1 25 9 https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/9176cc70e6783b5ec4499901e528c96d.pdf b45d02f827fee22fc4cd99fae9a10b44 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING -APPROVED November 15, 2006 The meeting was called to order by Robert Anello, Chairman at 8:14 pm. The Chair noted that a quorum was present. Present: Robert Anello, Chairman Linda Moiron Peter Koffler Gordon Swartz Eliot Martone Absent : James Galgano Michael Fox Also Present: Sean McCarthy (Village Architect/Village of Sleepy Hollow) Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Agenda: 1) Samaras 175 Valley Street 2) Peter Castro 335 North Broadway 3) Oliveira 117 Van Tassel Avenue 4) Neiditch 263 Farrington Avenue 5) Cepin 224 Beekman Avenue 6) Jarin 37 Evergreen Way 7) Horseman Garage 8) Approval of minutes from October 2006 Certificate of Occupancy Change of Use Alteration & addition Covered Porch Change of Use Alteration & addition Discussion Announcements: None. 1) George Samaras This is an application requesting a temporary Certificate of Occupancy from the Village Zoning Board of Appeals for use of the rear dining room at 175 Valley Street where proposal requires the following variances: Parking Existing parking spaces = 0. Required parking spaces = 10. Proposed parking spaces = 0 The public hearing 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 2) short EAF 3) zoning compliance form 4) letter to the Building Inspector from several neighbors and tenants opposing the application Kyle McGovern is the attorney and is representing his application along with project architect, Ron Turnquist. Kyle McGovern stated that the owner is asking to provide the 10 parking spaces for the restaurant in an adjacent property. He stated that he is asking for the location to be approved to temporarily park the cars on the vacant lot so that the restaurant can operate. He summarized the previous approvals and conditions placed on the restaurant. He spoke about the proposed permanent parking plan. The Chair asked if the parking area would be paved and striped under the temporary use. Kyle McGovern responded that the lot would be stabilized but not paved and striped until a final approval is given. The Chair asked if the property is currently in violation. Kyle McGovern responded that the property does not have a Certificate of Occupancy. He stated that the property has operated under a temporary Certificate of Occupancy for several years. The Chair asked if the property has any past violations regarding the back room. Sean McCarthy responded that there is a violation letter from Jim Margotta from 2002 noting that the back room was in violation. George Samaras stated that the back room was operating since 2002. Kyle McGovern stated that there was a temporary Certificate of Occupancy was issued back in 2004 indicating that the past violation was corrected. The Chair asked for clarification of the cabaret operation. Kyle McGovern stated that the applicant was trying to sell the business. He stated that the previous tenant did not operate the property correctly. He stated that the owner is proposing to operate the site as a restaurant. The Chair asked if there are any other variances required since the applicant is going to change the use. Sean McCarthy responded that he did not know that the applicant was proposing to change the use. Ron Turnquist discussed the proposed site plan. He stated that the parking plan would include valet parking. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, November 15, 2006 2 �The Chair stated that valet parking does not always work as promised. George Samaras stated that the restaurant is currently closed and this is a financial burden. The Chair asked if the Board had any questions. Peter Koffler stated that if the larger development is approved, the parking lot might be unavailable while construction is in progress. Ron Turnquist discussed the parking contingency plan that would be in effect during any construction of the proposed residential development next door. There was an open discussion on the ingress/egress into the parking lot on a temporary basis and during and after construction. The Chair stated that there is not an application for the change of use for the proposed Greek restaurant. He stated that the Board is being asked to grant a temporary Certificate of Occupancy but only for the previously approved use. Sean McCarthy referred to 62-40(d). He stated that the Board can grant a temporary Occupancy and use of a structure. There was an open discussion on whether the Board can issue a temporary Certificate of Occupancy. Sean McCarthy gave a recent history of the property and its associated variances and applications to the Zoning Board and Planning Board. The Chair asked if the applicant would be willing to wait until the pending application for the residential development is completed. Kyle McGovern responded that the owner is losing revenue by not having the restaurant operating during that time. The Chair responded that the restaurant was operating illegally. George Samaras responded that the back room was inspected by the Village. He stated that the only thing missing was the parking spaces. The Chair stated that the owner has an obligation to appear before the Board to legalize the structure. Eliot Martone asked how long it would take to change the restaurant to a Greek restaurant. George Samaras responded 3 months. The Chair asked for a summary of the variances on this property. Sean McCarthy reviewed the approved and requested variances. The Chair opened the public hearing. Since there were no public comments, Eliot Martone made a motion to close the public hearing. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, November 15, 2006 3 �Linda Moiron seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). Gordon Swartz stated that the applicant should appear before the Board with all of the required variances for the restaurant so that the Board could make a comprehensive decision. The Chair agreed. He stated that the restaurant has been operating illegally for several years. There was an open discussion on the need for a variance for the restaurant. The Chair stated that the Board would be in a difficult position to issue a temporary Certificate of Occupancy and allow the restaurant to operate and later deny an applicant for a variance. The Chair stated that the applicant should appear before the Board’s next meeting with a full application. Alexandria Samaras stated that the restaurant is a family business. She stated that not operating the restaurant is a financial hardship. She asked the Board to allow the restaurant to move forward. Peter Koffler stated that he would like to see the proposed ingress/egress plan. He stated that he agreed that a complete application should be submitted. The Chair stated that the fire department already has a difficult time maneuvering thru the area. He stated that without proper parking facilities, there would be a greater risk to the neighborhood. He stated that more information is needed on the operation of the restaurant, the parking plan and construction parking plan. George Samaras stated that closing this restaurant is a financial hardship. Kyle McGovern stated that the applicant is asking for an adjournment and will provide the additional information. The Board unanimously agreed to grant the adjournment. 2) Peter Castro This is a continuation from the previous meeting. This is an application for an area variance to alter an existing building and convert a portion of an existing business, where the proposal requires the following variances: Front Yard Setback (Lawrence Ave) Existing front yard setback = 4.3 ft Required front yard setback = 20.0 ft APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, November 15, 2006 4 �Rear Yard Setback Existing rear yard setback = 2.3 ft Required rear yard setback = 20.0 ft Front Yard Setback (Lawrence Ave) for canopy Existing front yard setback for canopy= 11.0 ft Required front yard setback for canopy= 20.0 ft Front Yard Setback (Broadway) for canopy Existing front yard setback for canopy = 4.5 ft Required front yard setback for canopy = 20.0 ft Buffer Area Proposed buffer area = 0.0-ft Required buffer area = 5.0-ft Article IV, section 62-7.B: Appl. of regulations Altering an existing non-conforming structure. Food Service Establishment Cannot be located within 200 ft. of another food service establishment. Premise is located 85.75 ft. from Getty station/ convenience store. John Hughes is representing this application along with owner Peter Castro, Sr. and Peter Castro Jr. John Hughes stated that he has reviewed the application to date. He stated that a traffic engineers report has not been performed yet. He stated that he would like to go back to the Planning Board to get some additional input regarding the parking and traffic. Gordon Swartz made a motion to refer this matter back to the Planning Board. Peter Koffler seconded. It was seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). 3) Oliveira This is a requesting for an area 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 that will result in 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. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, November 15, 2006 5 �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 lot coverage = 29% Maximum lot coverage =35% Proposed lot coverage = 37% Floor Area Regulations Existing floor area = 1,152 sq. ft. Maximum floor area =1,920 sq. ft. Proposed floor area = 2,142 sq. ft. Also Adding to and altering an existing non-conforming building. Ed Oliviera is the owner and is representing this application. The public notice was read aloud. The Chair asked if the returns were received. Sean McCarthy responded yes. The Chair noted that he Board had received the following: 1) application 2) zoning compliance form 3) survey 4) minutes from previous ZBA meeting 5) floor plans 6) Photos of neighboring properties Ed Oliviera gave an overview of the application to date. He stated that the existing house has only one bedroom and almost no closet space. He stated that his family needs the additional space. He stated that the bedrooms are very small. He stated that there is very limited room to have any recreation. He stated that the garage is too small for his existing car. He stated that there are many properties that have larger lot coverage than what he is proposing. He stated that other options have been explored. He stated that he even considered moving. He stated that the proposed footprint is relatively unchanged. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, November 15, 2006 6 �The Chair stated that this variance was previously approved. The Chair asked about the front yard setback. He asked why such a large variance should be granted. Ed Oliviera responded that the front of the house has no sitting area. He stated that the proposed front porch would be at grade and would not require a railing. The Chair asked if the porch could be made smaller. Sean McCarthy responded that the porch is proposed at 6-feet wide. He stated that there is also a column proposed within that 6-foot area. He stated that a smaller porch would not be recommended. Ed Oliviera stated that the house was constructed in 1956 and pre-dates the Zoning code. He also stated that the side yard would be compliant but since the garage is attached to the structure, a larger variance is required. There was an open discussion on the calculations for floor area. The Chair asked about the average lot size in the area. Ed Oliviera responded that the average lot size in the area is about 40’ x100’. The Chair asked if the Floor-Area-Ratio included the garage and the breezeway. Sean McCarthy responded yes. He stated that the proposed front porch was not included. The Chair asked the applicant if there is a way to reduce the Floor-Area-Ratio. Ed Oliviera responded no. He stated that the bedrooms are only being increased slightly. He stated that the increase is the minimum that will allow his family to use the house. Sean McCarthy also stated that the house has a cathedral ceiling The Chair opened the public hearing. Rocky Buseto (123 Van Tassel Ave) stated that he is in favor of the proposed work. Anthony Marmo (Gordon Avenue) stated that he is in favor of the proposed addition. David Badel (122 Van Tassel) stated that many of the houses in the area are relatively small. He stated that the proposed work is in character with the neighborhood. Shauna Baltiera (120 Van Tassel Ave) stated that she does not have a problem with the proposed application. 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). APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, November 15, 2006 7 �Peter Koffler stated that the applicant has properly identified the need for the increased space. He stated that the proposed porch seems to be a luxury item and not needed so much as the interior changes. The Chair asked if there is any way that the porch size could be reduced. Ed Oliviera responded that the porch would be useless if it were any smaller. The Chair asked if the why the porch required a variance. Sean McCarthy responded that once the structure contains a roof, the area variances are applied. Eliot Martone stated that the proposed project is a good one. He stated that he is in favor of the application. The Chair stated that the code was recently changed to reflect a larger FAR requirement. He stated that if the applicant applied for a variance in 2004, he would be in compliance with regards to FAR. He stated that the proposed application is not out-of-character with the neighborhood. He stated that the proposed variance is the minimal variance that can be granted to achieve the applicant’s needs. The Chair stated that a variance is needed based on the size of the existing lot. He stated that the front yard setback is a limited setback and is not across the entire front yard. He stated that this proposed addition would have no adverse affect. The Chair stated that the corner yard requirement is a pre-existing condition. He stated that the applicant is only extending the rear yard variance is by adding the breezeway. He stated that this variance is not substantial. He stated that the applicant is only proposing a 2% increase in lot area. He stated that the variance is not substantial and would not have an adverse affect in the neighborhood. Lastly, he stated that the FAR requirement is not a substantial variance. He stated that a large amount of the FAR is taken up by the garage. He stated that other measures could be taken but the result would make the house look out-of-character with the neighborhood. Gordon Swartz made a motion to approve the variance as submitted. Eliot Martone seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). 4) Carol Neiditch This is a request for area variances to construct a covered porch at the rear of the residence where the proposal creates the following non-compliance: Lot Width Existing lot width = 59.65ft. Required lot width = 75.0 ft. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, November 15, 2006 8 �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. One side yard Existing one side yard = 8.7-ft Minimum one side yard = 10.0-ft Combined side yard Existing combined side yard setback = 19.9 ft. Minimum combined side yard set back = 25.0 ft. Lot Area Existing lot area = 8,948 sq. ft. Minimum lot area = 10,000 sq. ft. Building Coverage Existing building coverage = 20.9% Maximum building coverage = 20% Proposed building coverage = 22.5% Also Adding to and altering an existing non-conforming building and lot. 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 2) zoning compliance form dated 10-19-2006 3) survey dated 05-20-1915 4) site plan George O’Reilly is the contractor representing the owner Carol Neiditch. George O’Reilly summarized the previous approvals. He stated that due to an error by the project architect, there is a need for an additional variance. He stated that this would only be a 2% change. Carol Neiditch stated that the original lot coverage was miscalculated. She stated that some of the work has been scaled back due to cost overruns. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, November 15, 2006 9 �The Chair asked for the previous meeting minutes. The Chair reviewed the January 2005 meeting minutes. The Chair stated that only the building coverage is changing based on the porch overhang. George O’Reilly stated that the porch is located in the rear of the house. The Chair opened the public hearing. Since there were no public comments, Eliot Martone made a motion to close the public hearing. Gordon Swartz seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). The Chair stated that this variance is not substantial and would not have an adverse affect in the neighborhood. He stated that this is not a self-created hardship and would not be out-ofcharacter with the neighborhood. Gordon Swartz made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Eliot Martone seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). 5) Cepin This is a request for a change of use where the proposal requires the following variances: One Side Yard Setback Existing – 1.68-ft Minimum-3.0-ft Combined Side Yard Setback – Existing – 5.02-ft Minimum-12.0-ft Front Yard Setback – Existing – 0.0-ft Minimum-20.0-ft Parking Spaces Existing – 0 Required – 3 Proposed – 0 The public notice was read aloud. The Chair asked if the returns were received. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, November 15, 2006 10 �Sean McCarthy responded yes. The Chair stated that the Board had received the following: 1) application for zoning variance 2) short EAF 3) zoning compliance form 4) Survey 5) Application for a building permit with a denial letter from the building inspector Irving Ortiz is the project architect and is representing this application on behalf of the owners. Irving Ortiz stated that this property is surrounded by 2 commercial properties. He stated that the owners are looking to convert one of the existing dwelling units to a real estate office. The Chair asked if this is a permitted use under the zoning code. Sean McCarthy responded yes. Gordon Swartz asked about the parking requirements. Sean McCarthy stated that currently as a residential dwelling unit, only one parking space/dwelling unit is required. He stated that based on the proposed change, three parking spaces are now required. The Chair asked about the front yard setback. Irving Ortiz responded that the existing stairs and overhang are considered in the front yard calculation. There was an open discussion on what other uses are permitted. It was agreed that a condition could be placed limiting the use to a real estate office. Irving Ortiz stated that this would not be an undesirable change to the neighborhood. The Chair stated that this variance is not substantial and would not have an adverse affect in the neighborhood. He stated that the applicant cannot convert the property to a real estate office without a variance. The Chair opened the public hearing. Since there were no public comments, Eliot Martone made a motion to close the public hearing. Linda Moiron seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). Gordon Swartz expressed concerns about the future parking needs once the GM site is developed. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, November 15, 2006 11 �The Chair stated that this is not out-of-character with the neighborhood. The Chair also stated that this variance is not substantial and would not have an adverse affect in the neighborhood. Linda Moiron made a motion to approve the application with the condition that the 1st floor be used as a real estate office and that the existing kitchen does not serve food. Peter Koffler seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). 6) Jarane This is an application for an area variance to alter & add to an existing one family residence where the proposal requires the following variance: Lot Width Existing lot width = 63.27 ft. Minimum lot width = 100.0 ft. 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 2) drawings Andrew Dreuse is the project architect and is representing this application along with the owner Andrew Dreuse discussed the proposed work. He stated the first floor kitchen is being altered. He stated that a partial second floor is being added but the footprint is not changing. He stated that the variance is required due to a pre-existing condition. The Chair opened the public hearing. Since there were no public comments, Eliot Martone made a motion to close the public hearing. Linda Moiron seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). The Chair stated that this variance is not substantial and would not have an adverse affect in the neighborhood. Eliot Martone made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Linda Moiron seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, November 15, 2006 12 �7) Horseman Garage There was an open discussion on the ability of this property to operate a convenience store. There was an open discussion on the previous approvals and the approved site plan. No action was taken. 8) Minutes for October 2006 The minutes for the October 2006 meeting were reviewed. Peter Koffler made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Gordon Swartz seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). Gordon Swartz made a motion to adjourn. Eliot Martone seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). Adjourned at 11:03 p.m. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, November 15, 2006 13 � 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-2006 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_2006-11-15 Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2006 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2006 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/23cef6168d7b1a3e7a073c9dbd61bc94.pdf 02f0518ad9073dea9c03d1f86cc859af PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING -APPROVED October 18, 2006 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 Peter Koffler Gordon Swartz Eliot Martone Absent : James Galgano Michael Fox Also Present: Sean McCarthy (Village Architect/Village of Sleepy Hollow) Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Agenda: 1) Peter Castro 335 North Broadway 2) Ribeiro 56 Howard Street 3) Dugan 138 Merlin Avenue 4) Feliciano 26 Kendall Avenue 5) Samaras 175 Valley Street 6) Approval of minutes from June and September 2006 Change of Use Addition and alteration Addition and alteration Addition and alteration Discussion Announcements: None. 1) Peter Castro This is a continuation from the previous meeting. This is an application for an area variance to alter an existing building and convert a portion of an existing business, where the proposal requires the following variances: Front Yard Setback (Lawrence Ave) Existing front yard setback = 4.3 ft Required front yard setback = 20.0 ft Rear Yard Setback Existing rear yard setback = 2.3 ft Required rear yard setback = 20.0 ft �Front Yard Setback (Lawrence Ave) for canopy Existing front yard setback for canopy= 11.0 ft Required front yard setback for canopy= 20.0 ft Front Yard Setback (Broadway) for canopy Existing front yard setback for canopy = 4.5 ft Required front yard setback for canopy = 20.0 ft Buffer Area Proposed buffer area = 0.0-ft Required buffer area = 5.0-ft Article IV, section 62-7.B: Appl. of regulations Altering an existing non-conforming structure. Food Service Establishment Cannot be located within 200 ft. of another food service establishment. Premise is located 85.75 ft. from Getty station/ convenience store. The public notice was read aloud. The Chair asked if the returns were received. Sean McCarthy responded yes. John Lentini is the project architect and is representing this application along with owner Peter Castro, Sr. and Peter Castro Jr. The Chair asked if a new application had been received. John Lentini responded that the plans presented last week have not changed. John Lentini stated that the applicant has owned the building since 1983. He stated that the building has existed in the Village prior to the adoption of the zoning code. He stated that the emissions control requirements have made operating the garage financially difficult. He stated that the applicants request to change the use from a garage to a convenience store is the only gasoline business in the area that is required to comply with the zoning code. The Chair asked if the applicant had proof that there is a financial hardship. Peter Castro Sr. responded that his revenue has significantly decreased based on the specialized knowledge that is required to repair today’s automobiles. The Chair responded that specific documentation is required for the Board to consider financial hardship as a consideration in this application. John Lentini gave a brief history of the history of Route 9. He stated that the conversion of the garage into a convenience store will not impact traffic in the area. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, October 18, 2006 2 �The Chair asked if a traffic study was performed. John Lentini responded no. There was an open discussion on whether a traffic study was performed. Peter Castro Sr. stated that the proposed change of use would not greatly impact the flow of traffic in the area. Eliot Martone responded that the business would bring traffic into the property. He stated that the concern in with the ingress and egress into the property. The Chair referred to the minutes from the September meeting regarding a traffic study. The Chair stated that the Board needs documentation to support some of the statements made by the applicant. John Lentini responded that he would prepare a business plan The Chair asked if the parking issues were addressed by the applicant. Sean McCarthy responded that in 1991, the applicant received site plan approval. He stated that the parking is in compliant although the plans do not reflect the required 5-foot buffer for the employee parking area. The Chair asked if the Board had any questions. There were none. The Chair opened the public hearing. Don Catano of 33 Lawrence Avenue stated that parking in the area is an issue. He gave a description of the property make-ups on Lawrence Avenue. He stated that the illegal apartments on Lawrence Avenue are also contributing to the problem. He presented a photo of the applicant receiving a gasoline delivery to show some of the potential traffic issues. Frank Occhipinti of 194 Webber Avenue stated that he thinks that the proposed change would be an improvement in the area. He stated that the Planning Board has already addressed the issue regarding the delivery of gasoline. He stated that the need for a traffic study on Route 9 would not show any information on how traffic into and out of this property could be understood. Mario Bellanich of 153 North Washington Street stated that some of the convenience store business would be generated by foot traffic. He stated that he walks to the convenience stores several times a day. He stated that the proposed application would benefit the area. 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 stated that there is no new information presented to the Board since the last meeting. He reviewed the issue of hardship. He stated that supporting information is needed to support APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, October 18, 2006 3 �the hardship claim. He also asked for a traffic study to be presented to the Board to show the ingress and egress impacts. He stated that the prior variance should be reflected in the new site plan. John Lentini stated that he would like to present this information to the Planning Board. He asked if the applicant could be referred to the Planning Board. Sean McCarthy responded that the Planning Board referred this application to the Zoning Board. Peter Castro Sr. stated that he can get gasoline deliveries at any hour. He stated that this could be a condition of the approval. Peter Castro Jr. asked the Board for a clear understanding of what the Board is requesting of the applicant. The Chair reviewed the guidelines for granting a variance. He stated that the variance needs to be supported with proper documentation. He stated that the applicant needs to show how cars will enter and exit the site in a safe way. He stated that there will be an anticipated increase of traffic to the property. Peter Koffler stated that the presentation should be supported by facts. The Chair stated that this information will be required if the applicant eventually appears before the Planning Board. John Lentini requested an adjournment to the next meeting. Linda Moiron made a motion to adjourn this application to the next meeting. Eliot Martone seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). 2) Acacio Ribeiro This is an application for an area variance to add to and alter an existing two family residence where the following variances are required: Lot width Existing lot width = 37.5-ft Required lot width = 40.0-ft Front Yard Setback Existing front yard setback = 9.8 ft Required front yard setback = 20.0 ft Accessory building coverage Existing accessory building coverage = 42% Maximum accessory building coverage = 30% APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, October 18, 2006 4 �Distance of accessory building to rear lot line Existing distance = 1.3 ft Required distance = 3.0 ft Distance of accessory building to side lot line Existing distance = 1.3 ft Required distance = 3.0 ft Side Yard Setbacks Minimum one side yard setback = 5.0 ft. Existing one side yard setback = 3.1 ft. Proposed one side yard setback = 3.1 ft. Combined Side Yard Setback Minimum combined yard setback = 15.0 ft. Existing combined yard setback = 12.6 ft. Proposed side yard setback = 12.6 ft. Sam Vieira is the project architect and is representing this application on behalf of the owners. The Chair asked if the returns were received. Sean McCarthy responded yes. Public notice was read aloud for the record. The Chair asked if any of the existing variances are being increased. Sam Vieira responded no. The Chair stated that the Board is in receipt of the following: 1) Application 2) Building plans dated 9-14-06 3) Site plan Sam Vieira stated that the applicant recently purchased the property. He stated that the owner wants to make some modifications to square off the house. He stated that the proposed addition is 110 sf on the first floor. He stated that second floor addition adds an additional 395 sf. He stated that all of the parking requirements have been met. He stated that the increase in the size of the house is 28%. The Chair asked if this property would be owner occupied. Sam Vieira responded yes. He stated that the owner will occupy the ground floor. The Chair asked why the variances should be granted. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, October 18, 2006 5 �Sam Vieira responded that the units are small. He stated that the owner’s brother will occupy the second unit. The Chair asked how the size of the dwelling units compares to other units in the area. Sam Vieira responded that neighboring house compares to the size of the house. The Chair asked if the house was built before the zoning code was adopted by the Village. Sam Vieira responded yes. Sean McCarthy asked if the attic space would be used for living space. Sam Vieira responded that the attic or basement would be used for living space. 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). Linda Moiron stated that this is in character with the neighborhood. Peter Koffler stated that this is the minimal variance that could be granted. Linda Moiron made a motion to grant the variance as requested. Eliot Martone seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). 3) Brian Dugan This is an application for an area variance to add to and alter an existing single family residence where the following variances are required: One Side Yard Setbacks Minimum one side yard setback = 10.0 ft. Existing one side yard setback = 5.0 ft. Proposed one side yard setback = 5.0 ft. Combined Side Yard Setback Minimum combined yard setback = 25.0 ft. Existing combined yard setback = 16.6 ft. Proposed side yard setback = 16.6 ft. The Chair asked if the returns were received. Sean McCarthy responded yes. Public notice was read aloud for the record. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, October 18, 2006 6 �The Chair stated that the Board had received the following: 1) Application 2) Building plans Brian Dugan is the owner and is representing his application. Brian Dugan spoke about the proposed changes. He reviewed the proposed changes to the building footprint. He stated that the changes to the footprint are within the zoning code. Sean McCarthy reviewed the reason why the variance is needed. He stated that the applicant would still need a variance based on the existing non-conformity. Brian Dugan stated that the house is currently 1800 sf and the proposed changes would create a 2200 sf house. He stated that the lot size is restricting the proposed alterations. Gordon Swartz asked if the proposed addition would put the house closer to the neighbor. Brian Dugan responded no. He stated that the proposed deck would be facing the neighbor’s bedroom but they do not have a problem with the proposed work. The Chair asked if the Board had any comments. There were none. 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 stated that the proposed changes are in character with the neighborhood. He stated that there this is the minimal variance that could be granted to achieve the desired change. He stated that the application is not a self-created hardship. Gordon Swartz made a motion to grant the variance as requested. Peter Koffler seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). 4) Feliciano This is an application for an area variance to add to and alter an existing one family residence where the following variances are required: Lot area Existing lot area = 2,056 sf Required lot area = 4,000 sf APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, October 18, 2006 7 �Lot width Existing lot width = 25.0 ft Required lot width = 40.0 ft Building coverage Maximum permitted coverage = 35%. Existing building coverage = 33%. Proposed building coverage = 37%. Front Yard Setback Minimum required front yard set back = 20.0 ft. Existing front yard = 12.0 ft. Proposed front yard set back = 12.0 ft. One side yard setback Minimum one side yard set back = 5.0 ft. Existing one side yard set back = 0.8 ft. Proposed one side yard set back = 0.8 ft. Combined side yard setbacks Minimum combined yard set back = 15.0 ft. Existing combined yard set back = 6.3 ft. Proposed combined yard set back = 6.3 ft. Floor Area Ratio Existing floor area ratio = 1.00. Permitted floor area ratio = 0.52 maximum. Proposed floor area ratio = 1.10. Required Parking Spaces Required = One Proposed = None The Chair asked if the returns were received. Sean McCarthy responded yes. Public notice was read aloud for the record. The Chair stated that the Board had received the following: 1) application dated 9-13-06 2) Survey 3) Building plans dated 9-11-06 Mark Casis is the builder and is representing this application along with engineer, Charles Brown. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, October 18, 2006 8 �The Chair stated that most of the requested variances are pre-existing. Mark Casis stated that the owner is looking to expand the house to accommodate his family. Charles Brown stated that the house is a single-family dwelling. He reviewed the proposed changes. He stated that the house is a three-story structure. He stated that the house would be squared off to give it a more uniform appearance. He stated that the building would have a sprinkler system installed as part of the renovations. The Chair asked if a restriction could be placed on the approval so that the property cannot be used as a 2-family house and that no application can be made to convert the house into a 2-family house. Linda Moiron asked about the location of the bedrooms. Mark Casis gave a layout of the bedrooms. Mark Casis stated that the proposed changes are in character with the neighborhood. The Chair asked if there is any room on-site for parking. Mark Casis responded no. The Chair opened the public hearing. Ellen McDonough of 23 Kendal Avenue asked about the height of the proposed addition. Mark Casis responded that the height would be 5-feet higher than it is currently. Ellen McDonough added that there are illegal units on Kendal Avenue that are contributing to the increased density in the area. Since there were no further public comments, Linda Moiron made a motion to close the public hearing. Eliot Martone seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). Linda Moiron stated that the addition of a sprinkler system makes the house safer than before. Peter Koffler stated that the family has grown over time and that the request is not an unreasonable request. The Chair stated that there this is the minimal variance that could be granted to achieve the desired change. He stated that the application is not a self-created hardship. Peter Koffler made a motion to grant the variance with the condition that the property cannot be used as a 2-family house and that no application can be made to convert the house into a 2family house. Eliot Martone seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, October 18, 2006 9 �5) George Samaras Peter Goodrich is an attorney and is representing his application along with project architect, Jon Turnquist. There was an open discussion on whether the Board could listen to this presentation without a formal application. Peter Goodrich stated that a temporary Certificate of Occupancy was issued to the owner. He stated that the owner is seeking an extension of a temporary Certificate of Occupancy. He stated that Article 10 of the Zoning Code permits the Zoning Board to extend the temporary Certificate of Occupancy. Sean McCarthy responded that a temporary Certificate of Occupancy was granted by previous Building Inspectors. He stated that the temporary Certificate of Occupancy has expired. There was an open discussion on the need for a formal application. It was agreed that a formal application would be required. There was an open discussion on whether the applicant is complying with the condition of the original variance. 6) Minutes for June and September 2006 The minutes for the June 2006 meeting were reviewed. Linda Moiron made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Eliot Martone seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). The minutes for the September 2006 meeting were reviewed. The Chair made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Linda Moiron seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). Gordon Swartz made a motion to adjourn. Eliot Martone seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). Adjourned at 10:03 p.m. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, October 18, 2006 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-2006 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_2006-10-18 Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2006 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2006 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/bef19e66784a9285d36f6a4da1db269b.pdf ba1288a4690b47e1c54cb63d02ae75a8 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING -APPROVED September 20, 2006 The meeting was called to order by Robert Anello, Chairman at 8:04 pm. The Chair noted that a quorum was present. Present: Robert Anello, Chairman Linda Moiron James Galgano Eliot Martone Absent : Peter Koffler Gordon Swartz Michael Fox Also Present: Sean McCarthy (Village Architect/Village of Sleepy Hollow) Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Agenda: 1) Peter Castro 335 North Broadway 2) Other 3) Approval of minutes from June and July 2006 Change of Use Announcements: None. 1) Peter Castro This is an application for an area variance to alter an existing building and convert a portion of an existing business, where the proposal requires the following variances: Front Yard Setback (Lawrence Ave) Existing front yard setback = 4.3 ft Required front yard setback = 20.0 ft Rear Yard Setback Existing rear yard setback = 2.3 ft Required rear yard setback = 20.0 ft Front Yard Setback (Lawrence Ave) for canopy Existing front yard setback for canopy= 11.0 ft Required front yard setback for canopy= 20.0 ft Front Yard Setback (Broadway) for canopy Existing front yard setback for canopy = 4.5 ft Required front yard setback for canopy = 20.0 ft �Buffer Area Existing buffer area = 2.3-ft Required buffer area = 5.0-ft Article IV, section 62-7.B: Appl. of regulations Altering an existing non-conforming structure. The Chair asked if the returns were received. Sean McCarthy responded yes. The Chair stated that the Board had received the following: 1) Application for variance 2) Drawings dated July 12, 2006 3) Letter from John Lentini to Sean McCarthy dated July 12, 2006 John Lentini is the project architect and is representing this application. The Chair stated that the applicant is requesting several variances. He stated that the applicant is not addressing the parking requirements. He stated that two parking spaces are located in the buffer area. John Lentini responded that all of the requested variances are pre-existing. The Chair asked if parking can be located in the rear yard. Sean McCarthy responded that parking next to a residence is not permitted. The Chair referred to §62-14(d) (3). There was an open discussion on §62-14 (off-street parking) to determine parking requirements. It was agreed that the public notice was not correct. The revised notice must include the parking variances. The Chair referred to §62-14(c) for parking spaces and §62-22 for commercial uses. Sean McCarthy responded that the applicant should verify the property dimensions and place them on the plan. John Lentini responded that he would verify the site dimensions and place them on the plans. The Chair referred to the buffer area. John Lentini responded that the applicant is trying to eliminate the need for the buffer area. There was an open discussion on the buffer area requirements. The Chair recommended that the applicant be allowed to present the application to the Board and the public even though the public notice needs to be revised. John Lentini discussed the proposed application. He stated that the business will change the use of the automotive repair shop into a convenience store. He stated that the property abuts a APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, September 20, 2006 2 �residence district. He stated that the garage doors would be closed and a store front would be constructed. The Chair asked if the Board had any questions. Eliot Martone asked how many businesses would operate at this property. John Lentini responded one. He stated that the gasoline sales would be separate from the convenience sales. He stated that if the convenience store business were to be sub-leased, a fire separation would be required between the two businesses. The Chair asked if a traffic study was performed. John Lentini that a formal traffic study was not performed. The Chair was concerned with the increased ingress/egress issues that would result at this site from the proposed change. Eliot Martone asked if part of this business became a fast food business would different code provisions apply. Sean McCarthy responded that there are different provisions for fast-food businesses. The Chair asked if different code provisions apply to adjacent automotive properties. Sean McCarthy referred to §62-20.2 regarding motor vehicle repair shops. After reviewing the code section, it was agreed that this code provision did not apply. The Chair asked if hot food would be served. Peter Castro responded possibly. He stated that there are no tables proposed. The Chair opened the public hearing. Don Catano of 23 Lawrence Avenue stated that parking in the area is a problem. He stated that the traffic conditions in the area are hazardous. Diane McNamara of 51 Lawrence Avenue stated that the buffer between the properties was never a problem. She stated that the repair shop across the street has been inhibiting parking and has brought additional traffic into the area. Mario Bellanich of 153 North Washington Street stated that he thinks that the proposed change of use will benefit the area. Don Catano stated that a traffic light on Lawrence Avenue would help traffic in the area. He stated that the application should have a traffic light added as a condition of the approval. Frank Occhipinti of 194 Webber Avenue stated that many of these items are Planning Board issues and are not matters within the Zoning Board’s jurisdiction. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, September 20, 2006 3 �Since there were no further public comments, Eliot Martone made a motion to close the public hearing. Jim Galgano seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). The Chair stated that the proposed loading and parking plans should work together. He stated that the following parking variances need to be addressed: 62-14 (c), 62-14 (b) (3), 62-22 (ingress), 62-14 (d) (3) and 62-14(d) (2) screening for adjacent locations. He stated that the parking and screening requirements need to be addressed by the applicant. The Chair asked if the Board had any further questions. There were none. The applicant requested an adjournment to the next meeting. Eliot Martone made a motion to adjourn the application to the next meeting. Linda Moiron seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). 2) Other – Jim Galgano made a motion to have the Building Department retain an attorney who will send a direct request to the NY State Attorney General regarding the validity of the Board of Trustees recent action to overrule the Zoning Board’s decision on the Mountco application. The Chair seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). 3) Minutes for June and July 2006 The minutes for the June 2006 meeting will be reviewed at the next meeting. The minutes for the July 2006 meeting were reviewed. Linda Moiron made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Eliot Martone seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). Eliot Martone made a motion to adjourn. Linda Moiron seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). Adjourned at 8:56 p.m. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, September 20, 2006 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-2006 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_2006-09-20 Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2006 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2006 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/3483e6ed84006c5acc4d0f15f4916288.pdf 2949170aa6ec8e2b7b22ce5c3fa29419 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING -APPROVED July 21, 2006 The meeting was called to order by Robert Anello, Chairman at 8:15 pm. The Chair noted that a quorum was present. Present: Robert Anello, Chairman Linda Moiron Gordon Swartz Michael Fox James Galgano Eliot Martone Absent : Peter Koffler Also Present: Sean McCarthy (Village Architect/Village of Sleepy Hollow) Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Judson Siebert (Keane & Beane/Village Special Land-Use Counsel) Agenda: 1) Seiler 7 Millard Avenue 2) Mountco Development Corp Valley Street 3) Approval of minutes from June 2006 2-story addition & garage New Senior Housing Develop. Announcements: None. 1) Seiler This is a continuation from the last meeting. The Chair asked if the public notices were received. Sean McCarthy responded yes. This is an application for an area variance to construct a two story addition to an existing one family residence and to construct a detached garage where the proposal requires the following variances: One side yard set back Existing one side yard setback is 8.59 ft Minimum one side yard setback is 10.00 ft Combined side yard set back Existing combined side yard setback is 22.4 ft Minimum combined side yard setback is 25.00 ft �The Chair stated that the Board had received the following: 1) Application for variance dated May 14, 2006 2) Zoning compliance form 3) Building plans William Klineman is the project architect and is representing this application. The Chair asked if the variances are a result of a pre-existing non-conformity. William Klineman responded yes. The Chair asked if there are any variances required for the garage. William Klineman responded no. William Klineman stated that the house was built about 1930 and is a pre-existing nonconforming structure. He stated that this is the smallest variance that could be granted to allow the proposed addition. He stated that the requested variance is the only way to add onto the existing residence without tearing the house down. The Chair stated that this is not detrimental to the neighborhood. He also stated that this is the smallest variance that can be granted that would allow the owners to perform the proposed work. William Klineman spoke about the proposed addition. The Chair asked how far the addition is pushing out to the rear of the house. William Klineman responded 7-feet. William Klineman stated that the architectural features of the house will be maintained. The Chair opened the public hearing. Since there are no public comments, Eliot Martone made a motion to close the public hearing. Gordon Swartz seconded. It was unanimous (6-0). Gordon Swartz made a motion to approve the variance as submitted. James Galgano seconded. It was unanimous (6-0). 2) Mountco Construction Corp This is a continuation from the previous meeting. The Chair stated that the Board had received the following: 1) Minutes from the June 2006 ARB meeting 2) Minutes from the Village Trustees meeting. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, July 21, 2006 2 �3) Letter from Brooker Engineering regarding the feasibility of underground parking 4) Letter from the project architect regarding three-tiered parking. 5) Site logistics plan 6) Letter from Sleepy Hollow Police Department on the traffic flow during construction. 7) Revised Building plans dated July 10, 2006 8) Letter from Mayor Zegarelli dated July 13, 2006 9) Letter from resident Frank Occhipinti dated July 15 ,2006 10) Letter from Lyons McGovern, LLP Kyle McGovern is representing this application along with Neil Connuck, Project Architect Hugo Subitowski, Project Engineer Cosmo Reale and NTHA Executive Director, Ken Gentile. The Chair read the letters from Frank Occhipinti and Mayor Zegarelli aloud for the record. Kyle McGovern gave an overview of the project. He stated that the applicant has re-configured some of the parking space and have created a 10-foot setback in the front yard. He stated that the requested variance for lot area has also been eliminated. The Chair asked the applicant to explain the current rendering. Hugo Subitowski stated that some of parking spaces were moved to the rear of the building. The Chair asked if a variance is still needed for the front yard. Kyle McGovern responded that a front yard variance is still needed. The Chair asked about the front yard setbacks of Margotta Courts. Kyle McGovern stated that Margotta Courts are about 10-feet back. There was an open discussion on whether a front yard setback is required based on the fact that this property is being built between two developed lots. The Board reviewed Village Code §6213. There was an open discussion on the location of Margotta Courts in relation to the proposed development. It was agreed that Margotta Courts is within the 25-foot limitation. Judson Siebert stated that since the subject property is between two properties that are conconforming, the existing adjacent non-conformities should be taken into consideration when evaluating the neighborhood impacts. Kyle McGovern discussed the side and rear yard setbacks. He stated that Frank’s Chevrolet is build to the lot line. He reviewed many properties in the area that are built to the lot line. He presented 182 Valley Street, 180 Valley Street, 172-174 Valley Street, 140 Valley Street, 141144 Valley Street as being built without either rear or side yard setbacks. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, July 21, 2006 3 �The Chair responded that many of the presented properties pre-dated the zoning code. The Chair asked about the revised parking layout. Kyle McGovern stated that parking spaces number 37, 38 and 39 will extend onto the Margotta Court property and would be designated for Margotta Court employees. The Chair asked about the landscaping in the front yard. He stated that the previous site plan had trees in the front yard. Cosmo Reale stated that three trees were previously proposed in the front yard have been removed. The Chair asked if there is an agreement with Margotta Courts for the parking spaces. Kyle McGovern responded that a partnership has been set-up that would allow for the parking spaces to be constructed on the Margotta Courts property. Eliot Martone asked if the employees could park on the street. Sean McCarthy responded that the on-street parking request would have to be presented to the Village Trustees. Hugo Subitowski stated that the proposal has 67 parking spaces and 66 are required. He stated that parking space #36 can be eliminated to provide an additional 10-feet of setback. Eliot Martone asked about the water runoff from the adjacent properties. Cosmo Reale responded that the runoff in the rear will be collected and will correct the current problems in the area. The Chair stated that the Architectural Review Board had many concerns on the massing of the project. He asked if the applicant had addressed any of the Architectural Review Board’s concerns. Hugo Subitowski responded that the air-conditioning sleeves were relocated. He stated that the colors were also changed. There was an open discussion on the dates on the drawings. It was agreed that the Architectural Review Board had not seen the drawings that are being presented to the Zoning Board. Kyle McGovern stated that the applicant had previously explored providing underground parking. He stated that based on the high water table and poor soil conditions, underground parking would not be feasible. He also stated that by adding an additional parking level, additional ramps would be required. He stated that these additional ramps would create an ineffective parking layout. The Chair asked if the applicant had considered reducing the number of units to reduce the number of parking. He stated that the applicant should explain why 65 units are proposed. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, July 21, 2006 4 �Neil Connuck responded that Sleepy Hollow has not fulfilled Westchester County’s recommendation to provide affordable housing units as set by Westchester County in 1995. He stated that the Village is required to produce 52 units. Eliot Martone asked if the Village is obligated to provide more than the required 52 units. Neil Connuck responded no. The Chair asked if neighboring communities have met the affordable housing requirements. Ken Gentile responded that other villages do not have public housing. Michael Fox asked if there is a list of seniors waiting for affordable housing. Ken Gentile responded that he has a waiting list of about 30 interested senior citizens already. The Chair asked about the flow of traffic on Valley Street during construction. Kyle McGovern responded that the revised setbacks should allow most construction vehicles to properly access the site. He stated that the Sleepy Hollow Police Department has stated that they will work with the applicant on the traffic flow problems if needed. Kyle McGovern stated that there will be no environmental impacts to the area as a result of this project. He stated that the area would be physically enhanced. The Chair asked if a traffic study was performed. Kyle McGovern stated that a traffic study was not required by the Village Trustees. The Chair asked if the minutes from the Village Trustees meetings were provided to the Board. He stated that the Mayor’s letter indicated that the minutes from the Village Trustees were forwarded to the Zoning Board. There was an open discussion on the Village Trustee meeting minutes. It was agreed that the Village Trustees minutes were not provided to the Board. The Chair reviewed the Special Use permit. Judson Siebert summarized the Villages Trustees review process. He stated that the Village Trustees have already reviewed the number of units and the size of the building. The Chair expressed concerns that a traffic study has not been performed. He stated that the proposed building is in an area of other tall buildings. The Chair asked about the number of units on each floor. Hugo Subitowski provided the number of units per floor. The Chair asked if the Board had any questions. Michael Fox questioned why this building lot was chosen. Kyle McGovern responded that other sites were evaluated but this site was identified by the Village as being in need of redevelopment. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, July 21, 2006 5 �Gordon Swartz stated that the area is too dense. Eliot Martone stated that by adding additional families into Margotta Courts, the parking for the new families cannot be met. Ken Gentile stated that the existing on-street metered parking will have the parking meters removed. He stated that out of the 42 current seniors, only 8 seniors possess cars. He stated that low-income people typically do not own vehicles. The Chair asked if a special parking statute was passed for this project. Judson Siebert responded no. He stated that the Village identified the need for affordable housing. He stated that the required parking for this project was reduced by the Village Trustees back in 2004. Eliot Martone stated that the need for senior housing should not outweigh the impacts of overcrowding and density. Kyle McGovern stated that the interior common recreation area variance has been reduced from 1625 sf to 1102 sf. The Chair questioned why the applicant cannot eliminate one unit to meet the recreation area requirement. Hugo Subitowski responded that some indoor space can be configured to meet the required variance. It was agreed that the applicant will no longer requires this variance. The Chair reviewed the requested variances. He stated that the Board could grant a variance for the front yard setback and the landscape buffer subject to the Architectural Review Board’s review of the plantings. The Chair opened the public hearing. Anthony Siano is an attorney representing Frank’s Chevrolet. He stated that his client’s property abuts the applicants property. He stated that the proposed storm water changes should make a positive impact in the area. He stated that the Police Chief’s document concerning traffic flow during construction will also help his client’s concerns. He noted that Neil Connuck and Kyle McGovern have been very forthcoming with information on this project. Since there were no further public comments, Linda Moiron made a motion to close the public hearing. Eliot Martone seconded. It was unanimous (6-0). Jim Galgano asked if the Village Trustees have the authority to grant variances. Judson Siebert responded that the Village Trustees have the authority to grant certain waivers. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, July 21, 2006 6 �Jim Galgano stated that the Village Trustees tailored the local law around the largest three variances: height, density and parking. He questioned the legality of the amendment. Judson Siebert responded that the process was legal. Gordon Swartz asked if the Trustees could have passed a law that would have given the Trustees the ability to waive all variances. Judson Siebert responded that the Trustees could have written the law in that manner. The Chair stated that the location is questionable. He stated that there could be some impacts related to traffic and the GM site. He stated that he does not understand why a traffic study was not performed. He stated that the variances before the Board are troublesome. He stated that there should be some plantings on the front yard and the side yard near Margotta Courts subject to Architectural Review Board approval. Judson Siebert responded that the site plantings are an issue for the Planning Board. The Chair responded that the Architectural Review Board should be involved with the landscaping. He stated that during the construction phase, at least one lane of traffic should remain open. Gordon Swartz stated that the Board’s approval authority has been reduced by the Special Use permit. He stated that the Village is in need of senior affordable housing but he stated that this location is an issue. Michael Fox stated that the site location of the issue. Michael Fox made a motion to deny the application. James Galgano seconded. It was denied by a vote of 4-2 (Martone, Chair). 3) Minutes for June 2006 The minutes for the June 2006 meeting will be reviewed at the next meeting. Eliot Martone made a motion to adjourn. Linda Moiron seconded. It was unanimous (6-0). Adjourned at 10:21 p.m. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, July 21, 2006 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-2006 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_2006-07-19 Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2006 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2006 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/3cf79b01a0268c833a58b1c35a252a81.pdf 16c7ab04ccf47c192006fb44dcd44bfb PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING -APPROVED June 21, 2006 The meeting was called to order by Robert Anello, Chairman at 8:03 pm. The Chair noted that a quorum was present. Present: Robert Anello, Chairman Linda Moiron Michael Fox 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) Approval of minutes from April and May 2006 2) Mountco Development Corp Valley Street 3) Seiler 7 Millard Avenue New Senior Housing Develop. 2-story addition & garage Announcements: None. 1) Minutes for April and May 2006 The minutes for the April and May 2006 meetings were reviewed. The Chair made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Eliot Martone seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). 2) Mountco Construction Corp This is an application for area variances from the Village Zoning Code to construct a nine story building to house 64 affordable senior housing units and one superintendent’s unit and 66 parking spaces where the proposal requires the following variances: Building Coverage Proposed building coverage = 89% Maximum Building Coverage = 80% �Front Yard setback Proposed front yard = 0-feet Required front yard = 20-feet Side Yard setback - South Proposed southern side yard = 0-feet Required southern side yard = 10-feet Side Yard setback - North Proposed northern side yard = 0-feet Required northern side yard = 10-feet Rear Yard setback Proposed rear yard = 0-feet Required rear yard = 20-feet Landscape buffer Proposed landscape buffer = 0-feet Required landscape buffer = 10-feet wide Indoor Common Amenity Space Proposed indoor common amenity space = 1,012-sf Required indoor common amenity space = 1,625-sf Outdoor active and passive recreation and open space Proposed outdoor active and passive recreation and open space = 3250-sf Required outdoor active and passive recreation and open space = 0-sf The Chair asked if the returns were received. Sean McCarthy responded yes. The public notice was read aloud. The Chair stated that the Board is receipt of the following: 1) application (w/ unsigned zoning compliance form) 2) plans dated Feb 2, 2006 3) floor plans dated Feb 24, 2006 Neil Connuck is presenting this application along with NTHA Executive Director, Ken Gentile. The Chair asked the applicant about the unsigned zoning compliance form. He also stated that the public notice is incorrect since the applicant is requesting a variance to build a 9-story structure where only a 5-story structure is allowed under the zoning code. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, June 21, 2006 2 �Sean McCarthy responded that the height was waived by the Village Trustees under the special use permit. The Chair stated that the record is unclear. There was an open discussion on the accuracy of the public notice and what variances the applicant is seeking. Neil Connuck gave an overview of the proposed development. He spoke about the site where the structure would be developed. He stated that in January 2005, the Village Trustees adopted a new zoning ordinance that permitted the affordable housing project. He spoke about the existing culvert that is in need of repair. He summarized the entire Westchester County low income tax credit application. He stated that the current site provides parking for some of the residents of Margotta Courts. He stated that the proposed development provides ample parking for the new residents of the building plus the parking for the residents of Margotta Courts. The Chair asked how many parking spaces are being provided for the residents of Margotta Courts. Neil Connuck responded 44 parking spaces. Neil Connuck spoke about the proposed parking plan. He stated that the Village Trustees have granted a waiver from the required 0.5 parking spaces per unit under the senior housing zone to 0.3 parking spaces for units. The Chair asked about the parking plan for the Margotta Courts residents. Neil Connuck discussed the proposed parking plan for the Margotta Courts residents. Neil Connuck stated that the current senior housing residents from Margotta Courts will be given an opportunity to move into the new Senior Housing development. He stated that this will free up many other affordable housing units for other families in the area. He stated that many seniors currently have 2-3 bedroom units. Eliot Martone stated that by moving new families into Margotta Courts, this might require many more vehicles. Ken Gentile responded that since these are affordable housing units, many of the residents use mass transit and do not own cars. Eliot Martone asked if there is a waiting list for parking spots at Margotta Courts. Ken Gentile responded that there is no tenant currently seeking additional parking. Linda Moiron asked could additional parking be provided if requested. Ken Gentile responded that there are currently no surplus parking spaces. The Chair reviewed the requested variances. Neil Connuck stated that the variance for outdoor space is incorrect. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, June 21, 2006 3 �The Chair asked the applicant to explain why the variances should be granted. He stated that this property is in the densest part of the Village. Neil Connuck responded that the Village Trustees mandated that the parking be maximized. The Chair asked for minutes from the Village Trustees meeting to support the statement. Eliot Martone stated that there should be a statement from the applicant or from the Village Trustees to support the application. The Chair stated that the special zone does not abolish the setback requirements. He stated that the applicant has the obligation to provide some of the supporting documentation to the Board. Sean McCarthy responded that the actions of the Village Trustees can be provided to the Board. The Chair stated that the Board needs an understanding of what the applicant is requesting from the Board. He stated that the public notice should properly reflect what variances are being requested. He stated that the Zoning compliance form also needs to be accurate. Neil Connuck stated that the culvert repair will greatly benefit the area. He also stated that the culvert repair will remove this area from the FEMA flood plain map. The Chair stated that at the Board’s next meeting, the applicant should be prepared to address the possibility of adding another parking level in order to reduce the setbacks. Neil Connuck responded that this information would be provided. Neil Connuck stated that this development would be a benefit for the community. He stated that there is open park area in the park across the street. Linda Moiron asked if the existing senior residents will be required to move into the new development. Ken Gentile responded that the existing residents will not be forced to move but most of them will voluntarily move. Michael Fox asked about the temporary parking while construction is taking place at the site. Ken Gentile responded that he is working with the Village to provide alternative parking for the current parking spaces. He stated that the cars will not be parking on the Village streets. Jim Galgano asked about the number of residents that have excess apartments in excess of their needs. Ken Gentile responded about 10-12 residents. Jim Galgano stated that this application has been through the Village for almost 18 months. He asked why the applicant waited so long to appear before the Zoning Board. Neil Connuck responded that they are following the Village process. Jim Galgano stated that the residents of Margotta Courts were not notified of this application. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, June 21, 2006 4 �Sean McCarthy responded that under the Village Code, only the property owner is required to be notified. He referred to § 62-44 (page 6261). The Chair opened the public hearing. Anthony Ciano from 333 Broadway, White Plains, NY is an attorney representing Frank’s Chevrolet. He stated that he is concerned with the obstruction of traffic on Valley Street during construction. He stated that the site plan only shows Sleepy Hollow while some of the impacts are caused by storm water received from the adjacent Tarrytown side. He stated that Frank’s Chevrolet receives a significant water flow in the winter time. He stated that his client is concerned with the size and massing of the project. He stated that he is concerned with the fact that there are no setbacks on two sides of the adjacent property which belong to his client. The Chair stated that the applicant should address the water runoff issue at the next meeting. Neil Connuck responded that the area storm water was analyzed. He stated that the existing catch basin is proposed to be corrected in order to correct the existing storm water issues. There was an open discussion of the location of Frank’s Chevrolet on the site plan. The Chair asked how far the building was setback. Neil Connuck responded that the structure complies with the zoning code above the parking level. The Chair asked why the applicant is not building the parking below grade. Neil Connuck responded that detailed engineering reports will be provided to the Board that will show why the structure could not be built below grade. He stated that the soils will not support below grade construction. Since there were no further public comments, the Chair adjourned the public hearing to the next meeting. The Chair asked if the Board had any other questions. There were none. Eliot Martone made a motion to adjourn this application to the next meeting. Linda Moiron seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). 3) Seiler There was nobody present to represent this application. This was adjourned to the next meeting. Eliot Martone made a motion to adjourn. Linda Moiron seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, June 21, 2006 5 �Adjourned at 9:06 p.m. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, June 21, 2006 6 � 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-2006 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_2006-06-21 Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2006 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2006 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/1cce51696096886e7596addc4215851d.pdf d13ac4d06952e68b0c9d4e4ed65e7dc2 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING -APPROVED May 17, 2006 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 Gordon Swartz Linda Moiron Michael Fox James Galgano Eliot Martone Absent : Peter Koffler Also Present: Sean McCarthy (Village Architect/Village of Sleepy Hollow) Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Agenda: 1) Hodgson 475 Munroe Avenue 2) Fina 23 Evergreen Way 3) McLean 282 North Washington Street 4) Approval of minutes from April 2006 Announcements: None. 1) Hodgson This is an application for a variance to construct a covered front entry porch on an existing one family residence where the proposal requires the following variances: Rear Yard setback Minimum rear yard set back = 25.0 ft. Existing rear yard set back = 10.8 ft. Front Yard setback Minimum required front yard set back = 30.0 ft. Existing front yard set back = 34.0 ft. Proposed front yard set back = 27.5 ft. 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) Building plans dated 4/12/2006 Sandra and David Hodgson are the owners and are representing this application. Sandra Hodgson stated that the front of the house has no covering at all. She stated that the proposed covered porch would keep with the size of the house. The Chair asked if the other requested variance is due to the pre-existing structure. Sandra Hodgson responded yes. She stated that the lot is a corner lot and has two side yards. The Chair opened the public hearing. Since there were no public comments, Eliot Martone made a motion to close the public hearing. Linda Moiron seconded. It was unanimous (6-0). The Chair stated that the proposal is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. He stated that the variance is not substantial and since the lot is undersized, it is not a self-created hardship. Lastly, he stated that the owner’s objective could not be achieved by any other means. James Galgano made a motion to approve the application as requested. Eliot Martone seconded. It was unanimous (6-0). 2) Fina This is an application for an area variance to add to and alter an existing one family residence where the following variances are required: Lot Area Existing lot area = 12,448 s.f. Minimum lot area = 15,000 s.f. Lot Width Existing lot width = 78.0 ft. Minimum lot width = 100.0 ft. Combined yard setbacks Existing combined yards = 23.8 ft. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, May 17, 2006 2 �Minimum combined side yard setbacks = 25.0 ft. Building Coverage Existing building coverage = 16% Maximum permitted building coverage = 20% Proposed building coverage = 22.8% Floor- Area-Ratio (FAR) Existing floor area ratio = 0.24 Maximum permitted floor area ratio = 0.27 Proposed floor area ratio = 0.32 Patrick Steinschneider is the project architect representing this application on behalf of the owners. 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 dated 4/13/2006 2) Property survey 3) Building plans dated 4/12/2006 The Chair asked Patrick Steinschneider to clarify the zoning table information. Patrick Steinschneider responded that the table is incorrect. He asked the Board to refer to the zoning compliance form for the correct information. The Chair reviewed the requested variances on the zoning compliance form. There was an open discussion on the submitted calculations. It was agreed that the requested variances are correct. The Chair asked if the side yard variances are from a pre-existing condition. Patrick Steinschneider responded yes. Patrick Steinschneider stated that the rear addition has been reduced since the application has been filed. He stated that there is no need for the requested rear yard variance. Sean McCarthy asked if the original zoning compliance form is accurate. Patrick Steinschneider responded that the original zoning compliance form is not accurate. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, May 17, 2006 3 �There was an open discussion on the building coverage variance. It was agreed that the building coverage variance is no longer needed. Patrick Steinschneider described the proposed project. He stated that the property will be expanded towards the rear of the house. He stated that a front entranceway would be constructed. He stated that the kitchen will be also be enlarged. He stated that the second floor proposes the master bedroom and master bathroom. The Chair asked why the applicant needs the requested variances. Patrick Steinschneider responded that the house is relatively small. He also stated that the second floor is also small. He stated that the rear addition would allow the owners to add a master bedroom and master bathroom. He stated that if the lot was 100-feet wide and the lot size was 15,000 sf, no variances would be needed. The Chair asked would the applicant be able to eliminate the additional 600 sf from the proposal and still be able to construct a reasonable addition. Patrick Steinschneider responded that the applicant would not be able to construct the proposed addition. The Chair asked if the Board had any questions. There were none. The Chair opened the public hearing. Since there were no public comments, Eliot Martone made a motion to close the public hearing. Linda Moiron seconded. It was unanimous (6-0). Sean McCarthy asked about the balcony. Patrick Steinschneider responded that the balcony cannot be walked on. He stated that it is a French balcony that would only hold plants. Sean McCarthy asked about the proposed retaining walls. Patrick Steinschneider responded that the retaining walls are needed to level the back yard. Sean McCarthy asked about the fountain. Patrick Steinschneider responded that a fountain is proposed on the edge of the terrace. Sean McCarthy responded that the fountain is considered a structure. The Chair stated that the proposal is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. He stated that the variance is the minimal variance that can be allowed to achieve the owner’s desired change. He stated that this is not a self-created hardship since it is an under-sized lot. Gordon Swartz made a motion to approve the application without the building coverage variance. Eliot Martone seconded. It was unanimous (6-0). APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, May 17, 2006 4 �3) Gary McLean This is a request for a variance to convert an existing two-family residence to a singlefamily residence and to convert an existing four car garage to a single-family residence where the proposal requires the following variances: Lot Coverage Existing lot coverage = 36% Maximum permitted lot coverage = 30% Side yard setbacks Existing side yard setback = 2.0-ft Minimum side yard setback = 5.0-ft Combined yard setbacks Existing combined yards = 4.0 ft. Minimum combined side yard setbacks = 15.0 ft. Rear yard setbacks Existing rear yard setback = 3.0-ft Minimum rear yard setback = 25.0-ft Front yard setbacks Existing front yard setback = 16.0-ft Minimum front yard setback = 20.0-ft Full-size car parking spaces Minimum of 60% parking spaces shall be for full size cars. Proposed 25% parking spaces for full sized cars. Parking spaces Proposed parking spaces = 8 Required parking spaces = 10 Floor- Area-Ratio (FAR) Maximum permitted floor area ratio = 0.38 APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, May 17, 2006 5 �Proposed floor area ratio = 0.53 John Turnquist is the project architect representing this application along with owner, Gary McLean. The public notice was read aloud. The Chair asked if the returns were received. Sean McCarthy responded yes. The Chair asked for clarification on the public notice. Sean McCarthy responded that the lot is a 4-family lot that will be converted from two -2- family houses with one garage into one- 2- family house and two - 1-family houses and eliminate the garage. Jon Turnquist spoke about the proposed project. He stated that there are currently 2-two family houses and 1-garage on the lot and the owner wants to convert one of the 2-family houses into a 1-family house and convert the garage into a 1-family house as well. The Chair asked about the change in parking. Jon Turnquist responded that the parking would be removed from the curved garage. The Chair asked about the number of bedrooms. Jon Turnquist responded that there are 11 existing bedrooms and 13 bedrooms are proposed. The Chair responded that the parking calculations are based on 11 bedrooms. Jon Turnquist responded that there are two additional parking spaces being provided but they might be non-conforming. The Chair asked how many parking spaces are required. Sean McCarthy responded 11 parking spaces are required. The Chair responded that only 8 are proposed. There was an open discussion on the accuracy of the public notice. The Chair expressed concerns over the accuracy of the public notice and the submitted plans. Gary McLean stated that there is sufficient parking on site. The Chair responded that parking is very important. He stated that the Building Inspector needs to review the plans and determine the number of bedrooms and parking spaces. Eliot Martone asked for clarification on the number of apartments and the number of bedrooms. Gary McLean clarified the number of existing units and bedrooms. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, May 17, 2006 6 �The Chair opened the public hearing. Cathy Spota of 31 Lawrence Avenue spoke about the proposed wall. She stated that there are currently three very large windows facing Lawrence Avenue. She stated that the increased activity would be a concern. She stated that the privacy of the neighbors would also be a concern. The Chair asked about the distance of the garage from the property line. Cathy Spota responded 20-25 feet. Bill Roundtree of 35 Lawrence Ave stated that he opposes the project based on the reduced privacy and noise issues. He stated that in the past, the applicant’s driveway was paved, which flooded his property. He stated that the buildings are connected and the water runs towards Lawrence Avenue. He stated that many of the neighbors have similar drainage problems. He stated that the area is very dense already. He questioned how a former dairy store was converted into a large residential property. He also questioned the accuracy and language of the public notice. Rita Bateman of 291 North Washington Street spoke in opposition to the application. She stated that the property is very dense. She questioned how a fire truck would access the property. The Chair acknowledged receiving a letter from Rita Bateman. John McDonald of 287 North Washington stated that he was concerned with the density of the area. He stated that the quality of life would be negatively affected by granting this variance. Since there were no further comments, Eliot Martone made a motion to close the public hearing. Linda Moiron seconded. It was unanimous (6-0). Gordon Swartz stated that he would like to see more information on the requested application. He stated that the public notice is confusing. Eliot Martone wanted to know why this variance is needed. He stated that the request needs to be compelling to grant the variance. Linda Moiron asked about the previous variances granted to this property. The Chair asked for an accurate survey of the property. He also asked for a detailed parking plan with calculations and an analysis of the parking. He also asked about the storm water runoff issues. He requested an engineering analysis to show how the storm water will be handled on-site. The Chair stated that the application should be re-noticed. Sean McCarthy responded that the application would be re-noticed. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, May 17, 2006 7 �This application was unanimously adjourned to the next meeting. No action was taken. 4) Approval of minutes from April 2006 – The minutes for April 2006 will be reviewed at the next meeting. Adjourned at 9:08 p.m. Respectfully Submitted APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, May 17, 2006 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-2006 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_2006-05-17 Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2006 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2006 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/f161a2278eb5587a4f918df436bc85aa.pdf 0a9ee2a62841c4d17a79696ed21ec96b PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING -APPROVED April 19, 2006 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 Gordon Swartz Linda Moiron Michael Fox James Galgano Peter Koffler Absent : Eliot Martone Also Present: Sean McCarthy (Village Architect/Village of Sleepy Hollow) Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Agenda: 1) Maria Quinde 30 Barnhardt Ave. 2) Henry Molina 49-51 Chestnut St. 3) Approval of minutes from February 2006 Add/alter a 1-family residence Construct a two family residence Announcements: None. 1) Maria Quinde This is a continuation from previous meetings. This is an application for a variance to construct to add to and alter an existing one family residence where the proposed addition creates the following non-compliances: Lot Area Minimum lot area = 4,000-sf Existing lot area = 2,440-sf Lot Width Minimum lot width = 40-feet Existing lot width = 24-feet One side yard Minimum one side yard = 5.0-feet Existing one side yard = 0.3-feet �Combined yards Minimum combined yards setback = 15.0-feet Existing combined yards setback = 6.6-feet Proposed combined yards setback = 5.78-feet Front yard Minimum front yard = 20.0-feet Existing front yard = 2.0-feet Building Coverage Maximum building coverage = 30% Existing building coverage = 33% Proposed building coverage = 36% Floor Area Ratio Maximum floor area ratio = 0.50 Proposed floor area ratio = 0.65 Richard Blancato is the attorney representing this application on behalf of the owners. Sean McCarthy stated that at the last meeting, the Board requested that the applicant provide the Board with revised drawings and information on the neighborhood. Richard Blancato reviewed the discussions from the last meeting. He stated that the Board had requested that the number of bedrooms be reduced. He discussed the bedroom configuration. The Chair asked if a schedule of the requested variances is available. Sean McCarthy provided a schedule of the requested variances. The Chair asked if there are any variances currently granted to the property. Richard Blancato responded no. He stated that it is a non-conforming lot. The Chair asked which variances would be increased from the existing non-conformity. Richard Blancato responded the floor-area-ratio (FAR) would be increased. The Chair stated that the FAR currently complies with the Zoning Code. Sean McCarthy stated that the proposed extension will cantilever the side yards out by 18-inches on each side yard. He stated that this extension increases the FAR, side yard and the combined side yard setbacks. He stated that the cantilevered portion counts towards the side yard setback calculations. Richard Blancato stated that the lower level is very narrow and to eliminate that narrowness, the upstairs was expanded. The Chair asked the applicant to explain how this application meets the requirements of an area variance. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, April 19, 2006 2 �Richard Blancato responded that the current family needs the additional space. He stated that there are 4 adults and 2 children are living in the house. He stated that there are insufficient bedrooms to accommodate the number of people living in the house. He stated that the NYS Building Code requires that a boy and a girl must have a separate bedroom once they reach the age of 12. The Chair requested that the applicant provide the Building Code section to the Board and the Building Department concerning the requirements for separate bedrooms for children over the age of 12. Richard Blancato continued to explain the bedroom configurations. The Chair asked if the open porch was included in the FAR calculations. Sean McCarthy responded that the open porch was not included in the FAR calculations. Richard Blancato stated that there are numerous multi-family houses in the neighborhood. He stated that by granting this change, it would not be an undesirable change to the neighborhood. He stated that the current house only contains one bathroom. He stated that the house is very small and the people are crowded. He stated that the variances are not substantial. He stated that the FAR increase from 0.50 to 0.65 is substantial. The Chair stated that a 30% increase is substantial. Richard Blancato stated that none of the homes in the area conform to the zoning regulations. The Chair stated that the application would increase the density of the neighborhood. Richard Blancato stated that this is not a self-created hardship. He stated that this house has been in existence for many years. The Chair asked if the Board had any comments. Gordon Swartz stated that the applicant had not addressed any of the public comments that were raised at the last meeting. He stated that the public was concerned with parking and overcrowding. He stated that the number of occupants currently living in the house is contributing to the parking problem in the area. He stated that the Board had also requested that the applicant provide a survey of the multi-family homes in the area. Richard Blancato responded that the project architect has all of the required documents but was unable to attend the meeting this evening due to a personal emergency. The Chair asked about the age of the children. Richard Blancato responded 8 and 10 years old. The Chair stated that the children would be of driving age soon and would be adding to the parking problem that currently exists in the neighborhood. Michael Fox stated that there are better ways to solve the bedroom issue than adding a large box onto the rear of the house. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, April 19, 2006 3 �Peter Koffler asked if the square footage of the current living space is known. Sean McCarthy responded 110 sf. Peter Koffler asked how long have the people have been living there. Richard Blancato responded that the family moved in over 1-year ago. The Chair stated that this is a self-created hardship. Richard Blancato disagreed. 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 (6-0). Richard Blancato requested an adjournment so that the requested information could be provided. The Chair stated that the applicant has requested many variances from the Board. He stated that some of the variances are substantial. He stated that the application would be detrimental to the neighborhood and is a self-created hardship. He stated that the documents should have been submitted to the Village in advance of the meeting. Richard Blancato stated that the Board should vote on the application this evening. Gordon Swartz asked if the public is informed about the status of the application. Sean McCarthy responded no. Gordon Swartz stated that he would like the public to comment on the survey. He stated that too much time has passed since the last public hearing. He stated that the applicant did not show up to the February meeting and cancelled its appearance at the March meeting. Richard Blancato stated that he would be willing to withdraw the application and re-apply. He stated that the applicant would try to reduce the size of the proposed addition and re-notice the public. Richard Blancato formally withdrew the application. 2) Henry Molina This is a continuation from previous meetings. This is an application for an area variance to construct a new two-family residence where the following variances are required: APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, April 19, 2006 4 �Lot Area Minimum lot area = 4,000-sf Existing lot area = 2,112-sf Front yard Minimum front yard = 20.0-feet Existing front yard = 3.0-feet Rear Yard Minimum rear yard = 25.0-feet Proposed rear yard = 5.0-feet Combined side yard Minimum combined side yard = 12.0-feet Proposed combined side yard = 11.0-feet Building Coverage Maximum building coverage = 35% Proposed building coverage = 37% Jon Turnquist is the project architect representing this application along with the owner, Henry Molina. The Chair reviewed the requested items from the last meeting. Jon Turnquist reviewed the application to date. He stated that many variances are needed since the building lot is small. He stated that the area allows for commercial uses. He provided a comparison of neighboring houses to show that the neighboring houses do not conform to the zoning code. He also provided a plan that shows what could be built. He stated that if a commercial property was constructed, an elevated 2-story structure could be build with a lower level parking area. He stated that the commercial space would be limited to 900sf. He stated that this plan is not economically viable. The Chair asked about the adjacent property. Jon Turnquist responded that the adjacent property is residential. Sean McCarthy agreed. The Chair asked about parking. Jon Turnquist responded that 2 parking spaces are proposed. He stated that the 2 parking spaces would comply with the zoning code. There was an open discussion on the front yard setback requirement. It was agreed that the front yard setback requirement should be 10-feet and not 20-feet. The Chair asked the applicant to explain the interior layout. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, April 19, 2006 5 �Jon Turnquist proceeded to explain the interior layout. The Chair asked if the applicant could eliminate 1-foot off of the side yard, it would eliminate the side yard variance and the lot coverage variance. He stated that the number of variances needed would be reduced to three (3). Jon Turnquist responded that he could reduce the proposed width by 1-foot in order to comply. The Chair asked if the Board had any questions. Gordon Swartz stated that there should be a more thought out plan to address the character of this street. Jon Turnquist responded that there are commercial areas on Valley Street. He stated that Chestnut Street is more residential than commercial. He discussed the streetscape in the area. The Chair opened the public hearing. Since there were no public comments, Gordon Swartz made a motion to close the public hearing. James Galgano seconded. It was unanimous (6-0). The Chair stated that the proposed plan provides the required parking. He stated that the lot is sub-standard and the development options are reduced as a result. He stated that the commercial proposal would not be economically feasible since the allowable property that can be constructed would be too small to overcome the construction costs. He stated that this is not a self-created hardship since the existing lot is small. Linda Moiron made a motion to approve the application with the condition that the side yard would be reduced by one-foot. James Galgano seconded. It was unanimous (6-0). 3) Approval of minutes from February 2006 – The minutes for February 2006 were reviewed. James Galgano made a motion to approve the February 2006 minutes as submitted. Linda Moiron seconded. It was unanimous (6-0). Adjourned at 9:12 p.m. Respectfully Submitted APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, April 19, 2006 6 � 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-2006 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_2006-04-19 Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2006 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2006 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/d91cd2e9d1a5bf454f6861e7b546ce00.pdf c09cebdb0cae216c96dde479467610b3 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING -APPROVED February 15, 2006 The meeting was called to order by Robert Anello, Chairman at 8:00 pm. The Chair noted that a quorum was present. Present: Robert Anello, Chairman Gordon Swartz Linda Moiron Eliot Martone Michael Fox Absent : James Galgano Peter Koffler Also Present: Sean McCarthy (Village Architect/Village of Sleepy Hollow) Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Agenda: 1) Approval of minutes from January 2006 2) Alan Ross 12 Kingsland Rd. 3) Henry Molina 49-51 Chestnut St. 4) Maria Quinde 30 Barnhardt Ave. Add/alter a 1-family residence Construct a two family residence Add/alter a 1-family residence Announcements: None. 1) Approval of minutes from January 2006 – The minutes for January 2006 were reviewed. Gordon Swartz made a motion to approve the January 2006 minutes as amended. Linda Moiron seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). 2) Alan Ross This is an application for an area variance to construct a one story addition on to the rear of the existing one family residence where the proposal requires the following variances: Lot Area Minimum lot area = 4,000-sf Existing lot area = 2,440-sf �Lot Size Minimum lot size = 15,000-square feet Existing lot width = 9,911-square feet Rear yard Minimum rear yard = 25.0-feet Proposed rear yard = 23.4-feet The Chair asked if the returns were received. Sean McCarthy responded yes. The public notice was read aloud. The Chair noted that the Board had received the following: 1) Application 2) Photos 3) Drawings dated 1-10-06 Alan Ross is the architect and is representing this application on behalf of the owners. Alan Ross stated that the application involves adding an addition in the rear of the property. He stated that the rear elevation would break-up the massing in the rear. He stated that all of the existing exterior finishes would be matched. He stated that the deck will be removed and the addition would be added. The Chair asked about the use of the proposed room. Alan Ross responded that the room would be used as a study. He stated that the requested variance is only for the first two steps that come off of the landing. The Chair stated that the removal of the deck would create greater setback distance. Alan Ross responded yes. The Chair asked if the other variances are part of the existing non-conformity. Alan Ross responded yes. He also stated that the house is under the FAR requirements. The Chair asked the applicant to explain why the variance should be granted. Alan Ross responded that this is not a self-created hardship since the lot is existing. He stated that building lot is pre-existing. The Chair asked why is the room needed. Alan Ross responded that the existing room does not function because is it too small. He stated that the existing room is 6’ x 8’. He stated that the addition will make the room usable. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, February 15, 2006 2 �The Chair asked if the Board had any questions. Gordon Swartz asked what surrounds the property. Alan Ross responded that there are neighbors on each side. The Chair asked why the stairs count towards the setback. Sean McCarthy responded that the uncovered platform does not count in the side and rear yards. He asked if the stairs could be turned to eliminate the need for the variance. Alan Ross responded that the slope of the property would increase the number of stairs required. He stated that the owners would like to minimize the number of stairs. The Chair asked if the existing deck received a variance. Sean McCarthy responded that he did not know. The Chair stated that the proposed variance would make the house more conforming. The Chair opened the public hearing. Ralph Centra (10 Kingsland Ave) spoke in favor of the proposed project. Since there were no further public comments, Eliot Martone made a motion to close the public hearing. Gordon Swartz seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). Eliot Martone stated that the variance is in character with the neighborhood. The Chair stated that this is not a self-created hardship since the lot is existing. He also stated that this is the minimal variance that could achieve the applicant’s objectives. Gordon Swartz made a motion to approve this application as submitted. Eliot Martone seconded. It was unanimous. (5-0). 3) Henry Molina This is an application for an area variance to construct a new two-family residence where the following variances are required: Lot Area Minimum lot area = 4,000-sf Existing lot area = 2,112-sf Front yard Minimum front yard = 20.0-feet Existing front yard = 3.0-feet APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, February 15, 2006 3 �Rear Yard Minimum rear yard = 25.0-feet Proposed rear yard = 5.0-feet Combined side yard Minimum combined side yard = 12.0-feet Proposed combined side yard = 11.0-feet Building Coverage Maximum building coverage = 35% Proposed building coverage = 37% The Chair asked if the returns were received. Sean McCarthy responded yes. The public notice was read aloud. Jon Turnquist is the project architect representing this application along with the owner, Henry Molina. Jon Turnquist stated that this location is a vacant lot. He stated that this lot used to have a rooming house on it. The Chair stated that the proposed building should be compared to what can be built on the site under the current zoning code and not compared to the previous structure on the site. Jon Turnquist stated that the variances are substantial for this application. The Chair stated that the possible uses for the lot should be presented to the Board. He also stated that the uniqueness of this property needs to be understood by the Board. Jon Turnquist stated that the lot is surrounded by residential lots. He stated that there is a commercial property on the corner of the street. The Chair asked about the adjacent properties. Sean McCarthy responded that the surrounding properties are primarily 2-family houses. The Chair stated that the Board should be presented with the possible building options for the site and how it fits into the character of the neighborhood. He stated that the front, side and rear yards need to be understood. The Chair asked if the applicant had any more information to add. Jon Turnquist responded that he would submit the requested information to the Board. The Chair asked if the applicant could submit the proposed front, side and rear yards and see how they relate to the other houses in the neighborhood. He also stated that the lot size should APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, February 15, 2006 4 �be known as well. He also stated that the considerations for an area variance should be addressed as well. The Chair asked if the Board had any questions. There were none. The Chair opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Eliot Martone made a motion to close the public hearing. Linda Moiron seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). Eliot Martone made a motion to adjourn this application to the next meeting. Linda Moiron seconded. It was unanimous. (5-0). 4) Maria Quinde There was nobody present for this application. There was an open discussion on the application and whether it should be adjourned or acted on this evening. Eliot Martone made a motion to adjourn this application to the next meeting. Linda Moiron seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). Adjourned at 8:49 p.m. Respectfully Submitted APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, February 15, 2006 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-2006 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_2006-02-18 Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2006 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2006 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/196bdc39043ef7a6afddb42affea7945.pdf df7acef8be8b79192be16b6cf7b29d27 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING -APPROVED January 18, 2006 The meeting was called to order by Peter Koffler, Acting Chairman at 8:06 pm. The Chair noted that a quorum was present. Present: Peter Koffler, Acting Chairman Gordon Swartz Linda Moiron Eliot Martone Michael Fox Absent : Robert Anello, Chairman James Galgano Also Present: Sean McCarthy (Village Architect/Village of Sleepy Hollow) Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Agenda: 1) William Cai 2) Maria Quinde 3) Grace Yeung 4) Minutes for December 2005 21 Fremont Road 30 Barnhardt Avenue 254 Harwood Avenue Announcements: The Chair stated that the Board’s newest member Michael Fox has not been sworn in and therefore cannot vote on any applications this evening. 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 submitted two sketches to the Board. He discussed the concerns expressed by the Board at the last meeting. Peter Koffler asked if the new proposed deck is the same size as the original request. William Cai responded that the new proposal is the same size only at a lower elevation. Gordon Swartz made a motion to open the public hearing. Eliot Martone seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). Since there were no public comments, Eliot Martone 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. Linda Moiron asked about the plantings. William Cai responded that he would install plantings on his property as per the previous landscaping plan. He stated that the plantings would be maintained at 3-feet high. Gordon Swartz summarized that based on previous meetings, he recalled that the deck was to be lowered and should be no larger than originally planned. The Chair responded that the deck is not proposed to be any larger than what originally submitted. Gordon Swartz made a motion to approve the application with the presented landscaping plan and under the condition that the landscaping be maintained within approved height limits as per the Sleepy Hollow Manor covenant. Linda Moiron seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). 2) Maria Quinde – This is an application for a variance to construct to add to and alter an existing one family residence where the proposed addition creates the following non-compliances: Lot Area Minimum lot area = 4,000-sf Existing lot area = 2,440-sf Lot Width Minimum lot width = 40-feet Existing lot width = 24-feet One side yard Minimum one side yard = 5.0-feet Existing one side yard = 0.3-feet APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, January 18, 2006 2 �Combined yards Minimum combined yards setback = 15.0-feet Existing combined yards setback = 6.6-feet Proposed combined yards setback = 5.78-feet Front yard Minimum front yard = 20.0-feet Existing front yard = 2.0-feet Building Coverage Maximum building coverage = 30% Existing building coverage = 33% Proposed building coverage = 36% Floor Area Ratio Maximum floor area ratio = 0.50 Proposed floor area ratio = 0.65 The Chair asked if the returns were received. Sean McCarthy responded yes. Richard Blancato is the attorney representing this application along with architect, Chris Bateman. Richard Blancato reviewed the requested variances. He stated that the requested variances are not changing from the existing except for the FAR and combined side yard variance. Sean McCarthy responded that the lot coverage is changing from 30% to 33%. He stated that the proposed second floor is overhanging and the overhang counts towards the lot coverage. Richard Blancato reviewed the proposed plans. He stated that the lot is a very narrow lot. He discussed the proposed expansion which includes enclosing an existing porch and building over the porch. He stated that the building footprint is not changing. He discussed the existing interior layout and the proposed renovations. He stated that 5 bedrooms are proposed. He stated that the bedrooms would be moved upstairs and the first floor would be renovated to accommodate the family’s needs. The Chair asked if the Board had any questions. Gordon Swartz asked about the size of the rear yard. Richard Blancato responded 32.58-feet Eliot Martone made a motion to open the public hearing. Gordon Swartz seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, January 18, 2006 3 �Daley Fontez (23 Barnhardt Ave) expressed concerns over a potential zoning issue. She stated that other homes in the area have converted from one-family to a multiple family dwelling. Rene Hernandez (25 Barnhardt Ave) expressed concerns over the proposed 5-bedroom proposal. He spoke about other families in the area that have raised many kids with lesser bedrooms. He spoke about the overcrowding in the area. Richard Blancato explained the need for five bedrooms. He mentioned that there is only one bathroom and one kitchen in the house. Rene Hernandez asked if there is anything proposed in the basement. Richard Blancato responded that nothing is proposed in the basement. Since there were no further comments, Linda Moiron made a motion to close the public hearing. Eliot Martone seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). Peter Koffler stated that the use of the property is going to remain as a single family residence. Linda Moiron asked about the parking. Richard Blancato responded that the parking is not changing. He stated that there is no existing dedicated parking. Eliot Martone asked if there were any parking requirements on a 5-bedroom house. Sean McCarthy responded that there are no parking requirements on an existing single family dwelling. Michael Fox asked about the size of the bedrooms. Sean McCarthy responded that one bedroom was slightly sub-standard and was sent back to the designers to be corrected. Chris Bateman responded that the bedroom has been increased to meet the requirements and the bathroom was slightly reduced to make-up the additional area. Linda Moiron stated that the FAR is substantial. Chris Pateman responded that the footprint is not changing. Peter Koffler asked about the existing FAR. Richard Blancato responded that it is 0.45. Sean McCarthy responded that the FAR of 0.50 is based on a lot size of 300 square feet. Eliot Martone asked if all of the proposed occupants of the house currently live in the house. Richard Blancato responded yes. Eliot Martone stated that if this application was presented to the Board for a 2-family structure, it would probably not be approved. The number of bedrooms and the proposed occupants were reviewed further. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, January 18, 2006 4 �Gordon Swartz stated that the area is already crowded. He stated that the public has expressed concerns over the same issue. Richard Blancato responded if the variance is refused, the same number of people will still occupy the house in the current conditions. Sean McCarthy responded that the overcrowding is a violation but the proposal will fix the overcrowding violation instead of moving the inhabitants out. Daley Fontez was allowed to speak again. She stated that this house is the smallest in the neighborhood. Linda Moiron questioned if there were other 5-bedroom houses in the area. Chris Bateman responded that the house next door has the same footprint as what is proposed by the applicant. Eliot Martone asked if a survey of the number of bedrooms in the area was available. Richard Blancato responded no. He stated that the information could be provided. Eliot Martone also stated that the applicant should justify that this is the minimum variance allowed. Linda Moiron stated that she would like to see the FAR lowered a bit. Gordon Swartz stated that he would like to see a comparison of other houses in the neighborhood. Eliot Martone made a motion to adjourn this application to the next meeting. Linda Moiron seconded. It was unanimous. (4-0). 3) Grace Yeung– This is an application for variances to add to and alter an existing house and to construct a new detached garage where the proposed work creates the following non-compliances: Lot Width Minimum required = 75.0-feet Actual lot width = 73.5-feet One Side Yard Minimum one side yard setback = 10.0-feet Existing one side yard setback = 9.8-feet Combined side yards Minimum combined yards = 25.0-feet Existing combined yards = 19.8-feet APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, January 18, 2006 5 �Side Yard setback Proposed addition side yard set back = 9.6 ft. Minimum side yard setback = 14.8-ft. The Chair asked if the returns were received. Sean McCarthy responded yes. The public notice was read aloud. Radoslav Opacic is the project architect and is representing this application along with owner, Grace Yeung. The Chair stated that this variance was previously approved but the one-year time frame has elapsed. Radoslav Opacic responded yes. He stated that this application is the exact same application that the Board approved at the October 2004 meeting. The Chair opened the public hearing. John Bogus (266 Harwood Avenue) stated that he lives in a 1920 brick colonial home. He is concerned with living within 10-feet of a 2006 modern home. Radoslav Opacic responded that the structure is being lowered on the side of this neighbor. He stated that the massing is being reduced. Eliot Martone stated that the appearance is under the jurisdiction of the Architectural Review Board. He stated that the only matters before the Board are related to zoning. He stated that many lots in Philipse Manor required variances since many of the lots are non-conforming. Peter Koffler explained the criteria for approving a variance. Since there were no further public comments, Linda Moiron made a motion to close the public hearing. Eliot Martone seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). Eliot Martone stated that nothing has changed since the last approval. He stated that the same reasons to approve still apply. He stated that the public objection was primarily architectural in nature. Eliot Martone made a motion to approve. Linda Moiron seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). 4) Minutes for December 2005 – The minutes for December 2005 were reviewed. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, January 18, 2006 6 �Eliot Martone made a motion to approve the December 2005 minutes as amended. Linda Moiron seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). Eliot Martone made a motion to adjourn the public portion of the meeting and to enter into executive session to discuss matters of litigation where no action will be taken. Linda Moiron seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). Adjourned at 9:13 p.m. Respectfully Submitted APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, January 18, 2006 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-2006 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_2006-01-18 Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2006 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2006 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