005 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2005 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/504febec6bdbcdc5d6ba762f9e0d0abf.pdf d67acf63daad4230a7bc2440acd0e03e PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING -APPROVED February 16, 2005 The meeting was called to order by Robert Anello, Chairman at 8:07 pm. The Chair noted that a quorum was present. Present: Robert Anello, Chairman Eliot Martone Wes Trunko James Galgano Linda Moiron Gordon Swartz Absent : Peter Koffler Also Present: Rae Lee (Building Department/Village of Sleepy Hollow) Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Agenda: 1) Freire 2) Minutes 42 Howard Street Announcements: None. 1) FreireThis is an application for area variances to expand a 1-family house into a 3-family house where the proposed construction creates the following non-compliances: Front Yard Minimum front yard = 20.0-feet Existing front yard = 9.7-feet Proposed front yard – 9.6-feet Rear Yard Minimum front yard = 25.0-feet Existing front yard = 24.0-feet Proposed front yard – 15.5-feet Also: a) Article V Section 62-14.B.(2) – Off street parking and loading space. Proposed off street parking area extends 6ft into required front yard where no parking is permitted. �The Chair asked if the returns were received. Sean McCarthy responded yes. The public notice was read aloud. The Chair stated that the Board had received the following: 1) Application – undated 2) Short EAF dated 10/20/04 3) Letter to the Chair dated 10/20/04 4) Waterfront Advisory Committee consistency findings indicating that the application is not under the jurisdiction of the Committee. 5) Plans dated 10/20/04 Sam Vieira is the project architect and is representing this application on behalf of the owners. The Chair asked if this application was before the Planning Board. Sam Vieira responded yes. The Chair asked if the Planning Board approved of the orientation of the parking lot. Sam Vieira responded that the Planning Board has not indicated that they were opposed to the orientation. The Chair asked why were the lots considered to be non-conforming. Sam Vieira responded that he did not know why. He explained how the lots were mistakenly joined at the closing. The Chair stated that the minimum lot size for a 3-family residence is 4000 square feet. He stated that the public notice contains a minor error which actually suggests a greater variance than the one sought. The Board felt that the application could move forward. SamVieira discussed the existing and proposed building footprint. He spoke about the buildable area in the new corner lot. He spoke about the variances required. He spoke about the 2nd floor addition and the new duplex apartment. He spoke about the new parking area that would accommodate 6 cars. The Chair asked why the applicant needs a variance. Sam Vieira responded that the property is large enough for a 3-family house. He stated that the main reason that the applicant cannot comply is because of the odd shape of the corner lot. The Chair asked why the applicant needs to expand the existing residence. Sam Vieira responded that the applicant wants to maximize the development potential of the lot. He stated that a hardship exists since as a result of being on a corner, the lot cannot reasonably accommodate any structure within the required setbacks. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, February 16, 2005 2 �The Chair asked if the Board had any comments. Gordon Swartz asked about the height of the proposed structure. Sam Vieira responded that the house would be a maximum of 30-feet tall. Gordon Swartz asked how the house compares to other houses in the neighborhood. Sam Vieira responded that the proposed structure would be lower than other neighboring houses. The Chair opened the public hearing. Diane Martello (50 Pocantico Street) stated that the proposed building is a big improvement. She stated that the off-street parking plan is a plus. Since there were no other public comments, Linda Moiron made a motion to close the public hearing. James Galgano seconded. It was unanimous (5-0) (Martone absent). Linda Moiron asked about the number of bedrooms. Sam Vieira responded that each unit would have 2-bedrooms. The Chair asked if it would be cheaper to keep the existing building rather than to demolish the structure and start over. Sam Vieira responded yes. He stated that the existing structure can accommodate a 1-story addition. Linda Moiron asked about the relocation of the curb cut. She asked if any on0street parking would be lost. Sam Vieira responded that no on-street parking spaces would be lost. The Chair asked if the Planning Board expressed concerns with the proposed corner parking lot. Sam Vieira responded that the Board had not indicated any concerns about the location of the parking lot. He stated that the Board appreciated that the parking requirements were met. Gordon Swartz asked about screening the parking area. Sam Vieira responded that Planning Board feedback would be used to develop a screening plan. Linda Moiron asked if the parking spaces were all full-size. Sam Vieira responded yes. The Chair stated that he is concerned with the Planning Board’s view of the site plan. He stated that the parking orientation is a concern. He stated that there is not much else that can be done with this lot. The Chair noted that the application was not out-of-character with the neighborhood. He also stated that this application would be the minimum variance granted. He also stated that the application is not a self-created hardship. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, February 16, 2005 3 �SamVieira stated that comments from the Planning Board’s consultants on storm water, etc were addressed. He stated that the Planning Board has not commented on the parking plan as of yet. The Chair made a motion to approve the application based on the cumulative site plan. He stated that any changes to the site plan would require a new zoning application. Jim Galgano seconded. It was unanimous (6-0). 2) Minutes – The minutes for January 2005 were reviewed. Eliot Martone made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. The Chair seconded. It was unanimous (6-0). Adjourned at 8:45 p.m. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, February 16, 2005 4 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2005 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_2005-02-16 Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2005 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2005 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/2c4035e7b0057bad79e3f75cb1ff3eca.pdf 0349b02d452eb996b913eebed4fbac12 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING -APPROVED March 16, 2005 The meeting was called to order by Robert Anello, Chairman at 8:10 pm. The Chair noted that a quorum was present. Present: Robert Anello, Chairman Eliot Martone Wes Trunko James Galgano Linda Moiron Absent : Gordon Swartz Peter Koffler Also Present: Sean McCarthy (Village Architect/Village of Sleepy Hollow) Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Agenda: 1) Federle/Schrader 2) Molina 3) Pichardo 4) Lomato 5) Minutes 39 Evergreen Way 15 College Avenue 36 Hudson Street 14 Anderson Avenue Announcements: None. 1) Federle/SchraderThis is an application for variances to construct a new front entry porch addition to the existing single-family residence where the proposed construction creates the following non-compliances: Front Yard Minimum front yard = 30.0-feet Existing front yard = 20.6-feet Proposed front yard = 24.0-feet The Chair asked if the returns were received. Sean McCarthy responded yes. The public notice was read aloud. �Mary Scott is the project architect and is representing this application on behalf of the owners. Mary Scott described the existing layout. She spoke about the proposed changes, which included the addition of a mudroom. She stated that the building footprint is not changing. The Chair stated that the changes are on the Lakeview Ave side. Mary Scott responded yes. The Chair asked what increases the non-conformity. Mary Scott responded the sloped roof. The Chair asked if there were any SHMA issues. Mary Scott responded that the owners would be presenting the plans to the SHMA. Mary Scott stated that the changes are not out-of-character with the neighborhood. The Chair opened the public hearing. Since there were no public comments, James Galgano made a motion to close the public hearing. Eliot Martone seconded. It was unanimous (5-0) The Chair asked if ARB approval was needed. The Chair stated that the proposed variance is the minimum variance allowed. He also stated that the proposed project is in character with the neighborhood and that it is not a self-created hardship. James Galgano made a motion to approve the variance as submitted. Wes Trunko seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). 2) Molina – This is an application for variances to construct an addition and expansion of an existing accessory structure where the proposed construction creates the following noncompliances: Side Yard Minimum one-side yard = 5.0-feet Existing front yard = 0.7-feet Coverage Existing accessory building coverage = 35% Maximum accessory building coverage = 30% APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, March 16, 2005 2 �The Chair asked if the returns were received. Sean McCarthy responded no. There was an open discussion on whether or not proof-of-mailings were submitted to the Village. Proof of mailings was verified but the return receipts were not verified. The public notice was read aloud. The Chair stated that the Board was in receipt of the following: 1) Application dated 02/15/05 2) Building plans Robert Barstow is the project architect and is representing the owners. Robert Barstow described the proposed project. He stated that the existing garage attic would be expanded to accommodate other uses. The Chair inquired about the proposed uses. Robert Barstow responded that the use would range from an office to a playroom. The Chair stated that the use should be defined. It was determined that the return receipts were not located and the public hearing could not move forward. Armando Gallala (40 Depeyster Street) stated that he received a notice. This application was temporarily adjourned so that the mailings could be located. The applicant re-appeared later in the meeting with two return-receipts that were received today. The Board determined that proof of sufficient mailings was presented. Robert Barstow stated that dormers would be added to the garage so that the attic of the garage could be used for a recreational use. Sean McCarthy stated that the Village Code does not state that an accessory structure could be used as a recreational use. The Chair stated that a use variance is required to change the use of the accessory structure. Sean McCarthy stated that the application indicates that the accessory use would be used for storage. The Chair explained the differences between an area variance and a use variance. Robert Barstow stated that the applicant would change the proposed use of the garage attic and use the expanded space for additional storage. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, March 16, 2005 3 �The Chair asked if there are any other 2-story garages in the neighborhood. Robert Barstow stated that data was not available but there are several other residences in the area that have 2-story garages. He stated that the structure would not visually affect the neighborhood. The Chair asked if the Board had any questions. Wes Trunko asked what the need for additional storage was. Robert Barstow responded that the garage attic does not accommodate a person standing up in the space. The owners would like the ability to maximize the storage space. The center beam would be raised by 1-foot and the addition of dormers would allow the extra space that the owners require. The Chair asked about the height of the existing structure. Robert Barstow responded 11-feet. There was an open discussion on the height of the proposed structure. It was agreed that the height would be 15-feet at the peak but the center beam would be raised. Wes Trunko stated that this is a lot of work needed to accommodate the need to stand-up in a storage space. Eliot Martone asked if the space would be converted to an apartment. Robert Barstow responded no. Eliot Martone asked if the applicant would allow the Board to place restrictions on the approval to limit the use for storage only. Leon Molina responded no. The Chair opened the public hearing. Armando Gallala (40 Depeyster Street) stated that the applicant remodeled the existing structure and did a great job. He stated that the Board should look favorably on the application. Since there was no further public comments, Linda Moiron made a motion to close the public hearing. Eliot Martone seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). The Chair stated that the applicant has told the Board that although the application stated that the proposed use would be for storage, the applicant has indicated that the proposed space would be used for a recreational use. The Chair stated that the proposed use would require a use variance and not an area variance. He further stated that the applicant would not accept restrictions placed on the approval to restrict the use of the proposed space. Robert Barstow asked if the application is denied could another application be submitted. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, March 16, 2005 4 �The Chair stated that the applicant could return with a substantially new variance at the next meeting. The Chair made a motion to deny the application. Linda Moiron seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). 3) Pichardo – This is an application for variances to construct a two-story addition to the residence where the proposed construction creates the following non-compliances: Lot area Minimum lot area = 4000-sq. ft. Existing lot area = 2351-sq ft. Lot Width Minimum lot width = 40.0-feet Existing lot width = 25.0-feet Floor area ratio (FAR) Maximum FAR = 0.62 Existing FAR = 0.50 Front Yard Minimum front yard = 20.0-feet Existing front yard = 3.0-feet One Side Yard Minimum one side yard = 3.0-feet Existing one side yard = 1.0-feet Combined Side Yards Minimum combined side yards = 12.0-feet Existing combined side yards = 7.0-feet Lot Coverage Maximum lot coverage = 35% Existing lot coverage = 27% Proposed lot coverage = 42% Floor Area Regulations Maximum floor area ratio = 0.62 Proposed floor area ratio = 0.79 APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, March 16, 2005 5 �Parking Spaces Required – two parking spaces. Proposed – none. The Chair asked if the returns were received. Sean McCarthy responded yes. The public notice was read aloud. The Chair stated that the Board was in receipt of the following: 1) Application dated 01/01/05 2) Building plans dated 12/28/04 The Chair questioned the FAR in the public notice. Jon Turnquist is the project architect and is representing this application along with the owner, Rosetta Pichardo. Jon Turnquist stated that the proposal would add onto an existing non-conforming residence. He stated that the proposed addition meets the requirements for setbacks. He stated that the owners have a lease for three leased parking spaces in the parking lot across the street. He stated that there is an existing common driveway that would allow one parking space. He stated that four parking spaces are currently provided. He stated that the owner’s children are teenagers and the family required additional room. He described the proposed interior additions that include additional bedrooms and a family room. There was an open discussion on whether the proposal was a two-story addition or a three-story addition. It was decided that the public needs to be re-noticed since the cellar is going to be used as an occupied space (family room). The Chair stated that the applicant needs to provide reasons to justify the requested variances. This item was dismissed so that the public could be properly noticed. 4) Lomanto This is an application for variances to construct an extension to the second floor of an existing single-family residence where the proposed construction creates the following non-compliances: Floor area ratio (FAR) Maximum FAR = 0.48 APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, March 16, 2005 6 �Existing FAR = 0.56 Front Yard Minimum front yard = 20.0-feet Existing front yard = 6.9-feet Building Coverage Maximum building coverage = 35% Existing building coverage = 45% Accessory structure side yard setback Minimum accessory structure side yard = 3.0-feet Existing accessory structure side yard = 0.8-feet Accessory Structure Coverage Maximum accessory structure coverage = 30% Existing accessory structure coverage = 77% Front Yard Setback Required front yard setback =20.0-feet Proposed front yard setback = 15.0-feet Floor area ratio (FAR) Maximum FAR = 0.48 (2035 sq ft) Proposed FAR = 0.63 (2694 sq ft) The Chair asked if the returns were received. Sean McCarthy responded yes. The public notice was read aloud. Sam Vieira is the project architect and is representing this application on behalf of the owner, Maria Lomanto. The Chair stated that the Board has received the following: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Application dated 2/11/05 Plans dated 2/16/05 Zoning compliance form Letter addresses to the Board from Sam Vieira Short EAF APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, March 16, 2005 7 �Sam Vieira stated that the project would allow the addition of a third bedroom and the reconfiguration of another bedroom to comply with NYS Building Codes. He stated that the addition would not extend past the existing front yard footprint. The Chair asked if the lot was undersized. Sam Vieira responded no. Sam Vieira stated that the existing large garage places the addition over the maximum FAR. Maria Lomanto stated that the original owners used the large garage as a workshop. Currently, it is used as storage. She stated that the garage is 770sf. Sam Vieira stated that the building footprint is not changing. He also stated that the proposed structure is below the maximum allowable height requirement under the Village Code. The Chair opened the public hearing. Since there were no public comments, Eliot Martone made a motion to close the public hearing. James Galgano seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). James Galgano stated that he lived across from this house for 30 years and he knows the house well. He stated that he has no objections. The Chair stated that the proposed project is in character with the neighborhood and that it is not a self-created hardship. He also stated that the variance is the minimum variance allowed since there is no other way to accomplish without increase the building footprint. Wes Trunko stated that he knows the area well and the proposed changes are in character with the neighborhood. Wes Trunko made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Eliot Martone seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). 5) Minutes – The minutes for February 2005 were reviewed. Eliot Martone made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Linda Moiron seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). Adjourned at 9:37 p.m. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, March 16, 2005 8 � 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-2005 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_2005-03-16 Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2005 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2005 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/5e066efa4bdac135e6f7d858eb8fcf2b.pdf 9a88a7fe539251ceee91097926a36000 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING -APPROVED April 20, 2005 The meeting was called to order by Robert Anello, Chairman at 8:02 pm. The Chair noted that a quorum was present. Present: Robert Anello, Chairman Eliot Martone Wes Trunko James Galgano Linda Moiron Gordon Swartz Absent : Peter Koffler Also Present: Sean McCarthy (Village Architect/Village of Sleepy Hollow) Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Agenda: 1) Pichardo 2) Minutes 36 Hudson Street Announcements: None. 1) Pichardo – This is an application for variances to construct a two-story addition to the residence where the proposed construction creates the following non-compliances: Lot area Minimum lot area = 4000-sq. ft. Existing lot area = 2351-sq ft. Lot Width Minimum lot width = 40.0-feet Existing lot width = 25.0-feet Floor area ratio (FAR) Maximum FAR = 0.50 Existing FAR = 0.53 �Front Yard Minimum front yard = 20.0-feet Existing front yard = 3.0-feet One Side Yard Minimum one side yard = 3.0-feet Existing one side yard = 1.0-feet Combined Side Yards Minimum combined side yards = 12.0-feet Existing combined side yards = 7.0-feet Lot Coverage Maximum lot coverage = 35% Existing lot coverage = 27% Proposed lot coverage = 42% Floor Area Regulations Maximum floor area ratio = 0.50 Existing floor area ratio = 0.53 Proposed floor area ratio = 0.79 Parking Spaces Required – two parking spaces. Proposed – none. The Chair asked if the returns were received. Sean McCarthy responded yes. The Chair stated that this is a re-notice. The public notice was read aloud. The Chair stated that the Board was in receipt of the following: 1) Application dated 01/01/05 2) Building plans dated 12/28/04 Jon Turnquist is the project architect and is representing this application along with the owner, Rosetta Pichardo. Jon Turnquist stated that parking leases have also been submitted to the Board. He stated that the owners want to add onto the house due to hardship (submitted to Board). He stated that a master bedroom, bathroom, and family room are proposed to be added. He stated that the family has outgrown the house. He stated that only one closet APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, April 20, 2005 2 �exists for the entire family. He stated that the bathroom is on the lower level of the house. The proposed bedrooms are on the upper level of the house. He stated that the finishes on the house are in poor condition. He stated the interiors need to be upgraded as well. He stated there are other houses in the neighborhood that have had similar additions in the past. The Chair asked if the FAR or lot coverage data are available for the adjacent buildings. Jon Turnquist responded no. Jon Turnquist reviewed the neighboring houses that have had similar additions. Wes Trunko asked for clarification on the existing conditions versus what is proposed. Jon Turnquist explained the layouts on the drawings. The Chair stated that the square footage would be doubled if this addition were approved. He stated that the FAR is increasing by 50%. He also stated that the lot coverage is already non-conforming. He asked if there was any other data available to support why this variance should be approved. Jon Turnquist stated that parking has been secured. Rosetta Pichardo stated that she has had two-leased parking space for the last 20 years. The Chair asked about the shed. Jon Turnquist stated that the shed could be removed and two parking spaces could be created. The leases were submitted to the Board. The Chair reviewed the photos of other neighboring houses. He compared the existing house with the proposed addition to other houses in the neighborhood as they are presented on the plans. The Chair asked if any thought was given to requesting a smaller addition. The Chair stated that the addition is 26-feet long. Juan Pichardo stated that a smaller addition would not allow sufficient space for his family. The Chair asked if only one additional bedroom could be added to each apartment to make 2-two bedroom apartments instead of the proposed three bedroom units. The Chair reviewed the FAR, lot coverage and Rosetta Pichardo stated that the basement currently contains the kitchen and living room. She stated that her apartment has 2-bedrooms and that one additional bedroom is proposed. She also stated that one additional bedroom is proposed for the upstairs apartment. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, April 20, 2005 3 �The Board corrected the applicant since there are two bedrooms proposed in both apartments. The Chair stated that this is a small house in a small neighborhood. He stated that the proposal could be reduced and still accomplishes the needs of the applicant. Jon Turnquist asked if one bedroom could be eliminated from the second floor. The Chair stated that the addition pushes the house to the rear. He is concerned with cars being able to turn-around. The Chair opened the public hearing. Bill and Clara Teagle (38 Hudson Street). He stated that he shares the common driveway. He stated that parking two cars in the rear is difficult. He stated that extending the house to the rear as proposed, parking in the rear would be tough. The Chair reviewed the plans particularly the post-construction dimensions in the rear. Jose Chuchuca (22 Hudson Street). He stated that he approves of the application. Eliot Martone made a motion to close the public hearing. Linda Moiron seconded. It was unanimous (6-0). Jon Turnquist stated that he could reduce the proposed addition by 5-feet by removing a proposed internal spiral staircase. The Chair stated that parking is still a problem. He stated that the proposal could be reduced further. He also stated that the drawings should be accurate to what is being proposed. The Chair stated that the proposal should conform to other houses in the neighborhood. He stated that permanent parking spaces should be secured in case the Village decided to use the area where cars are being parked. Eliot Martone stated that a dangerous precedent could be set by allowing such a large addition in this area. Gordon Swartz stated that he understands the needs of the family. He stated that the family needs some relief in order to accommodate the size of their family. He also stated that the proposal is too big. He stated that some changes should be allowed in order to let the needs of the family be satisfied. The Chair asked why the proposed extension indents inward. Jon Turnquist responded that it is a building code requirement. Sean McCarthy responded that the indentation is required for fire separation and emergency access. The Chair asked if the applicant would return with revised plans that reflect the Board’s comments. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, April 20, 2005 4 �Jon Turnquist responded yes. He stated that the lower level could be brought inward. The Chair stated that two 3-bedroom units would contribute to the parking congestion in the area. He stated that the number of bedrooms should be reduced. He cited 38 and 54 Hudson Street as examples of sizes to follow. Eliot Martone made a motion to adjourn this application to the next meeting. Linda Moiron seconded. It was unanimous (6-0). 2) Minutes – The minutes for March 2005 were reviewed. Jim Galgano made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Eliot Martone seconded. It was unanimous (6-0). Adjourned at 8:52 p.m. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, April 20, 2005 5 � 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-2005 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_2005-04-20 Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2005 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2005 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/b2b1f281c62aaeafa26e1cfcd9b59293.pdf 5f5a2577921516ffb831e9d9b81e3cdc PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING -APPROVED May 18, 2005 The meeting was called to order by Robert Anello, Chairman at 8:11 pm. The Chair noted that a quorum was present. Present: Robert Anello, Chairman Eliot Martone James Galgano Linda Moiron Gordon Swartz Absent : Wes Trunko Peter Koffler Also Present: Sean McCarthy (Village Architect/Village of Sleepy Hollow) Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Agenda: 1) Pichardo 2) Sleepy Hollow Designs 3) Cummings 4) Perillo 5) Annual Election of Chairman 6) Approval of minutes for April 2005 meeting 36 Hudson Street 34-36 Clinton Street 537 Bellwood Avenue 41 Hudson Terrace Announcements: None. 1) Pichardo – This is a continuation from previous meetings. Jon Turnquist is the project architect and is representing this application along with the owner, Rosetta Pichardo. The Board reviewed the minutes from the previous meeting. The Chair stated that no new plans were submitted to the Board. Jon Turnquist summarized the proposed changes. He stated that the proposed addition to the upstairs apartment would be eliminated. He stated that 7-feet would be removed from the proposed first floor addition and the circular staircase would be eliminated as well. �The Chair asked about the parking set-up. Jon Turnquist stated that the proposed parking layout would remain the same The Chair asked about the number of extra bedrooms. Jon Turnquist responded one additional bedroom would be added on the first floor to accommodate the family’s needs. The Chair stated that revised plans need to be submitted to the Board so that all of the changes could be reviewed. He stated that the public does not have to be re-noticed. The Chair asked what is dictating the length of the extension. Jon Turnquist responded that the extension is 19-feet. He stated that an additional 2-foot closet, a 12-foot master bedroom, and an additional 5-foot bathroom are proposed. Linda Moiron made a motion to adjourn the application to the next meeting until proper drawings could be submitted to the Board. Eliot Martone seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). 2) Sleepy Hollow Designs This is an application to construct a new five-family dwelling requiring the following variances: Lot area Minimum lot area = 8,000-sq. ft. Existing lot area = 3,740-sq ft. Front Yard Minimum front yard = 10.0-feet Proposed front yard = 0.0-feet Rear Yard Minimum rear yard set back= 25.0-feet Proposed rear yard set back= 4.0-feet The public notice was read aloud. The Chair stated that the Board was in receipt of the following: 1) Letter from Sleepy Hollow Designs dated 03/29/05 2) Planning Board memo dated 03/17/05 3) Application dated 03/21/05 4) Short EAF 5) Revised building plans dated 03/18/05 APPROVED- Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, May 18, 2005 2 �Robert Barstow is the project architect and is representing this application along with his attorney, Richard Blancato. The Chair asked if the returns were received. Sean McCarthy responded yes. The Chair reviewed the Sleepy Hollow Designs memo. Sean McCarthy summarized the previous Zoning Board recommendation on this application. The Chair asked if the front yard setback takes into account the other adjacent properties. Sean McCarthy responded yes. Eliot Martone asked if the proposed parking and screening extend to the property line. Robert Barstow responded that the bulk of the building is setback. Sean McCarthy stated that part of the building is set on the property line. The Chair stated that the Planning Board memo expresses many concerns about the application including density, maneuverability of parking, front, and rear yard setbacks. The Planning Board memo further requests that the Zoning Board not grant the requested variances as submitted. Richard Blancato summarized the previous Zoning Board recommendation. He stated that a positive recommendation was given for a larger structure with more substantial variances. He submitted a memo that listed other properties that have smaller lot areas, greater densities and less front and rear yards. The Chair asked who prepared the memo. Richard Blancato responded that the list was prepared by Robert Barstow based on information received from the Village Assessor’s office. The Chair asked if the Village Architect has reviewed this data. Sean McCarthy responded no. The Chair asked if any of the listed structures are new construction. Richard Blancato responded that all of the structures are existing structures. Richard Blancato stated that none of the buildings in the area have on-site parking. He stated that the Planning Board has expresses concerns about the parking. He stated that the Planning Board had questioned the accessibility of one particular parking space and that the parking spot has been removed. The Chair asked if the Planning Board has received the revised drawings. Robert Barstow responded that the revised parking plan was presented to the Planning Board. There was an open discussion on the drawings that the Planning Board based their 03/17/05 memo. The Chair noted that the reasons for the variance are not part of the application. APPROVED- Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, May 18, 2005 3 �Robert Barstow referred to the Sleepy Hollow Designs memo. The Chair noted that the date on the application and the date on the memo do not match. Robert Barstow responded that in conversation with the Village Architect, it was agreed that a letter would be attached to support the application. There was an open discussion on the attached memo and the sequence of events that followed the original submission of the application and supporting documentation. Richard Blancato asked the Board if any written comments have been provided to the Village from the Village consultants regarding this proposed structure. Sean McCarthy summarized the Planning and Zoning Board applications. He stated that the applicant has revised the plans and the Planning Board consultants have not reviewed the revised drawings. The Chair asked if the Planning Board consultants have issued written recommendations. Sean McCarthy responded yes. He stated that the applicant has received several memos from the Planning Board’s consultants over the entire Planning Board application process. The Chair reviewed the Planning Board memo regarding the parking lot layout. Richard Blancato stated that a traffic report from a traffic consultant could be provided to support the parking configuration. Sean McCarthy responded that with the 6-unit dwelling proposed nine parking spaces. He stated that even though the parking space in question has been removed, there still appears to be some concerns about the compact spaces and the ability to access some of the parking spaces. Robert Barstow stated that the parking spaces are 10-feet wide. The Chair stated that the parking spaces on the plans indicate eight and 9-feet wide spaces. Robert Barstow stated that the compact spaces are larger than the Village requirements. Richard Blancato stated that this would be the only building in the area that would have on-site parking. The Chair asked why the property needs to contain so many units. Richard Blancato responded that the need to create on-site parking is causing the need for additional units. He stated that if the structure would be built on grade, the number of units would be reduced. Richard Blancato stated that this structure would blend into the neighborhood. The Chair stated that the applicant needs to show that this structure would not be a detriment to the neighborhood. The Chair asked how large of a structure could be built that would comply with the Village Code regarding lot coverage. Sean McCarthy responded that two units could be built without a variance. He also stated that the area permits commercial development. The Chair stated that the applicant needs to address why more than two units need to be built. APPROVED- Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, May 18, 2005 4 �Richard Blancato responded that cost of building the structure along with the on-site parking requires additional units in order to make the project financially feasible. The Chair stated that the application does not address why more than a two-family should be built. Richard Blancato requested that the Zoning Board’s original recommendation for a 6-family structure should be added to the record. Richard Blancato showed photos of other properties in the neighborhood that contain more dense sites. Robert Barstow listed other properties that have had large lot area variances approved. They included 185 Valley Street (1994 approval) and 183 Valley Street (1987 approval). The Chair asked if there are any examples in the last 10 years. Robert Barstow responded that he could research further. Eliot Martone stated that parking is not before the Zoning Board. He requested that the Board focus on the requested variances. The Chair stated that this property has been granted variances in the past. He requested that the variance be reviewed and added to the record. Robert Barstow stated that the existing building was a 6-unit structure with no parking before it burned down. The Chair opened the public hearing. Since there were no public comments, Linda Moiron made a motion to close the public hearing. Eliot Martone seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). Linda Moiron asked about the change to the front yard setback during the Planning Board review. Robert Barstow stated that to optimize the parking and to conform to the rest of the neighborhood, the structure was moved forward. The Chair asked about the parking in the front yard. Sean McCarthy responded that in a C-2 zone, parking in the front yard is allowed. Sean McCarthy stated that the Planning Board has stated that a 3-unit structure would be an acceptable plan for the Planning Board to approve based on the density of the area. The Chair stated that the applicant must address the need to build a 5-family structure. Richard Blancato stated that the Planning Board’s recommendation that the Zoning Board be unanimous in their vote to approve this application should be reviewed by the Village attorney. He stated that this stipulation would violate NYS law. APPROVED- Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, May 18, 2005 5 �Eliot Martone made a motion to adjourn this item to the next meeting. Linda Moiron seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). 3) Cummings This is an application for variances to construct a new entry addition, front addition, rear porch addition, dining room addition, and garage addition to the existing single-family residence requiring the following variances: Building Coverage Maximum building coverage = 20% Existing building coverage = 14.27% Proposed building coverage = 21.47% Front Yard Required front yard = 30.0-feet Existing front yard = 30.4-feet Proposed front yard = 12.0-feet Rear Yard Required rear yard set back= 25.0-feet Existing rear yard set back = 12.1-feet Proposed rear yard set back= 13.75-feet Article IV, Section 62-7.B – Adding to and altering an existing non-conforming building. The Chair asked if the returns were received. Sean McCarthy responded yes. The Chair stated that the Board was in receipt of the following: 1) Application for building permit dated 04/15/05 2) Zoning compliance form 3) Short EAF 4) building plans dated 04/14/05 5) Application for variance dated 04/15/05 Padriac Steinschneider is the project architect and is representing this application on behalf of the owners. Padriac Steinschneider spoke about relocating the existing driveway from Bellwood Avenue to Farrington Avenue. He also spoke about the new entry foyer, which would be approximately 88 square feet. He spoke about a new entrance porch would add 451 square feet and encroach about 18-feet into the front yard. He reviewed the proposed additions and the associated variances that are required based on the proposed new work. APPROVED- Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, May 18, 2005 6 �The Chair asked if the front porch would be enclosed. Padriac Steinschneider responded no. Padriac Steinschneider stated that most of the lots in the neighborhood are rectangular. He stated that this parcel is unusually shaped. He stated that if the house was build closer to Farrington Avenue, it might better fit onto the lot. The Chair asked if there is any proposed interior construction. Padriac Steinschneider responded only the enclosed porch. He stated that the dining room addition, etc are being kept within the zoning parameters. The Chair asked if Architectural Review Board approval is also needed. Padriac Steinschneider responded yes. Padriac Steinschneider stated that there are no adverse impacts to the neighborhood. He stated that the appearance of the existing house would be improved. He submitted photos of several other houses in the area. He stated that many houses have front yard setbacks of 30-35 feet from the house to the curb. He stated that the proposed structure would have a similar setback. He also submitted photos of several houses that have similar porches. Gordon Swartz asked if any trees would be removed. Padriac Steinschneider responded that no trees would be removed. He stated that the property would be re-landscaped. Gordon Swartz asked how far out the house would be projected. Padriac Steinschneider responded that the porch would project out about 18-feet. Gordon Swartz stated that the houses in the area are very similar to the existing house. He stated that Bellwood Avenue is the main road in Phillipse Manor. He stated that he is concerned with the projection of the porch onto Bellwood Avenue. Eliot Martone stated that he feels that the proposed porch would blend in with the surrounding properties. The Chair asked if what would be changed if the front yard projection were reduced. Padriac Steinschneider stated that the dining room addition would need to be reduced. He stated that the needs of the family would be compromised but it could be worked around. The Chair asked if the Board had any other questions. There was none. The Chair opened the public hearing. Jim Nazemetz (134 Hunter Avenue) stated that Bellwood Avenue has a wide setback. He stated that the Board should consider the precedent that would be set by allowing this structure to encroach into the front yard. He stated that the proposed structure is too large for the site. APPROVED- Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, May 18, 2005 7 �The Chair asked if the projection into the front yard was the primary concern. Jim Nazemetz stated that the roofline would still be seen from Bellwood Avenue. He stated that the lot is a corner lot and has two front yards. The Chair asked what changes could be proposed to change the character of the house. Jim Nazemetz stated that he would make interior changes to try and not requires zoning variances. Eliot Martone responded that the lot is non-conforming and would need to appear before the Board for any changes to the structure. Jim Nazemetz stated that he is concerned with the massing in the front yard. Sean McCarthy stated that the existing structure conforms to the zoning code. The Chair asked if the proposed front yard structure could be reduced. Padriac Steinschneider responded that the proposed 7’-6” structure is the minimum that would meet the family’s needs. He stated that the front entrance porch could be reduced from 18-feet to 15-feet. Chris Cummings stated that his family wants to have a place to sit in the front since his family spends so much time in the front yard. Since there were no further public comments, Eliot Martone made a motion to close the public hearing. Linda Moiron seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). Jim Galgano stated that he does not have a problem with the proposed addition. Eliot Martone stated that this project is a good project. He is not opposed to the front yard projection. Linda Moiron stated that it would be more in character with the neighborhood than the current structure. Gordon Swartz stated that he is concerned with the massing in the front yard and the impact to Bellwood Avenue. He stated that he is having a hard time visualizing the total impact. Padriac Steinschneider stated that the house is primarily a one-story structure. Gordon Swartz asked if shrubbery would be added. Padriac Steinschneider responded that a combination of different landscaping would be used for screening. The trees would be 12-25-feet in height and would allow sunlight and privacy screening. The Chair stated that if the front porch were pushed back 3-feet, the site line issues would be resolved. Padriac Steinschneider responded that the plans would still work with a 3-feet reduction in the front yard. APPROVED- Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, May 18, 2005 8 �The Chair made a motion to approve the plans as submitted with the front yard setback revised to 15-feet and that the front yard porch remain as an unenclosed structure. Linda Moiron seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). 4) Perillo This is an application for variances to convert a two-family residence to a three-family residence where the proposed creates the following non-compliances: Floor Area Ratio Required floor-area-ratio = 0.45 Existing floor-area-ratio = 0.52 Proposed floor-area-ratio = 0.46 Front Yard Required front yard = 20.0-feet Existing front yard = 10.46-feet Proposed front yard = 10.46-feet Off-street parking Minimum driveway width= 10.0-feet Existing driveway width = 8.55-feet Proposed driveway width= 8.55-feet Article IV, Section 62.7A – R-4 zoning district permits one and two family residences. Three family residence is proposed. The Chair asked if the returns were received. Sean McCarthy responded yes. The Chair stated that the Board was in receipt of the following: 1) Letter from Joseph Perillo dated 04/15/05 2) Application dated 04/15/05 3) Short EAF 4) Zoning compliance form 5) Letter to Sean McCarthy dated 04/11/05 from applicant 6) Building permit dated 04/15/05 7) Memo to Joseph Perillo dated 04/11/05 8) Site plans dated 04/10/05 9) Survey 10) Letter from Joseph Perillo 11) Letter from Lena Scralla 12) Letter Scarfi dated 04/10/05 13) Breakeven analysis APPROVED- Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, May 18, 2005 9 �14) Tax assessment Joseph Perillo is the owner and is representing this application along with Dan Zuchi. Joseph Perillo stated that when the property was purchased, it was purchased with the understanding that it was a 3-family dwelling. The Chair asked when was the property purchased. Joseph Perillo responded October 2004. The Chair noted a letter dated October 2004 from the Building Department indicating that the property is a 2-family residence. The Chair also noted a letter from neighbor Ed Mahoney indicating that the basement apartment is an illegal apartment. Joseph Perillo stated that a building permit was taken out to make the building comply with NYS building codes. He stated that the three proposed variances do not include changing or altering the existing structure. He stated that the building interiors are submitted to show the final layout of the property. He stated that the third floor apartment is the unit in question. He stated that the third floor apartment has been used as a rental unit dating back to 1966. He stated that an apartment is not being created. Joseph Perillo stated that back in 1964, the owners made renovations to separate the apartment and create a two-family building. He submitted an affidavit from previous tenants that indicate they occupied the apartment. The Chair asked if the applicant could prove if the apartment was legal. Joseph Perillo responded no. The Chair asked if the closing documents indicate that a 2-family residence was purchased. Joseph Perillo responded yes. He stated that the Town tax rolls indicate a 2-family residence as well. Joseph Perillo stated that the breakeven analysis only works with a 3-family structure. He stated that the property was purchased from his father-in-law on the open market and the property was sold as a 3-family dwelling. The Chair asked about the proposed rent of $1800 for a three-bedroom duplex. Joseph Perillo responded that the proposed rent is based on current apartment ads and consulting with local real estate agents. The Chair asked about the purchase price Dan Zuchi responded $600,000. The Chair asked if a bank mortgage and assessment was done. Joseph Perillo responded that the information was not available. He stated that the agreed upon number was based on a previous assessment. APPROVED- Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, May 18, 2005 10 �The Chair stated that it is not uncommon to have a multi-family rental property operate at a loss. Joseph Perillo stated that the tax map of the neighborhood shows that the property is not out-ofcharacter with the neighborhood. He stated that 28% are legal 3-families. He stated that 42% are 2-families and the rest are 1-family structures. The Chair stated that the zoning analysis crosses into other zones. The Chair stated that on either side is a 2-family. The house across the street is a 4-family but is on a double lot. The Chair stated that the zoning regulations indicate that the must prove that the hardship is not self-created and the change would not be out-of-character with the neighborhood. The Chair noted that the six houses on the same side of the street are primarily one and two family houses. Across the street, with one exception, the houses are one and 2-family houses. Sean McCarthy provided several past building permits and other documents indicating that the previous owners knew that the property was a 2-family house. The Chair read the documents aloud. He stated that there other documents presented that indicate that the house is knowingly a 2-family structure. The Chair opened the public hearing. Robert Kiley (39 Hudson Terrace) stated that the applicants driveway is shared with his house. He stated that he has many cars in the driveway already and this would make matters worse. Ed Mahoney (45 Hudson Terrace) stated that the neighborhood is primarily a one and 2-family neighborhood. He stated that he opposes absentee landlords. He stated that there are other nonconforming houses in the area without building permits. He stated that there are only four Certificate of Occupancies out of the ten houses in the area. He stated that the area is too dense. Since there were no further public comments, Eliot Martone made a motion to close the public hearing. Linda Moiron seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). Joseph Perillo stated that parking spaces would be created by removing the garage and making a parking area for 6-cars. Eliot Martone stated that parking for six cars is not in keeping in character with the neighborhood. Jim Galgano asked how the illegal unit was discovered. Sean McCarthy stated that in February 2005, an electrician was stopped from installing four electric meters. Jim Galgano asked if the Town records indicate 3-family. Sean McCarthy stated that the Village records indicate that the property was only modified to a 2-family dwelling. APPROVED- Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, May 18, 2005 11 �Eliot Martone stated that he is not willing to vote in favor of this application based on the information presented. The Chair stated that the information presented does not support a use variance. He stated that the fair market value of the property has not been established. He stated that the breakeven analysis is not verified. He stated that a hardship has not been proven. He stated that the neighborhood is primarily 1 and 2-family houses. He stated that the hardship is self-created since the seller and the purchaser are related. He stated that he recommends that the request for a variance be denied. The Chair stated that he would deny the variance based on the overwhelming evidence. Linda Moiron made a motion to deny the variance. Jim Galgano seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). 5) Election of Chairman Eliot Martone made a motion to re-elect Robert Anello as Chairman. Linda Moiron seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). 6) Minutes – The minutes for April 2005 were reviewed. The Chair made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Eliot Martone seconded. It was unanimous (5-0) Adjourned at 11:00 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, APPROVED- Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, May 18, 2005 12 � 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-2005 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_2005-05-18 Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2005 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2005 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/2df0df740b12498a112b0816494e8ae4.pdf 817b0b675233ec5492bf10661ccae231 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING -APPROVED June 15, 2005 The meeting was called to order by Robert Anello, Chairman at 8:10 pm. The Chair noted that a quorum was present. Present: Robert Anello, Chairman Peter Koffler James Galgano Linda Moiron Absent : Gordon Swartz Eliot Martone Also Present: Sean McCarthy (Village Architect/Village of Sleepy Hollow) Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Agenda: 1) Pichardo 2) Barros 3) Sleepy Hollow Designs 4) Garvey 5) Rodrigues 6) Minutes for May 2005 36 Hudson Street 15 Anderson Avenue 34-36 Clinton Street 20 Hemlock Drive 33 Hudson Terrace Announcements: None. 1) Pichardo – This is a continuation from previous meetings. Jon Turnquist is the project architect and is representing this application along with the owner, Rosetta Pichardo. Jon Turnquist summarized the application to date. He compared the original changes and the recent revisions to the plans. He submitted a revised plan to the Board dated 06/12/2005. He spoke about the required variances and how those variances have been reduced from what was originally requested. Peter Koffler asked the applicant to summarize what variances are being sought. The Chair summarized the requested variances. Jon Turnquist summarized the parking plan. He stated that the applicant needs the additional space in order to live comfortably in the house. �The Chair asked the applicant to explain the parking configuration. Jon Turnquist responded that the proposed parking plan includes one parking space in the rear and two leased parking spaces. The Chair asked if the rear yard could be used for parking. Sean McCarthy responded that the driveway is shared between the subject property and the adjacent property. The shared portion of the driveway is used in order to turn cars around. He stated that two parking spaces would make the area tight. Jon Turnquist responded that a retaining wall could be built in the rear of the property to level the rear yard to create additional parking space. The Chair asked about the driveway easement. Jon Turnquist responded that the driveway is used between both houses in order to enter/exit from the rear of the property. Peter Koffler stated that if the neighbor decides to erect a fence, the applicant would not be able to turn a car round. Rosetta Pichardo responded that neither she nor the neighbor could erect a fence. She stated that there was an easement that allowed both properties to access the driveway. Peter Koffler stated that the extent of the easement is undetermined without proof. The Chair expressed concerns about parking. He stated that the easement should be presented to the Board. He stated that in order to accommodate another car, the applicant should consider reducing the extension by a few more feet in order to properly maneuver two cars in the rear of the property. Jon Turnquist asked for an adjournment to revise the plans in order to create an acceptable parking plan. The Chair stated that a condition could be placed on the approval that would require the applicant to create two parking spaces in the rear. It was agreed that that Village Architect would meet with Jon Turnquist to work out the details of the parking plan that would accommodate two cars. Peter Koffler asked for a small site plan showing the easement, the property line, and the driveway to better understand the parking layout. The Chair asked if the public had any comments. Since there were no public comments, Linda Moiron made a motion to close the public hearing. Peter Koffler seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). Linda Moiron made a motion to adjourn the application to the next meeting until APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, June 15, 2005 2 �additional information could be submitted to the Board. Peter Koffler seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). 2) Barros This is an application for variances to legalize a second floor addition where the following non-compliances were created: Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Maximum floor-area-ration= 0.48 (1920 sf) Designed floor-area-ration= 0.477 (1908 sf) As-built floor-area-ration= 0.4825 (1930 sf) The public notice was read aloud. The Chair asked if the returns were received. Sean McCarthy responded yes. Jon Turnquist is the project architect and is representing this application on behalf of the owners. He stated that an office was constructed in the attic at the property. He stated that the contractor built the office beyond what was shown on the drawings. He stated that the FAR is exceeded by only 0.0025. The Chair stated that if the work was made to conform, would the walls have to be removed and re-constructed. Jon Turnquist responded yes. Sean McCarthy stated that that Building Department has no problems with the proposed work. The Chair asked if the public had any comments. Since there were no public comments, Linda Moiron made a motion to close the public hearing. Peter Koffler seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). Linda Moiron stated that the variance is small. The Chair stated that the proposed variance is the minimum variance allowed. He also stated that the proposed project is in character with the neighborhood and that it is not a self-created hardship. Peter Koffler made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Linda Moiron seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). 3) Sleepy Hollow Designs This is a continuation from previous meetings. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, June 15, 2005 3 �Robert Barstow is the project architect and is representing this application along with his attorney, Richard Blancato. Richard Blancato summarized the application to date. He stated that the proposed structure is similar to other houses in the area. He spoke about the proposed parking plan. He stated that a letter from a traffic consultant has been submitted to the Board. The Chair asked if a new submission was given to the Board. Richard Blancato responded yes. Richard Blancato stated that supporting financial calculations have been submitted to the Board. The financial calculations indicate that the 5-units yield a return of 8%. He stated that the proposed structure is in character with the neighborhood. The Chair asked about the total square footage of the structure. Robert Barstow responded 3900 sf. The Chair asked about the financial calculations. Richard Barstow responded that the calculations do not include a loan on the house. He stated that if a mortgage were needed, the rate of return would be even lower. The Chair asked the applicant to prove the financial hardship. Richard Blancato responded that the applicant is not seeking a financial hardship. He stated that any proposal under 5-units shows an unreasonable return on the investment. The Chair asked if the applicant had an appraisal of the property. Richard Blancato responded that the financial documents indicate the value of the property. Linda Moiron stated that at the last meeting, the Board asked about any previous variances on this property. Sean McCarthy responded that no variances were previously granted for this property. The Chair opened the public hearing. Since there were no public comments, Peter Koffler made a motion to close the public hearing. Linda Moiron seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). The Chair stated that he still has a problem with the density. He stated that the applicant has not proven why a variance should be granted beyond the two-units that the applicant is allowed to build. He stated that the Planning Board was also concerned with the density of the proposed project. He stated that by increasing the density, it creates an undesirable change in the neighborhood. Richard Blancato stated that all of the properties in the area are non-conforming. The Chair stated that all new construction is conforming to the Zoning Code. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, June 15, 2005 4 �Richard Blancato stated that nothing could be built on the lot without variances. The Chair asked if a three-family house could be built on this lot without variances. Sean McCarthy responded that only a single-family residence could be built without any variances. He stated that the Planning Board stated that they would be willing to approve a three-family structure. He also stated that the area permits commercial development. Peter Koffler stated that the Board is having a hard time approving this application based on the information presented. Richard Blancato disagreed. The Chair stated that the requested variance is substantial, is undesirable to the neighborhood, and is self-created. He stated that the statutes of the variance have not been satisfied. Richard Blancato stated that at the last meeting, he knew that this application would be going to court. The Chair stated that the financial documentation does not support a variance. He stated that another structure could be built on the lot that could produce a greater return. He stated that the objectives could still be achieved by building a smaller structure. He stated that the requested lot area variance is the largest requested variance he has ever seen presented to the Board. Lastly, he stated that the increased density is detrimental to the neighborhood. Linda Moiron made a motion to deny the application as submitted. Peter Koffler seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). 4) Garvey This is an application for variances to construct a two-story addition to the north side of the residence requiring the following variances: Lot Size Minimum lot size = 15,000sf Existing lot size = 14,682 sf Combined side yards Minimum combined side yards = 25.0-feet Existing combined side yards = 22.7-feet Proposed combined side yards = 17.7-feet One Side Yard Minimum one side yard set back = 10.0-feet Existing one side yard set back = 10.1-feet Proposed one side yard set back= 5.1-feet APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, June 15, 2005 5 �Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Maximum floor-area-ration= 0.27 (3,964 sf) Existing floor-area-ration= 0.25 (3,776 sf) Proposed floor-area-ration= 0.31 (4,658 sf) The public notice was read aloud. The Chair asked if the returns were received. Sean McCarthy responded yes. Sam Vieira is the project architect and is representing this application along with the owner, James Garvey. Sam Vieira spoke about the proposed project. He stated that the existing garage is only 16-feet wide. He stated that two cars could not fit inside. He stated that the garage would be widened to accommodate two cars. He stated that the garage would also be brought forward. He stated that the existing ½-bath on the first floor would be expanded to a full bath. He stated that the existing four bedrooms would be modified to accommodate a full-time nanny. He spoke about the requested variances. The Chair asked why the garage would be expanded to the right. Sam Vieira responded that the house interior would have to be modified in order to expand to the left. The Chair asked if the house could be expanded to the rear. He stated that the house seems crowded on the lot and that it seems massive. Sam Vieira responded that the construction would be difficult based on the existing configuration of the house. The Chair asked about the size of the garage. Sam Vieira responded 21.75-feet wide. He stated that there would be two garage doors. He stated that the immediate neighbor to the north is aware of the project and has no objections. Jim Galgano asked what is the side yard setback of the north neighbor. Sam Vieira responded that the neighbor is about 10 to 15 feet away from the property line. Peter Koffler noted that three windows are proposed on the north side extension so the extension does not appear like a solid wall. The Chair opened the public hearing. Dick Spalding (19 Hemlock Drive) stated that he is impressed with the Board’s diligence. He stated that he has no objection to the plan. He stated that he is concerned with the setback issues in the neighborhood. He expressed concerns with applicants using precedents to get variances approved. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, June 15, 2005 6 �Since there were no further public comments, Linda Moiron made a motion to close the public hearing. Peter Koffler seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). The Chair stated that he has concerns about the massing of the proposed structure. He would like to see a less massive addition. Sam Vieira responded that the only way to create a two-car garage without requesting a variance would be to remove living space or to create an additional driveway from Terrace Close. He stated that he could not find an acceptable alternative method. The Chair asked if two-feet could be removed from the proposed side yard dimension to make the garage less massive and reduce the requested variance by 50%. Sam Vieira responded that the applicant could accept a 20-foot garage. He stated that the reduction would be 1.75-feet. Peter Koffler made a motion to approve the application with a 1.75-foot reduction in the width of the garage. Linda Moiron seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). 5) Rodrigues This is an application for variances to construct a new covered porch, open deck and a detached two-car garage where the proposal requires the following variances: Front Yard Minimum front yard = 20.0-feet Existing front yard = 15.9-feet Proposed front yard = 8.9-feet Maximum coverage for rear yard accessory use is 30% (375 sf) Proposed coverage for rear yard accessory use is 36% (451 sf) The public notice was read aloud. The Chair asked if the returns were received. Sean McCarthy responded yes. Sam Vieira is the project architect and is representing this application along with the owners, Carlos and Isabel Rodrigues. Sam Vieira spoke about the proposed project. He spoke about the proposed garage and the proposed enclosed porch. He spoke about the Village code requirement regarding accessory structures. He spoke about the layout of the house in relation to the neighborhood. The Chair stated that the front yard setback variance is needed because of the proposed porch. Sam Vieira responded that the house currently has a platform area in the front. He stated that the owners want to cover the front platform and create a covered porch. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, June 15, 2005 7 �The Chair opened the public hearing. Since there were no public comments, Jim Galgano made a motion to close the public hearing. Linda Moiron seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). Peter Koffler stated that the request seems reasonable. The Chair stated that the proposed project is in character with the neighborhood and that it is not a self-created hardship. He also stated that the proposed variance is the minimum variance allowed. Jim Galgano made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Linda Moiron seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). 6) Other Steve Maseack asked to address the Board. He spoke about the height of the Ichabod’s Landing development and the zoning code. He stated that based on some unofficial elevations, the development seems to be 52-feet. He read the applicable zoning codes (Section 62.18) The Chair referred to Sean McCarthy. Sean McCarthy spoke about the zoning code and the RF zone. Steve Maseack stated that he wants the development to be built correctly. There was an open discussion on the zoning code and the RF district. Sean McCarthy stated that the structure is being built according to the approved plans. 7) Minutes – The minutes for May 2005 were reviewed. The Chair made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Linda Moiron seconded. It was unanimous (4-0) Adjourned at 10:18 p.m. Respectfully Submitted APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, June 15, 2005 8 � 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-2005 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_2005-06-15 Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2005 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2005 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/e390de682f62e0b79c301a4e6e749786.pdf 4672438766bbf42fdd218010faecfdc3 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING -APPROVED July 20, 2005 The meeting was called to order by Robert Anello, Chairman at 8:09 pm. The Chair noted that a quorum was present. Present: Robert Anello, Chairman Eliot Martone James Galgano Gordon Swartz Absent : Peter Koffler Linda Moiron Also Present: Sean McCarthy (Village Architect/Village of Sleepy Hollow) Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Agenda: 1) Pichardo 2) Alejandro 3) Checco 4) 300 North Broadway, LLC 5) Minutes for June 2005 36 Hudson Street 15 Hudson Terrace 75 Pocantico Street 300 North Broadway Announcements: None. 1) Pichardo – This is a continuation from previous meetings. Jon Turnquist is the project architect and is representing this application along with the owner, Rosetta Pichardo. Jon Turnquist summarized the application. He submitted a revised parking plan to the Board. He reviewed the plan and discussed how two cars could be parked in the parking area. He reviewed the revisions to the proposed modifications for the house. The Chair asked the applicant to summarize the variances sought and the overall revised proposal. Jon Turnquist summarized the original application and the current revised application including the parking area. Gordon Swartz asked about the size of the parking spots. �Jon Turnquist responded that the spaces are 14-feet long, which would accommodate a medium-sized car. Sean McCarthy asked about the parking area surface. Jon Turnquist responded that parking pavers are proposed. The Chair asked if the 19-foot addition on the first floor is the only proposed extension towards the rear. Jon Turnquist responded yes. He stated that the second floor extension was previously omitted. The Chair asked if the public had any comments. Since there were no public comments, Eliot Martone made a motion to close the public hearing. James Galgano seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). James Galgano made a motion to approve the application as presented in the revised plans. Eliot Martone seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). 2) Alejandro This is an application for a variance to erect a 48-inch fence in the front yard where a maximum height of 36-inches is permitted and a 72-inch high fence in the rear yard where a maximum height of 60-inches is permitted. The public notice was read aloud. The Chair asked if the returns were received. Sean McCarthy responded yes. Choppi Alejandro is the owner and is representing his application. He stated that his wife runs a daycare in the property and he wants more privacy from the new house being constructed in the rear. The Chair asked if a survey was available. Sean McCarthy submitted a copy of the survey to the Board. The Chair asked why the applicant needs a fence so high. Choppi Alejandro responded that he wants to use vinyl and the only a 4-foot fence available is vinyl. The Chair stated that the fence should be available in wood or another product. Choppi Alejandro responded that the style of fence that he wants is only available in 4foot vinyl. He stated that the fence is a picket fence. The Chair asked Sean McCarthy if there are other manufacturers. Sean McCarthy stated that 4-foot is standard. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, July 20, 2005 2 �Sean McCarthy stated that the applicant is proposing to install the fence beyond the front yard setback so a variance is not required. It was agreed that the front yard variance is not needed. The Chair asked why is a 6-foot fence needed in the rear. Choppi Alejandro responded that he wants to keep the children safe. The Chair asked if the public had any comments. Anthony DelVecchio (22 Bedford Road) stated that he does not have a problem with the fence. He stated that he has a 60-inch high fence in the rear of his property from a variance approved by the Zoning Board 20-years ago. Since there was no further public comments, Eliot Martone made a motion to close the public hearing. Gordon Swartz seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). Eliot Martone stated that the high point of the adjacent rear property might be significantly less based on the slope of the applicant’s property. He also stated that there also is a pre-existing variance from another neighbor. Gordon Swartz stated that it is not a precedent. Gordon Swartz asked about the ages of the children. Choppi Alejandro responded that the ages range from 1 year old to 14 years old. The Chair asked if the day care is a permitted use. Sean McCarthy responded yes. The Chair stated that he does not see a reason to approve the 6-foot high privacy fence. He stated that there is no factual proof that the fence is needed for the childcare. He stated that there have been previous applications that were denied for similar reasons that the applicant has presented. Gordon Swartz asked if a 5-foot fence is available. Choppi Alejandro responded that he has a previous approval from the Architectural Review Board for a 5-foot fence but he was unable to purchase a 5-foot fence. The Chair asked if the fence was purchased already. Choppi Alejandro responded yes. The Chair suggested that the application be adjourned to see if the owner can purchase a 5-foot fence. Choppi Alejandro stated that he needs to install a fence soon. He requested that his application be withdrawn APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, July 20, 2005 3 �Eliot Martone made a motion to accept the applicants request to withdraw the application. Gordon Swartz seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). 3) Checco This is a request for an interpretation in accordance with Article X, Section 62-40.A (2), alleging that the Building Inspector was in error for refusing to issue a Certificate of Occupancy for a four-family residence. The public notice was read aloud. The Chair asked if the returns were received. Sean McCarthy responded yes. Angie Checco is the executor of the estate and is representing this application. She stated that the original structure was a 2-family structure. She stated that an addition was completed in 1972. The Chair stated that in order to be grandfathered, the structure needs to be an existing 4-family structure before 1964. Eliot Martone asked if a variance was granted to convert to a four-family. Angie Checco responded that documents are missing from the Village Building Department folder. She stated that she has some of the missing records. Angie Checco stated that the studio apartment is the apartment in question. She stated that a general Certificate of Occupancy was issued in 1999. She stated that her parents purchased the property in 1970 as a 2-family residence. The Chair informed the applicant that based on her statement; the Board should deny her request. He stated that the property was purchased in 1970 as a 2-family. He stated that this is a clear example of a pre-existing use. Angie Checco stated that she can prove that the apartment in question existed prior to 1959. The Chair asked about the zoning in the area. Sean McCarthy responded that it is in an R-5 zone, which allows multi-family. The Chair stated that the property does not comply with parking. He stated that the house does not conform to the zoning code and requires variances. He stated that in order for the property to be grandfathered, the property needs to be existing prior to 1964 and no changes are made to the property since 1964. He reviewed the requirements that must be met in order for the Board to grant a variance. Sean McCarthy stated that the application was reviewed with the applicant. He stated that the applicant was advised that a parking variance and site plan approval would be required. He stated that the applicant chose to seek an interpretation. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, July 20, 2005 4 �Angie Checco stated that several documents are missing from the building records. The Chair asked about the front entrance. Angie Checco spoke about the front and rear entrances. She described the methods of access to each of the four apartment. She stated that the original survey from 1957 indicated that the studio apartment is shown. She stated that the proof is shown by the basement window wells and the basement apartment entrance, which is shown on the survey. The Chair asked about creating parking on site to accommodate parking. Angie Checco responded that it would be a major expense. She stated that the property currently accommodates four (4) cars. The Chair asked when the extension was completed. Angie Checco responded 1972. The Chair referenced an insurance document from 1974 indicating that the property was a 2family structure. Sean McCarthy submitted the building permit for the previous building addition to the Board. The Chair referred to several letters submitted to the Board. The Chair asked how many meters are present. Angie Checco responded three. She stated that the studio apartment utilities are connected to the property owner’s meters. The Chair stated that the building records indicate that the property is a 2-family residence. He stated that a variance is needed to change the property from a 2-family to a 4-family. He stated that there are two ways to get an exception to the Zoning Code: 1) Prove that the property existed as a pre-existing use prior to 1964. 2) Seek a variance. He explained the requirements for obtaining a variance. The Chair asked if there was any information that the owners wanted to present to the Board. Angie Checco responded no. The Chair asked if the public had any comments. Rose Maria McManis (31 New Broadway) asked what the tax roll states. Angie Checco stated that the Town of Mt. Pleasant lists a 5-family residence. She stated that there is another apartment that her parents used that is illegal and is currently being removed. Sean McCarthy stated that the Village tax records only indicate multi-family. Eliot Martone stated that tax roll information could help justify the variances. The Chair stated that there are other 4-family homes in the area. Angie Checco asked what type of variance is needed. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, July 20, 2005 5 �The Chair responded that an area variance is needed. Sean McCarthy stated that a site plan is needed for the proposed parking along with the variances. The Chair asked about the parking requirements. Sean McCarthy responded that approximately eight parking spaces are needed based on the number of bedrooms and number of dwelling units. James Galgano asked why this all came up. Angie Checco responded that the property was up for sale and the potential buyer discovered that the property was not a 4-family residence. James Galgano asked if Sean McCarthy had inspected the structure. Sean McCarthy responded yes. He stated that the basement apartment would meet the requirements for an efficiency unit. James Galgano asked if 4-family residences are permitted in the area. Sean McCarthy responded yes. Sean McCarthy stated that there is an open building permit. He stated that once the permit is closed, a Certificate of Occupancy for a 3-family residence will be granted. The applicant thanked the Board for their input. No action was taken. 4) 300 North Broadway, LLC This is an application for variances to construct a mixed-use (commercial and residential) building with 8 (eight) residential units and 6 (six) units which have a home occupation/home profession space. This application requires the following variances: Front Yard – New Broadway Required front yard = 10.0-feet Existing front yard = 0.5-feet Proposed front yard = 1.0-feet Front Yard – North Broadway Required front yard = 20.0-feet Existing front yard = 0.5-feet Proposed front yard = 0.0-feet Rear Yard Required rear yard = 20.0-feet Existing rear yard = 8.8-feet APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, July 20, 2005 6 �Proposed rear yard = 5.0-feet Application of Regulations – Article IV, 62-7.B Adding to and altering an existing non-conforming building The public notice was read aloud. The Chair asked if the returns were received. Sean McCarthy responded yes. Kyle McGovern is the representing this application along with the owner, Dan Beaton. Kyle McGovern summarized the applications before the Planning Board and the Waterfront Advisory Committee. The Chair asked for a copy of the Waterfront Advisory Committee minutes. Sean McCarthy provided a copy for the Board. The Chair noted that the Board had received the following: 1) Plans dated 6/20/05 2) Application dated 6/21/05 Kyle McGovern stated that one of the variances sought will be a lesser use than what is requested. Dan Beaton stated that the project was designed to try to keep within the existing building footprint. The Chair asked about the height requirements. Dan Beaton responded that the requirement is 35-feet from the New Broadway side. There was an open discussion on the calculation method for determining the height of a structure. The Chair asked Sean McCarthy to locate the Code section that allows the height to be measured from the lesser side of a corner lot. Dan Beaton spoke about the surrounding streets. He spoke about the proposed commercial and residential components. He spoke about that proposed parking plan. He stated that efforts were made to create some green space and that the parking flow was a concern of the owners. He stated that the Waterfront Advisory Committee made a recommendation to only allow a righthand turn out of the property. He spoke about the elevator access from the parking level. He stated that all cars should park in the North Broadway parking area and not on the street. Gordon Swartz asked about the number of parking spaces required for the residential units. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, July 20, 2005 7 �Dan Beaton explained the proposed parking plan. He spoke about the number of parking spaces required. He stated that the parking plan conforms to the Village Zoning code. The Chair asked the applicant to address the variances sought. Dan Beaton spoke about the interior units. He spoke about the proposed home-profession use. The Chair asked how many parking spaces are dedicated to the businesses. Dan Beaton responded that the parking spaces are not dedicated. He stated that the owners have a parking space already established. He stated that the parking lot will probably never see 25 vehicles since the proposed use is not retail. The Chair asked about the Zoning Code requirements. Sean McCarthy read the applicable zoning code sections aloud. He stated that he agrees with the proposed parking calculations. The Chair asked if the open space could be included in the parking plan. Dan Beaton responded that the plans submitted to the Board have been revised. He stated that units have been condensed by a few feet to increase the open space proposed. He stated that the revised plans are not available. He discussed some of the architectural changes that are also under revision. The Chair asked for an open space calculation. Sean McCarthy responded that the open space calculations are required for residential properties up to R-5. He stated that further investigation needs to be performed on a mixed-use structure. Dan Beaton stated that the structure is not changing from its existing footprint. Sean McCarthy stated that this property is a corner lot. He reviewed the property and associated required variances. The Chair asked about the adjacent properties. Kyle McGovern responded that the adjacent properties are pre-existing non-conforming use properties. The Chair asked if the information on the setbacks for the adjacent properties could be provided to the Board. He also asked the applicant to provide a building footprint that would conform to the zoning code. Dan Beaton stated that the proposed plan increases the green space on the site. Kyle McGovern stated that the zoning code does not have a requirement for open space for a C-1 zone. The Chair asked Sean McCarthy to verify the open space requirement. The Chair asked for a rendering of the front yard and rear yard to understand if the proposed structure is in character with the neighborhood. The Chair stated that elevations and a markedup survey at a minimum should be submitted. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, July 20, 2005 8 �The Chair asked the applicant to review the reasons why a variance should be granted. Dan Beaton responded that there is no self-created hardship. He stated that the property could be rented out. The Chair stated that the property is non-conforming and no matter what the applicants wanted to do with the property, a variance would be required. The Chair opened the public hearing. Rose Marie McMannis (31 New Broadway) stated that the property view shed should be protected under the LWRP. The Chair asked if the Waterfront Advisory Committee meetings are public. Sean McCarthy responded no. He stated that the Waterfront Advisory Committee is an advisory committee and the committee stated that the plan complies with the LWRP. Rose Marie McMannis continued by stating that there are too many units proposed. She stated that 4-units should be proposed. She stated that parking will be a problem. She stated that parking would be a problem. She stated that the proposed property is too large as well. She stated that the proposed structure does not belong in the community. The Chair explained the review process of the Planning Board and Architectural Review Board. The Chair asked if the applicant could provide additional landscaping on the New Broadway side. Dan Beaton responded that the foundation would have to be moved and that parking would be reduced. Sonja Munroe (63 New Broadway) stated that the applicant should try to include more green space on New Broadway. Ann Connor (66 New Broadway) stated that the scale is too large. She stated that she is opposed to the size of the development. Richard Kirby (64 New Broadway) stated that something should be placed at the site that blends into the neighborhood. He stated that parking would be an issue. He stated that controlling the home-profession will be difficult. The Chair asked if the home-profession use is described in the zoning code. He stated that the only business that could be operated from the site is a business that is operated by the property owner. Sean McCarthy responded yes. James Devangelo (77 New Broadway) stated that the intended project is too big without allocated space. He stated that the concept is good but too large. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, July 20, 2005 9 �Since there were no further public comments, Eliot Martone made a motion to close the public hearing. Gordon Swartz seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). James Galgano stated that a decision should not be made tonight since the several Board members are not present. He stated that the residential outlets on New Broadway are a concern. He stated that parking on New Broadway seems unavoidable. Dan Beaton asked if the entrances should be eliminated on New Broadway. James Galgano responded that he would recommend that the entrances be removed. Gordon Swartz stated that he is pleased that the site will be developed. He stated that he is concerned with the scale of the proposed project. He stated that he would like to see the Broadway side get recessed. He expressed some concerns about the proposed traffic flow exiting the parking area and the line-of-site from Route 9. He commended the applicant for proposing a positive plan. Eliot Martone stated that this proposal for the site is the best plan for the site since Tappan Motors vacated the site. He stated that this property is the gateway into the Village. He stated that the property should blend into New Broadway. He stated that the buildable areas of the Village are limited and care needs to be taken in how this area is developed. The Chair asked if the NYSDOT needs to be involved in the change of the traffic pattern. Sean McCarthy responded yes. He stated that the applicant will need to apply to the DOT for a permit. The Chair stated that the property is a difficult one to develop. He stated that the traffic problem could be alleviated by reducing the number of units proposed. The Chair stated that visitors might be inclined to park on New Broadway to be able to leave the area and access Route 9 South easier. The Chair stated that the setback on New Broadway should be addressed. He stated that the property should be analyzed to allow alternatives to be proposed. Dan Beaton stated that the break-even point on 8-units is $700,000/unit. He stated that the break-even point on seven (7) units is over $800,000/unit. Kyle McGovern requested an adjournment to the September meeting so that more information can be provided. Gordon Swartz seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). 5) Minutes – The minutes for June 2005 will be reviewed at the next meeting. Adjourned at 10:21 p.m. Respectfully Submitted APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, July 20, 2005 10 � 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-2005 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_2005-07-20 Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2005 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2005 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/da94bd3b07233e003e49325c53e37495.pdf dfe7fcc2f064bb84e44070ced8941b7b PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING -APPROVED September 21, 2005 The meeting was called to order by Robert Anello, Chairman at 8:24 pm. The Chair noted that a quorum was present. Present: Robert Anello, Chairman Linda Moiron James Galgano Gordon Swartz Peter Koffler Absent : Eliot Martone Also Present: Sean McCarthy (Village Architect/Village of Sleepy Hollow) Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Announcements: The Chair stated that a memo was circulated to other Board members concerning videotaping the meetings. The Chair stated that the Board should allow videotaping this evening until the policy is reviewed and adopted. The Board unanimously agreed (4-0) (Koffler absent). The Chair stated that 300 North Broadway (Mill Point Partners) and Marino (56 Clinton Street) are adjourned to the next meeting at the request of the applicants. Agenda: 1) Cai 2) Van Hengel 3) Marte 4) Urgilies 5) Carissimo 6) Cellante 7) Minutes for June and July 2005 21 Freemont Road 2 Evergreen Way 34 Kendall Avenue 12 Clinton Street 256 Farrington Avenue 516 Bellwood Avenue 1) Cai This is an application for a variance to construct a one story family room addition and a new open deck addition where the proposed addition creates the following non-compliances: Lot Size Minimum lot size = 15,000-sf Existing lot size = 14,630-sf �Rear Yard setback Required rear yard setback = 25.0-feet Existing rear yard setback = 25.6-feet Proposed rear yard setback = 15.3-feet The public notice was read aloud. The Chair asked if the returns were received. Sean McCarthy responded yes. The Chair noted the following: 1) zoning application 2) building plans William Cai is the owner and is representing this application. He submitted some photos of the existing deck. He stated that the existing deck is too small for his needs. The Chair asked the applicant to explain why he needs a variance. William Cai responded that the existing deck came with the house. He stated that there is no interference between his neighbor’s properties. He also stated that his neighbors do not object to the proposed construction. The Chair asked if the applicant had a map of the neighboring properties. William Cai responded no. Sean McCarthy stated that this is a corner lot. He stated that although this is the applicant’s rear yard, it is the neighbor’s side yard that is impacted. The Chair asked if there is any other way that the deck could be built to accommodate the applicant’s needs. William Cai responded that on the side yard is the master bedroom and he could not access the deck through the master bedroom. The Chair asked if the applicant to explain how he intends to extend the existing house. William Cai responded that he simply wants to add a room onto his house. The Chair asked if the variance is needed since he is adding a deck. Sean McCarthy responded yes. Gordon Swartz asked if the rear neighbor has indicated any problems with the proposed work. William Cai responded no. The Chair opened the public hearing. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, September 21, 2005 2 �Kelly Lue (24 Fremont Road) stated that she is concerned with the setbacks. She stated that she is concerned that the house is already very large for the lot. She stated that the deck is very close to the neighbor’s house. She stated that if the proposed construction is allowed with the current zoning and building codes, she does not have a problem with the work. She is concerned with setting a precedent. Since there was no further public comments, Linda Moiron made a motion to close the public hearing. Gordon Swartz seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). The Chair questioned why the extended deck is needed as opposed to a patio. He stated that that the lot would generate the appearance of being very tight. He asked the applicant why an at grade patio would not be adequate. William Cai responded that the existing deck does not comply with the zoning code. He stated that a patio would not be useful due to the existing grade of the property. The Chair asked about the use for the deck. William Cai responded that he likes to read on the deck. He also stated that the house is relatively small to other houses in the neighborhood. He stated that the proposed construction would not be detrimental to the neighborhood. Sean McCarthy stated that the existing deck is non-conforming. The Chair reviewed the survey and stated that the existing deck is only 5-feet wide. The applicant confirmed this and stated that the proposed construction would only add an additional 5-feet. Peter Koffler asked if the deck was installed in the other open area of the rear yard. William Cai responded that it would be more functional to have the deck off of the kitchen as opposed to creating another entrance thru the master bedroom. Gordon Swartz asked if the deck could be wrapped around the house. William Cai responded that it would appear to be a walkway and not serve as a useful deck. Peter Koffler asked the applicant to explain his landscape plan. William Cai responded that he would be installing some evergreens on the Hemlock side near the curb to create some privacy for himself and to minimize the views. The Chair stated that it would help to see a landscape plan. He also stated that some more alternatives should be investigated. Peter Koffler stated that one possibility could be to investigate lowering the deck by adding one or two steps to minimize the visual impacts. William Cai responded that he is concerned with the safety of his family with the addition of the stairs. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, September 21, 2005 3 �Peter Koffler made a motion to approve the addition on the house but adjourn the new deck to the next meeting. Linda Moiron seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). 2) Van Hengel This is an application for a variance to construct a front entry portico where the proposed addition creates the following non-compliances: Front Yard setback Minimum front yard setback = 30.0-feet Existing front yard setback = 30.53-feet Required front yard setback = 27.0-feet The public notice was read aloud. The Chair asked if the returns were received. Sean McCarthy responded yes. Gloria Van Hengel is the owner and is representing this application. She stated that she wants to construct a portico in the front for protection from the elements. The Chair asked if the Board had any questions. Gordon Swartz asked if there are other houses with porticos. Gloria Van Hengel responded that there are a few porticos in the area. The Chair opened the public hearing. Since there were no public comments, Peter Koffler made a motion to close the public hearing. Linda Moiron seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). Peter Koffler made a motion to approve the proposed portico as submitted. Linda Moiron seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). 3) Marte This is an application for a variance to construct an addition to a single family residence where the proposed addition creates the following non-compliances: Front Yard setback Required front yard setback = 20.0-feet Existing front yard setback = 6.0-feet APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, September 21, 2005 4 �One side Yard setback Required one side yard setback = 5.0-feet Existing one side yard setback = 3.0-feet The public notice was read aloud. Jon Turnquist is the project architect and is representing this application along with the owner, Ruben Marte. The Chair asked if the returns were received. Sean McCarthy responded yes. The Chair noted that the Board had received the following: 1) application 2) plans The Chair stated that this property was before the Board on another application. He asked the architect to explain. Jon Turnquist responded that the applicant had appeared before the Board for the adjacent lot. He stated that the two lots have been combined into one lot. The Chair stated that the Village needs to ensure that the two lots are merged. Sean McCarthy responded that he would speak to the Village’s Assessor. Jon Turnquist described the existing layout. He stated that the proposed work is not affecting the existing non-conformities. He stated that the extra room is needed to accommodate the family’s need for more room since the owners just had a child. He stated that the proposed work is not out-of-character with the neighborhood and does not create an additional impact to parking or traffic. Peter Koffler asked about the rooflines. Jon Turnquist responded that the roofline was dropped down so that there would not have to tieinto the existing roofline. Ellen McDonough (23 Kendall Avenue) is concerned with the size of the addition. She asked about the removal of a tree from the site. Peter Koffler responded that the footprint is not changing. Jon Turnquist indicated where the addition is proposed on the site plan. The Chair stated that the proposed addition would make the house more likely to be used as a one-family house. Since there were no further public comments, Linda Moiron made a motion to close the public hearing. Peter Koffler seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, September 21, 2005 5 �Linda Moiron made a motion to approve the application as submitted with the stipulation that the building department ensure that the two tax lots be combined into one lot. Peter Koffler seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). 4) Urgilies This is an application for a variance to construct a stair addition to a single family residence where the proposed construction creates the following non-compliances: Front Yard setback Existing front yard setback = 10.0-feet Required front yard setback = 20.0-feet One side yard setback Existing one side yard setback = 1.0-feet Required one side yard setback = 5.0-feet Combined side yards Existing combined side yard setback = 5.0-feet Required combined side yard setback = 15.0-feet Lot Width Existing lot width = 25.4-feet Required lot width = 40.0-feet Lot Size Existing lot size = 3010-sf Required lot size = 4000 -sf The public notice was read aloud. The Chair asked if the returns were received. Sean McCarthy responded yes. Jon Turnquist is the project architect and is representing this application along with the owner, Pedro Urgilies. The Chair stated that this property was before the Board before. He stated that the kitchen was supposed to be removed. Jon Turnquist responded that the kitchen was not removed. He stated that the applicant is going to remove the kitchen along with the proposed construction. He spoke about the previous application. He stated that the applicant is seeking a variance to enclose the rear staircase. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, September 21, 2005 6 �The Chair stated that the density problems in the area would not be impacted and the proposed changes are not out-of-character with the neighborhood. The Chair stated that the only reason that a variance is needed is due to the fact that the house is currently non-conforming. The Chair asked if the Board had any questions. Gordon Swartz asked if the house would be used as a one-family structure. Jon Turnquist responded yes. The Chair made a motion to open the public hearing. Since there were no public comments, Linda Moiron made a motion to close the public hearing. Peter Koffler seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). Linda Moiron made a motion to approve the application as submitted with the stipulation that the kitchen be removed first before the stairs are constructed. Peter Koffler seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). 5) Carissimo – This is an application for a variance to construct a covered porch to the front and west sides of the existing house; add a two story addition to the east and south sides; and extend an existing wooden deck in the rear of the house where the proposed garage level of the two story addition to the east side creates the following non-compliances: One Side Yard Required one side yard = 10.0-feet Proposed one side yard = 7.0-feet The public notice was read aloud. Sandro Carissimo is the owner and is representing this application along with contractor George O’Reilly. The Chair asked if the returns were received. Sean McCarthy responded yes. The Chair noted that the Board had received the following: 1) application 8-15-2005 2) building plans dated 3-7-2005 Sandro Carissimo stated that this was approved by the Board over one-year ago. He stated that nothing in the application has changed. He summarized the proposed construction for the Board APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, September 21, 2005 7 �which included a two-story addition to the rear and expanding the one-car garage into a two-car garage. The Chair asked if the Board had any questions. There were none. The Chair made a motion to open the public hearing. Elizabeth Patyi (255 Farrington Avenue) referred to her letter to the Board. She noted her opposition of the proposed project. She stated that the proposed work will impact her views of the Hudson River. Since there were no further public comments, Linda Moiron made a motion to close the public hearing. Peter Koffler seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). The Chair stated that according to the Zoning code, the height of the proposed structure complies with the zoning code. There was an open discussion on whether to refer this application to the Waterfront Advisory Committee. Sean McCarthy responded that this application is a Type II action under SEQRA and typically would not be reviewed by the Waterfront Advisor Committee. The Chair stated that the letter from Elizabeth Payti does not address objections to the location of the garage. He stated that the neighbor’s objection related to the height of the proposed structure. Sandro Carissimo showed the proposed impacts to the neighbor’s property via photos. Linda Moiron asked if the only non-compliant issue is the garage. Sean McCarthy responded yes. The Chair stated that the neighbor’s letter does not address the issues that focus around the variance. He asked if the Architectural Review Board had approved the application. Sandro Carissimo responded that the variance had expired prior to obtaining of the Architectural Review Board. The Chair asked if the Board had any questions. Peter Koffler asked about the other side yard setback. Sean McCarthy responded 17.6-feet. Gordon Swartz stated that the proposed addition does not appear to be very significant due to the extensive foliage. He asked if the fence was remaining. Sandro Carissimo responded that the fence was going to remain. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, September 21, 2005 8 �The Chair asked if each garage was reduced by 1.5-feet, could the garage be effectively used. Sandro Carissimo stated that the existing garage is 12-feet. Sean McCarthy responded that by removing a few feet off of the proposed project, the structure would have to be modified. George O’Reilly stated that the additional structural elements would create a tight fit. The Chair stated that ways to eliminate the variance should be explored. Sandro Carissimo responded that anything could be designed. He spoke about the reasonable width of a two-car garage. The Chair stated that re-designing the garage might further justify the existing application. George O’Reilly stated that by eliminating just one-foot from the existing application would cause structural modifications that would make the garage non-functional. Peter Koffler stated that the alternatives need to be presented to the Board so that they can review. The Chair stated that the applicant needs to address the requirements for an area variance. Linda Moiron made a motion to adjourn this application to the next meeting. Peter Koffler seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). 6) Cellante This is an application for a variance to construct a one story addition where the proposed addition creates the following non-compliances: Rear Yard setback Minimum rear yard setback = 25.0-feet Existing rear yard setback = 29.9-feet Proposed rear yard setback = 18.0-feet The public notice was read aloud. Joe Bertolino is the project architect and is representing this application along with the owner, Anthony and Lourdes Cellante. The Chair asked if the returns were received. Sean McCarthy responded yes. Joe Bertolino explained the proposed project. He stated that the property is on a corner lot. He stated that the only other way to accommodate the applicant’s needs would be to totally renovate APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, September 21, 2005 9 �the entire first floor. He stated that the variance cannot be achieved any other way. He stated that this is not a self-created hardship and is not out-of-character with the neighborhood. The Chair asked about the distance from the rear neighbor. Anthony Cellante responded that the distance is about 20-feet. Peter Koffler asked if Architectural Review Board approval is needed. Sean McCarthy responded yes. Gordon Swartz asked if the driveway would change. Joe Bertolino responded no. The Chair opened the public hearing. Hugh Jones (253 Hunter Avenue) stated that he is representing the Reformed Church of the Tarrytowns (54 Kelbourne Avenue). He stated that if the owners would expand the property by only 5-feet, the proposed construction would conform to the zoning code. He stated that many of the houses in Philipse Manor conform to the zoning standards. He stated that there are other alternatives that can be used to meet the needs of the owners. Since there were no further public comments, Linda Moiron made a motion to close the public hearing. Peter Koffler seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). The Chair stated that the applicant needs to demonstrate that the variance can only be accomplished in this manner. Joe Bertolino responded that the existing kitchen is not functional. The Chair stated that the applicant needs to demonstrate how the existing kitchen is not functional and how proposing the extension while confirming to the zoning code will not meet the applicant’s needs. The Board unanimously agreed that more details are needed. Gordon Swartz stated that he would like to see other possibilities explored. The Chair stated that without the platform, the required variance would only be 3-feet. He stated that the applicant needs to investigate how a 3-foot extension would make such a difference. The Chair noted a letter from Doug Ferguson (528 Bellwood Avenue). The letter states opposition to the proposed application. Joe Bertolino stated that the owners are in agreement to reducing the extension by 3-feet. The Board agreed that the public hearing needed to be re-opened. The Chair re-opened the public hearing. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, September 21, 2005 10 �The Chair summarized the revised application. He stated the extension would be reduced 3-feet. He stated that the only portion that would violate the setback would be the stairs. Since there were no additional public comments, Linda Moiron made a motion to close the public hearing. Peter Koffler seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). Linda Moiron made a motion to approve the application as amended. Peter Koffler seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). 7) Minutes – The minutes for June and July 2005 will be reviewed at the next meeting. Adjourned at 10:36 p.m. Respectfully Submitted APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, September 21, 2005 11 � 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-2005 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_2005-09-21 Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2005 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2005 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/df06798039842ceb1b3277a5536de565.pdf 5e05b77b6f873dbcb37762d69ef0f949 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING -APPROVED October 19, 2005 The meeting was called to order by Robert Anello, Chairman at 8:05 pm. The Chair noted that a quorum was present. Present: Robert Anello, Chairman Linda Moiron James Galgano Eliot Martone Absent : Gordon Swartz Peter Koffler Also Present: Sean McCarthy (Village Architect/Village of Sleepy Hollow) Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Agenda: 1) 300 North Broadway 2) William Cai 3) Carissimo 4) Marino 5) Kenyon 6) Garcia 7) Weltig 8) Minutes for June, July and September 2005 21 Fremont Road 256 Farrington Avenue 56 Clinton Street 259 Hunter Avenue 10 Gorey Brook Road 14 Merlin Avenue Announcements: The Chair stated that 300 North Broadway and 56 Clinton Street are not on tonight’s agenda. Linda Moiron made a motion to strike those items from the agenda and make the applicant’s renotice the public. Eliot Martone seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). The Chair also stated that the application for 10 Gorey Brook Road was not noticed for a long enough period of time. The applicant was advised that the item would be heard at the next meeting. Revised Agenda: 1) William Cai 2) Carissimo 3) Kenyon 4) Weltig 5) Minutes for June, July and September 2005 21 Fremont Road 256 Farrington Avenue 259 Hunter Avenue 14 Merlin Avenue �1) William Cai This is a continuation from a previous meeting. This is an application for a variance to construct a one story family room addition and a new open deck addition where the proposed addition creates the following non-compliances: Lot Size Minimum lot size = 15,000-sf Existing lot size = 14,630-sf Rear Yard setback Required rear yard setback = 25.0-feet Existing rear yard setback = 25.6-feet Proposed rear yard setback = 15.3-feet William Cai stated that he did not change his application from the last time. He provided a landscape plan that shows how the proposed deck would be screened from the adjacent property. He stated that the landscape plan should sufficiently address the neighbors concerns that were expressed at the last meeting. William Cai summarized the entire application for the Board members that were not present at the last meeting. The Chair stated at the last meeting, the Board proposed moving the deck to the other side of the house but the applicant stated that the deck would be accessed thru the master bedroom. He also stated that the Board also suggested that a smaller deck be constructed. The Chair stated that the concerns expressed at the last meeting focused on constructing a patio instead of a deck. The Chair stated that the patio would not crowd the neighboring property. William Cai responded that a patio would require 8 steps. He stated that he is concerned with the safety of his young child. The Chair asked if the existing deck is conforming. Sean McCarthy responded that the existing deck is non-conforming. The Chair asked about the width of the existing deck. William Cai responded 5-feet. The Chair opened the public hearing. Gary Lue (24 Fremont Road) stated that Sleepy Hollow is very cluttered. He stated that the applicant’s house is the first house that is seen when entering Fremont Road. He also stated that APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, October 19, 2005 2 �the Sleepy Hollow covenants do not allow hedges to be planted along the street. He stated that his concerns are not only with the applicant but with setting a precedent in the neighborhood. Since there were no further public comments, Eliot Martone made a motion to close the public hearing. Linda Moiron seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). The Chair asked if the applicant is aware of the Sleepy Hollow covenant. William Cai responded no. The Chair responded that the landscape plan should conform to the Sleepy Hollow covenant. He stated that the applicant should show why the variance is needed. He reviewed the conditions for granting a variance. He stated that the applicant should also show why a deck is needed. He stated that the lot is a full-sized lot. William Cai responded that the deck could be made 7-feet long instead of the proposed 10-feet long. He stated that the deck is for personal recreational use. The Chair asked if the Board had any questions. Eliot Martone asked Sean McCarthy if the house pre-dates the zoning code. Sean McCarthy responded yes. He stated that the house was constructed in 1956. The Chair asked if the deck pre-dates the zoning code. Sean McCarthy responded that the deck appears to be original. Eliot Martone asked to see the covenant. He stated that he would like to see this application held over to the next meeting since the Board only had four members present. Linda Moiron responded that she would approve a 7-foot deck. She responded that she would like to see the covenant as well. Eliot Martone made a motion to adjourn this application to the next meeting. Linda Moiron seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). Sean McCarthy stated that the deck is not only extending in length but in width as well. He asked if the Board had any problems with the increasing width. The Board agreed that there were no problems with the increased width. This was adjourned to the next meeting. 2) Carissimo – This is a continuation from the previous meeting. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, October 19, 2005 3 �This is an application for a variance to construct a covered porch to the front and west sides of the existing house; add a two story addition to the east and south sides; and extend an existing wooden deck in the rear of the house where the proposed garage level of the two story addition to the east side creates the following non-compliances: One Side Yard Required one side yard = 10.0-feet Proposed one side yard = 7.0-feet Sandro Carissimo is the owner and is representing this application along with contractor George O’Reilly and architect Harry Goldstein. The Chair acknowledged a letter from the applicant. The Chair asked if the applicant addressed moving the garage to the right and reducing the size of the utility room. Sandro Carissimo responded that the length of the room is small. He stated that a compact car would not fit into the garage. He stated that the utility room contains the boiler and electrical meters. Harry Goldstein stated that by moving the wall of the utility room would cause the relocation of two load-bearing walls. He explained the structural layout of the house and the potential impacts of relocating the two load-bearing walls. The Chair asked if the Board had any questions. There were none. The Chair made a motion to re-open the public hearing. Frank Patyi is an attorney for the applicant’s neighbor. He submitted a letter to the Board. He also read a prepared statement which stated that the neighbors oppose any extension of the existing structure towards the neighbors (Mr. and Mrs. Patyi’s) property. He stated that emergency vehicles would not be able to pass if the extension is constructed. The Chair questioned the use of “the reasonable use of the land” standard in Frank Patyi’s prepared statement. Frank Patyi responded that the section is listed in the Village Code under Section B. The Chair responded that the response is referring to a use variance. He also questioned the emergency vehicles restriction. Frank Patyi responded that the applicant would be encroaching on the existing breezeway between the two properties. Since there were no further public comments, Eliot Martone made a motion to close the public hearing. Linda Moiron seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, October 19, 2005 4 �The Chair stated that the variance was approved before. He stated that he is concerned that there might be an alternative way to construct the proposed addition. Sean McCarthy asked if the garage could be moved into the front yard. Harry Goldstein responded that the grade changes too much. The Chair asked for a topographical survey. Sandro Carissimo responded that he did not have a topographical survey. He showed photos of the utilities that are installed in the utility room. Eliot Martone stated that he feels that there is no other way that the applicant can achieve the desired objectives. He stated that the Board had previously approved the exact same application less than 2 years ago. Linda Moiron stated that the applicant has shown how alternatives are not viable. She stated that the requested variance is not substantial. The Chair stated that the proposed addition is not a detriment to the neighborhood. He also stated that the requested variance is small. He stated that it is not a self-created hardship and could not be achieved by any other method. Linda Moiron made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Eliot Martone seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). 3) Brad Kenyon – This is an application for an area variance to replace an existing detached two car garage where the following non-compliances are created: Existing Lot Size Existing lot size = 9,000 s.f. Minimum lot size = 10,000 s.f Existing Lot Width Existing lot width = 60 ft. Minimum lot width = 75 ft. One Side Yard Existing one side yard = 9.8 ft. Minimum one side yard = 10 ft. Combined side yards Existing combined side yards = 19.34 ft Minimum combined side yards = 25 ft. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, October 19, 2005 5 �Coverage and Open Space Proposed accessory building coverage = 34.6% (520 s.f.) Maximum building coverage = 30% (450 s.f.) The public notice was read aloud. The Chair asked if the returns were received. Sean McCarthy responded yes. The Chair stated that the Board has received the following: 1) application dated Sept 8, 2005 2) zoning compliance form 3) hand-drawn sketch of the site plan. 4) Building plans Brad Kenyon is the owner and is representing this application. He stated that his lot is nonconforming. The Chair asked if many of the requested variances are pre-existing based on the existing structure. Sean McCarthy responded yes. He stated that the main variance is for the size of the proposed garage. He stated that it is larger than the existing garage. The Chair asked if the building coverage is for all of the structures. Sean McCarthy responded that the variance is for the coverage of the accessory structure. The Chair responded that part of the problem is that the owners have an undersized lot. There was an open discussion on the calculation used to determine the maximum building coverage for an accessory structure. The Village Code was reviewed. It was determined that the Village Trustees should be consulted to determine which method should be used to calculate the building coverage for an accessory structure. The Chair made a motion to open the public hearing. Since there were no public comments, Linda Moiron made a motion to close the public hearing. Eliot Martone seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). The Chair asked if the Board had any questions. Eliot Martone stated that the variance is not substantial. The Chair stated that the proposed variance is the minimum variance allowed. He also stated that the proposed project is in character with the neighborhood and that it is not a self-created hardship. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, October 19, 2005 6 �Eliot Martone made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Linda Moiron seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). 4) Herbert Weltig This is an application for an area variance to construct a two story addition and patio where the proposal creates the following non-compliance: Front Yard Setback Existing front yard setback = 28 feet Minimum front yard setback = 30 feet Accessory Structure Side Yard Setback Existing side yard setback = 4.94 ft. Minimum side yard setback = 5.0 ft. Accessory structure building coverage Existing coverage = 77% Maximum coverage = 30% Accessory structure lot coverage Existing lot coverage = 19% Maximum lot coverage = 20% Proposed lot coverage = 22% The public notice was read aloud. The Chair asked if the returns were received. Sean McCarthy responded yes. The Chair stated that the Board had received the following: 1) Application dated Sept 14, 2005 2) building plans dated Aug 08, 2005 Keith Akroyd is the project architect and is representing this application on behalf of the owner. He stated that the owners want to add a master bathroom on the second floor, enlarge the kitchen area and adding a fourth bedroom. He spoke about the accessory structures on the site. The Chair asked if the house was a three bedroom house. Keith Akroyd responded yes. He stated that the house is a small house. The Chair asked if the addition was a 2-story addition. Keith Akroyd responded yes. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, October 19, 2005 7 �The Chair asked why the applicant could not build along the width of the building. Keith Akroyd responded that the driveway would need to be relocated. The Chair asked if the side and rear yard setbacks are being compromised. Keith Akroyd responded no. The Chair made a motion to open the public hearing. Since there were no public comments, Linda Moiron made a motion to close the public hearing. Eliot Martone seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). The Chair asked if the Board had any questions. There were none. The Chair asked how the house exceeds the maximum lot coverage because of the pool. Sean McCarthy responded yes. He stated that the pool is an accessory structure. He stated that the house would not be cluttered as a result of the addition. The Chair stated that the proposed variance is the minimum variance that could achieve what is needed. He also stated that the proposed project is in character with the neighborhood and that it is not a self-created hardship. Eliot Martone made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Linda Moiron seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). 5) Minutes for June, July and September 2005 – The minutes for June, July and September 2005 were reviewed. Linda Moiron made a motion to approve the June 2005 minutes as submitted. Eliot Martone seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). James Galgano made a motion to approve the July 2005 minutes as submitted. Eliot Martone seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). Eliot Martone made a motion to approve the September 2005 minutes as amended. Linda Moiron seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). Eliot Martone made a motion to adjourn. It was unanimous (4-0). Adjourned at 9:42 p.m. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, October 19, 2005 8 �Respectfully Submitted APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, October 19, 2005 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-2005 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_2005-10-19 Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2005 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2005 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/953737fb8ef0364b17f0e0ea1a3f72e9.pdf 4d0829edb75e749f5b22062079b28bc8 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING -APPROVED November 16, 2005 The meeting was called to order by Peter Koffler, Acting Chairman at 8:15 pm. The Chair noted that a quorum was present. Present: Linda Moiron Gordon Swartz Peter Koffler, Acting Chairman James Galgano Absent : Robert Anello, Chairman Eliot Martone Also Present: Sean McCarthy (Village Architect/Village of Sleepy Hollow) Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Announcements: The Chair stated that William Cai (21 Fremont Road) has been removed from the agenda. Agenda: 1) Mill Point Partners 300 North Broadway 2) Garcia 10 Gorey Brook Road 3) Oliveira 117 Van Tassel Avenue 4) Public comments 5) Minutes for October 2005 mixed use bldg deck additions 1) Mill Point Partners This is an application for a variance to construct a mixed-use (commercial and residential) building with 6 (six) residential units, which have a home occupation/home profession space where the proposal creates the following noncompliance: Front Yard Setback (New Broadway) Required front yard = 10.0 ft. Existing front yard = 0.5 ft. Proposed front yard = 0.5 ft. Front Yard Setback (North Broadway) Required front yard = 20.0 ft. Existing front yard = 0.5 ft. Proposed front yard = 0.5 ft. �Rear Yard Setback Required rear yard setback = 20.0 ft. Existing rear yard setback = 8.8 ft. Proposed rear yard setback = 5.0 ft. Off Street Loading Space (2) Minimum area = 350 sq. ft. Proposed area = 200 sq. ft. Article IV, 62-7.B. Applications of Regulations Adding to and altering an existing non-conforming building. The public notice was read aloud. The Chair asked if the returns were received. Sean McCarthy responded yes. Dan Beaton is the owner and is representing this application along with architect, Ed Vogle. Dan Beaton reviewed the application to date. He spoke about some of the issues raised by the public during the last Zoning Board meeting. He spoke about many of the changes to the current plan from the original plan. He stated that the revised application contains only 6 units. He stated that the revised drawings also significantly reduce the amount of demolition required to complete the project. He stated that many of the neighbors concerns are addressed in the revised plan. He spoke about the interior layout of the 6 live-work units. Dan Beaton spoke about the proposed parking layout. He reviewed the requested variances. He stated that the front yard setback requirement is not changing. He stated that applies to the New Broadway and North Broadway sides. He spoke about the proposed overhang that is creating the increased rear yard setback requirement. He spoke about the required loading zone. He stated that the proposed loading zone could only accommodate 200 sf where 350 sf are required. The Chair asked why a loading zone is required. Dan Beaton responded that a loading zone is required since the property is in a C-1 zone and the proposed loading zone will overlap with the proposed driveway. The Chair asked if there is street parking on the New Broadway side. Sean McCarthy responded yes. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, November 16, 2005 2 �Dan Beaton stated that the proposed plan included replacing the sidewalk and curbs. He stated that the proposed project would enhance an eyesore in the Village. He stated that many alternatives were reviewed and this is the most feasible proposal. The Chair asked about the size of each unit. Dan Beaton responded about 2500sf including the office space but excluding the garage. Dan Beaton stated that the site is a difficult site to develop. The Chair asked if the Board had any questions. Gordon Swartz stated that many of the properties on North Broadway have setbacks. He stated that the offices would generate traffic in the area. He stated that he is concerned with adding additional traffic to this corner. Dan Beaton responded that traffic could be controlled by making a right hand turn from site (i.e. no left hand turns). Gordon Swartz responded that making a left-hand turn would be hazardous. He stated that the parking on the site could be a problem depending on the proposed use. He stated that there could be traffic problems. Dan Beaton stated that the offices are about 250sf and cannot accommodate a high volume of visitors. Gordon Swartz responded if a doctor occupied the space, there could be many patients parking cars on the site. Gordon Swartz made a motion to open the public hearing. James Galgano seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). Rosemarie McMannis (31 New Broadway) stated that the proposed awnings would not look good on New Broadway. She stated that the parking in the area is horrendous. She stated that the proposal is a big improvement. She stated that if the property was strictly residential, she would be in favor of the project but with the commercial component, she is concerned with the traffic and parking. Dan Beaton reviewed the proposed traffic flows in and out of the site. Larry Doyle (16 New Broadway) stated that his property was converted without any additional parking added on the street. He stated that his view shed would be greatly improved by enhancing this site. He stated that additional parking could be added on the street in front of his property by removing the yellow curb in front of his property. He stated that he is in favor of the project based on the proposed plan. Richard Kirby (64 New Broadway) stated that the current plan is better. He stated that he is still concerned with the traffic on New Broadway. He stated that the traffic is so bad that a school bus cannot pass in the afternoon due to congestion. He asked what would happen if the livework owner sub-leases the property. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, November 16, 2005 3 �Alexander Shishnu (29 New Broadway) stated that he is concerned with the parking in the area. He stated that sometimes there is no parking in the area. Michelle Gonzales (137 Gordon Ave) stated that maybe a reduction to 5-units could reduce the traffic slightly. She stated that the area has many children in the area and the increased traffic would greatly impact the neighborhood. Anne Acone (66 New Broadway) stated that she is concerned with the parking and the scale of the property. She asked about the need of a commercial aspect. Dan Beaton responded that the property is located in a C-1 zone and must be a mixed-use property. He stated that the project does not require a parking variance. He stated that the project meets the required parking under the Village Code. He stated that the other issues could be addressed in the site plan review with the Planning Board. Larry Doyle reviewed the potential parking space available by eliminating the yellow curb in front of his house. Since there were no further public comments, Linda Moiron made a motion to close the public hearing. Gordon Swartz seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). The Chair stated that the proposed project is a great clean up of the site. He stated that there are serious issues regarding traffic and safety. He stated that the public opinion is in favor of some development of this site. He stated that the project is a significant one for the Village. He stated that the Board should discuss these issues with the Planning Board. He stated that the traffic issues need to be reviewed. The Chair asked if the Board had any questions. Gordon Swartz stated that a precedent should not be set by not looking to push the structure back to accommodate a setback. The Chair stated that the public did not appear to have a problem with the bulk of the site. Gordon Swartz stated that the Board should meet with the Planning Board and try to develop some guidance to resolve the traffic and parking layout issues. It was agreed that the applicant should coordinate future meetings with Sean McCarthy. 2) Christine Garcia This is an application for a variance to construct a rear deck where the proposal creates the following non-compliance: APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, November 16, 2005 4 �Front Yard setback Existing front yard set back = 14.8 ft. Required front yard setback = 20.0-ft One-side Yard setback Existing one side yard setback = 2.6-feet Required one side yard setback = 3.0-feet Rear Yard setback Required rear yard setback = 25.0-feet Existing rear yard setback = 27.0-feet Proposed rear yard setback = 17.0-feet The public notice was read aloud. The Chair asked if the returns were received. Sean McCarthy responded yes. Deidre Carsto is the contractor and is representing this application with Ruben and Christine Garcia. Deidre Carsto spoke about the proposed project. She stated that the existing deck was very small. She stated that the property would be lowered to accommodate the deck installation. She stated that the deck would be level with the backyard. She stated that the deck is not very large. She stated that the deck would be carried along the foundation to create a path. Linda Moiron asked what is behind the property. Christine Garcia responded that there is a stone retaining wall and a garage on top of the wall. Linda Moiron made a motion to open the public hearing. Gordon Swartz seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). Since there were no public comments, Linda Moiron made a motion to close the public hearing. Gordon Swartz seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). The Chair asked if the Board had any questions. Gordon Swartz asked what surrounds the property. Christine Garcia responded that the property is surrounded by single and multi-family properties. The Chair asked if the proposed deck is basically a platform deck. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, November 16, 2005 5 �Christine Garcia responded yes. She stated that the deck is only visible from the elevated porch of the neighbor’s property. The Chair asked if the 10-foot depth would be the minimum depth in order to make the deck a functional area. Deidre Carsto responded yes. The Chair stated that the proposed variance is the minimum variance allowed. He also stated that the proposed project is in character with the neighborhood and that it is not a self-created hardship. Gordon Swartz made a motion to approve the application as submitted. James Galgano seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). 3) Edward Oliveira This is an application for a variance to construct a 2-story breezeway addition; second floor addition and expansion over the existing residence and garage; covered porch addition; and a 1-story garage addition where the proposed work created the following non-compliances. Front Yard Setback Existing front yard set back =7.2 ft. Required front yard set back =20.0 ft. Proposed front yard set back =1.5 ft. Corner Yard Setback Existing corner yard set back =9.1 ft. Required corner yard set back =10.0 ft. Proposed corner yard set back = 9.1 ft. Rear Yard Setback Existing rear yard set back = 8.6 ft. Required rear yard set back = 25.0 ft. Proposed rear yard set back = 4.0 ft. Lot Coverage Existing coverage = 29% Maximum coverage = 35% Proposed coverage = 37% Floor-Area-Ratio Existing floor area = 1,152 sq. ft. Maximum floor area = 1,920 sq. ft. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, November 16, 2005 6 �Proposed floor area = 2,142 sq. ft. Article IV, 62-7.B. Applications of Regulations Adding to and altering an existing non-conforming building. The public notice was read aloud. The Chair asked if the returns were received. Sean McCarthy responded yes. The Chair stated that the Board has received the following: 1) public notice 2) application 3) survey Edward Oliveira is the owner and is representing this application along with his wife, Marion. Edward Oliveira spoke about the existing residence. He stated that the house is rather small with small bedrooms. He stated that the master bedroom is 12x11 and does not have a closet. He stated that there is no room for recreation since the house is so small. He stated that the second floor has low ceilings and a steep staircase. He spoke about the proposed driveway expansion. He stated that he has two teenage children and the need for privacy is a concern. He stated that since the lot is on a corner lot, the required variances seem larger than what would be required on an interior lot. He stated that he loves the neighborhood and does not want to move. He stated that the lot coverage is only increasing by 2%. Ed Oliveira stated that the project would keep in character with the neighborhood. He submitted a map of the area that shows other corner lots with greater lot coverage than what is proposed. He stated that the slope of the area is not changing. The Chair asked if the height of the structure would change. Ed Oliveira responded yes. Gordon Swartz asked if the property would be the tallest property on the street. Ed Oliveira responded no. He showed photos that show other houses with a greater height than the proposed structure. He stated that the house was built in 1956 and he purchased it in 1992. Linda Moiron made a motion to open the public hearing. Frank Janos (46 Holland Avenue) stated that he has no problem with the overall scope of the proposed project. He had some concerns with a few issues. He stated that there is a 7-8 foot variation in grade between the rear of his mother’s property on Holland Avenue and the applicant’s property on Van Tassel Avenue. He stated that he would like to review the angles of the garage roofline to fully understand the impacts. He stated the existing garage would probably not be able to accommodate a two-story addition. He stated that the back of the APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, November 16, 2005 7 �property is bound by a retaining wall that is in disrepair. He also stated that he is concerned with the storm water management since there have been problems in the past with storm water runoff. He also questioned the length of the proposed garage area. The Chair stated that the structural analysis of the garage is a building department issue. Sophie Janos (46 Holland Ave) stated that the retaining wall has been a problem in the past. She stated that she would like to see the garage moved away from the wall. Since there were no public comments, Linda Moiron made a motion to close the public hearing. Gordon Swartz seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). The Chair asked if the Board had any questions. The Chair stated that there is several issues raised by the neighbors are building department issues. He stated that the proposed project is not out-of-character with the neighborhood. Gordon Swartz stated that the applicant has made efforts to maintain basically the same footprint. He stated that he is not opposed to granting this variance. Linda Moiron made a motion to approve the application as submitted. James Galgano seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). 4) Public comment – Hugh Jones (253 Hunter Avenue) addressed the Board. He referred to the last meetings approval of Brad Kenyon. He stated that many of the neighbors were pleased with the work. He stated that the only concern was with the height of the proposed structure. He stated that the existing structure is 12-feet and the proposed structure is 15-feet. He stated that the proposed structure would block his views of the Hudson River. He stated that Brad Kenyon was supposed to reduce the proposed garage from 15-feet to 12-feet. He stated that the variance was approved at 15-feet. He stated that if he knew that Brad Kenyon was not going to reduce the structure, he would have appeared at the meeting and opposed the height of the structure. He asked the Board for advice on how to handle this issue. The Chair stated that he could have attended the meeting to voice his objection. He asked the contents of the public notice. Hugh Jones responded that the public notice indicated that the garage was a replacement. The Chair stated that unless the Board was deceived or the public notice was inaccurate or misleading, it has no action. He recommended that Hugh Jones seek the advise of an attorney. The Board unanimously recommended that this matter be referred to the Village attorney for review. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, November 16, 2005 8 �Sean McCarthy stated that this matter is still before the Architectural Review Board. He stated that the height issue could be addressed by the Architectural Review Board. 5) Minutes for October 2005 – The minutes for October 2005 will be reviewed at the next meeting. Linda Moiron made a motion to adjourn. Gordon Swartz seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). Adjourned at 9:55 p.m. Respectfully Submitted APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, November 16, 2005 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-2005 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_2005-11-16 Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2005 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2005 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/5cc454d6f322b699daca4a0a6a6f168f.pdf 6c639afb28dc3b50dcca831ba0d802c1 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING -APPROVED December 21, 2005 The meeting was called to order by Robert Anello, Chairman at 8:10 pm. The Chair noted that a quorum was present. Present: Robert Anello, Chairman Linda Moiron Eliot Martone Peter Koffler James Galgano Absent : Gordon Swartz Also Present: Sean McCarthy (Village Architect/Village of Sleepy Hollow) Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Agenda: 1) Mill Point Partners 300 North Broadway 2) William Cai 21 Fremont Road 3) Minutes for October and November 2005 meetings mixed use bldg deck Announcements: None. 1) Mill Point Partners This is a continuation from previous meetings. This is an application for a variance to construct a mixed-use (commercial and residential) building with 6 (six) residential units, which have a home occupation/home profession space where the proposal creates the following noncompliance: Front Yard Setback (New Broadway) Required front yard = 10.0 ft. Existing front yard = 0.5 ft. Proposed front yard = 0.5 ft. Front Yard Setback (North Broadway) Required front yard = 20.0 ft. Existing front yard = 0.5 ft. �Proposed front yard = 0.5 ft. Rear Yard Setback Required rear yard setback = 20.0 ft. Existing rear yard setback = 8.8 ft. Proposed rear yard setback = 5.0 ft. Off Street Loading Space (2) Minimum area = 350 sq. ft. Proposed area = 200 sq. ft. Article IV, 62-7.B. Applications of Regulations Adding to and altering an existing non-conforming building. Kyle McGovern is the attorney representing this application along with architect, Ed Vogle. The Chair noted that the Board had received the following: 1) Revised drawings dated October 06, 2005 2) Short EIS. 3) Note that Planning Board is acting as the Lead agency. 4) Summary of Planning Board’s December 2005 meeting. The Chair asked if there was any discussion at the December Planning Board meeting regarding the parking. Sean McCarthy responded that the Planning Board discussed the matter. He stated that the Planning Board did not feel that the parking would be a problem. The Chair asked if the Village Code addresses tandem parking. Sean McCarthy responded that the code only addresses the size of the parking spaces. He referred to § 62-14 (off-street parking and loading spaces) and § 62-22 (vehicular access to commercial and industrial uses). The Chair asked if the parking spaces were full-size. Kyle McGovern responded yes. The Chair asked where the parking was indicated on the plans. Ed Vogle responded that the parking plan is located on drawing 3 of 8. The Chair stated that after reviewing the applicable Village Code sections, it does not appear that the code addresses tandem parking. Kyle McGovern summarized the recent Planning Board meeting where the Board unanimously recommended that the variances be approved. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, December 21, 2005 2 �The Chair responded that the Planning Board was not asked to comment on the requested variances. He stated that the Planning Board was asked to comment on the traffic flow and parking. Ed Vogle gave an overview of the proposed live-work units. He spoke about the proposed variances. He stated that the existing building has an existing 6” offset on New Broadway and a 6” offset on Broadway. He stated that the variance for the New Broadway side was increasing due to the addition of covered entries at each unit. The Chair stated that the New Broadway side is used as the rear yard. Ed Vogle responded yes. Ed Vogle spoke about the Broadway side. He stated that the setbacks are not changing and the existing 6” offset will remain the same. The Chair asked about the added landscaping. He stated that the landscaping appears to extend beyond the property boundaries. Ed Vogle confirmed that the proposed landscaping extends beyond the property boundaries. Sean McCarthy responded that the sidewalk would be expanded and a larger green space would be added. He stated that the building owner would be responsible for maintaining the landscaping. The Chair stated that the Board made comments at the last meeting requesting that the applicant try and increase the front yard setbacks on Broadway. The Chair asked the applicant why the setbacks on Broadway couldn’t be reduced. He stated that the applicant needs to explain why a variance is needed. Ed Vogle responded that by keeping the lower level structure of the building intact, the applicant is able to reduce the number of units from 8 (original proposal) to 6 units (current proposal). He stated that to bring the building inward to comply with the current zoning code, the project would not be economically practical. The Chair asked about the practicality of the live-work units. Kyle McGovern responded that a marketing study was submitted to the Planning Board indicating that there is a market for live-work in the area. Sean McCarthy responded that the owners couldn’t rent out the commercial area to another party. Peter Koffler asked if there was a restriction on what businesses can operate out of the property. Sean McCarthy responded that the Village Code addresses what occupations could operate at the property. He read the applicable code section. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, December 21, 2005 3 �Ed Vogle spoke about the loading zone variance. He stated that the proposed loading zone would impede on one parking spot and garage. He stated that he loading zone would not be a dedicated area. Kyle McGovern responded that the types of trucks that would service the property would be small delivery trucks. Eliot Martone asked if there was a sufficient turn-around area. Sean McCarthy responded yes. He stated that the loading zone is needed for garbage pick-ups, etc. The Chair asked about the ingress and egress issues. He stated that §62-21 covers off-site parking and traffic hazards. Kyle McGovern stated that left-hand turns out of the property would not be allowed. He stated that the Planning Board has requested that a traffic study be performed. Sean McCarthy stated that a curb cut permit is also required from NYS DOT. The Chair stated that in general the traffic flows in this area of the Village have major drawbacks. The Chair opened the public hearing. Since there were no public comments, Eliot Martone made a motion to close the public hearing. Peter Koffler seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). The Chair asked if the Board had any questions. Eliot Martone asked a question about the loading space. He stated that the proposed space is 35’x10’ which is 350 sf and the code requires a 350sf loading zone. He asked why a variance is needed. Ed Vogle responded that the loading zone is not dedicated. The Chair stated that this proposal would have the least traffic impact of potential development of this site. He stated that the application is not a self-created hardship. He stated that the property is unique. He also stated that the proposed variance is the minimum variance allowed. He stated that he would recommend the approval with the condition that there is a no left-turn sign exiting the property. Peter Koffler asked how the visitors would park and enter the property. Ed Vogle responded that the visitors could park in the Broadway lot and walk around. Eliot Martone asked if the parking spots would be assigned. Ed Vogle responded that currently the parking spaces are unassigned. Eliot Martone agrees that the application is a good proposal. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, December 21, 2005 4 �Peter Koffler stated that the neighbors were really concerned with the traffic and parking but were generally in favor of the application. James Galgano made a motion to approve the application with the condition that there is a no left-turn sign exiting the property and subject to Planning Board and Architectural Review Board approvals. Peter Koffler seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). 2) William Cai This is a continuation from previous meetings. This is an application for a variance to construct a one-story family room addition and a new open deck addition where the proposed addition creates the following non-compliances: Lot Size Minimum lot size = 15,000-sf Existing lot size = 14,630-sf Rear Yard setback Required rear yard setback = 25.0-feet Existing rear yard setback = 25.6-feet Proposed rear yard setback = 15.3-feet William Cai is the owner and is representing this application. The Chair stated that the Board had not received any additional information on this application. William Cai submitted additional information to the Board. He summarized the events from the last meeting. He stated the Sleepy Hollow Manor Association stated that they did not have a problem with the height of the proposed landscaping. The Board reviewed the submitted information. Linda Moiron read a section from the Sleepy Hollow Manor Association covenant (submitted by the applicant) that limits the height of hedges to a maximum height of 5feet tall. William Cai referred to several rendered photos from his deck, which shows what the proposed landscaping will look like. The Chair stated that the covenants would not allow him to plant the proposed 6-foot tall hedges. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, December 21, 2005 5 �The Chair stated that the letter from the Sleepy Hollow Manor Association does not state that they reviewed the proposed 6-foot tall landscaping plan. Peter Koffler stated that at the last meeting the Board proposed as an alternative solution for the applicant to construct a patio in lieu of the deck. William Cai responded that he would be concerned with the safety of his family due to the patio door and number of steps needed to get down to a grade level patio. Peter Koffler stated that a platform could be constructed to transition down to the patio. The Chair read a letter from several neighbors in favor of the proposed application. Their addresses were 7 Hemlock Drive, 10 Hemlock Drive, 20 Fremont Road and 23 Fremont Road. He asked if the neighbor who opposed the application had signed the letter. William Cai responded no. The Chair asked why the deck is needed as opposed to a patio. William Cai stated that there are other houses in the area that have larger decks without any screening. He submitted a photo of another house in the area with a similar deck. The Chair opened the public hearing. Paul Wichmann (20 Fremont Road) stated that the renderings are not totally accurate. He stated that he is trying to help his neighbor in getting this application approved. He stated that the proposed deck will drop by 8-inches during construction for snow loading. He stated that all of the screening in the rendering is not needed. He stated that the neighbor who opposed the application live two houses away from the applicant. He stated that a patio would be too low and would not be practical. He also stated that moving the deck to the other side of the house would not be very functional for the owners. He stated that the proposed landscaping could really enhance the view. Since there were no further public comments, Eliot Martone made a motion to close the public hearing. Peter Koffler seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). The Chair asked if the Board had any questions. The Chair stated that the Board had requested a smaller deck. He also stated that the covenants restrict the proposed 6-foot screening. Eliot Martone stated that he does not have a major problem with the deck. He stated that moving the deck to the other side of the house would not make the deck very useful to the owners. The Chair stated that the deck should be made smaller. He stated that he would have less of a concern with a 7-foot deck. He asked Sean McCarthy about the height of the deck. Sean McCarthy responded that the deck must be between 4” to 8 ¼” below the sill plate. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, December 21, 2005 6 �Peter Koffler stated that he is concerned that the size of the deck is the minimum reasonable size for a deck. He also expressed some concerns about the height. He stated that the applicant should explore installing a deck with a landing and some steps. William Cai stated that he would be willing to construct an 8-foot deck. The Chair asked why the applicant is not willing to lower the deck. He stated that the Board has not seen any alternative proposals. He stated that if the deck was lowered and steps are required, the deck could be slightly larger to compensate. He also stated that if the deck were not lowered, he would like to see a reduced deck. William Cai responded that he would return with some additional sketches. Eliot Martone made a motion to adjourn the application to the next meeting. Peter Koffler seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). 3) Minutes for October and November 2005 meetings– The minutes for October 2005 were reviewed. Eliot Martone made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Linda Moiron seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). The minutes for November 2005 were reviewed. Peter Koffler made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Linda Moiron seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). Peter Koffler made a motion to adjourn. Eliot Martone seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). Adjourned at 9:35 p.m. Respectfully Submitted APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, December 21, 2005 7 � 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-2005 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_2005-12-21 Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2005 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2005 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