1 25 21 https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/d7f36f8facf964c2620732b2a7475c39.pdf 76165d2dd155b46ee401d4f0f639653a PDF Text Text Village of Sleepy Hollow Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting January 15, 2020 Chairman Timothy Judge called the meeting to order at 8:04 pm. Present: Timothy Judge, Chairman Craig Lis Margaret Rubick Richard Hughes Alex MacFarlane Also Present: Pamela Kroll, Secretary to the Zoning Board Absent: Gorete Crowe Timothy Church Sean McCarthy, Village Architect Agenda: 1) David & Geraldine Dooley, 181 Webber Avenue, Proposed second floor addition Public hearing 2) Carlos Rodrigues, 54 Pocantico Street, Proposed rear deck addition-Public hearing 3) Approval of minutes, November 20, 2019, December 18, 2019 Chairman Judge stated that the application submitted by Carlos Rodrigues for 54 Pocantico Street will not be heard because the public notices were not mailed to the neighboring property owners. The application will be heard at the February meeting. 1. David & Geraldine Dooley, 181 Webber Avenue, Proposed second floor addition - Public hearing Chairman Judge read the public notice and listed the documents submitted by the applicant. Chairman Judge asked Pamela Kroll to confirm that all of the mailing receipts have been received. Pamela Kroll stated that all of the mailing receipts have been received. Chairman Judge invited the applicant to present the application. Vladimir Levin, RA is the architect representing the applicant. Mr. Levin stated that they are requesting approval for front and side yard variances to construct a second story addition over the existing first floor and construct a new gable roof over the existing second floor. The purpose of the proposed addition is to create additional bedrooms for the family. The purpose of the new roof over the existing second floor is to create additional attic space for mechanical equipment and the minimal standing height. Mr. Levin stated that the proposed addition is not 1 (ZBA 1/15/2020) �out of character with the neighborhood and the scale and footprint of the property is proportional to surrounding houses that also have existing non-conforming front and side yards. Mr. Levin stated that although the massing of the house will increase, the perceived height from the street elevation does not increase since the proposed roof will maintain the same ridge height of the existing roof. The proposed gable roof will increase the height by five inches. Mr. Levin stated that there is no other feasible way to accomplish the benefit sought by the applicant. Mr. Levin stated that the requested variances are numerically substantial due to the existing nonconforming conditions of the building. The proposed addition will not increase the footprint of the building and will not increase the existing side or front yard set-backs. There will not be any environmental impacts to the neighborhood because the proposed addition will not create additional impervious surfaces or additional stormwater discharge. The owner did not create the existing conditions. Craig Lis asked how many bedrooms currently exist. Vladimir Levin stated that there are four existing bedrooms. The existing house configuration is set up as two separate dwelling units and not code compliant for bedroom accessibility. A renovation is proposed to correct the existing dwelling configuration. Craig Lis requested an explanation of the existing front yard set-back and the proposed front yard set-back. Vladimir Levin stated that the survey shows that the existing front porch is slightly over the property line. The only proposed change to the porch is to add a new metal panel standing seam roof above it. The proposed front yard set-back of 4.1 feet refers to the set-back from the property line to the existing first floor of the house where the second story addition is proposed to be constructed directly above it. Chairman Judge solicited additional comments from the Board. There were no additional comments from the Board. Motion was made open the public hearing. Moved: Judge Seconded: Rubick Vote 5-0 Chairman Judge solicited comments from the public. There were no comments from the public. Motion was made to close the public hearing. Moved: Judge Seconded: MacFarlane Vote 5-0 Motion was made by Chairman Judge to approve the area variances as requested based on the following criteria: 1. The alleged difficulty is not a self-created hardship due to the existing non-conformities of the building. 2 (ZBA 1/15/2020) �2. Granting of the area variances will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to the nearby properties as most of the neighboring properties are non-conforming to the Zoning Code and are very close to the street. 3. Granting of the area variances is the most reasonable way for the Applicant to achieve the benefits sought and the feasible way to expand the number of bedrooms. 4. The proposed variances are not substantial due to the pre-existing non-conformities of the building. 5. The proposed variances will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood as the stormwater discharge will be handled on site. Chairman Judge stated that the application meets the requirements for a Type II action under SEQRA 617.5. Motion was made to grant the area variances as requested. Moved: Judge Seconded: Rubick Timothy Judge, Chairman - yes Craig Lis - yes Richard Hughes - yes Alex McFarlane - yes Margaret Rubick - yes Vote: 5-0 APPROVED 3. Approval of minutes, November 20, 2019, December 18, 2019 Motion was made to approve the November 20, 2019 minutes. Moved: Judge Seconded: Lis Timothy Judge, Chairman - yes Craig Lis - yes Richard Hughes- yes Alex MacFarlane - yes Margaret Rubick - yes Vote: 5-0 APPROVED Motion was made to approve the December 18, 2019 minutes. Moved: Judge Seconded: Lis Timothy Judge, Chairman - yes Craig Lis - yes Richard Hughes- yes Alex MacFarlane - yes 3 (ZBA 1/15/2020) �Margaret Rubick - yes Vote: 5-0 APPROVED Motion was made to adjourn the meeting at 8:25 pm. Moved: Judge Seconded: MacFarlane Vote 5-0 Respectfully Submitted, Pamela Kroll Secretary to the Zoning Board of Appeals 4 (ZBA 1/15/2020) � 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-2020 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_2020-01-15 Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2020 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2020 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/515d8c0ee6a81fdda48f27f3d99261f0.pdf 8038df12c8d87222042f1644f3483383 PDF Text Text RESOLUTION Adopted at the January 15,2020 Meeting of the Village of Sleepy Hollow Zoning Board of Appeals RESOLUTION: Area Variances PROPOSED: Proposed second floor addition LOCATION: 181 Webber TAX MAP DESIGNATION: Section 115.8, Block 1, Lot 12 ZONING DISTRICT: R-3 WHEREAS, on December 16, 2019, an application was submitted by David & Geraldine Dooley (the "Applicant") to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "ZBA") for area variance approvals to construct a second floor addition (the "Application") pursuant to the Article XII of the Zoning Code of the Village of Sleepy Hollow; and WHEREAS, the Applicant is seeking a variance from Article VI, Section 450-34.B of the Zoning Code, Applicability of regulations, adding to and altering an existing non-conforming building, where the required minimum side yard Set-back is 5.0 feet and the existing side yard set-back is .04 feet; and WHEREAS, the Applicant is seeking a variance from Article VI, Section 450-34.B of the Zoning Code, Applicability of regulations, adding to and altering an existing non-conforming building, where the minimum required front yard set-back is 20.0 feet and the existing front yard set-back is -0.02 feet; and WHEREAS, the Applicant is seeking a variance from Article VI, Section 450-35. of the Zoning Code, Schedule of regulations, where the required minimum front yard set-back is 20.0 feet, the existing front yard set-back is -0.2 feet; and the proposed front yard set-back is 4.1 ft.; and WHEREAS, the Applicant is seeking a variance from Article VI, Section 450-35. of the Zoning Code, Schedule of regulations, where the required minimum side yard set-back is 5.0 feet, the existing side yard set-back is 0.4 feet; and the proposed side yard set-back is 0.4 ft.; and WHEREAS, the ZBA has reviewed the following documents for consideration as well as the oral presentations to the ZBA: 1. Zoning Board of Appeals application submitted and signed by the Architect, dated December 13, 2019 2. Proxy statement signed by the Applicant, dated December 10, 2019 3. Determination letter signed by Sean E. McCarthy, Building Inspector, dated December 13, 2019 4. Zoning Compliance Form, prepared by the Architect, submitted December 16, 2019 5. Short Environmental Assessment Form Part-1 Project information, signed by the Architect, dated December 9, 2019 Page 1 of 3 �6. 7. 8. 9. Property deed recorded October 2, 2019 Survey of the property prepared by Michael W. Minto, L.S.P.C, dated August 14, 2019 Photographs of existing conditions Construction drawings to include a Site Plan, GIS Map, A100, A101, A202 prepared by Vladimir Levin RA dated December 15,2019 WHEREAS, the ZBA held a duly noticed public hearing on January 15, 20 to hear and consider the application; and WHEREAS, Vladimir Levin, RA (the "Architect") presented the Application on behalf of the Applicant and stated that the purpose of the proposed second story addition is to construct additional bedrooms and the new gable roof will provide additional attic space for the housing of mechanical equipment with minimal standing room height. WHEREAS, in making its determination as to whether the applicant should be granted the area variances, the ZBA considered the following factors: 1) whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance; 2) whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance; 3) whether the requested area variance is substantial; 4) whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and 5) whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the board of appeals, but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that ZBA, after review of the materials submitted, public comments, including written correspondence and recommendations, has determined that in accordance with the criteria set forth in Part 617.7 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and based upon review of the Environmental Assessment Form, all of the documents submitted to the ZBA and all other materials which were prepared and submitted, the ZBA determines the application meets the requirements for a Type II action under SEQRA 617.5 and therefore requires no further processing under SEQRA; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, after due consideration the ZBA makes the following determination: 1. The alleged difficulty is not a self-created hardship due to the existing non-conformities of the property and building. 2. Granting of the area variances will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to the nearby properties as neighboring as most of the neighboring properties are non-conforming to the Zoning Code and close to the street. 3. Granting of the area variances is the most reasonable way for the Applicant to achieve the benefits sought and the feasible way to expand the number of bedrooms. Page 1 of 3 �4. The proposed area variances are not substantial due to the pre-existing non-conformities of the building. 5. The proposed variances will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood as the stormwater discharge will be handled on site. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the area variances requested by the applicant are granted approval subject to the land and will remain in effect until amended, repealed or otherwise changed, in whole or in part, by the Village of Sleepy Hollow and; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Applicant may obtain the endorsed approval of the ZBA Chairman on a copy of this resolution. This approval shall expire (1) year after the date of this resolution if the conditions have not been completed to the satisfaction of the ZBA and the Department of Architecture, Land Use Development, Buildings and Building Compliance and the Applicant has not obtained the required Building Permit for construction in accordance with the approved plan. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW /4/Eg Date P f i y ^ A f t V ^ , ^ g / ^ f c ^ the undersigned ChrtfPtfttiiy Clerk, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of an extract duly adopted by the Board of Trustees/Planning/Zoning of the Village of Sleepy Hollow. nnth« / 5 «lay af and of . the whole thereof, and I further certify that the same was entered into the minutes of the meeting of said Board of Trustees/Plannin^£>)hpM on said date. 'IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I nave Hereunto set my hand and offidal seatthisllUday • (der^Deputy Clerk Page 1 of 3 � 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-2020 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_2020-01-15_RES-181-Webber-Avenue Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2020 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2020 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/f667bc44fc3fbd4e469ceb6deb969f9f.pdf ca626ca841a2036f8569c65afc54780b PDF Text Text Village of Sleepy Hollow Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting February 19, 2020 Chairman Timothy Judge called the meeting to order at 8:00 pm. Present: Timothy Judge, Chairman Gorete Crowe Richard Hughes Alex MacFarlane Also Present: Sean McCarthy, Village Architect Pamela Kroll, Secretary to the Zoning Board Absent: Margaret Rubick Craig Lis Timothy Church Agenda: 1) Carlos Rodrigues, 54 Pocantico Street, Proposed second-story rear deck addition Public hearing 2) 34 On Hudson LLC, 34 Hudson Street, Proposed two-family house -Public hearing 3) Stephen Zachensky, 27 Amos Street, Proposed front entry portico- Public hearing 4) Approval of minutes, January 15, 2020 Chairman Judge stated that there are just four members of the Board present at the meeting. If a vote is taken, it must be unanimous by all four members. The applicants have the option to request an adjournment to the next meeting in anticipation of the presence of a full Board. 1. Carlos Rodrigues, 54 Pocantico Street, proposed second-story rear deck addition - Public hearing Chairman Judge read the public notice and listed the documents submitted in the application and asked Sean McCarthy to confirm that all of the mailing receipts have been received. Sean McCarthy confirmed that all of the mailing receipts have been received. Chairman Judge invited the applicant to present the application. William Simeoforides is the architect representing the applicant. Mr. Simeoforides stated that the rear yard set-back calculation of 31.75 feet includes the existing deck that was constructed without a Building Permit in the late 1970's and that the other requested variances are due to existing non-conforming conditions of the property. The applicant proposes to legalize the deck by demolishing the existing structure and obtaining a building permit to construct a new deck of the same size. Mr. Simeoforides stated that the deck will be in character with the neighborhood 19 (ZBA 1/15/2020) �and will not have any negative environmental impact to the area. Although it is a self-created hardship, there is no other feasible way to have a functioning deck on the building off the existing doorway. Gorete Crowe asked if the deck door is the only entrance to the upstairs apartment. Mr. Simeoforides stated that there is another entrance door off the kitchen. Chairman Judge asked if the existing footings will be utilized. Mr. Simeoforides stated that the footings and the landing supports will be redone correctly and are planned to stay within the same footprint of the existing deck. Chairman Judge solicited comments from the Board. Sean McCarthy stated that the property, in respect to the rear property line, is an irregular shape. There is a jog that is 21 feet in depth on the property resulting from its' intersection with a property on Howard Street that causes the non-conforming rear yard set-back. Mr. McCarthy stated that the property is unlike the other properties on the street that are more rectangular in shape. Motion was made to open the public hearing. Moved: Judge Seconded: Crowe Vote 4-0 Chairman Judge solicited comments from the public. There were no comments from the public. Motion was made to close the public hearing. Moved: Judge Seconded: Crowe Vote 4-0 Motion was made by Chairman Judge to approve the area variances as requested based on the following criteria: 1. Granting of the area variances will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to the nearby properties as the variances are all related to existing non-conformities of the lot and the structure. 2. Granting of the area variances is the only feasible method for the Applicant to achieve the benefits of having a functioning deck on the building. 3. The proposed variances are not substantial due to the pre-existing non-conformities of the property and building because the proposed new deck construction will not exceed the distances of the structure. 20 (ZBA 1/15/2020) �4. The proposed variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 5. The proposed deck was existing when the property was purchased and the requested variances will allow the applicant to rebuild the deck structure, to the same dimensions of the existing deck, by obtaining the required Building Permits and approvals. Chairman Judge stated that the application meets the requirements for a Type II action under SEQRA 617.5. Chairman Judge stated that if the applicant agrees to have a vote taken, it must be unanimous by all four members in order for approval to be granted. If the approval is not granted, the applicant will be required to wait six months before the application can be resubmitted. Chairman Judge asked Mr. Simeoforides to confirm his decision. William Simeoforides requested that the Board take a vote on the application. Motion was made to grant the area variances as requested. Moved: Judge Seconded: MacFarlane Timothy Judge, Chairman - yes Richard Hughes - yes Alex McFarlane - yes Gorete Crowe - yes Vote: 4-0 APPROVED 2. 34 On Hudson LLC, 34 Hudson Street, proposed two-family residence - Public hearing Chairman Judge read the public notice and listed the documents submitted with the application and asked Sean McCarthy to confirm that all of the mailing receipts have been received. Sean McCarthy stated that all of the mailing receipts have been received. Chairman Judge invited the applicant to present the application. Brian Hopkins stated that he is an Architect, partner of Hopkins Holub Architecture and the owner of 34 Hudson Street. The proposed application for 34 Hudson Street will be their first ground-up project in Sleepy Hollow. Mr. Hopkins stated that Hudson Street is the only area in Sleepy Hollow that is located in the R-4A district. Mr. Hopkins questioned the permitted uses in the R-4A zoning district in relation to the variances listed on the public notice. Chairman Judge asked Sean McCarthy to confirm the accuracy of the public notice and the Zoning Code requirements of the R-4A district. Sean McCarthy stated that the proposal is to demolish a three-family house down to the foundation and construct a new two-family residence with an extension to the rear. The 21 (ZBA 1/15/2020) �requested variance is required because when there is a non-conforming lot, only a one-family house is permitted. Mr. McCarthy stated since the lot is non-conforming, any work proposed to the building beyond a single-family residence would require variances; but one and two-family residences are permitted to be constructed in the R-4A District. Alex MacFarlane questioned if all of the variances were related to existing non-conforming conditions of the lot for the construction of a two-family residence in lieu of a three-family residence. Sean McCarthy stated that the requested variances for the building coverage and the floor area ratio exceed the existing non-conformities because the footprint is proposed for expansion and therefore require new variances. The other variances relate to existing non-conforming conditions of the lot. Alex MacFarlane asked Mr. Hopkins when the original structure was constructed. Brian Hopkins stated that the structure was erected in the 1920's but that he is unsure of the exact date. Brian Hopkins stated that the lots on Hudson Street are severely constrained sites because they are undersized and sloping; however the bluff location allows for river views. Mr. Hopkins stated that they propose to target transit oriented medium income residents. Mr. Hopkins presented a summary of the proposed demolition, site plan, and elevation drawings in relation to the requested variances and the existing non-conforming conditions of the site. Mr. Hopkins presented conformance comparisons of the properties abutting 34 Hudson Street. Richard Hughes asked for the increase in coverage to the rear of the house and the proposed roof height. Brian Hopkins stated that the foundation will be extended 18.6 feet in the rear of the building; the existing footprint is 600 square feet, and it is proposed to expand the footprint by 300 square feet, which is thirty percent. Mr. Hopkins stated that they plan to keep the existing footprint for the new deck in the backyard. The rear of the house will protrude 2.6 feet less than the adjoining property, but the deck will extend further in the rear yard of the property. The roof height will not exceed the maximum permitted height of 35 feet. Richard Hughes asked for the width between the neighboring buildings. Brian Hopkins stated that the 34 Hudson Street building is off the property line by 6 inches and the 36 Hudson Street building is off the property line by 12 inches; leaving 18 inches between the two buildings. There will not be windows on the north side of the building, but there will be side windows on the south side of the building where it abuts 32 Hudson Street. Gorete Crowe asked for an explanation of the proposed unit layouts. Brian Hopkins referenced the drawings to explain the proposed layouts for the first and second floor units. 22 (ZBA 1/15/2020) �Gorete Crowe asked if the first floor apartment would have access to the deck and the backyard. Brian Hopkins stated that the first floor garden apartment will have access to the deck and the backyard and the second floor sky unit will have a terrace and a river view in lieu of access to the backyard. Richard Hughes asked if the units will be sold or rented. Brian Hopkins stated the units will start out as rentals and that they may offer them for sale in the future. Richard Hughes asked what the current parking conditions for the property are. Brian Hopkins stated that there are no available dedicated parking spots and that there is no feasible cost effective way to add parking spots to the site. Chairman Judge asked how many bedrooms are in the existing structure. Brian Hopkins stated that the existing structure has one bedroom in basement, two bedrooms on the first floor, and two bedrooms between the second and third floors. Motion was made to open the public hearing. Moved: Judge Seconded: MacFarlane Vote 4-0 Chairman Judge solicited comments from the public. Clara Teagle is the owner of 38 Hudson Street and asked if the proposed three-story building will be the same height as the existing building; will there be porches on every level of the building; will the existing attic space and the fire escape be eliminated; will the third-story porch be higher than the height of the house at 36 Hudson Street and what is the proposed height; will the existing front entry stairs be relocated towards the side of 36 Hudson Street, and how far will the new deck extend to the rear of the property beyond the 36 Hudson Street building. Chairman Judge and Brian Hopkins collaborated on the responses to Clara Teagle's questions and stated that the proposed building structure will have the same roof height as the existing building but will include design differences that create less of a steep slope. There will be porches on every level. The existing attic structure and the fire escape will be eliminated because the existing building structure will be demolished down to the foundation. The thirdstory porch will be located below the existing fire escape balcony and the roof will be the same height as 36 Hudson Street. The front entry stairs will be relocated towards the side of 36 Hudson Street in order to provide more light and air to the living spaces instead of a common stairway. The proposed rear deck will extend 7 feet past the building at 36 Hudson Street. The existing detached deck structure is located partially beyond the property line and on Metro-North railroad property. The detached deck structure will be removed and a retaining wall will be constructed along the rear property line. 19 (ZBA 1/15/2020) �Chairman Judge asked how the second mean of egress will be addressed. Brian Hopkins stated that the building will be fully equipped with fire sprinklers. On the first floor, there will be access from the front entry and the rear deck. Clara Teagle asked how the requested variances will affect the parking requirements. Brian Hopkins stated that the proposed construction of a two-family residence, each having two bedrooms, will reduce the density condition of the building. Clara Teagle asked why there is another public hearing for Thursday, February 20, 2020 Sean McCarthy stated that the Planning Board referred the applicant to the Zoning Board of Appeals for the required variances. Pending tonight's decision from the Zoning Board, there will be a public hearing for site plan approval of the application from the Planning Board. Chairman Judge solicited additional comments from the public. There were no other comments from the public. Gorete Crowe asked what the basement will be used for. Brian Hopkins stated that the existing ceiling height will not allow for the basement to be used as habitable space. The basement will be used strictly for utility equipment and storage. Motion was made to close the public hearing. Moved: Judge Seconded: Crowe Vote 4-0 Chairman Judge asked Sean McCarthy what issues are coming before the Planning Board for discussion. Sean McCarthy stated that the Planning Board will be addressing how stormwater management will be controlled with the additional proposed impervious surfaces on the property; construction of the retaining wall; and how the modular construction will be coordinated with the restraints of the existing lot and street conditions. Mr. McCarthy stated that the applicant has been addressing the questions with the Village Engineer and the Planning Board. Chairman Judge asked Brian Hopkins if they plan to keep the existing slope at the rear of the property. Brian Hopkins stated that the property begins to slope at the proposed rear deck location and that they plan on bringing fill into the site to create a more usable backyard. Chairman Judge solicited comments from Sean McCarthy. Sean McCarthy stated that the existing three-family structure is in poor condition. There are bedrooms without windows, lack of adequate ceiling height, light, and ventilation. The proposed 6 (ZBA 1/15/2020) �reconstruction of the building will be a benefit for the existing structure and the property. The applicant may also be able to use the excavation material from the new foundation addition to infill the slope at the rear yard without bringing additional fill materials in from off-site. Mr. McCarthy stated that the applicant has also provided engineering documentation to confirm the stability of the existing foundation and that it can support the proposed structure. Motion was made by Chairman Judge to approve the area variances as requested based on the following criteria: 1. Granting of the area variances will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to the nearby properties. Although there will be an impact to the neighborhood during the construction phase of the project, the end result will be beneficial compared to the existing conditions. 2. Granting of the area variances is a feasible method to achieve the benefits sought by the applicant as the proposed construction on the existing structurally sound foundation saves on project costs and the re-construction of the building will be a benefit to the property and of its' use. 3. The proposed variances are not substantial in consideration to the surrounding properties and due to the existing non-conformities of the building and lot. 4. The proposed application is not a self-created hardship as the property was purchased with the existing non-conforming building and lot conditions. 5. The proposed variances will not have a permanent adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. Temporary impacts to the physical conditions of the neighborhood will occur during the demolition and construction phases of the application. Chairman Judge stated that the application meets the requirements for a Type II action under SEQRA 617.5. Chairman Judge stated that if the applicant agrees to have a vote taken, it must be unanimous by all four members in order for approval to be granted. If the approval is not granted, the applicant will be required to wait six months before the application can be resubmitted. Chairman Judge asked if Mr. Hopkins would like the Board to take a vote tonight. Brian Hopkins stated he would like the Board to take a vote tonight. Sean McCarthy stated that the Planning Board will be considering the construction impacts as part of their review. Motion was made to grant the area variances as requested. Moved: Judge Seconded: Crowe 7 (ZBA 1/15/2020) �Timothy Judge, Chairman - yes Richard Hughes - yes Alex McFarlane - yes Gorete Crowe - yes Vote: 4-0 APPROVED 3. Stephen Zachensky, 27 Amos Street, proposed front entry portico - Public hearing Chairman Judge read the public notice and listed the documents submitted in the application and asked Sean McCarthy to confirm that all of the mailing receipts have been received. Sean McCarthy confirmed that all of the mailing receipts have been received. Chairman Judge invited the applicant to present the application. Steve Zachensky is the owner of 27 Amos Street and stated that they are in the middle of constructing an addition and renovation project. The approved Building Permit drawings did not include a front entry portico or overhang in order to comply with the Zoning Code set-back requirements for the front yard set-back. The current plan doesn't allow for gutters on the side so rain puddles and freezes on the front steps. Mr. Zachensky stated that he would like variance approval for the front yard set-back in order to construct a front entry portico. Chairman Judge stated that he has reviewed the application and doesn't have any concerns. Sean McCarthy stated they propose to build the front entry portico over the existing concrete stoop. Motion was made to open the public hearing. Moved: Judge Seconded: Hughes Vote 4-0 Chairman Judge solicited comments from the public. There were no comments from the public. Motion was made to close the public hearing. Moved: Judge Seconded: Crowe Vote 4-0 Motion was made by Chairman Judge to approve the area variances as requested based on the following criteria: 1. Granting of the area variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to the nearby properties and does not detract from the architecture of the house. 2. The proposed variance impacts the front yard set-back by 4.47 feet and therefore is not considered substantial. 8 (ZBA 1/15/2020) �3. The proposed variance is a feasible method to achieve the benefit sought by the applicant to provide a protected covering over the front door. 4. The proposed variances will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 5. The proposed application is not a self-created hardship as the existing home was purchased without a front entry portico. Chairman Judge stated that the application meets the requirements for a Type II action under SEQRA 617.5. Motion was made to grant the area variance as requested. Moved: Judge Seconded: Crowe Timothy Judge, Chairman - yes Richard Hughes - yes Alex MacFarlane - yes Gorete Crowe - yes Vote: 4-0 APPROVED 4. Approval of minutes, January 15, 2020 Motion was made to table the January 15, 2020 minutes. Vote 4-0 Motion was made to adjourn the meeting at 9:35 pm. Moved: Judge Seconded: Crowe Vote 4-0 Respectfully Submitted, Poj>yutAz- ASL&M Pamela Kroll Secretary to the Zoning Board of Appeals 9 (ZBA 1/15/2020) � 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-2020 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_2020-02-19 Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2020 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2020 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/52edff0053814ac3e597894a7428330c.pdf b7f9338eab16731f14df4275d9002d0c PDF Text Text RESOLUTION Adopted at the February 19,2020 Meeting of the Village of Sleepy Hollow Zoning Board of Appeals RESOLUTION: Area Variance PROPOSED: Proposed front entry portico LOCATION: 27 Amos Street TAX MAP DESIGNATION: Section 115.8, Block 2, Lot 42 ZONING DISTRICT: R-3 WHEREAS, on January 15, 2020 an application was submitted by Stephen Zachensky (the "Applicant") to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "ZBA") requesting an area variance to construct a front entry portico (the "Application") pursuant to the Article XII of the Zoning Code of the Village of Sleepy Hollow; and WHEREAS, the Applicant is seeking a variance from Article VI, Section 450-35. of the Zoning Code, Schedule of regulations, where the required minimum front yard set-back is 20.0 feet, the existing front yard set-back is 20.33 feet, and the proposed front yard set-back is 15.53 feet; and WHEREAS, the ZBA has reviewed the following documents for consideration as well as the oral presentations to the ZBA: 1. Zoning Board of Appeals application submitted and signed by the Applicant, dated January 15, 2020 2. Zoning Compliance Form 3. Short Environmental Assessment Form Part-1 Project information, signed by the Applicant, dated January 14, 2020 4. Property deed recorded July 1,1999 5. As built foundation survey prepared by TC Merritts Land Surveyors, dated November 20, 2019 6. Photographs of existing conditions 7. Construction drawings to include SI, Al, A2, prepared by Anthony F. Federico, RA, dated January 14,2020 WHEREAS, the ZBA held a duly noticed public hearing on February 19, 2020 to hear and consider the application; and WHEREAS, Steven Zachensky (the "Applicant") stated that he is seeking approval of the requested front yard set-back variance in order to construct a front entry portico over the existing concrete stoop to avoid rain puddling and ice formation on the steps. Page 1 of 3 �WHEREAS, in making its determination as to whether the applicant should be granted the area variances, the ZBA considered the following factors: 1} whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance; 2) whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance; 3) whether the requested area variance is substantial; 4) whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and 5) whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the board of appeals, but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that ZBA, after review of the materials submitted, public comments, including written correspondence and recommendations, has determined that in accordance with the criteria set forth in Part 617.7 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and based upon review of the Environmental Assessment Form, all of the documents submitted to the ZBA and all other materials which were prepared and submitted, the ZBA determines the application meets the requirements for a Type II action under SEQRA 617.5 and therefore requires no further processing under SEQRA; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, after due consideration the ZBA makes the following determination: 1. Granting of the area variance will not produce an undesirable change tn the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to the nearby properties and will not distract from the architecture of the house. 2. The proposed area variance impacts the front yard set-back by 4.47 feet and therefore it is not substantial. 3. The proposed variance is the feasible method to achieve the benefit sought by the applicant to provide a protected covering over the front door. 4. The proposed variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 5. The proposed application is not a self-created hardship as the existing home was purchased without a front entry portico. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the area variances requested by the applicant are granted approval subject to the land and will remain in effect until amended, repealed or otherwise changed, in whole or in part, by the Village of Sleepy Hollow and; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Applicant may obtain the endorsed approval of the ZBA Chairman on a copy of this resolution. This approval shall expire (1) year after the date of this resolution if the conditions have not been completed to the satisfaction of the ZBA and the Department of Architecture, Land Use Development, Buildings and Building Compliance and the Applicant has not obtained the required Building Permit for construction in accordance with the approved plan. Page 2 of 3 �ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW Date ^—, the undersigned Clerk/Deputy Clerk, do hereby certify that theforegoingis a true copy of an extract duly adopted by the Board of Trustee^Rannin^n^bf the Village of Sleepy Hotow, on the JjL_day of "ASLLKAAQ^. 20 T O and of the whole thereof, and I further certH^ that the same was entered into the minutes of the meeting of said Board of Trustees/Planning/Zoning held on said date. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seaMfiis^ day of l l / O s f o k 2PM> Clerk Page 3 of 3 � 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-2020 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_2020-02-19_RES-27-Amos-Street Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2020 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2020 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/981cb1280f284b4c9f38a9bcb207274a.pdf 04ca36fac61e3274c1492f8ae5e86703 PDF Text Text RESOLUTION Adopted at the February 19,2020 Meeting of the Village of Sleepy Hollow Zoning Board of Appeals RESOLUTION: Area Variances PROPOSED: Proposed two-family residence LOCATION: 34 Hudson Street TAX MAP DESIGNATION: Section 115.11, Block 3, Lot 65 ZONING DISTRICT: R-4A WHEREAS, on January 13, 2020, an application was submitted by Brian Hopkins (the "Applicant") to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "ZBA") requesting area variances to construct a two-family residence (the "Application") pursuant to the Article XII of the Zoning Code of the Village of Sleepy Hollow; and WHEREAS, the Applicant is seeking a variance from Article VI, Section 450-34.B of the Zoning Code, Applicability of regulations, adding to and altering an existing non-conforming building, where the required minimum lot area is 4,000 square feet and the existing lot area is 2,115 square feet; and WHEREAS, the Applicant is seeking a variance from Article VI, Section 450-34.B of the Zoning Code, Applicability of regulations, adding to and altering an existing non-conforming building, where the minimum required lot width is 40.0 feet and the existing lot width is 25.0 feet; and WHEREAS, the Applicant is seeking a variance from Article VI, Section 450-35. of the Zoning Code, Schedule of regulations, where the required minimum front yard set-back is 20.0 feet and the proposed front yard set-back is 2.50 ft.; and WHEREAS, the Applicant is seeking a variance from Article VI, Section 450-35. of the Zoning Code, Schedule of regulations, where the required minimum rear yard set-back is 25.0 feet and the proposed rear yard set-back is 19.50 ft.; and WHEREAS, the Applicant is seeking a variance from Article VI, Section 450-35. of the Zoning Code, Schedule of regulations, where the required minimum side yard set-back is 3.0 feet and the proposed side yard set-back is 0.36 ft.; and WHEREAS, the Applicant is seeking a variance from Article VI, Section 450-35. of the Zoning Code, Schedule of regulations, where the required minimum combined side yards set-back is 12.0 feet and the proposed combined side yards set-back is 4.59 ft.; and Page 1 of 4 �WHEREAS, the Applicant is seeking a variance from Article VII, Section 450-40. of the Zoning Code, Coverage and open space, where the required maximum building coverage is 35 percent and the proposed building coverage is 45 percent; and WHEREAS, the Applicant is seeking a variance from Article VII, Section 450-36.D. of the Zoning Code, Floor area ratio, where the required maximum permitted floor area is 1,920 square feet and the proposed floor area is 2,883 square feet; and WHEREAS, the Applicant is seeking a variance from Article VII, Section 450-39.B. of the Zoning Code, Area, where a two-family residence is proposed on a non-conforming lot where only a single-family detached dwelling is permitted; and WHEREAS, the Applicant is seeking a variance from Article VII, Section 450-41.E. of the Zoning Code, Supplementary Regulations, off-street parking and loading spaces, where two parking spaces are required and there are no parking spaces proposed; and WHEREAS, the ZBA has reviewed the following documents for consideration as well as the oral presentations to the ZBA: 1. Zoning Board of Appeals application submitted and signed by Brian Hopkins, RA, dated January 3, 2020 2. Zoning Compliance Form signed by Brian Hopkins, RA, dated January 15,2020 3. Short Environmental Assessment Form Part-1 Project information, signed by Brian Hopkins, dated January 15, 2020 4. Property deed recorded September 21,2019, and January 7,2020 5. Topographical property survey prepared by Vincent M. Teutonico of Big Apple Land Services & Design Inc., dated December 14,2019 6. Photographs of existing conditions 7. Construction drawings prepared by Brian Hopkins RA, as follows: a) T-000, Title Sheet, dated November 17,2019 b) SD-100, Existing Plans, dated August 15,2019 c) SD-200, Demolition Plans, dated November 12,2019 d) Z-100, Zoning Calculations, dated January 8,2020 e) SD-000, Site Plan, dated January 8, 2020 f) A-100, Proposed Plans, dated January 8,2020 g) A-200, Elevations, dated November 11,2019 WHEREAS, the ZBA held a duly noticed public hearing on February 19,2020 to hear and consider the application; and WHEREAS, Brian Hopkins, RA (the "Applicant") presented the Application and stated that they propose to demolish the existing three-family residence down to the foundation, expand the foundation in the rear yard, and construct a new two-family residence. WHEREAS, Sean McCarthy, the Village Architect, stated that the requested variances for the building coverage and the floor area ratio exceed the non-conformities because the footprint is proposed for Page 2 of 4 �expansion and therefore require new variances. The Planning Board will be considering the construction impacts as part of their review. WHEREAS, Clara Teagle, the owner of 38 Hudson Street, raised questions to the ZBA and the Applicant about the proposed application in relation to the existing structure. WHEREAS, in making its determination as to whether the applicant should be granted the area variances, the ZBA considered the following factors: 1) whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance; 2) whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance; 3} whether the requested area variance is substantial; 4) whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and 5) whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the board of appeals, but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that ZBA, after review of the materials submitted, public comments, including written correspondence and recommendations, has determined that in accordance with the criteria set forth in Part 617.7 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and based upon review of the Environmental Assessment Form, all of the documents submitted to the ZBA and all other materials which were prepared and submitted, the ZBA determines the application meets the requirements for a Type II action under SEQRA 617.5 and therefore requires no further processing under SEQRA; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, after due consideration the ZBA makes the following determination: 1. Granting of the area variances will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to the nearby properties. Impact to the neighborhood will occur during the construction phase of the project, but the end result will be beneficial to the street compared to the existing conditions. 2. Granting of the area variances is a feasible method for the Applicant to achieve the benefits sought as the re-construction of the building on the existing structurally sound foundation saves on project costs and will be a benefit to the property and of its' use. 3. The proposed area variances are not substantial in consideration to the surrounding properties and due to the existing non-conformities of the building and the lot. 4. The proposed application is not a self-created hardship as the property was purchased with the existing non-conforming building and lot conditions. 5. Granting of the area variances will not have a permanent adverse effect of impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. Temporary impacts to the physical conditions of the neighborhood will occur during the demolition and construction phases of the application. Page 3 of 4 �BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the area variances requested by the applicant are granted approval subject to the land and will remain in effect until amended, repealed or otherwise changed, In whole or in part, by the Village of Sleepy Hollow and; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Applicant may obtain the endorsed approval of the ZBA Chairman on a copy of this resolution. This approval shall expire (1) year after the date of this resolution if the conditions have not been completed to the satisfaction of the ZBA and the Department of Architecture, Land Use Development, Buildings and Building Compliance and the Applicant has not obtained the required Building Permit for construction in accordance wfth the approved plan. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW Date .the undersigned Clerk/Deputy Clerk, do hereby certify j that theforegoingis a true copy of an extract duly adopted by the Board of Trustees/Planning^ning>f the Village of Sleepy Hollow, on the i S L - d a v o T f e ^ ^ a ^ ^ 2 0 ^ and of the whole thereof, and I further certify that the same was entered into the minutes of the meeting of said Boaid of Trustees/Planning/Zoning held on said date. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seaUhis ffi^day of 4 W U C & - , 20 / 1 2 /^Clerk/Deputy Clerk ^ (j Page 4 of 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-2020 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_2020-02-19_RES-34-Hudson-Street Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2020 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2020 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/461d8438de79d77f7666d92a36f806f6.pdf 4b377579fa0935be6212691595a0379d PDF Text Text RESOLUTION Adopted at the February 19,2020 Meeting of the Village of Sleepy Hollow Zoning Board of Appeals RESOLUTION: Area Variances PROPOSED: Proposed second-story rear deck LOCATION: 54 Pocantico Street TAX MAP DESIGNATION: Section 115.11, Block 3, Lot 65 ZONING DISTRICT: R-5 WHEREAS, on December 18,2019, an application was submitted by Carlos Rodrigues (the "Applicant") to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "ZBA") requesting area variances to construct a second-story rear deck (the "Application") pursuant to the Article XII of the Zoning Code of the Village of Sleepy Hollow; and WHEREAS, the Applicant is seeking a variance from Article VI, Section 450-34.B of the Zoning Code, Applicability of regulations, adding to and altering an existing non-conforming building, where the required minimum lot width is 40.0 feet and the existing lot width is 35.0 feet; and WHEREAS, the Applicant is seeking a variance from Article VI, Section 450-34.B of the Zoning Code, Applicability of regulations, adding to and altering an existing non-conforming building, where the minimum required side yard set-back is 5.0 feet and the existing side yard set-back is 1.50 feet; and WHEREAS, the Applicant is seeking a variance from Article VI, Section 450-34.B of the Zoning Code, Applicability of regulations, adding to and altering an existing non-conforming building, where the minimum required combined side yard set-back is 15.0 feet and the existing combined side yard setback is 3.50 feet; and WHEREAS, the Applicant is seeking a variance from Article VI, Section 450-34.B of the Zoning Code, Applicability of regulations, adding to and altering an existing non-conforming building, where the minimum required rear yard set-back is 25.0 feet and the existing rear yard set-back is 31.75 feet; and WHEREAS, the Applicant is seeking a variance from Article VI, Section 450-35. of the Zoning Code, Schedule of regulations, where the required minimum rear yard set-back is 25.0 feet, the existing rear yard set-back is 31.75 feet; and the proposed rear yard set-back is 15.0 ft.; and WHEREAS, the ZBA has reviewed the following documents for consideration as well as the oral presentations to the ZBA: 1. Zoning Board of Appeals application submitted and signed by the Applicant, dated November 25,2019 Page 1 of 3 �2. Zoning Compliance Form, prepared and signed by the Architect, dated November 25,2019 3. Short Environmental Assessment Form Part-1 Project information, signed by the Applicant dated November 25,2019 4. Property deed recorded October 5,1979 5. Survey of the property prepared by Riley Land Surveyors, LLP, dated March 11,2003 6. Photographs of existing conditions 7. Construction drawings to include pages, A-0, A-l, A-2 prepared by Willliam Simeoforides, Architect dated October 21,2019 WHEREAS, the 2BA held a duly noticed public hearing on February 19,2020 to hear and consider the application; and WHEREAS, William Simeoforides (the "Architect") presented the Application on behalf of the Applicant and stated that they propose to legalize the construction of the existing second-story rear deck by demolishing the existing structure and filing for a building permit to construct a new deck within the same footprint. The rear yard set-back variance calculation of 31.75 feet includes the existing deck that was constructed without a Building Permit and that the other variances are due to the existing nonconforming conditions of the property. Although it is a self-created hardship, there is no other feasible way to have a functioning deck on the building off the existing doorway. WHEREAS, Sean McCarthy, the Village Architect, stated that there is a jog on the property, resulting from its' intersection with a property on Howard Street, that causes the non-conforming rear yard setback and that the property at 54 Pocantico Street is unlike the other properties on the street that are more rectangular in shape. WHEREAS, in making its determination as to whether the applicant should be granted the area variances, the 2BA considered the following factors: 1) whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance; 2) whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance; 3) whether the requested area variance is substantial; 4) whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and 5) whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the board of appeals, but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that ZBA, after review of the materials submitted, public comments, including written correspondence and recommendations, has determined that in accordance with the criteria set forth in Part 617.7 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and based upon review of the Environmental Assessment Form, all of the documents submitted to the ZBA and all other materials which were prepared and submitted, the ZBA determines the application meets the requirements for a Type II action under SEQRA 617.5 and therefore requires no further processing under SEQRA; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, after due consideration the ZBA makes the following determination: Page 2 of 3 �1. Granting of the area variances will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to the nearby properties as the variances are related to existing non-conformities of the lot and the structure. 2. Granting of the area variances Is the only feasible way for the Applicant to achieve the benefits of having a functioning deck on the building. 3. The proposed area variances are not substantial due to the pre-existing non-conformities of the property and the building because the proposed new deck construction will be an improvement of the existing structure. 4. The proposed variances will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions In the neighborhood. 5. The proposed deck was existing when the property was purchased and the requested variances will allow the applicant to rebuild the deck structure, to the same dimensions, by obtaining the required Building Permits and approvals. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the area variances requested by the applicant are granted approval subject to the iand and will remain in effect until amended, repealed or otherwise changed, in whole or in part, by the Village of Sleepy Hollow and; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Applicant may obtain the endorsed approval of the ZBA Chairman on a copy of this resolution. This approval shall expire (1) year after the date of this resolution if the conditions have not been completed to the satisfaction of the ZBA and the Department of Architecture, Land Use Development, Buildings and Building Compliance and the Applicant has not obtained the required Building Permit for construction in accordance with the approved plan. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW Date .the undersigned Clerk/Deputy Clerk, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of an extract duly adopted by the Board of Tnistees/Planninc^^^bf the Village of Sleepy Hollow, on the 1 9 dav^ ^ h u ^ a K ^ r . 20Z@ and of the whole thereof, and I further certify that the same was entered into the minutes of the meeting of said Board of Trustees/Planning/Zoning held on said date. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official-seal this. Z d ? dav 0 i j m ^ ^ z , 20<2ZL ^lerk/Deputy Clerk page 3 of a � 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-2020 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_2020-02-19_RES-54-Pocantico-Street Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2020 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2020 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/f66f862c4837a9067fc5123ea4203fe8.pdf a3427ebab05b6bd419e51a9da18e59ad PDF Text Text Village of Sleepy Hollow Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting May 20, 2020 The regular meeting was held via Zoom webinar and called to order at 8:00 PM by Chairman Timothy Judge. Residents could not attend in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic, but could participate by phone and video. The Board and the applicants participated by videoconferencing. Present: Timothy Judge, Chairman Gorete Crowe Richard Hughes Alex MacFarlane Margaret Rubick Craig Lis Timothy Church Also Present: Sean McCarthy, Village Architect Pamela Kroll, Secretary to the Zoning Board Agenda: 1) Elizabeth Hill and Rachid Tbahi, 9 Irving Place, Proposed third apartment - Public hearing 2) Collette Weinstein, 41 Amos Street, Proposed basement alteration -Public hearing 3) Yonaton and Naomi Rabino, 1 Manor Close, Proposed additions and alterations- Public hearing 4) Approval of minutes, January 15, 2020, February 19, 2020 Sean McCarthy read the following statement: Tonight's meeting is convened in accordance with the Governor's Executive Order Number 202.1 issued March 13,2020 which suspends certain provisions of the New York State Open Meetings Law to allow a municipal board to convene a meeting via videoconferencing. In accordance with the Executive Order, the public has been provided with the ability to view tonight's meeting and public hearing, and a transcript will be provided at a later date. I have also confirmed with the Village Clerk that this meeting has been duly noticed by posting a notice on the Villages' bulletin board, the Journal News newspaper, and posting a copy on the Village website. Sean McCarthy stated that tonight's meeting is being broadcasted live on cable television and also on YouTube. Chairman Judge requested a roll call of the Zoning Board of Appeals members present and confirmed there is a quorum. 1 (ZBA 5/20/2020) �1. Elizabeth Hill and Rachid Tbahi, 9 Irving Place, Proposed third apartment - Public hearing Chairman Judge read the public notice and listed the documents submitted in the application and asked Sean McCarthy to confirm that all of the mailing receipts have been received. Sean McCarthy confirmed that all of the mailing receipts have been received. Chairman Judge asked the Board members to confirm receipt of two additional documents submitted by the applicant. The Board members confirmed receipt of additional submissions. Gorete Crowe stated that she recuses herself from voting on the application because she resides in the area of notification. Chairman Judge invited the applicant to present the application. Betsi Hill stated that she is the owner of the building located at 9 Irving Place and stated that she has invited her architect Mitchell Koch and her attorney Tracey Daniels to speak on behalf of the application. Betsi Hill stated that they have owned the property for approximately eleven years and provided a history on how the residential space has been occupied. Ms. Hill stated that their intentions are to complete what is required to make the building code compliant, including the addition of a sprinkler system. Mitchell Koch is a registered architect, who resides in Irvington New York, and is representing the applicants. Mr. Koch stated that the applicant proposes to convert the existing two-family residence into a three-family residence by creating a third apartment in the attic space. Mr. Koch asked if the existing 300 square feet of open space, in the front yard entry, constitutes the minimum open space required for a multi-family residence as per the Schedule of Regulations requirement of 100 square feet per unit. Sean McCarthy stated that if the 300 square feet of open space is considered as useable space by the tenants, the open space may be counted in the required calculations. Mitchell Koch stated that the back parking area allows for 300 square feet per parking space and questioned why the public notice references that two parking spaces exist where they calculate there are three existing parking spaces. Sean McCarthy stated that the existing parking spaces are not calculated just by the overall area. Parking spaces are required to be a minimum of 9 feet wide by 18 feet long and the spaces must have maneuvering capability. Mitchell Koch stated that a three-point turn allows the maneuvering capability for three parking spaces in the back parking area. Mr. Koch stated that all three parking spaces are 9 feet wide by 2 (ZBA 5/20/2020) �18 feet long. Mr. Koch stated that historically, two tandem parking spaces have been utilized at the shared driveway location on Irving Place. Mr. Koch acknowledged the driveway parking is not compliant with the zoning requirements but that it has been used to eliminate parking on the street. Mr. Koch presented the municipal tax parcel map and stated that there are very few property lots or buildings that are in conformance with the Zoning Code as it relates to the required set-backs or building coverage. Chairman Judge stated that the municipal tax parcel viewer map was not included in the submission package and that the Board must base decisions on the documents they received for review. Sean McCarthy stated that one of the two proposed parking spaces in the front of the property may not be counted as permitted parking spaces on the applicants' property because a portion of land is located on the adjoining property. The parking space may not be counted as an existing space in the Zoning Code regulations. Parking space number one, located in the rear yard, as illustrated in the Zoning Analysis, may not be counted as an existing space because a 90 degree turn cannot be made within the space. Tracey Daniels, Esq. is the attorney representing the applicants and stated a document was submitted to detail alternative creative solutions for future parking requirement issues. Lease restrictions on parking could be put into place for tenants. Chairman Judge stated that a creative solution for the parking spaces in the future is not a solution in front of the Board. Zoning Code requirements and decisions are tied to the property and may not be incorporated with restrictive leases. Tracey Daniels questioned if it is possible to record a covenant against the property to require leases on parking restrictions. Chairman Judge stated that the Board would have to research as to whether or not a restrictive covenant can be recorded as part of their decision. Chairman Judge solicited comments from the Board. There were no comments from the Board. Mitchell Koch stated that there are several multi-family detached homes that have similar nonconformities to the Zoning Code and that they welcome the advice of the Board on a solution that would allow for the approval of the application. Chairman Judge stated the main concern of the Board relates to the issue of the driveway easement. Decisions regarding easements are not in the purview of the Zoning Board. Mitchell Koch stated that the easement has been in place for 50 years. Chairman Judge stated that the easement is not recorded in the neighboring property owners' deed. 3 (ZBA 5/20/2020) �Tracey Daniels stated that if the easement is not included in the neighboring property owners' deed, it doesn't mean that the easement doesn't exist. The applicant has offered to work with the neighboring property owner to solve issues regarding maintenance and the shared use of the driveway. Chairman Judge stated the Zoning Board may not make the determination as to whether or not the easement exists. Decisions on the existing parking spaces cannot be determined without evidence of the easement being confirmed. Margaret Rubick asked Mitchell Koch to display the Zoning Analysis drawing for discussion as it relates to the property lines for 9 Irving Place. Chairman Judge stated that the drawing shows that there is only 2.5 feet of driveway access to the edge of the property. Tracey Daniels stated that the easement is not plotted on the Zoning Analysis drawing. Ms. Daniels stated that she disagrees and that the easement provides access to the entire driveway. Chairman Judge stated that no documentation has been provided on behalf of the neighboring property to support the existence of the easement. Chairman Judge stated that a resolution to existence of the easement must be provided before the Zoning Board can make a decision. Chairman Judge solicited comments from the Board. Richard Hughes asked if the property owner lives on the premises. Betsi Hill stated that she does not live on the premises. Richard Hughes asked if 9 Irving Place is an investment property and if the athlete tenants will pay rent for the use of the apartment spaces. Betsi Hill stated that athlete tenants are no longer staying at the residence. Ms. Hill stated that they propose to rent the first and second floor apartments to traditional tenants. If the proposed third floor apartment is approved, they propose to rent the space to a student or athlete at a reduced, lower than market rent rate. Margaret Rubick asked the applicant to confirm that only the first and second floor apartments have been previously rented and to speak on the past occupancy of the third floor attic space. Betsi Hill stated that only the first and second floor apartments have been rented since her ownership of the building. Chairman Judge asked Sean McCarthy for historical information on the building and if they were any issues related the third floor being occupied. 4 (ZBA 5/20/2020) �Sean McCarthy stated that prior to the current ownership, there were issues with an occupancy of the third floor. Chairman Judge asked the applicant to confirm that they were aware that the building was purchased as a legal two-family residence. Betsi Hill stated that she was aware that the house was a legal two-family residence at the time of purchasing the building; that it had previously been used as an illegal four-family residence, and that it has been listed on tax rolls in Sleepy Hollow and the Town of Mount Pleasant as a legal three-family residence. Chairman Judge stated that the tax rolls do not impact the Boards consideration of the Zoning Code regulations. Chairman Judge asked Sean McCarthy if there have been any Building Code violations associated with the building. Sean McCarthy stated that the building does not have any open Building Code violations. It is a legal two-family residence that is being used properly. Tim Church asked if there has been correspondence or legal proceedings filed between the applicant and the neighboring property owner in regards to resolving the easement. Tracey Daniels stated that there are not any legal proceedings pending from her office. Betsi Hill stated that she has had correspondence with the neighbor informing him of the easement documentation provided with their transfer of sale and that they wish to work with him on his concerns over the driveway use. Tim Church asked if the discussions included the possibility of purchasing the north portion of the property from the neighboring property owner in order to gain more parking spaces. Betsi Hill stated that the option has not been considered with the neighboring property owner. Motion was made to open the public hearing. Moved: Judge Seconded: MacFarlane Vote 6-0-1 Chairman Judge solicited comments from the public. Luis Walters is the owner of 11 Irving Place and stated that when he purchased his property, it was explained to him that the neighboring property owners are permitted to use the driveway to take the garbage in and out and have access to the tank on the north side of the house for fuel deliveries. In the back of the 9 Irving Place house, there previously was a garden, a pool, and then the owner installed the blacktop in the backyard in order to sell the 9 Irving Place building. Mr. Walters stated they he never gave permission to use the driveway on his property to get to the back parking lot area. He maintains the fence and the driveway and that he is liable for any 5 (ZBA 5/20/2020) �injuries from the use of his property. Mr. Walters stated that the applicant states they have an easement of 2.5 feet but they only have 18-19 inches. Yasmin Walters is the daughter of Luis Walters and lives at 95 Beekman Avenue, apartment 225-L. Ms. Walters stated that it is difficult to get three cars in and out of the backyard parking lot. She has seen the garage get scratched and the fence in the back of 9 Irving Place get hit. The area is narrow and she has seen people use her parents' backyard so they can turn cars around to get into the backyard parking lot. Cars are constantly coming in and out. Ms. Walters stated that although two cars do fit in the front parking spot, the second car always sticks out onto the sidewalk. If anyone walks on Irving Place from Elm Street towards Beekman Avenue with a stroller, they must walk into the street to get around the car. Her father is the only one who maintains or cleans the driveway in the Fall or the Winter. Gorete Crowe lives at 28 Kendall Avenue and stated that her biggest concern is that many residents from Irving Place park on Kendall Avenue. She had to purchase two parking spots at the Elm Street parking lot so that she and her husband have a spot to park when they come home from work because there are no parking spots on her street. Elias Tsekerides owns the house at 30 Elm Street and lives in Brewster, New York. Mr. Tsekerides stated that he is concerned if the applicant wants to use the right side of the property for access, they have to use his property because their property is not wide enough. There is a fence on both properties and his fence is one foot inside his property line and their fence is located on the other side of his fence. If they want to use the right side of the property, they would need to remove their fence and use part of his property to get a car through. Chairman Judge solicited additional comments from the public. There were no further comments from the public. Motion was made to close the public hearing. Moved: Judge Seconded: Lis Vote 6-0-1 Craig Lis asked how the number of required parking spots is determined for the Zoning Code. Sean McCarthy stated that a multi-family residence is required to have one parking space per dwelling unit and then a half of space for each bedroom. Mitchell Koch stated that if there were a fence on the property line between 9 Irving Place and 11 Irving Place, the driveway easement would not be usable for either property owner. Chairman Judge stated that he is concerned that there is no resolution on the permitted uses of the driveway. He agrees with Sean McCarthy on the vehicle maneuvering capabilities for space number one in the rear parking lot. Richard Hughes agreed that until the driveway easement is resolved, a decision cannot be made. 6 (ZBA 5/20/2020) �Margaret Rubick stated that there is a difference of opinion between the two neighbors on what the driveway easement can be used for and it is apparent there is a dispute without any sort of agreement. Timothy Church stated that there is a dispute between the two property owners. Even if the Board accepts that the easement exists, that cars have been parking in the backyard, that there hasn't been any legal proceedings issued by the owners of 11 Irving Place, and that the three parking spaces are allowed in the back lot; the required parking spaces will still be three spaces short. Mr. Church stated that the Board should think about whether or not to ask the applicant to resolve the easement and come back to the Board when the variance for three parking spaces in the inner village may not get approved. The proposed solution of purchasing parking spaces from other sources, would take a space from someone else and attach it to the building. It doesn't create more parking spaces. Alex MacFarlane stated that if the variance was granted, it would carry and remain with the property going forward. Craig Lis stated that variances granted remain with the property regardless of the owner. Timothy Church suggested giving the applicant an opportunity to postpone the decision in order for them to come up with a solution to the parking without taking a spot being used by another resident and attaching it to the building legally. Otherwise, he would propose to move on a motion for denial for the parking variance alone. Mr. Church stated that he doesn't have issues with granting the variances that relate to the set-backs, lot area and width, building coverage, and open space. Betsi Hill stated in the November 2019 minutes, where there was a commercial to residential conversion application, Mr. Church stated: "Timothy Church stated that is it is beyond the purview of the building owners to solve the parking problem and that it is incumbent on the Village to do so. " Betsi Hill asked the Board how that situation is different from their situation and that the application was for 144 Cortlandt Street. Timothy Church stated that he would have to refer back to the application in order to answer Ms. Hill's question. Chairman Judge asked the applicant if they would like to table the decision to the next meeting in order to allow them to find another solution for the parking issue, or if they would like the Board to take a vote on the application at tonight's meeting. Betsi Hill requested that the Board table the application to next month's meeting. Motion was made to table the application to the June 17, 2020 meeting. Moved: Judge Seconded: Church Vote 6-0-1 2. Collette Weinstein, 41 Amos Street, proposed basement alteration - Public hearing 7 (ZBA 5/20/2020) �Chairman Judge read the public notice and listed the documents submitted with the application and asked Sean McCarthy to confirm that all of the mailing receipts have been received. Sean McCarthy stated that all of the mailing receipts have been received. Chairman Judge invited the applicant to present the application. Jorge B. Hernandez is a registered architect from Fairfield Connecticut representing the applicant. Mr. Hernandez stated that the lot area of 41 Amos Street is 6,500 square feet located between the intersection of Amos Street and North Street. The applicant proposes to renovate the basement structure where a front yard set-back variance of 9.1 feet is required. The property received a variance and a Building Permit to construct a second story addition in 2012. Chairman Judge asked Sean McCarthy if there have been any issues with the property. Sean McCarthy said that there have been no issues with the property and that of the scope of proposed work will not increase the degree of the existing non-conformities. Chairman Judge solicited comments from the Board. There were no comments from the Board. Motion was made to open the public hearing. Moved: Judge Seconded: Rubick Vote 7-0 Chairman Judge solicited comments from the public. There were no comments from the public. Motion was made to close the public hearing. Moved: Judge Seconded: Rubick Vote 7-0 Motion was made by Chairman Judge to approve the area variance as requested based on the following criteria: 1. The proposed variance is minimal in size and not substantial. 2. The proposed application is not a self-created hardship due to the existing nonconformities of the property. 3. Granting of the area variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to the nearby properties. 4. Granting of the area variances is the feasible method to achieve the benefits sought by the applicant 8 (ZBA 5/20/2020) �5. The proposed variance will not have a permanent adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. Chairman Judge stated that the application meets the requirements for a Type II action under SEQRA 617.5. Motion was made to grant the variance as requested. Moved: Judge Seconded: Crowe Timothy Judge, Chairman - yes Richard Hughes - yes Alex McFarlane - yes Gorete Crowe - yes Margaret Rubick - yes Craig Lis - yes Timothy Church - yes Vote: 7-0 APPROVED 3. Yonatan and Naomi Rabino, 1 Manor Close, proposed additions and alterations Public hearing Chairman Judge read the public notice and listed the documents submitted in the application and asked Sean McCarthy to confirm that all of the mailing receipts have been received. Sean McCarthy confirmed that all of the mailing receipts have been received. Chairman Judge invited the applicant to present the application. Amanda Linhart is the registered architect representing the applicant. Ms. Linhart stated that the applicant proposes renovations to the existing covered porch located at the rear of the house. It is proposed to screen in the porch; replace the railings to be code compliant for children; replace the decking, and to construct an outcropping area for a grill, adjacent to the stairs, outside the covered portion of the porch. The applicant also proposes a master suite addition by adding a dormer to the second floor to expand the existing space. Ms. Linhart stated that the application requires variances for the existing non-conformities of the building related to combined side yards set-back. Chairman Judge solicited comments from the Board. Margaret Rubick stated that it appears that the proposed dormer view from the street will be minimized by trees. Craig Lis asked Ms. Linhart to confirm that the footprint of the house is not changing and that the pre-existing non-conformities of the house are due to the pie shape of the lot. 9 (ZBA 5/20/2020) �Amanda Linhart stated that they are expanding the deck for a grill outcropping so the building coverage is proposed to increase slightly but the footprint of the enclosed portion of the house is not changing. Motion was made to open the public hearing. Moved: Judge Seconded: Lis Vote 7-0 Chairman Judge solicited comments from the public. There were no comments from the public. Motion was made to close the public hearing. Moved: Judge Seconded: Crowe Vote 7-0 Motion was made by Chairman Judge to approve the area variances as requested based on the following criteria: 1. The proposed area variances are not substantial due to the existing non-conformities of the shape of the property. 2. Granting of the area variances will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to the nearby properties. 3. The proposed application is not a self-created hardship. 4. The proposed variances will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 5. The proposed area variances are the feasible way to achieve the benefits sought the by the applicant. Chairman Judge stated that the application meets the requirements for a Type II action under SEQRA 617.5. Motion was made to grant the area variances as requested. Moved: Judge Seconded: Rubick Timothy Judge, Chairman - yes Richard Hughes - yes Alex MacFarlane - yes Gorete Crowe - yes Margaret Rubick - yes Craig Lis - yes Timothy Church - yes Vote: 7-0 APPROVED 4. Approval of minutes, January 15, 2020, February 19, 2020 10 (ZBA 5/20/2020) �Motion was made to approve the January 15, 2020 minutes. Moved: Judge Seconded: Hughes Timothy Judge, Chairman - yes Richard Hughes - yes Alex MacFarlane - yes Gorete Crowe - yes Margaret Rubick - yes Craig Lis - abstained Timothy Church - abstained Vote: 5-0-2 APPROVED Motion was made to approve the February 19, 2020 minutes. Moved: Judge Seconded: MacFarlane Timothy Judge, Chairman - yes Richard Hughes - yes Alex MacFarlane - yes Gorete Crowe - yes Margaret Rubick - abstained Craig Lis - abstained Timothy Church - abstained Vote: 4-0-2 APPROVED Motion was made to adjourn the meeting at 9:37 pm. Moved: Judge Seconded: Rubick Vote 7-0 Respectfully Submitted, PoavulAI, A^M Pamela Kroll Secretary to the Zoning Board of Appeals 11 (ZBA 5/20/2020) � 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-2020 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_2020-05-20 Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2020 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2020 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/9c9a3ab1dd6f275369258a8c43d45a0c.pdf 54b2378463facf0d3467f3e0159b5df3 PDF Text Text RESOLUTION Adopted at the May 20,2020 Meeting of the Village of Sleepy Hollow Zoning Board of Appeals RESOLUTION: Area Variances PROPOSED: Additions and alterations LOCATION: 1 Manor Close TAX MAP DESIGNATION: Section 110.15, Block 1, Lot 64 ZONING DISTRICT: R-2A WHEREAS, on March 11, 2020 an application was submitted by Yonaton and Naomi Ray Rabino (the "Applicants") to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "ZBA") requesting area variances to construct additions and alterations (the "Application") pursuant to the Article XII of the Zoning Code of the Village of Sleepy Hollow; and WHEREAS, the Applicants are seeking a variance from Article VI, Section 450-34.B of the Zoning Code, Applicability of regulations, adding to and altering an existing non-conforming building, where the required minimum lot width is 100.0 feet and the existing lot width is 48.42 feet; and WHEREAS, the Applicants are seeking a variance from Article VI, Section 450-34.B of the Zoning Code, Applicability of regulations, adding to and altering an existing non-conforming building, where the minimum required combined side yards set-back is 25 feet and the existing combined side yards setback is 20.30 feet; and WHEREAS, the Applicants are seeking a variance from Article VI, Section 450-34.B of the Zoning Code, Applicability of regulations, adding to and altering an existing non-conforming building, where the maximum building coverage is 20.0 percent and the existing building coverage is 21.5 percent. WHEREAS, the ZBA has reviewed the following documents for consideration as well as the oral presentations to the ZBA: 1. Zoning Board of Appeals application submitted and signed by Naomi Ray Rabino, dated March 4, 2020 2. Zoning Compliance Form signed by Amanda Linhart, RA dated March 11,2020 3. Short Environmental Assessment Form Part-1 Project information, signed by Amanda Linhart, RA dated March 11,2020 4. Property deed dated February 24,2019 5. Existing Conditions drawing A-050, prepared by Sarrazin Architecture, dated February 25,2020 6. Construction drawings prepared by Amanda Linhart, RA dated March 11,2020: a. A-001.00 - Title Sheet Page 1 of 3 �b. A-002.00 - Site Plan c. A-101.00 - Deck Construction Plans d. A-201.00 - Second Floor Construction Plans e. A-301.00 - Exterior Elevations f. A-302.00 - Exterior Elevations g. A-303.00 - Exterior Elevations 7. Photographs of the existing conditions 8. Property survey prepared by Ward Carpenter Engineers, Inc., dated April 29,2020 WHEREAS, due to the public health and safety concerns of the COVID-19 pandemic, the ZBA held a duly noticed public hearing via Zoom videoconferencing on May 20,2020 to hear and consider the application; and WHEREAS, Amanda Linhart, RA presented the Application on behalf of the Applicants and stated that they propose renovations to the existing covered porch located at the rear of the house to include screening in the porch, replacement of railings, replacement of decking, and the construction of an outcropping area for a grill, adjacent to the stairs. The Applicant also proposes to add dormers to the second floor to expand the master bedroom suite. The variances required are due to the existing nonconformities of the building and the lot shape. WHEREAS, in making its determination as to whether the applicant should be granted the area variances, the ZBA considered the following factors: 1) whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance; 2) whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance; 3) whether the requested area variance is substantial; 4) whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and 5) whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the board of appeals, but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that ZBA, after review of the materials submitted, public comments, including written correspondence and recommendations, has determined that in accordance with the criteria set forth in Part 617.7 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and based upon review of the Environmental Assessment Form, all of the documents submitted to the ZBA and all other materials which were prepared and submitted, the ZBA determines the application meets the requirements for a Type II action under SEQRA 617.5 and therefore requires no further processing under SEQRA; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, after due consideration the ZBA makes the following determination: 1. The proposed area variances are not substantial due to the existing non-conformities of the shape of the property. 2. Granting of the area variances will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to the nearby properties. Page 2 of 3 �3. The proposed application is not a self-created hardship due the existing non-conformities of the building and property. 4. The proposed area variances will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 5. The proposed area variances are the feasible way to achieve the benefits sought by the applicants. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the area variances requested by the Applicants are granted approval subject to the land and will remain in effect until amended, repealed or otherwise changed, in whole or in part, by the Village of Sleepy Hollow and; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Applicants may obtain the endorsed approval of the ZBA Chairman on a copy of this resolution. This approval shall expire (1) year after the date of this resolution if the conditions have not been completed to the satisfaction of the ZBA and the Department of Architecture, Land Use Development, Buildings and Building Compliance and the Applicants has not obtained the required Building Permit for construction in accordance with the approved plan. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW Date .the undersigned /QepjutyCterk, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a copy of an extract duly adopted by the Board of Tmstees/Planning/Zoning^f the Village of Sleepy Hollow, on the & 2 L d a y of A A & M 20 2 0 and of the whole thereof, and I further cirtify that the same was entered into the minutes of the meeting of said Board of Trustees/Planning/Zoning held on said date. IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto set my hand and official seaHhis / ^ d a v of 2 0 ^ I fiTarbfrmm itw fNarlf C/ Page 3 of 3 � 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-2020 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_2020-05-20_1-Manor-Close-Approved-Resolution Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2020 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2020 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/da695d2a0f1d56da7f6d3c605ba06bd1.pdf e0a5bacd50fc3902619ea1a3c04d4c0d PDF Text Text RESOLUTION Adopted at the May 20,2020 Meeting of the Village of Sleepy Hollow Zoning Board of Appeals RESOLUTION: Area Variance PROPOSED: Basement alteration LOCATION: 41 Amos Street TAX MAP DESIGNATION: Section 115.8, Block 2, Lot 6.1 ZONING DISTRICT: R-3 WHEREAS, on November 15, 2019 an application was submitted by Jorge B. Hernandez, RA on behalf of Collette Weinstein (the "Applicant") to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "ZBA") requesting an area variance to alter the basement of an existing single-family residence (the "Application") pursuant to the Article XII of the Zoning Code of the Village of Sleepy Hollow; and WHEREAS, the Applicant is seeking a variance from Article VI, Section 450-34.B of the Zoning Code, Applicability of regulations, adding to and altering an existing non-conforming building, where the required minimum front yard set-back is 20 feet and the existing front yard set-back is 10 feet; and WHEREAS, the ZBA has reviewed the following documents for consideration as well as the oral presentations to the ZBA: 1. Zoning Board of Appeals application submitted and signed by Jorge B. Hernandez, RA, dated November 14, 2019 2. Proxy statement signed by Collette Weinstein, dated November 15, 2019 3. Zoning Compliance Form signed by Jorge B. Hernandez, RA dated November 14,2019 4. Short Environmental Assessment Form Part-1 Project information, dated November 14,2019 5. Drawings prepared by Jorge B. Hernandez, RA dated August 2,2019 to include T-l Title Sheet and A-l, Floor & Reflected Ceiling Plans 6. Property survey prepared by Ward Carpenter Engineers, Inc., dated January 5, 2020 7. Property deed dated August 27, 2017 8. Photographs of the existing conditions WHEREAS, due to the public health and safety concerns of the COVID-19 pandemic, the ZBA held a duly noticed public hearing via Zoom videoconferencing on May 20, 2020 to hear and consider the application and: WHEREAS, Jorge B. Hernandez, RA presented the Application and stated that the lot area of 41 Amos Street is 6,500 square feet and is located between the intersection of Amos Street and North Street. The Applicant proposes to renovate the basement structure where a front yard set-back variance of 9.1 feet is required due to existing non-conformities of the building. Page 1 of 3 �WHEREAS, in making its determination as to whether the Applicant should be granted the area variances, the ZBA considered the following factors: 1) whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance; 2) whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance; 3) whether the requested area variance is substantial; 4) whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and 5) whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the board of appeals, but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that ZBA, after review of the materials submitted, public comments, including written correspondence and recommendations, has determined that in accordance with the criteria set forth in Part 617.7 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and based upon review of the Environmental Assessment Form, all of the documents submitted to the ZBA and all other materials which were prepared and submitted, the ZBA determines the application meets the requirements for a Type II action under SEQRA 617.5 and therefore requires no further processing under SEQRA; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, after due consideration the ZBA makes the following determination: 1. The proposed area variance is minimal in size and not substantial. 2. The proposed are variance is not a self-created hardship due to the existing non-conformities of the property. 3. Granting of the area variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to the nearby properties. 4. Granting of the area variance is the feasible method to achieve the benefit sought by the applicant. 5. Granting of the area variance will not have a permanent adverse effect of impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the area variance requested by the Applicant is granted approval subject to the land and will remain in effect until amended, repealed or otherwise changed, in whole or in part, by the Village of Sleepy Hollow and; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Applicant may obtain the endorsed approval of the ZBA Chairman on a copy of this resolution. This approval shall expire (1) year after the date of this resolution if the conditions have not been completed to the satisfaction of the ZBA and the Department of Architecture, Land Use Development, Buildings and Building Compliance and the Applicant has not obtained the required Building Permit for construction in accordance with the approved plan. Page 2 of 3 �ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW Date Jhe undersigned Cierk'Deoutv ciefk, do hereby certify thsrf the foregoing is a trii. copy of an exttactduly adopted by the Board of Tr:slGes/Pin|inin^OTing> the Village of Sleepy Hollow, on t h e - W d a v of, • 2 0 ^ - and tho whole thereof, and I further certify that the same was entered into the minutes of the meeting of said Board of Trustees/Planning/Zoning held on said date. IM WITMPSS WHEREOF. I have hereunto set my hand Page 3 of 3 � 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-2020 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_2020-05-20_41-Amos-Approved-Resolution Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2020 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2020 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/d4291dc46613802a031d46a569cd7e32.pdf b6a730236392d5de95d288e575133ad9 PDF Text Text Village of Sleepy Hollow Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting June 17, 2020 The regular meeting was held via Zoom webinar and called to order at 8:00 PM by Chairman Timothy Judge. Residents could not attend in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic, but could participate by phone and video. The Board and the applicants participated by videoconferencing. Present: Timothy Judge, Chairman Alex MacFarlane Craig Lis Timothy Church Also Present: Sean McCarthy, Village Architect Absent: Gorete Crowe Richard Hughes Margaret Rubick Pamela Kroll, Secretary to the Zoning Board Agenda: 1) Elizabeth Hill and Rachid Tbahi, 9 Irving Place, Proposed third apartment - Discussion 2) Hudson Pines, LLC, 180 Bedford Road, Proposed additions and alterations -Public hearing 3) Approval of minutes, May 20, 2020 Chairman Judge stated that the applicant for 9 Irving Place has requested adjournment to the July 15, 2020 meeting. Chairman Judge stated that when only a quorum of members is present, the vote must be unanimous in order for the application to be approved. If one of the members votes against the approval, the application is denied and the applicant must wait six months before submitting a new application. Sean McCarthy read the following statement: Tonight's meeting is convened in accordance with the Governor's Executive Order Number 202.1 issued March 13,2020 which suspends certain provisions of the New York State Open Meetings Law to allow a municipal board to convene a meeting via videoconferencing. In accordance with the Executive Order, the public has been provided with the ability to view tonight's meeting and public hearing, and a transcript will be provided at a later date. I have also confirmed with the Village Clerk that this meeting has been duly noticed by posting a notice on the Villages' bulletin board, the Journal News newspaper, and posting a copy on the Village website. Tonight's meeting is being broadcasted live on cable television and also on YouTube. 1 (ZBA 6/17/2020) �1. Elizabeth Hill and Rachid Tbahi. 9 Irving Place. Proposed third apartment - Discussion The applicant requested adjournment via email to the July 16, 2020 meeting. No action was taken. 2. Hudson Pines. I/LC. 180 Bedford Road. Pronosed additions and alterations - Public hearing Chairman Judge read the public notice and listed the documents submitted with the application and asked Sean McCarthy to confirm that all of the mailing receipts have been received. Sean McCarthy stated that all of the mailing receipts have been received. Chairman Judge invited the applicant to present the application. Kimberly Martelli, RA is the principle of KTM Architect representing Hudson Pines, LLC. Ms. Martelli stated that the proposed indoor pool addition will be constructed on a lot that lies entirely in the Village of Sleepy Hollow. The proposed pool will connect to the existing footprint of the upper level of the Carriage House. The foundation for the pool will be constructed on the lower level and house the mechanical equipment. The proposed increase in the front yard setback from the Carriage House is sited so it will be in-line with the existing music room structure. The proposed height increase for the Carriage House is six inches more than the previously approved height increase variance and calculated by the measurement from the curb line in front of the structure to the mean of the roof slope. The proposed retaining walls will be shallow and not visible from Bedford Road. The height of the retaining wall will be more apparent from the site and service entrance ramp to the Carriage House. The proposed one-story pool house addition will be constructed in the area of an existing greenhouse and will contain bathrooms, one indoor habitable space, and an adjacent covered pergola. The required height variance is necessary because the height of the structure is measured from the street curb elevation in relation to the proposed pool house location on the property. Ms. Martelli shared the prepared renderings of proposed structures. Chairman Judge asked Kimberly Martelli to provide an update on the landscape screening enhancements along Bedford Road as per the condition of the previous approval. Kimberly Martelli shared the landscape plan and stated that there will be new trees planted in the buffer area between Bedford Road and the existing and proposed new structures. Timothy Church asked if the landscape plan is part of the application. Kimberly Martelli stated that the final landscape plan will be submitted as part of the Planning Board approval and that she would submit to the Zoning Board upon request. Chairman Judge solicited comments from the Board. Craig Lis asked Kimberly Martelli to point out where the retaining walls will be located. 2 (ZBA 6/17/2020) �Kimberly Martelli shared the rendering and the elevation drawings and explained the location of the proposed retaining walls. Chairman Judge asked if the retaining walls are below grade. Kimberly Martelli stated that the walls are below grade and that the height calculations include the guardrails. Motion was made to open the public hearing. Moved: Judge Seconded: Lis Vote 4-0 Chairman Judge solicited comments from the public. There were no comments from the public. Motion was made to close the public hearing. Moved: Judge Seconded: MacFarlane Vote 4-0 Chairman Judge stated that he had no objections to approving the application and solicited the Board members for comments. Timothy Church stated that is proposed additions are in keeping with the character of the neighborhood as the buildings are architecturally designed to appear similar to the existing structures. The new pool house is located in the area of an existing greenhouse so it is not a completely new building. The proposed 10 foot retaining wall height will not be visible to the public. The proposed landscape plan is comprehensive and will hide the new construction. Alex MacFarlane stated that the existing structures are not visible from the road so the proposed structures will not be visible. Motion was made by Chairman Judge to approve the area variance as requested based on the following criteria: 1. The proposed application is not a self-created hardship due to the existing nonconformities of the Carriage House. 2. Granting of the area variances will not be a detriment to the character of the neighborhood as it is keeping with the character of the property itself. 3. Granting of the area variance will not have a permanent adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood and drainage issues, if required, will be addressed by the Planning Board and the Village Architect. 4. Granting of the area variances is the feasible method to achieve the benefits sought by the applicant to install an indoor in-ground pool and have access to the mechanicals. 3 (ZBA 6/17/2020) �Chairman Judge stated the condition for landscape screening is not required as a Landscape Plan will be submitted and reviewed by the Planning Board. Chairman Judge stated that the application meets the requirements for a Type II action under SEQRA 617.5. Motion was made to grant the variances as requested. Moved: Judge Seconded: Church Timothy Judge, Chairman - yes Alex McFarlane - yes Craig Lis - yes Timothy Church - yes Vote: 4-0 APPROVED 4. Annroval of minutes. Mav 20. 2020 The minutes were tabled to the July 15, 2020 meeting. Motion was made to adjourn the meeting at 8:35 pm. Moved: Judge Seconded: Lis Vote 4-0 Respectfully Submitted, Pamela Kroll Secretary to the Zoning Board of Appeals 4 (ZBA 6/17/2020) � 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-2020 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_2020-06-17 Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2020 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2020 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/cbc77fe64b0963de9c60c8692498af34.pdf 38bc1b353a72edf6852301579f29e545 PDF Text Text Village of Sleepy Hollow Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting July 15, 2020 The regular meeting was held via Zoom webinar and called to order at 8:00 PM by Chairman Timothy Judge. Residents could not attend in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic, but could participate by phone and video. The Board and the applicants participated by videoconferencing. Present: Timothy Judge, Chairman Craig Lis Margaret Rubick Richard Hughes Gorete Crowe Timothy Church Alex MacFarlane Also Present: Sean McCarthy, Village Architect Absent: Pamela Kroll, Secretary to the Zoning Board Agenda: 1) Approval of minutes, May 20, 2020, June 17, 2020 Chairman Judge read the following statement: Tonight's meeting is convened in accordance with the Governor's Executive Order Number 202.1 issued March 13,2020 which suspends certain provisions of the New York State Open Meetings Law to allow a municipal board to convene a meeting via videoconferencing. In accordance with the Executive Order, the public has been provided with the ability to view tonight's meeting and public hearing, and a transcript will be provided at a later date. I have also confirmed with the Village Clerk that this meeting has been duly noticed by posting a notice on the Villages' bulletin board, the Journal News newspaper, and posting a copy on the Village website. Tonight's meeting is being broadcasted live on cable television and also on YouTube. 1. Approval of minutes - May 20, 2020, June 17, 2020 Motion was made to approve the May 20, 2020 and June 17, 2020 minutes. Moved: Judge Seconded: Rubick Timothy Judge, Chairman - yes Richard Hughes - yes Alex McFarlane - yes Gorete Crowe - yes Margaret Rubick - yes 1 (ZBA 7/15/2020) �Craig Lis - yes Timothy Church - yes Vote: 7-0 APPROVED Chairman Judge informed the Board that he has submitted his resignation to the Mayor. Motion was made to adjourn the meeting at 8:10 pm. Moved: Judge Seconded: Rubick Vote 7-0 Respectfully Submitted, PajvLoJas /Kt&M Pamela Kroll Secretary to the Zoning Board of Appeals 2 (ZBA 7/15/2020) � 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-2020 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_2020-07-15 Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2020 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2020 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/2de5ca3a48396404d67c6d11bebc7f88.pdf 19a88204faedf60ef8644a51dd41d5ee PDF Text Text Village of Sleepy Hollow Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting October 21, 2020 Chairman Timothy Church called the meeting to order at 8:00 pm. Present: Timothy Church, Chairman Margaret Rubick Richard Hughes Gorete Crowe Craig Lis Also Present: Sean McCarthy, Village Architect Clinton Smith, Village Attorney Pamela Kroll, Secretary to the Zoning Board Agenda: 1) Elizabeth Hill and Rachid Tbahi, 9 Irving Place, Proposed third apartment-Withdrawn 2) Michael and Christine Glynn, 37 Hemlock Drive, Proposed air conditioning condensers installation - Public hearing 3) Russell and Hope McAdam, 7 Farrington Avenue, Proposed patio addition - Public hearing 4) Rose Venditti, Executor, Estate of Maria Cuadrado, 123 New Broadway, Appeal Public hearing 5) Saavan Gatfield and Madhavi Shah, 2 Harwood Avenue, Proposed covered porch addition- Public hearing 6) Approval of minutes, July 15, 2020 1. Elizabeth Hill and Rachid Tbahi, 9 Irving Place, Proposed third apartment - Withdrawn Chairman Church stated that the applicants have withdrawn the application. 2. Michael and Christine Glynn, 37 Hemlock Drive, Proposed air conditioning condensers and installation - Public hearing Chairman Church read the public notice, listed the documents submitted with the application, and asked Sean McCarthy to confirm that all of the mailing receipts have been received. Sean McCarthy stated that all of the mailing receipts have been received. Chairman Church invited the applicant to present the application. 1 (ZBA 10/21/2020) �Amanda Linhart, R.A is the architect representing the applicants. Ms. Linhart stated that the applicants propose to add air conditioning to the second floor and add a second condenser unit next to the existing condenser unit next to the chimney where it exceeds the front yard set-back requirement. Michael Glynn has spoken with the neighbors and they haven't received any objections. There were no permits issued to the previous owners for the installation of the central air conditioning so the applicants are also seeking to legalize the location of the existing condenser. Chairman Church stated that the Board received a letter of support from Robert and Ellen Tobey, the owners of 34 Hemlock Drive. Chairman Church solicited comments from the Board. There were no comments from the Board. Motion was made to open the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Crowe Vote 5-0 Chairman Church solicited comments from the public. There were no comments from the public. Motion was made to close the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Crowe Vote 5-0 Motion was made by Chairman Church to approve the area variances as requested based on the following criteria: 1. Granting of the area variances will not be a detriment to the character of the neighborhood. 2. Granting of the area variances is the feasible and reasonable method to achieve the benefits sought by the applicant. 3. The requested variances are not substantial due to the existing and proposed locations of the condenser units. 4. Granting of the area variances will not have a permanent adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood 5. Although the requested variances are a self-created hardship, the benefit of granting the variances outweighs any negative impacts on the property or for the neighborhood. Motion was made to approve the area variances. Moved: Church Seconded: Crowe 2 (ZBA 10/21/2020) �Timothy Church, Chairman - yes Richard Hughes - yes Gorete Crowe - yes Margaret Rubick - yes Craig Lis - yes Vote: 5-0 APPROVED 3. Russell and Hope McAdam, 7 Farrington Avenue, Proposed patio addition- Public hearing Chairman Church read the public notice, listed the documents submitted with the application, and asked Pamela Kroll to confirm that all of the mailing receipts have been received. Pamela Kroll stated that all of the mailing receipts have been received. Chairman Church invited the applicant to present the application Hope McAdam is the owner of 7 Farrington Avenue and stated that they propose to add a flat bluestone patio in the rear yard. Chairman Church asked Mrs. McAdam if the proposed patio will be elevated. Margaret Rubick asked Mrs. McAdam if the proposed patio will be covered. Hope McAdam stated that the proposed patio will not be elevated or covered. Chairman Church asked Mrs. McAdams is the proposed patio will have railings. Hope McAdam stated that their back yard is flat and the proposed patio will be flat with no railings. Motion was made to open the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Rubick Vote 5-0 Chairman Church solicited comments from the public. There were no comments from the public. Motion was made to close the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Rubick Vote 5-0 Motion was made by Chairman Church to approve the area variance as requested based on the following criteria: 1. Granting of the area variance to construct a flat patio will not create a detriment or undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood. 3 (ZBA 10/21/2020) �2. Granting of the area variance to construct a flat patio is a feasible method to achieve the benefit sought by the applicant in lieu of an elevated deck structure. 3. The requested variance is not substantial because the proposed patio will be flat with no elevation change. 4. Granting of the area variance will not have a permanent adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 5. Although the requested variance is a self-created hardship, it is not the only consideration for granting the area variance and there are no objections from the public. Chairman Church stated granting of the area variance will include the following condition: 1. The variance will be granted for a ground level patio structure with the condition that if the current or future owners wish to change or cover the patio, they would be required to come back before the Zoning Board of Appeals. Motion was made to grant the variance as requested. Moved: Church Seconded: Lis Timothy Church, Chairman - yes Richard Hughes - yes Gorete Crowe - yes Margaret Rubick - yes Craig Lis - yes Vote: 5-0 APPROVED 4. Rose Venditti, Executor, Estate of Maria Cuadrado, 123 New Broadway, Appeal - Public hearing Chairman Church read the public notice, listed the documents submitted with the application, and asked Pamela Kroll to confirm that all of the mailing receipts have been received. Pamela Kroll stated that all of the mailing receipts have been received. Chairman Church stated that Chapter 450-80 of the Code of the Village of Sleepy Hollow details the powers and duties of the Zoning Board of Appeals and stated that the Board has the power to interpret Zoning Law and the Official Zoning Map. The Code gives the Board the authority to decide on the issuance of Special Permits and the authority to grant area and use variances. Chairman Church stated that he is not sure if the Zoning Board of Appeals has the jurisdiction to review a decision made by the Building Department. Chairman Church invited the applicant to present the application. 4 (ZBA 10/21/2020) �David E. Venditti, Esq. is a Partner of Gaines, Novick, Ponzini, Cossu & Venditti, LLP, representing the applicant. Mr. Venditti stated that as per Sean McCarthy's letter, the Zoning Board has the authority to hear and decide on an appeal of the decision of the Building Department. Mr. Venditti solicited confirmation from Clinton Smith, the Village Attorney. Clinton Smith stated that the New York Village Law says specifically that the Zoning Board of Appeals has the authority to hear the appeal application and to affirm or overrule a decision from the Building Inspector and has all the powers of the administrative official from whose order, requirement, decision, interpretation or determination the appeal is taken. Mr. Smith stated that the Zoning Board has the authority to hear the appeal and the authority to issue a decision superceding the Building Departments decision. David Venditti stated that the existing third apartment in the basement is above grade in the back of the building. Mr. Venditti stated that they are not seeking a variance. They are seeking an appeal for the denial from the Building Department and the approval for a re-issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the building that was issued as a three-family residence in 1979. Mr. Veditti stated that the denial received from the Building Department results in a nullification of the valid legal Certificate of Occupancy No. 423 dully issued on July 9, 1979 and signed twice by Building Inspector Victor Page under the authority of the Village of North Tarrytown that stated that " This property is a three (3) family non-conforming building and may continue as such. This C of O covers the enclosed rear porches. " Chairman Church asked if the Certificate of Occupancy No. 423 is included in the Building Department files. David Venditti stated that he assumes that Certificate of Occupancy No. 423 is in the Building Department files and that it was included in the request to the Building Department for the documents that were cited in the denial letter. Mr. Venditti stated that the Certificate of Occupancy No. 423 is referenced in the log book on July 9, 1979 as forwarded to the Town of Mount Pleasant contemporaneously with its issue. David Venditti stated that they were not given the file when they met with the Building Inspector so he can't confirm what is in the Building Department files but they were able to locate the Certificate of Occupancy. Chairman Church asked David Venditti where they located the Certificate of Occupancy No. 423. Rose Venditti is the Executrix of the Estate of Maria Cuadrado and stated that she found the Certificate of Occupancy No. 423 in her aunts' old files. David Venditti stated that at the time of the sale of the property in 1979, Westchester Land Records indicates that a mortgage was taken out with Tarrytown and North Tarrytown Savings and Loan Bank and that money would have been lent based on a three-family residence based on the valid and subsisting Certificate of Occupancy dully issued by a Village official in the Village of North Tarrytown. Chairman Church asked David Venditti is there are loan documents available that show a mortgage was issued based on a three-family residence. 5 (ZBA 10/21/2020) �David Venditti stated that they do not have the loan documents from 1979 but assumes that the bank would have required the issued Certificate of Occupancy and would have made income assessments of the three apartments in order to justify the lending of the money. Mr. Venditti stated that this will be problematic for many people in the Village if a forty year old Certificate of Occupancy is called into question especially if they have an existing mortgage. David Venditti read other documents issued by Building Inspector Victor Page from the Village of North Tarrytown in the years 1979 and 1980 which he contended describe the property as a non-conforming three-family residence. Mr. Venditti stated that a no violations legal pre-date letter, dated June 19, 1979 was issued and signed twice by Building Inspector Victor R. Page stating that " This building is a three (3) family non-conforming building, and such, use may be continued in its present status." Mr. Venditti stated that on September 8, 1980, a letter was issued to state that the Certificate of Occupancy No. 423 was issued to G. Giardina of 123 New Broadway of North Tarrytown. In 1979 the Village of North Tarrytown maintained a CO and Building Records hand written log book. Copies provided to them from the Building Department confirms that CO No. 423 was issued in July of 1979. Mr. Venditti stated that he submitted documents and letters dated November 26, 1997 and December 22, 1997 on a stove malfunction and a repair issue in the basement apartment. The page that is titled Sleepy Hollow Code Enforcement Program, with an inspection date of November 26, 1997 and inspected by Gary McLean as the Code Enforcement Officer, indicates that 123 New Broadway is a multiple dwelling, three-family home. At that time, no violation was issued for unlawful use as it was a legal three-family residence with a prior Certificate of Occupancy, a prior pre-date letter and supporting documentation. Mr. Venditti described the tax records, receipts, assessment rolls, building permits, and property cards that were submitted with the appeal application indicating that the property has been a consistent three-family residence. Mr. Venditti stated that he disagrees with the comment in the Building Inspectors denial letter that stated that in 1979, the Town of Mount Pleasant made written notes and decisions because the property was being used contrary to its designated use. Mr. Venditti stated that the Town of Mount Pleasant doesn't inspect any properties in the Village of Sleepy Hollow and that he recently confirmed this with Building Inspector Sal Pannelle. Mr. Venditti stated that the Town of Mount Pleasant receive documents from the Village in order to update their property cards. Chairman Church asked Building Inspector Sean McCarthy to confirm what the Certificate of Occupancy No. 423 says according the Village of Sleepy Hollow Building Department records. Sean McCarthy stated that the Building Department does not have the same document submitted by the applicant. The Village ledger book shows an entry that indicates Certificate No. 423 was issued and does not indicate the number of families. David Venditti stated that he can't speak to what became of the record that the Village submits as the Certificate of Occupancy No. 423. Margaret Rubick stated that certificates of occupancies are issued in response on the Building Permit issuance and close out process and asked Sean McCarthy to confirm. 6 (ZBA 10/21/2020) �David Venditti stated that in order to sell a three-family residence in the Village of Sleepy Hollow, you must apply for a certificate of occupancy. Upon receipt of the application and a scheduled inspection, Mr. Joseph Paiva R.A, the Zoning Inspector of the Village of Sleepy Hollow, issued a letter to state that the certificate of occupancy was denied and that the property was in violation because the basement was being occupied without the benefit of a certificate of occupancy. Margaret Rubick stated that the inspection indicated that there were items in the basement apartment that do not meet the Village of Sleepy Hollow Code requirements for a safe habitable space. David Venditti stated that since the inspection letter was issued, the basement apartment has been vacated, an Architect was hired to complete drawings to improve conditions and attach the basement space to the first floor apartment. The applicant has also applied and received an approved variance from New York State for the height deficiencies in the basement. Mr. Venditti stated that the basement apartment was inspected in 1997 stated that there are many items that pre-date and are not up to today's code but that doesn't mean that every old house should get shut down. Chairman Church asked David Venditti if the applicant disputes that the original permit was issued was to erect a two-family frame house. David Venditti stated that the applicant does not have the original building permit from 1929 and that there is no record of a certificate of occupancy issued when the house was built. Mr. Venditti stated that he doesn't know what it is in the Village's files. Chairman Church asked David Venditti if he submitted a FOIL request for the Village files. David Venditti stated that they requested copies of all the documents sited in the Building Inspectors denial letter and that they did not receive a copy of the Building Permit from 1929. Sean McCarthy stated that all the documents preceding the 1970's are indicated in a ledger book. Mr. McCarthy stated that the applicant received copies of all the Building Department records from the property file and that the applicant was offered access to personally review the Village ledger books. Mr. McCarthy stated that he and the Building Department staff researched to see if they could find any documentation that indicated that the building was a three-family residence prior to 1979 and the could not. Mr. McCarthy stated that the Building Department has reviewed the Village Zoning Codes from the years of 1926 through 1964 and the requirements for a Building Permit, a Certificate of Occupancy, and the establishment of a Zoning Board of Appeals have not changed. The Building Department acknowledges that the apartment has probably existing prior to 1979. The main issue was the failure to receive approval from the Zoning Board for a three-family use variance. Mr. McCarthy stated that he does not have the authority to change a certificate of occupancy or to continue a non-conforming use without proper documentation. Mr. McCarthy stated that in response to Margaret Rubick, a Certificate of Occupancy or a Certificate of Compliance is the document issued to close out the Building Permit or that authorizes a change in the use of the property. The Certificate of Occupancy No. 423 was issued for the permit to install three enclosed porches and is not an indication of the use. 7 (ZBA 10/21/2020) �There was a Building Permit issued for the construction of three porches and there was a Certificate of Occupancy issued for the porches. Mr. McCarthy questioned why Mr. Vendetti's copy of the Certificate of Occupancy is signed twice with one date and with language added to say that it is an existing non-conforming building and can used as a three-family. Margaret Rubick asked if the Building Inspector has the authority to decide that a building can be something different than originally designed. Sean McCarthy stated that they Building Inspector would require documentation to support the change. David Venditti stated that it shouldn't be the responsibility for the applicant to find documentation that was in the sole custody of the Village and that the current owner should not have to defend a Certificate of Occupancy that was issued over forty years ago. Mr. Venditti stated that there is clearly a large gap in the Village records. Chairman Church asked Sean McCarthy if there is any documentation to show the existence of the basement apartment was legalized through issued permits. Sean McCarthy stated that the Building Department exhausted all efforts to check previous owner records or any reference to the legalization of the three-family use. Mr. McCarthy stated that access to the files and records were given to the applicant and their team. The recent inspection completed by the Building Departments' certified inspector and registered architect raised a red flag due to the numerous Building Code violations. Mr. McCarthy stated that there is a problem with the ceiling height as the ceilings are 6 foot and drops where the pipes are and at the doorway and then 6 foot 3-4 inches in some areas. There are two steps up in the bathroom that is built underneath the front porch. The violations that were sited in 1977 were written by an inspector that was relieved of his Village duties. If an inspector witnesses that a cooking device is being plugged in with an extension cord into the boiler room, lack of light and ventilation, and lack of a second means of egress should be raised as red flags. Mr. McCarthy stated that Certificates of Occupancy that were issued after 1979 referencing the property as a two-family residence and that the owners did not report an error. Mr. McCarthy corrected David Venditti's comment in which his letter stated that the State approved the basement. Mr. McCarthy stated that the application for a ceiling height variance was submitted to New York State as per the direction from the Building Department for approval to legalize the basement space and connect it to the first floor apartment, not for the basement as an apartment space. Mr. McCarthy read a portion of the variance approval from New York State which stated "The petition pertains to alterations to an existing two-family dwelling, two stories in height located at 123 New Broadway. " Mr. McCarthy read No. 7 from the Finding of Fact from the State of New York variance determination which stated "The local code enforcement official has been consulted in this matter and does not object to the granting of a routine variance under the provisions of 19 NYCRR 1205.6. David Venditti stated that the variance application to New York State was submitted for a twofamily residence based on the information given to him by the Building Department after they received the denial to reissue the Certificate of Occupancy for a three-family residence. 8 (ZBA 10/21/2020) �Sean McCarthy stated that he is providing a response to the letter submitted by David Venditti which falsely indicated that the state approved the basement. New York State approved a routine variance for the height of the basement. David Venditti stated that the issue is that the Zoning Board is being asked to nullify a threefamily Certificate of Occupancy issued by the Village and if this precedent is set, it will place other village properties into non-compliance. Mr. Venditti stated that he objects to the characterization that is being made to the apartment. Sean McCarthy stated that they have not made a characterization and that their architect has drawn plans to correct the existing problems. David Venditti stated that they were forced to do hire an architect to draw plans to correct the problems in the basement and that they weren't informed of prior village records and a village inspection. Sean McCarthy stated that he submitted documents in response to the application letter submitted by Mr. Venditti and that the applicant was provided access to all the information that the Village has on file and that they were informed of their options. They were informed that could apply for a use variance to legalize the third apartment or apply to make the required changes to connect the basement space to the first floor apartment. Mr. McCarthy stated that the Village has factual evidence of information related to a permit for two-family residence. A conversion to a three-family residence would have been required to comply with the 1952 Multiple Residence Law. Chairman Church asked Sean McCarthy to confirm that prior to the permit issued for the rear porches, the records indicate that it was a two-family home. Sean McCarthy stated that the survey from 1951 shows that the rear porches were not constructed prior to 1952 and therefore could not have complied with the Multiple Residence Law. David Venditti stated that the front porches and the stairway to the second floor always existed. Most houses don't have a front entrance and rear porches coming down. Sean McCarthy stated that when a conversion from a two-family residence to a three-family residence is proposed, you are required to have a covered second means of egress. This is important as it shows that the house was not a three-family residence at the time of the construction of the rear porches. David Venditti asked Sean McCarthy if he surmising or if he is stating that there are Village records of a survey saying the structure was a two-family in 1951. Chairman Church stated that the Village records show that a permit was recorded to construct a two-family residence in 1928 and the next permit on record is to add two dormers, and then a permit was issued in 1959 to erect three rear open porches to the dwelling. This is the only evidence existing to suggest that there are three apartment units and it post-dates the 1952 9 (ZBA 10/21/2020) �Multiple Residence Law. The Building Department has made efforts to look for any evidence of a three-family residence prior to 1952 and has allowed the applicant to submit evidence. Sean McCarthy stated that a survey was prepared for Ceceila Ricci by Edward Martin Jr., Land Surveyor last dated April 3, 1951. David Venditti stated that the survey doesn't speak to how many apartments are in the building and that there is no way that anyone can say if the house was not a three-family in 1949 and if the rear porches were built in the 1950's to comply with the existing law. Mr. Venditti stated that he has a legal Certificate of Occupancy issued in 1979 for a three-family residence and that all the information has been surmised and he has the only factual piece of evidence. Craig Lis asked if the submitted copy of the assessment role states that the building was a threefamily residence. David Venditti stated that the building appeared as a three-family residence on the 2017 tax assessment roles. Sean McCarthy stated that the assessment role is not a valid legalizing tool. The Building Inspector of the Town of Mount Pleasant does not inspect the properties. The Assessor inspects the properties and makes notes in the margins of property card of an observed change for follow up investigation, not a legalization. David Venditti stated that the Board is at risk of creating a dangerous precedent by the Village if a legal certificate of occupancy document is overturned. Margaret Rubick stated the referenced Certificate of Occupancy No. 423 is modified by saying that the Certificate of Occupancy covers the enclosed porches. The enclosed porches are the scope of work covered in the Certificate of Occupancy. David Venditti stated that he has two documents stating that the building was a non-conforming three-family residence and that back in the 1970s, when a document didn't have all the information it needed, they wrote on it by hand and then signed it again. Chairman Church asked Sean McCarthy if any records were found to indicate the property applied for a variance for a three-family residence. Sean McCarthy stated that no records have been found to indicate the property applied for a use variance. Mr. McCarthy stated that the Code of the Village of Sleepy Hollow and New York Village Law allows for the revocation or suspension of certificates and specifically; "If the Building Inspector determines that a certificate of occupancy/certificate of compliance or a temporary certificate was issued in error because of incorrect, inaccurate or incomplete information, and if the relevant deficiencies are not corrected to the satisfaction of the Building Inspector, within such period of time as shall be specified by the Building Inspector, the Building Inspector shall revoke or suspend such certificate " The Building Department believes there was a mistake in the issuance of the previous documents. Sean McCarthy stated that they acknowledge the Certificate of Occupancy was issued for the porches. 10 (ZBA 10/21/2020) �David Venditti stated that the Building Department is missing records like the permit and certificate of occupancy for the construction of the residence in 1929. Sean McCarthy stated that the Village didn't say they are missing documents. Some of the older documents do not exist. A Building Inspector made an arbitrary decision to modify a Certificate of Occupancy document with no backup information in 1979 and then reissued in 1980 without the same information included. Richard Hughes asked David Venditti if their goal is to sell the property and if they have plans to renovate the basement to be code compliant habitable space. David Venditti stated that upon receipt of the denial letter for the certificate of occupancy, they contracted an architect to draw plans to renovate and connect the basement space to the first floor apartment. Mr. Venditti stated that during the process, they located the legal Certificate of Occupancy that was issued in 1979. Richard Hughes stated that he agrees with Sean McCarthy to say that the Certificate of Occupancy references the permit issued for the porches and does not confirm a three-family residence. Margaret Rubick stated that the Building Inspector did not have the authority to change the Zoning of the property. David Venditti stated that there are numerous records missing so there is no way to confirm whether or not the Building Inspector changed the zoning of the property. Chairman Church stated that there are not records missing from prior to 1952 as the ledger was provided to review what permits were applied for and issued. David Venditti asked where the prior application documents are located. Sean McCarthy stated that the documents recorded in the ledger were disposed of and the ledger is certified by the Village Clerk. Sean McCarthy stated that non-conformity can only be established when the use of the property was established prior to the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance. This means that when you have a permit to construct a two-family house and the Zoning Ordinance changes, it isn't nonconforming, it remains a conforming use. Motion was made to open the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Crowe Vote 5-0 Clinton Smith stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals should accept the State of New York Variance for the property into the public record. Chairman Church solicited comments from the public. 11 (ZBA 10/21/2020) �Robert Ponzini is an attorney from Gaines, Novick, Ponzini, Cossu & Venditti LLP. Mr. Ponzini stated that he disagrees with the decision from Building Inspector Sean McCarthy. Mr. Ponzini stated that he can't discuss the records prior to 1979 or whether a past Building Inspector allowed for construction to be completed. Mr. Ponzini stated that cases are won and lost on proof, not speculation. If you have an official document from a municipality it should be given a high degree of respect for evidence. Mr. Ponzini stated that the Board will make a ruling based on the law but that there is also a doctrine in New York Law called Laches which means that when something is done for a long period of time, you can't put the burden on another person based on failure to enforce it. Mr. Ponzini stated that it would be a disservice not to allow the building to be a three-family residence. There were no additional comments from the public. Motion was made to close the public hearing. Moved: Chairman Church Seconded: Rubick Vote 5-0 Motion was made to go into Executive Session with the Village Attorney at 9:40 PM. Moved: Chairman Church Seconded: Lis Vote 5-0 Motion was made to leave the Executive Session at 10:00 PM. Moved: Chairman Church Seconded: Rubick Vote 5-0 Chairman Church solicited additional comments from the applicant. David Venditti stated that he has no additional comments. A motion was made to reject the re-interpretation of Mr. McCarthy's denial to issue a Certificate of Occupancy for a three-family residence based on the following criteria: 1. The Zoning Board of Appeals and the Building Inspector have the ability to review the propriety of prior certificates of occupancy. 2. There is a Village ledger book that indicates that the building was built in 1928-1929 as a two-family residence. 3. Exhausted searches of the Building Department records, the Village ledger books and the Zoning Board of Appeals minutes and decisions from 1929 to 1979 revealed that no actions were taken to convert the building from a two-family to a three-family residence. 4. The Certificate of Occupancy document submitted by the applicant dated July 9, 1979 stated that the certificate covers the enclosed rear porches. The other letters submitted are not proof that steps were taken to convert the building into a three-family home. 5. There is a precedent of rejection for another property for a prior application in which the Zoning Board of Appeals rejected an appeal for the refusal from the Building Department 12 (ZBA 10/21/2020) �to issue a certificate of occupancy for a four-family residence where Village records did not reveal it was a legal four-family residence. 6. The Building Inspector does not have the authority to override the Zoning Code. The decision made by the Building Inspector Sean McCarthy in refusing to reissue a certificate of occupancy issued in error was within his proper exercise of discretion. Motion was made to deny the interpretation appeal as requested. Moved: Church Seconded: Rubick Timothy Church, Chairman- yes Richard Hughes - yes Gorete Crowe - yes Margaret Rubick - yes Craig Lis - yes Vote: 5-0 APPROVED 5. Saavan Gatfield and Madhavi Shah, 2 Harwood Avenue, Proposed covered porch addition- Public hearing Chairman Church read the public notice, listed the documents submitted with the application, and asked Pamela Kroll to confirm that all of the mailing receipts have been received. Pamela Kroll stated that all of the mailing receipts have been received. Craig Lis stated that he resides within the public notification area so he is recusing himself from voting on the application. Chairman Church informed the applicant that there will be only four voting members of the Board for the application and therefore the vote must be unanimous. Chairman Church invited the applicant to present the application Frank Tancredi is the architect representing the applicant and stated that they propose to construct a covered front porch. Mr. Tangredi stated that the existing front stoop consists of concrete and bluestone and is in need of repair from exposure to the weather. The house is situated on a corner lot and they propose to stay consistent with the original zoning of the property from 1963 when Harwood Avenue was the legal frontage. Chairman Church asked Frank Tancredi if the proposed porch would be enclosed. Frank Tancredi stated that they proposed porch will be an open structure with a roof and railings. Gorette Crowe asked if the bushes in the front of the house would need to be removed. Frank Tancredi stated that some of the bushes would need to be removed to create the new walkway and others will be trimmed back. 13 (ZBA 10/21/2020) �Richard Hughes asked if the proposed sidewalk will follow the existing path. Frank Tancredi stated that they plan on extended the walkway straight out to the street. Sean McCarthy stated that the proposed depth of the porch at (7) feet is the minimum variance that would allow space for people sitting and that any less wouldn't be practical for the benefit sought by the applicant. Motion was made to open the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Crowe Vote 5-0 Chairman Church solicited comments from the public. There were no comments from the public. Motion was made to close the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Rubick Vote 5-0 Motion was made by Chairman Church to approve the area variance as requested based on the following criteria: 1. Granting of the area variance will not create and undesirable change to the neighborhood as it will be an improvement to the aesthetics of the property. 2. The requested area variance is not substantial and it is the minimum variance in depth that will allow the applicant to construct a porch that can safety accommodate people sitting on it. 3. Granting of the area variance will not have a permanent adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood as it is not an enclosed structure. 4. Granting of the area variances is the feasible method to achieve the benefits sought by the applicant 5. Although the requested variance is self-created hardship, it is not the only consideration for granting the area variance and there have been no objections from the public. Motion was made to grant the variance as requested. Moved: Church Seconded: Rubick Timothy Church, Chairman- yes Richard Hughes - yes Gorete Crowe - yes Margaret Rubick - yes 14 (ZBA 10/21/2020) �Craig Lis - abstained Vote: 4-0-1 APPROVED 6. Approval of minutes - July 15, 2020 Motion was made to approve the July 15, 2020 minutes. Moved: Church Seconded: Lis Timothy Church, Chairman - yes Gorete Crowe - yes Margaret Rubick - yes Craig Lis - yes Richard Hughes - yes Vote: 5-0 APPROVED Motion was made to adjourn the meeting at 10:30 pm. Moved: Church Seconded: Rubick Vote 5-0 Respectfully Submitted, Pamela Kroll Secretary to the Zoning Board of Appeals 15 (ZBA 10/21/2020) � 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-2020 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_2020-10-21 Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2020 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2020 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/fbb98c86d64203d8fdc57fd930e2a7bd.pdf c79ae5d30650ea2e50ef0467d9755475 PDF Text Text RESOLUTION Adopted at the October 21,2020 Meeting of the Village of Sleepy Hollow Zoning Board of Appeals RESOLUTION: Interpretation/Appeal PROPOSED: Appeal of Building Inspectors denial to issue a certificate of occupancy for a three-family residence LOCATION: 123 New Broadway TAX MAP DESIGNATION: Section 115.7, Block 3, Lot 38 ZONING DISTRICT: R-4 WHEREAS, on September 15, 2020 an application was submitted by Ms. Rose Venditti, Executrix of the Estate of Maria Cuadrado (the "Applicant") to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "ZBA") to appeal the Building Inspector's denial of a certificate of occupancy for a threefamily residence (the "Application") pursuant to Chapter 450, Article XII of the Zoning Code of the Village of Sleepy Hollow; and WHEREAS, the Applicants are seeking an appeal from Article XII, Section 450-80.B.(2) of the Zoning Code, Powers and Duties, alleging that the Building Inspector is in error in his refusal to grant a certificate of occupancy for a three-family residence; and WHEREAS, the ZBA held a duly noticed public hearing on October 21,2020 to hear and consider the application; and WHEREAS, the ZBA has reviewed the following documents submitted by the applicant for consideration as well as the oral presentations to the ZBA: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Zoning Board of Appeals application fee Zoning Board of Appeals escrow deposit Denial letter from the Building Department, dated September 8, 2020 Zoning Board of Appeals application Parts 1-4 signed by Mr. Rose Venditti, Executor Zoning Compliance Form, signed by Jorge B. Hernandez, R.A, dated September 11, 2020 Short Environmental Assessment Form Part-1 Project information, signed by Jorge B. Hernandez, R.A, dated September 11, 2020 Letter prepared by David E. Venditti, Esq., Partner of Gaines, Novick, Ponzini, Cossu & Venditti, LLP, dated September 14, 2020 Property deed recorded August 27,1979 Survey of property prepared by Edward J. Martin Jr., dated April 3,1951 Photograph of existing conditions Tax parcel map Page 1 of 4 �12. Form letter, signed by Victor R. Page, Building Inspector, dated June 19,1979 13. Certificate of Occupancy No. 423 issued to G. Girardina by the Building Department of North Tarrytown, NY, dated July 9,1979 14. Ledger page 139 recording that a Certificate of Occupancy #423 was issued to G. Girardina in July of 1979 15. Form letter dated September 8,1980 (not signed) 16. Town of Mount Pleasant Property Record Card 17. Village of North Tarrytown Property Card 18. Inspection letter sent to Mr. Roque Cuadrado dated December 22,1977, signed by James T. Margotta, Building Inspector including inspection results prepared by Gary McLean, CEO 19. Letter to Superior Data dated November 5, 2019 20. 2017 Final Village Assessment Roll dated January 1, 2017 21. Village of Sleepy Hollow 2016 tax payment receipt 22. Village of Sleepy Hollow 2018 tax statement 23. State of New York Department of State variance determination decision dated August 19, 2020 WHEREAS, testimony was received from David E. Venditti, Esq., Partner of Gaines, Novick, Ponzini, Cossu & Venditti, LLP, who presented the application on behalf of the Applicant, and stated that they are seeking an appeal for the denial issued by Building Inspector to issue a certificate of occupancy for the building as a three-family residence. Mr. Venditti stated that the Certificate of Occupancy No. 423 was issued on July 9,1979 and signed by Building Inspector Page under the authority of the Village of North Tarrytown is a legal document which stated the property is a three-family non-conforming building and may continue as such. Mr. Venditti provided tax records, receipts, tax assessment roles, building permits, and property cards that indicate that the property has been a consistent three-family residence and; WHEREAS, testimony was received from Clinton Smith, the Village Attorney stating that New York Village Law says specifically that the Zoning Board of Appeals has the authority to hear the appeal application and to affirm or overrule a decision from the Building Department and has all powers of the administrative office from whose order, requirement, decision, interpretation or determination the appeal is taken. The Zoning Board of Appeals has the authority to hear the appeal and the authority to issue a decision superceding the Building Departments' decision and; WHEREAS, testimony was received from Building Inspector Sean McCarthy stating that efforts were made by the Building Department to find any and all records to indicate measures were taken to legalize a three-family residence occupancy prior to 1979. There are no records showing approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals for a three-family use variance. A conversion to a three-family residence would have been required to comply with the 1952 Multiple Residence Law and the current basement apartment lacks several building code requirements that would have been required by the Law. The Code of the Village of Sleepy Hollow and the New York Village Law allows for the revocation or suspension of certificates and specifically that if the Building Inspector determines that a certificate of occupancy/certificate of compliance or a temporary certificate was issued in error because of incorrect, inaccurate or incomplete information, and if the relevant deficiencies are not corrected to the satisfaction of the Building Inspector within such period of time as shall be specified by the Building Page 2 of 4 �Inspector, then the Building Inspector shall revoke or suspend such certificate. There are no records showing approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals for a three-family use variance; and WHEREAS, testimony was received from Robert Ponzini, an attorney from Gaines, Novick, Ponzini, Cossu & Venditti LLP stating that he disagrees with the decision from the Building Inspector Sean McCarthy and that an official document from a municipality should be given a high degree of respect for evidence. Mr. Ponzini referenced a doctrine from New York Law and stated that Laches says that when something is done for a long period of time, you can't put the burden on another person based on failure to enforce it and; BE IT RESOLVED, after due consideration the ZBA makes the following determination: 1. The Zoning Board of Appeals and the Building Inspector have the ability to review the propriety of prior certificates of occupancy. 2. There is a Village ledger book that indicates that the building was built in 1928-1929 as a twofamily residence. 3. Exhausted searches of the Building Department records, the Village ledger books and the Zoning Board of Appeals minutes and decisions from 1929 to 1952 revealed that no actions were taken to convert the building from a two-family to a three-family residence. 4. The Certificate of Occupancy document submitted by the applicant dated July 9,1979 stated that the certificate covers the enclosed rear porches. The other letters submitted are not proof that steps were taken to convert the building into a three-family home. 5. There is a precedent of rejection from a prior application in which the Zoning Board of Appeals rejected an appeal for the refusal from the Building Inspector to issue a certificate of occupancy for a four-family residence where the Village records did not reveal it was a legal four-family residence. 6. The Building Inspector does not have the authority to override the Zoning Code. The decision made by the Building Inspector in refusing to re issue a certificate of occupancy issue in error was within his proper exercise of discretion. Page 3 of 4 �BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the interpretation/appeal requested by the Applicant was denied and will remain in effect until amended, repealed or otherwise changed, in whole or in part, by the Village of Sleepy Hollow and; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Applicants may obtain the endorsed approval of the ZBA Chairman on a copy of this resolution. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Date Tirrtgthy Church, Chairman , ^—the undersigned Clerk/Deputy Clerk, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a copy of an extract duly adopted by the Board of Trustees/Planning/Zoning of the Village of Sleepy Hollow, on the j I day of 20, V and of the whole thereof, and I further certify that the same was entered into the minutes of the meeting of said Board of Trustees/Planning/Zon[ng held on said date IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and offjcia^seaj) thisj^2__day of M C d r r J ^ 20 U Jlerk/DeputyClerk 7 Page 4 of 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-2020 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_2020-10-21_123-New-Broadway-Approved-Resolution Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2020 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2020 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/d63cbb4b9efdd79cf79d8b8a495de20f.pdf 8597a19afb98e7288c3651f18bfaeb06 PDF Text Text RESOLUTION Adopted at the October 21, 2020 Meeting of the Village of Sleepy Hollow Zoning Board of Appeals RESOLUTION: Area Variance PROPOSED: Covered Front Porch Addition LOCATION: 2 Harwood Avenue TAX MAP DESIGNATION: Section 110.19, Block 2, Lot 63 ZONING DISTRICT: R-2 WHEREAS, on September 15, 2020 an application was submitted by Saavan Gatfield (the "Applicant") to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "ZBA") requesting an area variance to construct a covered front porch addition (the "Application") pursuant to the Article XII of the Zoning Code of the Village of Sleepy Hollow; and WHEREAS, the Applicants are seeking a variance from Article VI, Section 450-35 of the Zoning Code, Schedule of regulations, where the minimum front yard set-back is 30.00 feet, the existing front yard set-back is 30.41 feet and the proposed front yard set-back is 23.50 feet; and WHEREAS, the ZBA has reviewed the following documents for consideration as well as the oral presentations to the ZBA: 1. Zoning Board of Appeals application signed by Saavan Gatfield dated September 15,2020 2. Zoning Compliance Form signed by Frank Joseph Tancredi, architect, dated September 14, 2020 3. Short Environmental Assessment Form Part-1 Project information, signed by Saavan Gatfield and Madhavi Sham, dated September 15, 2020 4. Property deed recorded June 27, 2020 5. Survey prepared by David Scott Freeman, dated March 25,2011 6. Photographs of existing conditions 7. Construction drawings prepared by Frank Tancredi Architect, dated September 10,2020: a. Z-l Plot Plan & Zoning Analysis b. Z-2 Floor Plans & Elevations WHEREAS, the ZBA held a duly noticed public hearing on October 21, 2020 to hear and consider the application; and WHEREAS, testimony was received from Frank Tancredi, Architect who presented the Application on behalf of the Applicants and stated that they propose to construct a covered front porch in the front yard set-back. The house is situated on a corner lot and they propose to stay consistent with the original zoning of the property from 1963 when Harwood Avenue was the legal frontage. The proposed porch Page 1 of 3 �will be an open structure with a roof and railings and a new walkway path will be installed extending out to the street; and WHEREAS, testimony was received from Sean McCarthy to stated that the proposed (7) feet depth is the minimum variance that would allow enough space for people to sit on the porch. WHEREAS, in making its determination as to whether the applicant should be granted the area variances, the ZBA considered the following factors: 1) whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance; 2) whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance; 3) whether the requested area variance is substantial; 4) whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and 5) whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the board of appeals, but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that ZBA, after review of the materials submitted, public comments, including written correspondence and recommendations, has determined that in accordance with the criteria set forth in Part 617.7 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and based upon review of the Environmental Assessment Form, all of the documents submitted to the ZBA and all other materials which were prepared and submitted, the ZBA determines the application meets the requirements for a Type II action under SEQRA 617.5 and therefore requires no further processing under SEQRA; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, after due consideration, the ZBA makes the following determination: 1. Granting of the area variance will not create an undesirable change to the neighborhood and that it will be an improvement to the aesthetics of the property. 2. The requested area variance is not substantial and it is the minimum variance in depth that will allow the application to construct a porch that can safely accommodate people sitting on it. 3. Granting of the area variance will not have a permanent adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood as it is not an enclosed structure. 4. Granting of the area variance is a feasible method to achieve the benefits sought by the applicant. 5. Although the requested variance is a self-created hardship, it is not the only consideration for granting area variance and there have been no objections from the public. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the area variance requested by the Applicants is granted approval subject to the land and will remain in effect until amended, repealed or otherwise changed, in whole or in part, by the Village of Sleepy Hollow and; Page 2 of 3 �BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Applicants may obtain the endorsed approval of the ZBA Chairman on a copy of this resolution. This approval shall expire (1) year after the date of this resolution if the conditions have not been completed to the satisfaction of the ZBA and the Department of Architecture, Land Use Development, Buildings and Building Compliance and the Applicants has not obtained the required Building Permit for construction in accordance with the approved plan. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW / Timothy Church, Chairman w A o Date 'the undersigned ^lerk/Deputy Clerk, do hereby certif/that the foregoing is a Irue copy of an extract duly adopted by the Board of T r u s t e e s / P l a n n i n ^ ^ i D g ^ f the Village of Sleepy Hollow, on the & \ day of f l j ^ M ^ , 20 L Q and of the whole thereof, and I further certify that the s a m e w a s entered into the minutes of the meeting of said Board of Trustees/Plannii^/Zoning held on said date. m i T u r o f vAMir-ngp^ j h a v e hereunto set my hand -- (0 day of. <JXZ Q^U J W Q / Clerk/Deputy Clerk Page 3 of 3 � 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-2020 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_2020-10-21_2-Harwood-Avenue-Approved-Resolution Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2020 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2020 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/3bbdc5ac5ffed46d157674c0f7aa36f8.pdf 056d5acf47a692b7eb51acae0a2e91f3 PDF Text Text RESOLUTION Adopted at the October 21, 2020 Meeting of the Village of Sleepy Hollow Zoning Board of Appeals RESOLUTION: Area Variances PROPOSED: Installation of air conditioning condensers LOCATION: 37 Hemlock Drive TAX MAP DESIGNATION: Section 110.11, Block 1, Lot 41 ZONING DISTRICT: R-2A WHEREAS, on September 14, 2020 an application was submitted by Michael and Christine Glynn (the "Applicants") to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "ZBA") requesting area variances to install air conditioning condensers (the "Application") pursuant to the Article XII of the Zoning Code of the Village of Sleepy Hollow; and WHEREAS, the Applicants are seeking a variance from Article VI, Section 450-34.B of the Zoning Code, Applicability of regulations, adding to and altering an existing non-conforming building, where the required minimum lot area is 15,000 feet and the existing lot area is 14,266 feet; and WHEREAS, the Applicants are seeking a variance from Article VI, Section 450-34.B of the Zoning Code, Applicability of regulations, adding to and altering an existing non-conforming building, where the minimum required lot width is 100.00 feet and the existing lot width is 97.00 feet; and WHEREAS, the Applicants are seeking a variance from Article VI, Section 450-34.B of the Zoning Code, Applicability of regulations, adding to and altering an existing non-conforming building, where the minimum front yard set-back is 30.00 feet and the existing front yard set-back is 29.80 feet; and WHEREAS, the Applicants are seeking a variance from Article VI, Section 450-35 of the Zoning Code, Schedule of regulations, where the minimum one side yard set-back is 10.00 feet, the existing one side yard set-back is 12.93 feet and the proposed one side yard set-back is 7.88 feet; and WHEREAS, the ZBA has reviewed the following documents for consideration as well as the oral presentations to the ZBA: 1. Zoning Board of Appeals application signed by Michael Glynn, dated September 11, 2020 2. Zoning Compliance Form signed by Amanda Linhart, Architect, dated September 11, 2020 3. Short Environmental Assessment Form Part-1 Project information, signed by Amanda Linhart, Architect, dated September 11, 2020 4. Property deed recorded November 5, 2020 5. Survey prepared by Charles Riley Land Surveyor, last revised on November 30,1982 6. Photographs of existing conditions Page 1 of 3 �7. Construction drawings prepared by Amanda Linhart, Architect dated September 9, 2020: a. A-001.00 - Title Sheet b. A-100.00 - Basement Plan & Site Plan WHEREAS, the ZBA held a duly noticed public hearing October 21, 2020 to hear and consider the application; and WHEREAS, testimony was received from Amanda Linhart, Architect who presented the Application on behalf of the Applicants and stated that they propose adding air conditioning to the second floor of the house and seek approval to add a second condenser unit next to the existing unit located next to the chimney, where it exceeds the front yard set-back requirement. The applicants are also seeking to legalize the installation of central air conditioning work and the existing condenser location previously installed without the benefit of a Building Permit. WHEREAS, the ZBA received a letter submitted by Robert and Ellen Tobey, the owners of 34 Hemlock Drive in support of the application. WHEREAS, in making its determination as to whether the applicant should be granted the area variances, the ZBA considered the following factors: 1) whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance; 2) whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance; 3) whether the requested area variance is substantial; 4) whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and 5) whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the board of appeals, but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that ZBA, after review of the materials submitted, public comments, including written correspondence and recommendations, has determined that in accordance with the criteria set forth in Part 617.7 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and based upon review of the Environmental Assessment Form, all of the documents submitted to the ZBA and all other materials which were prepared and submitted, the ZBA determines the application meets the requirements for a Type II action under SEQRA 617.5 and therefore requires no further processing under SEQRA; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, after due consideration, the ZBA makes the following determination: 1. Granting of the area variances will not be an undesirable change or detriment to the character of the neighborhood. 2. Granting of the area variances is the feasible and reasonable method to achieve the benefits sought by the applicant. 3. The requested variances are not substantial due to the existing and proposed locations of the air conditioner condenser units. Page 2 of 3 �4. Granting of the area variances will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 5. Although the requested variances are a self-created hardship, the benefit of the granting of the variances outweighs any negative impacts on the property or for the neighborhood. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the area variances requested by the Applicants are granted approval subject to the land and will remain in effect until amended, repealed or otherwise changed, in whole or in part, by the Village of Sleepy Hollow and; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Applicants may obtain the endorsed approval of the ZBA Chairman on a copy of this resolution. This approval shall expire (1) year after the date of this resolution if the conditions have not been completed to the satisfaction of the ZBA and the Department of Architecture, Land Use Development, Buildings and Building Compliance and the Applicants has not obtained the required Building Permit for construction in accordance with the approved plan. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Date true copy of an extract duly adopted by the Board of Trustees/Plannin^Zoning of the Village of Sleepy Hollow, on the # I day of and of the whole thereof, and I further certify that the same was entered into the minutes of the meeting of said Board of Trustees/Pianniq^/Zoning held on said date. IN W I T N F S S W H F R E O F . I have hereunto set my hand Page 3 of 3 � 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-2020 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_2020-10-21_37-Hemlock-Drive-Approved-Resolution Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2020 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2020 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/18e8e2c809602b7de5a92cf7c9efab70.pdf 467cee273cd569bd700dba368ffbec3f PDF Text Text RESOLUTION Adopted at the October 21,2020 Meeting of the Village of Sleepy Hollow Zoning Board of Appeals RESOLUTION: Area Variance PROPOSED: Patio addition LOCATION: 7 Farrington Avenue TAX MAP DESIGNATION: Section 110.19, Block 1, Lot 74 ZONING DISTRICT: R-2 WHEREAS, on September 14, 2020 an application was submitted by Russell and Hope McAdams (the "Applicants") to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "ZBA") requesting an area variance to construct a patio addition (the "Application") pursuant to the Article XII of the Zoning Code of the Village of Sleepy Hollow; and WHEREAS, the Applicants are seeking a variance from Article VI, Section 450-35 of the Zoning Code, Schedule of regulations, where the minimum rear yard set-back is 25.00 feet, the existing rear yard setback is 26.00 feet and the proposed rear yard set-back is 15.67 feet; and WHEREAS, the ZBA has reviewed the following documents for consideration, as well as the oral presentations to the ZBA: 1. Zoning Board of Appeals application signed by Russell and Hope McAdam, dated September 11, 2020 2. Zoning Board of Appeals determination letter prepared by Sean McCarthy, Building Inspector, dated September 2,2020 3. Zoning Compliance Form signed by Amanda Linhart, R.A., dated September 14, 2020 4. Short Environmental Assessment Form Part-1 Project information, signed by Amanda Linhart, R.A., dated September 14,2020 5. Property deed recorded February 9,1995 6. Survey prepared by Charles Riley Land Surveyor, dated June 27,1994 7. Photographs of existing conditions 8. Construction drawings prepared by Amanda Linhart, R.A. dated September 11,2020: a. A-001.00 - Title Sheet b. A-002.00-Site Plan WHEREAS, the ZBA held a duly noticed public hearing on October 21, 2020 to hear and consider the application; and Page 1 of 3 �WHEREAS, testimony was received from Hope McAdams who presented the Application and stated that they propose to add a flat bluestone patio in the rear yard. The proposed patio will be not be elevated or covered and will not have railings. WHEREAS, in making its determination as to whether the applicant should be granted the area variances, the ZBA considered the following factors: 1) whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance; 2) whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance; 3) whether the requested area variance is substantial; 4) whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and 5) whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the board of appeals, but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that ZBA, after review of the materials submitted, public comments, including written correspondence and recommendations, has determined that in accordance with the criteria set forth in Part 617.7 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and based upon review of the Environmental Assessment Form, all of the documents submitted to the ZBA and all other materials which were prepared and submitted, the ZBA determines the application meets the requirements for a Type II action under SEQRA 617.5 and therefore requires no further processing under SEQRA; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, after due consideration the ZBA makes the following determination: 1. Granting of the area variance will not create an undesirable change or be a detriment to the character of the neighborhood. 2. Granting of the area variance is a feasible method to achieve the benefit sought by the applicant in lieu of an elevated deck structure. 3. The requested variance is not substantial because the proposed patio with be flat with no elevation change. 4. Granting of the proposed area variance will not have a permanent adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 5. Although the requested variance is a self-created hardship, it is not the only consideration for granting the area variance and there are no objections from the public. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the area variance requested by the Applicants are granted approval subject to the land and will remain in effect until amended, repealed or otherwise changed, in whole or in part, by the Village of Sleepy Hollow and; Page 2 of 3 �BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Application to the ZBA is hereby granted approval for the variance with the following condition: 1. The area variance will be granted for a ground level patio structure. If the current or future owners wish to change or cover the patio, they would be required to come back to the Zoning Board of Appeals. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Applicants may obtain the endorsed approval of the ZBA Chairman on a copy of this resolution. This approval shall expire (1) year after the date of this resolution if the conditions have not been completed to the satisfaction of the ZBA and the Department of Architecture, Land Use Development, Buildings and Building Compliance and the Applicants has not obtained the required Building Permit for construction in accordance with the approved plan. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW » 2 undersigned ^ler^/Deputy Clerk; do hereby certify that the foregoing is a I rtrue u e (copy of an extract duly adopted by the Board of the whole thereof, and I further certify that the same was entered into the minutes of the meeting of said Board Page 3 of 3 � 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-2020 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_2020-10-21_7-Farrington-Avenue-Approved-Resolution Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2020 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2020 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/2fb575db0b97c22a680c292dd91351f0.pdf 5d36d4ae7f614e1dead718bf8dcf64ef PDF Text Text Village of Sleepy Hollow Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting November 18, 2020 Chairman Timothy Church called the meeting to order at 8:00 pm. Present: Timothy Church, Chairman Richard Hughes Gorete Crowe Craig Lis Also Present: Sean McCarthy, Village Architect Pamela Kroll, Secretary to the Zoning Board Absent: Margaret Rubick Agenda: 1) Dickerson and Jennifer Miles, 3 Terrace Close, Proposed one story addition and screened-in porch -Public hearing 2) Approval of minutes, October 21, 2020 1. Dickerson and Jennifer Miles, 3 Terrace Close, Proposed one story addition and screened-in porch - Public hearing Chairman Church read the public notice and listed the documents submitted with the application. Chairman Church stated that a letter was received tonight from Niall Cain dated November 17, 2020. Letters were also received from Phelps Hospital, Marie and Robert Guarnieri of 1 Terrace Close, Joan Levy and Richard Weiss of 2 Terrace Close, and Arthur Brady of 41 Hemlock Drive. (See attached exhibits) Chairman Church asked Sean McCarthy to confirm that all of the mailing receipts have been received. Sean McCarthy stated that all of the mailing receipts have been received. Chairman Church stated that since there are only four members of the Board present, the vote must be unanimous to make any decisions. The applicant will have the option to adjourn the hearing until the next meeting. Chairman Church invited the applicant to present the application. Niall Cain is the architect representing the applicant. Mr. Cain presented the survey and stated that the lot is an unusual size. The property is located adjacent to Phelps Hospital with a wooded area behind the house and a parking area beyond. Mr. Cain stated that the proposed rear 1 (ZBA 11/18/2020) �additions will not be visible from the street or the adjacent neighboring properties on each side. Mr. Cain presented photographs of the existing house. Mr. Cain presented the existing and the proposed floor plans and elevation drawings and stated that the proposed single story additions will include a larger kitchen and the conversion of the existing kitchen into a mudroom and a butler's pantry. The proposed additions will also include a family room and a screened-in-porch to the west. Mr. Cain stated that the proposed additions will not adversely affect the character of the neighborhood or be a detriment to the nearby properties. The benefit sought by the applicant is the only feasible way to connect a new kitchen to the existing dining room; and putting the additions on the rear of the house is less intrusive or visible from the adjacent neighbors or the street. Chairman Church stated if the additions were proposed to the west they may not require a variance for the side yard set-back. Niall Cain stated that it would not make sense to have the kitchen on the other side of the house, away from the existing dining room. Mr. Cain stated that although the requested rear yard setback variance is substantial, the building coverage of the existing house and the proposed addition is only 14 percent or 3,526 square feet, and is well under the maximum 20 percent or 5,173 permitted square feet according to the Zoning regulations. Chairman Church questioned the existing conditions of the rear yard. Niall Cain stated that the existing rear yard is a strip of land that is dense and shaded. The unusual configuration of the existing lot creates a difficulty and should not be considered a selfcreated hardship. Chairman Church asked if the existing rear yard is grass. Niall Cain presented the photographs of the rear of the house and stated that it is not currently used as a rear yard for the property. Chairman Church asked if there are utilities running through the back yard. Niall Cain stated there are no utility lines running through the backyard or from the Phelps property and that it would be verified prior to any construction. Chairman Church stated that the front yard set-back is 25 feet and that the house is 38.5 feet away from the front yard set-back. There is a 15 foot side yard set-back from the west and a substantial side yard set-back on the east side which would allow them make the house substantially bigger. The applicants are proposing rear additions that would only potentially be seen by the adjacent property owners and will not be visible to a resident in the rear as the property is owned by Phelps Memorial Hospital. Niall Cain stated that Phelps Memorial Hospital has submitted a letter stating that they have no issues with the proposed additions and that the neighbors from the east and west have no objections. 2 (ZBA 11/18/2020) �Chairman Church stated that the proposed rear additions will not cause any environmental impact to the neighborhood as they will not be constructed in the wetlands. Niall Cain stated that there are no environmental considerations related to the proposed additions. Chairman Church solicited comments from the Board. Gorete Crowe stated that she is concerned that Phelps Memorial Hospital may want to expand the parking area in the future and that if the proposed variances are approved, there will only be nine feet between the applicants' house and the Phelps property, separated only by trees. Niall Cain stated that the proximity to the existing trees are not an issue and that they are not proposing to remove any trees on the property for the proposed additions. Mr. Cain stated that based on the letter that Phelps submitted, it would seem that they do not anticipate future construction that may impact the approval of the proposed additions. Dickerson Miles is the owner of 3 Terrace Close and stated that one of the reasons for the design of the proposed rear addition is to shift the current views of the hospital property from the living room and the kitchen to the east and the west by installing smaller high windows towards the north. Niall Cain stated that the proposed additions will benefit privacy in a positive way. Richard Hughes asked Niall Cain for the distance from the rear property line to the existing driveway that belongs to Phelps Memorial Hospital. Niall Cain stated that the rear property line to the Phelps Hospital driveway is approximately a few hundred feet and that due to the wooded areas in between, the driveway is not visible from the applicants' property line. Chairman Church stated that he is not sure that the wooded area between the applicants' property and Phelps Memorial Hospital is permitted for legal development. Craig Lis stated that although 9 feet seems substantial, every regulation does not fit every exact situation and that is where the role of the Zoning Board of Appeals comes in. Mr. Lis asked for confirmation that 3 Terrace Close is a dead end street and that there is currently one neighbor on each side and a wooded area in the back of the house. Niall Cain stated that the house is on a dead end street with two neighbors on the sides and a wooded area in the back. Chairman Church stated that if the additions were proposed on the front or the sides of the house it would create more of an aesthetic burden on the neighborhood. Motion was made to open the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Hughes 3 Vote 4-0 (ZBA 11/18/2020) �Chairman Church solicited comments from the public. Marie Guarnieri is the owner of 1 Terrace Close and stated that the proposed additions would be barely visible from the far rear yard of their property. Mrs. Guarnieri stated that Phelps Memorial Hospital would need to tear down the existing parking lot to further develop the area behind the applicants' house because the wooded area is not level and overgrown. Mrs. Guarnieri stated that she supports the approval of the application. Katrina Lempenski is the owner of 4 Terrace Close and stated that her property is diagonal to the Miles residence. Mrs. Lempenski stated that she is unable to see their house from her property and that she supports the approval of the application. Mrs. Lempenski stated that she thinks it is important for the Zoning Board to demonstrate their willingness to hear cases like this and that there is flexibility for working on homes that are purchased in Sleepy Hollow. There were no further comments from the public. Motion was made to close the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Lis Vote 4-0 Chairman Judge solicited comments from the Board. Gorete Crowe stated that she has concerns in granting the variance for the 9 feet and if the Board approves the application it may create a precedence for future homes in the area. Craig Lis stated that there should be considerations related to where the proposed additions will abut, the size of the existing property, and where the house sits on the property. Niall Cain stated that setting precedence is important but that the Board should take into account that the condition of this property and its visibility creates different circumstances that need to be considered. Jennifer Miles is the owner of 3 Terrace Close and stated that they are requesting that an exception be made outside of the normal Zoning regulations of the required rear yard set-back of 25 feet because their lot size is irregular and the backyard is not useful to them. Richard Hughes stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals will be responsible for defending the precedent in future applications. Jennifer Miles stated that every application should stand on its own based on the situation, and requested that the circumstances are taken into account with their decision without creating a precedent. Craig Lis stated that exceptions for pie shaped properties have been made in the past without creating an issue of precedent because it was a unique shaped lot. 4 (ZBA 11/18/2020) �Chairman Church stated that the property is a narrow width lot with lengthy side yards, and where they propose the rear yard additions are not towards someone else's back yard but in the back of a commercial property that most likely will not be developed in the future, but should not be speculated. The proposed additions will not create an undesirable change in the neighborhood. If the application is proposed in another area of the property, it will have more of an adverse impact on the neighborhood as it will be visible from the street and or the adjacent neighboring properties. Chairman Church stated that the requested variances are not substantial because although they are building out the footprint of the house, they are not exceeding the permitted building square footage for the size of the lot. There are not any environmental conditions effected by the proposed application. Chairman Church stated that the proposed application is the most reasonable and minimal way for the applicant to achieve their goals. Chairman Church stated that the application meets four out of the five criteria requirements. He stated that the proposed variances are self-created hardships but it is not the only consideration made by the Board when they evaluate area variances. Chairman Church stated that he would support the application but that they need to be fair to the applicant and let them decide if they would like the Zoning Board to take a vote tonight. If the Board denies the application tonight, the applicant would be required to wait six months before re-submitting the application or the applicant can choose to defer the Zoning Board vote to the December meeting when there may be more members present. Sean McCarthy stated that the applicant is permitted to come back before the Zoning Board of Appeals prior to six months if the application is significantly changed. Niall Cain asked Chairman Church how many members are currently on the Zoning Board of Appeals. Chairman Church stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals usually has seven members but that there are currently only five members since two members have departed. Dickerson Miles asked Chairman Church what sort of revision would be required to come back to the Board in a months' time. Chairman Church stated that the applicant is permitted to defer the decision to the December meeting without any changes to the application. If the vote is denied, then the application would have to be significantly changed in order to come back before the Board prior to six months. Dickerson Miles requested that the decision be deferred to the December meeting. Sean McCarthy suggested that the applicant submit documents before the next meeting to justify the reasons why they are proposing a rear yard-set back of 15 feet in order to assist the Zoning Board with their decision. Chairman Church suggested that the applicant also provide more insight on the abutting Phelps Memorial Hospital property and their ability to develop the wooded areas. Niall Cain stated that he will research the set-back requirements that Phelps Memorial Hospital would need in order to further development their property. 5 (ZBA 11/18/2020) �Sean McCarthy suggested that the applicant submit examples of other properties on cul-de-sacs where a similar situation may occur to also assist the Board with their decision. Discussion ensued on speculating future development of the Phelps Memorial Hospital property. Motion was made to defer the decision to the December 16, 2020 meeting. Moved: Church Seconded: Crowe Vote 4-0 Sean McCarthy stated that due to the current COVID-19 pandemic conditions the December meeting will be held via video-conferencing. 2. Approval of minutes - October 21, 2020 Chairman Church asked if the minutes and the resolution was reviewed by Clinton Smith, the Village Attorney. Pamela Kroll stated that minutes and the resolutions were sent to Clinton Smith but that they have not received comments from him. Motion was made to defer the approval of the October 21, 2020 minutes and resolutions to the December 16, 2020 meeting. Moved: Church Seconded: Lis Vote 4-0 Motion was made to adjourn the meeting at 8:46 pm. Moved: Church Seconded: Hughes Vote 4-0 Respectfully Submitted, Pamela Kroll Secretary to the Zoning Board of Appeals 6 (ZBA 11/18/2020) �EXHIBIT #1 ; :: Phelps Hospital W Northwell Health- RECEIVED NOV 1 7 2020 BUILDING DEPT. VILLAGE O c SLS.EPY HOLLOW November 17, 2020 Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals: 1 am in receipt and have reviewed the contents of a public notice letter referring to the construction of a one story addition and screened-in porch to the existing single family residence located at 3 Terrace Close in Sleepy Hollow, NY. Additionally. I reviewed the application and accompanying construction documents available from the village website and find that on behalf of Phelps Hospital, have no additional comments related to this hearing. Thank you Sincerely, 701 North Broadway Sleepy Hollow, NY 10591 701 North Broadway I Sleepy Hollow, NY 10591 I Tel (914) 366-1010 I www.phelps.northwell.edu �EXHIBIT #2 RECL-VED M a r i e & Robert Guarnieri ^ O y ^ g ; Q20 1 Terrace Close Sleepy H o l l o w , NY 1 0 5 9 1 BUILDING D November 15,2020 Zoning Board of Appeals 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, NY 10591 To Che Members of the Sleepy Hollow Zoning Board of Appeals, This letter is to affirm support for the zoning variance application to allow a nonconfirming set-back at the rear of their property, submitted by Jennifer and Dickerson Miles for their property at 3 Terrace Close, Sleepy Hollow, NY. As their closest neighbors, residing at 1 Terrace Close, directly to their east, we are in full support of granting the variance, as we see no adverse impact on us or on the neighborhood. On the contrary, as neighbors we are invested in seeing updates and improvements to surrounding properties. We have been made aware that a neighbor on Hemlock Drive has expressed concerns that granting of the variance for Mr. and Mrs. Miles could set a precedent. As property owners who ourselves have been granted a variance for a renovation project, we understand that a variance is, of course, an exception to a rule and thus does not have to lead to a precedent. We hope that the Board will consider our support of Mr. and Mrs. Miles' application and request that this letter be included as part of the application record. We further hope that the Board will grant their application. Best Regards, s/Marie Guarnieri s/Robert Guarnieri R. VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW �EXHIBIT #3 Joan £. Levy/RichardD. 'Weiss 2 Terrace Close SCee_p\j J-CoCCow, New \)ork 10591 ricfiard~.cCougCas.weiss@gmaiC.com RECEIVED NOV 1 5 2020 BUILDING DEPT. VILLAGE OF 3LSEPY HOLLOW November 15.2020 Zoning Board of Appeals 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, NY 10591 To the Members of the Sleepy Hollow Zoning Board of Appeals, We are writing in support of the application of Jennifer and Dickerson Miles for a zoning variance for their property located at 3 Terrace Close. Sleepy Hollow, NY. Mr. and Mrs. Miles have asked for a zoning variance to allow a non-conforming set-hack at the rear of their property. We own the property at 2 Terrace Close, directly opposite the Miles' residence. We understand that a neighbor residing on Hemlock Drive has expressed concerns that the granting of the requested variance could create an adverse precedent for other properties in the area. While I understand the concerns expressed by this neighbor, as this Board very well knows, a variance is. by its nature, an exception, not a rezoning. In considering a variance application, this Board will presumably consider the impact of the request on other neighboring properties. In this case, as the owners of one of the properties nearest the affected site, it is our view that this request, if granted, will have no adverse impact on our property or on our neighborhood. Perhaps, if additional comfort is needed, the Board can explicitly include in any grant a reminder that the grant is not intended to. and does not, have any precedential effect. We therefore request that this letter in support of the Miles* application be included as part of the application record and hope that the Board will approve the application. Very truly yours, s/Joan L. Levy (Weiss) s/Richard D. Weiss �EXHIBIT #4 RECEIVED ARTHUR R. BRADY 41 Hemlock Drive Sleepy Hollow, New York 10591 NOV 0 6 2020 BUILDING DEPT. VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW November 5, 2020 Sleepy Hollow Zoning Board of Appeals 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, New York 10591 RE: Dickerson and Jennifer Miles 3 Terrace Close Dear Sirs I submit this letter in connection with the above referenced zoning matter scheduled for November 18, 2020. As a neighbor, I am concerned about the variance application's substantial deviation from the set back requirement distances. Specifically, the required minimum rear yard set back distance of 25 feet, versus the proposed 9 feet by the applicants. I recognize their rear yard only directly affects Phelps Memorial Hospital and has no front yard sight issue. However, my concern would be the potential precedent of setting a 9 feet rear yard variance for the neighborhood. Why have a zoning code with minimum set back requirements if you permit this substantial variance (i.e. approximately 64% deviation) based on a self imposed hardship? It is hoped this Board addresses my concerns and submits this letter as part of the record. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Very truly yours, � 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-2020 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_2020-11-18 Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2020 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2020 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/f1c8ef0cd7410d731dfa49129f3a9c74.pdf a6600ede4092e2c2a300afc76f5bd642 PDF Text Text Village of Sleepy Hollow Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting December 16, 2020 The regular meeting was held via Zoom webinar and called to order at 8:00 PM by Chairman Timothy Church. Residents could not attend in person due to the COVID- 19 pandemic, but could participate by phone and video. The Board and applicants participated by videoconferencing. Present: Timothy Church, Chairman Richard Hughes Gorete Crowe Craig Lis Margaret Rubick Sandra Tripp Also Present: Sean McCarthy, Village Architect Pamela Kroll, Secretary to the Zoning Board Agenda: 1) Dickerson and Jennifer Miles, 3 Terrace Close, Proposed one story addition and screened-in porch - Continued public hearing 2) Sleepy Hollow Associates, LLC, 45-49 Beekman Avenue, Proposed change of usePublic hearing 3) Lighthouse Landing Communities, LLC, Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development, 199 Beekman Avenue, Phase III, Block O/P, Proposed increased building heights Public hearing 4) Approval of minutes and resolutions, October 21, 2020, November 18, 2020 Chairman Church read the following statement: Tonight's meeting is convened in accordance with the Governor's Executive Order Number 202.1 issued March 13,2020 which suspends certain provisions of the New York State Open Meetings Law to allow a municipal board to convene a meeting via videoconferencing. In accordance with the Executive Order, the public has been provided with the ability to view tonight's meeting and public hearings, and a transcript will be provided at a later date. I have also confirmed with the Village Clerk that this meeting has been duly noticed by posting a notice in the Journal News newspaper, and posting a copy on the Village website. Be advised that tonight's meeting is being aired live on cable television and streaming live on YouTube. 1. Dickerson and Jennifer Miles, 3 Terrace Close, Proposed one story addition and screened-in porch - Continued public hearing 1 (ZBA 12/16/2020) �Chairman Church stated that since there is a new Zoning Board member and Margaret Rubick was absent at the November meeting, he requested that the applicant provide a summary of the last presentation and the proposed changes to the application. Niall Cain is the architect representing the applicant. Mr. Cain stated that the proposed rear single story additions include a larger eat-in kitchen, a family room, and a screened-in porch. The revised drawings propose to narrow the addition by 1 foot resulting in a rear yard set-back request of 10 feet. Mr. Cain stated that the Board had concerns of future construction on the Phelps Memorial Hospital Property as it may relate to granting the rear yard variance. Mr. Cain stated that the Village Code requires set-backs of 300 feet for hospital structures and 50 feet for any accessory structures within the Hospital Zoning District. Currently the closest structure on the Phelps Memorial grounds is approximately 450 feet from the applicant's rear yard property line. The parking lot is setback approximately 230 feet, and the driveway is setback approximately 185 feet from the rear property line. The existing buffer, which extends at a minimum of 175 feet from the rear yard property line would remain. Mr. Cain stated that the proposed building coverage of the existing house and the proposed additions are small in relation to the maximum permitted square footage for the lot size. Mr. Cain presented the five criteria points required for review from the Zoning Board of Appeals and how they relate to granting the variances requested in the application. Chairman Church clarified the supplemental submission documents received. Chairman Church solicited comments from the Board. Gorete Crowe stated the she is glad that they scaled down the width of the proposed additions. Craig Lis stated that he appreciates the details provided on the proximity of the hospital property in relation to the applicant's property line. Dickerson Miles is the owner of 3 Terrace Close and requested that the Board consider their requested application and that it would be a good message for the Zoning Board to send to the neighbors that all reasonable additions and developments to people's houses are considered and supported in the neighborhood. Motion was made to reopen the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Crowe Vote 6-0 Chairman Church solicited comments from the public. Tang Di Garvey is the owner of 20 Hemlock Drive and stated that she supports the proposed additions because the applicant's side yard really serves as their backyard. The proposed rear additions will not be seen from the front of the house. Mark Kaminsky is the owner of 32 Lakeview Drive and stated that he supports the proposed application and that the proposed additions will enhance the home and will not be visible to the neighbors. 2 (ZBA 12/16/2020) �There were no further comments from the public. Motion was made to close the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Lis Vote 6-0 Motion was made by Chairman Church to approve the area variances based on the following criteria: 1. Granting of the area variances will not be detrimental to the character of the neighborhood as the proposed additions will not be visible to the general public, and property owners in the neighborhood have voiced their support of the proposed application. If the additions were proposed on the side yards or the front yard of the property, variances would not be required and it would create an undesirable change to the neighborhood. 2. The requested variances are not substantial in relation to the permitted building square footage for the lot. 3. Granting of the area variances is the feasible and minimal method to achieve the benefits sought by the applicants, as the additions in another location would have a greater impact on the neighboring properties. 4. The requested variances are a self-created hardship but due to the unusual configuration of the existing lot, it is not the only consideration the Board evaluates for granting of area variances. 5. Granting of the area variances will not have a permanent adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. Chairman Church stated that the application meets the requirements for a Type II action under SEQRA 617.5. Margaret Rubick stated that the applicants have demonstrated that they are proposing the best solution for a pie shaped lot. Phelps Hospital does not object to the application and the neighbors have provided their support. It was an act of good faith for the applicant to reduce the requested variance by one foot. Motion was made to approve the variances as requested. Moved: Church Seconded: Rubick Timothy Church, Chairman- yes Richard Hughes - yes Gorete Crowe - yes Margaret Rubick - yes Sandra Tripp - yes 3 (ZBA 12/16/2020) �Craig Lis - yes Vote: 6-0 APPROVED 2. Sleepy Hollow Associates, LLC, 45-49 Beekman Avenue, Proposed change of use, Public hearing Chairman Church read the public notice, listed the documents submitted with the application, and asked Sean McCarthy to confirm that all of the mailing receipts have been received. Sean McCarthy stated that the notice was provided to the applicant and the proof of notice was submitted to the Building Department. Chairman Church invited the application to present the application. Kyle McGovern is an attorney from the law firm of Lyons McGovern LLP representing the applicant. Mr. McGovern stated that they propose to revitalize three underutilized commercial properties on Beekman Avenue where the existing Tomkins Mahopac Band, a professional offices building, and the Post Office are located. They propose to continue the commercial uses of the first floors and convert the upper levels to residential uses by constructing (16) rental apartment units at 47 and 49 Beekman Avenue. There are no proposed changes to the Post Office at 45 Beekman Avenue. The application will require a change of use from commercial use buildings to mixed-use buildings as a permitted use in the C-2 Zoning district. The proposed improvements will stay entirely within the current footprint of the existing buildings. Improvements are proposed to the exteriors of the buildings. The proposed project is consistent with the Sleepy Hollow Comprehensive Plan. The units will be targeted towards young professionals. Mr. McGovern stated that the Tompkins Mahopac Bank will remain in the front part of the first floor of the 49 Beekman Avenue building and that they propose to construct (2) one bedroom apartments on the first floor and (4) one bedroom apartments, (1) two bedroom apartment, and (1) studio apartment on the second floor. The first floor of 47 Beekman Avenue will remain as professional offices and they propose to construct (4) apartments on the second floor and (4) apartments on the third floor. David Mooney is the architect representing the applicant. Mr. Mooney shared the floor plans and elevation drawings for 47 and 49 Beekman Avenue and summarized the proposed apartments configurations and locations. Mr. Mooney stated that the existing parking layout included (43) parking spaces, which did not meet the size of the municipal requirements for handicap accessible spaces. In the proposed parking plan, the number of parking spaces was reduced to (39) parking spaces in order to create (2) handicap spaces and added enclosed refuse areas for garbage and recycling. The new plan requires a variance for (4) parking spaces. Kyle McGovern stated that the requested variance for (4) parking spaces is not substantial based on the number of existing parking spaces and because the commercial spaces that are used during the day will be available to the residential tenants at night and on weekends. The existing lot at 45 Beekman Avenue has never provided a loading zone and the Sleepy Hollow Post Office has never needed one since it is a satellite office for the Tarrytown Post Office. The commercial 4 (ZBA 12/16/2020) �uses for the properties is not a heavy industrial use and will not warrant the need for a loading zone. The existing lot layouts should be sufficient for residential deliveries. It was determined by the Planning Board that this application requires a variance for landscape screening at the rear of the parking lot. The existing parking lot was built in 1963 and is a pre-existing nonconforming use. Currently there is a fence that runs along the property line between the back lot and the multi-family residence. A large portion of the fence line is adjacent and adjoining to the parking lot of the existing multi-family residence. They are willing to add screening to the fence to minimize the view from the multi-family building. Chairman Church asked for the height of the existing fence. David Mooney shared a photo of the existing site and stated that the existing fence is approximately five feet high. They propose to replace the fence with a chain link fence that includes a vinyl weave pattern to provide some screening between the two parking lots. Chairman Church asked for the maximum height permitted for the fence. Sean McCarthy stated that the fence is permitted to be 6 feet high. Chairman Church asked if a condition of granting the variance could include providing a 6-foot high fence along the property line of the two parking lots. Gorete Crowe asked if approving a 6-foot fence could create a problem for the Zoning Board. Sean McCarthy stated a 6 foot high fence is permitted. The existing fence is not 6 feet and the question is if the Zoning Board wants to impose a condition of the variance to require the applicant to change the height and the material of the fence so the fence does not interfere with the sight line exiting the parking lot. Richard Hughes stated that a 6-foot fence would provide good privacy for both properties. Margaret Rubick agreed with the variance condition for replacing the fence. Ms. Rubick asked for details of the adjacent multi-family residence and how the parking lot is accessed. Sean McCarthy stated that the residence contains five residential apartments with access to the parking lot from North Washington Street. Gorete Crowe questioned if a fence would be required at the property to the right. Chairman Church asked Sean McCarthy if the screening is only required on the north side of the property. Sean McCarthy stated that screening requirement is only applicable to the north side of the property that abuts the residential district. 5 (ZBA 12/16/2020) �Chairman Church stated that the applicant is requesting a variance approval for the lack of fence or hedge on the north side of the property. Kyle McGovern stated that they are seeking the variance for the area at the rear of the parking lot where it abuts a residential property. Richard Hughes asked if the refuse area is proposed in the parking lot area. David Mooney stated that the area of the parking lot will contain the enclosed refuse area. Kyle McGovern stated that although they are proposing (2) residential apartments on the first floor of 49 Beekman Avenue, the entrances for the residential apartments is from North Washington Street and the commercial space entrances are on Beekman Avenue. Craig Lis requested for a more detailed explanation of the regulation in the required variance and if there are safety issues related to the requirement. Sean McCarthy stated that the current regulations limit the commercial use to the first floors and the residential uses to the second and third floors. The regulation was created to keep consistency with the separation of uses. The Zoning Board has granted variances for this type of application in the past. Margaret Rubick questioned how the lack of a loading zone would be addressed if a commercial entity other than the bank utilized the commercial space. Sean McCarthy stated a change of use would require review and approval by the Planning Board and that the loading zones and parking requirements would be evaluated for possible conditions or restrictions. If a future use had a demand for more parking, the application would also have to be reviewed by the Zoning Board. Gorete Crowe asked if the existing door to the basement level would remain at the 49 Beekman Avenue building. David Mooney stated that the basement level would be utilized for tenant storage areas and that the existing door would remain. Richard Hughes stated that he is concerned about granting the variance for the parking spaces and that granting the variance for the ground floor residential apartments will create a precedent. Kyle McGovern stated that having the two separate entrances will not create a bad precedent for this building. Chairman Church stated that the residential units will be more in keeping with the character of the North Washington Street residential neighborhood and would constitute an improvement to that part of the building. 6 (ZBA 12/16/2020) �Kyle McGovern stated that there are (43) existing parking spaces in the lot and that the spaces lost are due to creating the code required correct size parking spaces and an enclosure for the garbage receptacle area that will be more ascetically pleasing for the tenants. Sandra Tripp asked if the proposed designs for the first floor apartments have been considered to be made ADA accessible. David Mooney stated that the first floor apartments will be constructed to be handicap adaptable by providing the proper door clearances and additional structural supports that would allow minor modifications to be made if a handicap tenant were to rent the unit. Richard Hughes asked what the average rental cost would be for the units. Kyle McGovern stated that the rents will be market based and will not be affordable housing. Kyle McGovern stated the proposed application will not create an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood. Keeping the commercial components on Beekman Avenue and creating a residential environment on North Washington Street will enhance the area. The requested parking variance is not substantial based on the number of parking spaces provided and the anticipated uses during the day and evenings. The intended mixed uses will not increase the need for a loading zone and the existing parking lot can handle potential deliveries. There have been other applications in which residential use has been permitted on the first floor. The applicant was unable to identify alternative methods for the requested variances and off-street parking is difficult in all river town villages. Moving the fence to create the required buffer area would result in the loss of 15 parking spaces. Approval of the application will not result in any adverse physical or environmental conditions to the neighborhood. As directed by the Planning Board's engineers, they propose to clear the drainage areas in the parking lot. Motion was made to open the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Lis Vote 6-0 Chairman Church solicited comments from the public. Rachael Ricker lives at 255 North Washington Street. She stated that her house looks into the parking lot and she is concerned about the loss of parking spaces since she doesn't have a driveway. Chairman Church stated that the Zoning Board received her comment letter. (see exhibit #1) Motion was made to close the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Rubick Vote 6-0 Motion was made by Chairman Church to approve the area variances as requested based on the following criteria: 7 (ZBA 12/16/2020) �1. Granting of the area variances will not be detriment to the character of the neighborhood as the proposed first floor residential apartments in the 49 Beekman Avenue Building will provide for ADA accessible adaptable units; and the separate entrance on North Washington Street will allow for more consistency in that area. Granting of the variance will not bound the Board to a precedent based on the decisions of one application. The proposed construction of residential apartments above commercial spaces is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. 2. The requested variance for the loading zone is not substantial as the absence of a loading zone is a pre-existing condition and any future change of use would require Planning Board approval. The parking lot may also be used for deliveries in lieu of using the street if needed. The requested variance for the reduction in the parking spaces is not substantial in relation to the number of spaces provided in the lot, and the requirement to create code compliant size spaces has been created for the residents. Granting a variance to eliminate the required setbacks and the landscape buffer required where a mixed-use structure abuts a residential district is not substantial as the existing parking lot was built in 1963, is a pre-existing non-conforming use, and if enforced would eliminate (15) existing parking spaces. A condition will be imposed to replace the existing fence with a 6 foot fence with vinyl screening to provide privacy for the adjacent parking lot. Chairman Church stated that the application meets the requirements under SEQRA 617.5. Chairman Church solicited comments from the Board. Craig Lis stated that he agrees with approving the variances as the loading zone has never existed, parking has been an ongoing issue in the Village, and it would be beneficial for the Village to permit the redevelopment of vacant spaces and create residential opportunities. Chairman Church stated the granting of the area variances will include the following condition: 1. New fencing will be installed along the north side of the parking lot as determined by the Village Architect, the Village Engineer, and the Planning Board. Motion was made to approve the variances as requested. Moved: Church Seconded: Crowe Timothy Church, Chairman- yes Richard Hughes - yes Gorete Crowe - yes Margaret Rubick - yes 8 (ZBA 12/16/2020) �Sandra Tripp - yes Craig Lis - yes Vote: 6-0 APPROVED 3. Lighthouse Landing Communities, LLC, Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development, 199 Beekman Avenue, Phase III, Block O/P, Proposed increased building heights - Public hearing Chairman Church read the public notice, listed the documents submitted with the application, and asked Sean McCarthy to confirm that all of the mailing receipts have been received. Sean McCarthy stated that the notice was provided to the applicant and the proof of notice was submitted to the Building Department. Chairman Church invited the application to present the application. Janet Giris is a partner with DelBello Donnellan Weingarten Wise & Wiederkehr, LLC representing the applicant. Ms. Giris provided a history of the height restrictions established for the proposed development areas within the 300-foot wide reduced height zone for the west and east parcel projects. Ms. Giris stated that the applicant is seeking approval to construct three townhome units with an increased building height of 42.0 feet to 48.0 feet. Andrew Tung is an associate with Divney Tung Schwalbe LLP representing the applicant. Mr. Tung shared an aerial photograph of the Edge-on-Hudson site and provided an overview of the completed and planned construction. Mr. Tung stated that a variance was previously approved by the Zoning Board in 2015 for the same increased building heights in Block-I, and in 2018 for Block-J and Block-E. Mr. Tung shared illustrations and described the locations of the 300-foot wide restricted height zones created in the Riverfront District, and the area where the requested variance is proposed. Chairman Church solicited comments from the Board. Sandra Tripp asked Sean McCarthy to explain the reasons for the 42 foot height restriction. Sean McCarthy stated that the 300- foot wide 42-foot building height restriction west of the Metro-North Railroad tracks was created when a residential development was proposed on the East Parcel, to give the units a better westerly view. In 2014 it was decided that it would no longer be necessary since there would not be a residential development proposed on the East Parcel. Gorete Crowe questioned why the increased height is proposed. Janet Giris stated that the proposed increased height will allow the developer to construct each of the stories with 9-foot heights and increase the marketability of the units. The additional height will not be perceptible from the street level as the top of the building is stepped back. 9 (ZBA 12/16/2020) �Andrew Tung stated that the proposed buildings will face the street and that the fourth floor will step back from the fa9ade so it will be perceived as a three-story townhome. Margaret Rubick questioned if the variance is only requested for three townhome units. Janet Giris stated that Margaret Rubick is correct. Sean McCarthy stated that the balance of the townhouse block is permitted to go up to 65 feet in height. Mr. McCarthy stated that a ceiling height lower than 9 feet would be out of proportion to the designs of the units. Richard Hughes questioned why 9-foot ceiling heights were not anticipated in the early designs of the project as they relate to the height restrictions put in place. Peter Chavkin is the Managing Partner of Biddle Real Estate Ventures and stated that the Zoning regulations were created prior to the development plans for the East Parcel and prior to the full development of the Edge-on-Hudson project and market needs. Janet Giris stated that there are only three units within Block O/P that are within the 300-foot wide restriction zone and the rational for the restriction no longer exists. Jonathan Stein is a Managing Member of Diversified Realty Advisors, LLC and stated that the zone restrictions were developed prior to his involvement in the project over twenty years ago and that there are no townhomes less than 48 feet in height. The proposed variance is required to fulfill the market conditions. They will not request a variance until it is needed. Sandra Tripp asked Jonathan Stein if other variance requests are anticipated in the future of the development. Jonathan Stein stated that building heights in the restricted zone have not been approved for over 48-foot heights and that they do not anticipate requesting a variance for higher then the permitted 65-foot height in the balance of the development. Peter Chavkin stated that they do anticipate requesting additional variances for 48-foot townhome unit heights for the balance of Block O/P in the restricted zone but that they must submit a site plan application to the Planning Board before applying to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Motion was made to open the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Crowe Vote 6-0 Chairperson Church solicited comments from the public. There were no comments from the public. 10 (ZBA 12/16/2020) �Motion was made to close the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Rubick Vote 6-0 Motion was made by Chairman Church to approve the area variances as requested based on the following criteria: 1. Granting of the area variance will not be detriment to the character of the neighborhood as the variance only effects three buildings within the 300-foot restricted zone and the variance for the 48-foot height restriction would be consistent with the surrounding buildings. 2. The requested variance is not substantial in relation to the variances granted in the past for the development. 3. Granting of the area variance is the feasible method to achieve the benefits sought by the applicant to construct four story units with 9-foot ceiling heights. 4. The requested variance is a self-created hardship but the restrictions are no longer applicable to the proposed application. 5. Granting of the area variance will not have a permanent adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood Chairman Church stated that the application meets the requirements under SEQRA 617.5. Motion was made to approve the variances as requested. Moved: Church Seconded: Rubick Timothy Church, Chairman- yes Richard Hughes - yes Gorete Crowe - yes Margaret Rubick - yes Sandra Tripp - yes Craig Lis - yes Vote: 6-0 APPROVED 4. Approval of minutes and resolutions, October 21, 2020 and November 18, 2020 Motion was made to approve the October 21, 2020 minutes. Moved: Church Seconded: Rubick Timothy Church, Chairman- yes Richard Hughes - yes Gorete Crowe - yes Margaret Rubick - yes Sandra Tripp - abstained 11 (ZBA 12/16/2020) �Craig Lis - yes Vote: 5-0-1 APPROVED Motion was made to approve the November 18, 2020 minutes. Moved: Church Seconded: Lis Timothy Church, Chairman- yes Richard Hughes - yes Gorete Crowe - yes Margaret Rubick - yes Sandra Tripp - abstained Craig Lis - yes Vote: 5-0-1 APPROVED Motion was made to approve the resolutions from the October 21, 2020 meeting. Moved: Church Seconded: Crowe Timothy Church, Chairman- yes Richard Hughes - yes Gorete Crowe - yes Margaret Rubick - yes Sandra Tripp - abstained Craig Lis - yes Vote: 5-0-1 APPROVED Motion was made to adjourn the meeting at 10:13 pm. Moved: Church Seconded: Hughes Vote 6-0 Respectfully Submitted, PaJsyuL&v / y t ^ ^ 7 Pamela Kroll Secretary to the Zoning Board of Appeals 12 (ZBA 12/16/2020) �EXHIBIT #1 From: To: Subject: Date: Pamela Kroll Pamela Kroll Comments from 225 North Washington Street Wednesday, December 16, 2020 12:03:41 PM From: rachael ricker <rachaelkricker@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2020 10:40 AM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.org> Subject: comments for Zoning/Planning Board To Whom it May Concern: I learned about the new Beekman Avenue development at the board meeting last month and also received notice in the mail. As a direct neighbor to the new development, I'm excited about the improvements that will be made to the buildings and I look forward to welcoming new neighbors to the inner-village. I do, however, think this presents an opportunity for the village to reevaluate the current parking situation in the inner-village. The parking lot behind 45 Beekman (prior to covid) has been heavily used during the daytime and also into the night- primarily by people coming to the restaurants and bars in the area. Once this parking lot becomes primarily residential- particularly in the evenings when residents will be home- where will people frequenting bars and restaurants park? If the expectation is that they will park on the street, the village should reserve street parking spaces for residents in the downtown commercial district either by creating a street permit parking program or by making the municipal lots more accessible. The municipal lot near Barnhardt is too far away to alleviate parking concerns in the Upper Beekman Area and the permit spaces in the lot across from Village Hall are only available 6pm8am. I am excited about this development and I think this is an opportunity for the village to consider taking steps now to alleviate the parking crunch that will inevitably happen. We love Sleepy Hollow and appreciate all that you do to make it a better place. Sincerely, Rachael Ricker 255 N Washington Street B � 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-2020 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_2020-12-16_Approved Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2020 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2020 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/ae8b72595029f20d5f992ff15bd3d24e.pdf 911544e63fe8a53a0b92d353de56df00 PDF Text Text RESOLUTION Adopted at the December 16,2020 Meeting of the Village of Sleepy Hollow Zoning Board of Appeals RESOLUTION: Area Variances PROPOSED: One story addition and screened-in porch LOCATION: 3 Terrace Close TAX MAP DESIGNATION: Section 110.11, Block 1, Lot 13 ZONING DISTRICT: R-2A WHEREAS, on October 14 2020 an application was submitted by Dickerson and Jennifer Miles (the "Applicants") to the Zoning 'oard of Appeals of the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "ZBA") requesting area variances to construct a om ory addition and screened-in-porch (the "Application") pursuant to the Article XII of the Zoning Cod< the Village of Sleepy Hollow; and WHEREAS, the Applicants are s ;eking a variance from Article VI, Section 450-34.B. of the Zoning Code, Applicability of regulations, adding to and altering an existing non-conforming building or lot, where the required minimum rear yard set-back is 25.00 feet and the existing rear yard set-back is 24.00 feet.; and WHEREAS, the Applicants are seeking a variance from Article VI, Section 450-34.B. of the Zoning Code, Applicability of regulations, adding to and altering an existing non-conforming building or lot, where the required minimum accessory structure set-back is 3.00 feet and the existing accessory structure set-back is 2.60 feet; and WHEREAS, the Applicants are seeking a variance from Article VI, Section 450-35. of the Zoning Code, Schedule of Regulations, where the required minimum rear yard set-back is 25.00 feet, and the proposed rear yard set-back is 10.00 feet; and WHEREAS, the Applicants are seeking a variance from Article VII, Section 450-E (2) (b). of the Zoning Code, Supplementary Regulations, Location of accessory uses in residence districts, where the required minimum distance between accessory structure and principle building is 10.00 feet, the existing distance between the accessory structure and principle building is 16.00 feet, and the proposed distance between accessory structure and principle building is 4.00 feet; and WHEREAS, the ZBA has reviewed the following documents for consideration as well as the oral presentations to the ZBA: 1. Zoning Board of Appeals determination letter prepared by Sean McCarthy, Building Inspector, : dated October 13, 2020 ' Page 1 of 4 �2. Zoning Board of Appeals Application Part 1 and Part 2 of 4 signed by Niall Cain, R.A. dated October 13,2020 3. Zoning Board of Appeals Application Part 3 or 4, proxy statement signed by Jennifer Miles dated October 14,2020 4. Zoning Compliance Form signed by Niall Cain, R.A., dated October 13,2020 5. Short Environmental Assessment Form Part-1 Project information, signed by Niall Cain, R.A., dated October 13,2020 6. Property deed dated July 24, 2001 7. Survey prepared by Aristotle Bournazs, P.C. completed on April 25,2001 8. Photographs of existing conditions dated October 14,2020 9. Construction drawings prepared by Niall Cain, architect dated September 23,2020: a. S100- Site Plan Zoning Calculations b. E100- Existing Plans c. A100- First Floor Plan d. A200- Exterior Elevations e. A201- Exterior Elevations 10. Letter received from Arthur R. Brady of 41 Hemlock Drive, dated November 5,2020 11. Letter received from Joan L. Levy and Richard D. Weiss of 2 Terrace Close, dated November 15, 2020 12. Letter prepared by Marie & Robert Guamieri of 1 Terrace Close, dated November 15,2020 13. Letter prepared by Glen Taylor of Phelps Hospital Northwell Health, dated November 17, 2020 14. Letter prepared by Niall Cain of NcC Studio, dated November 17,2020 15. Letter prepared by Katrina and Edmund Lempenski, dated November 17,2020 16. Construction drawings prepared by Niall Cain, architect,revised dated November 24,2020 17. Factor analysis letter prepared by Niall Cain, architect revised December 7,2020 18. Submission letter prepared by Niall Cain, architect revised December 7,2020 WHEREAS, the ZBA held duly noticed public hearing on November 18,2020 and was continued on December 16,2020 via Zoom Webinar to hear and consider the application; and WHEREAS, on November 24,2020 and December 7,2020 revised drawings and letters were submitted to the ZBA requesting a reduced proposed rear yard set-back of 10.00 feet in lieu of the originally proposed 9 feet; and WHEREAS, testimony was received from Niall Cain, architect on behalf of the applicants stating that the proposed single story additions include a larger kitchen, a family room, and a screened-in-porch. The proposed additions will not be visible from the street or the adjacent neighboring properties and therefore will not adversely affect the character of the neighborhood or be a detriment to the nearby properties. Although the variance is substantial the proposed building coverage is well under the maximum 20 percent of the permitted square feet according to the Zoning Regulations. There will be no environmental impact related to the proposed additions. The unusual configuration of the existing lot creates a difficulty to comply with the regulations and therefore the proposed application should not be considered a self-created hardship. The proposed additions are the most feasible way to create the Page 2 of 4 �benefit sought by the owner. There are no objections property owners in the neighborhood or Phelps Memorial Hospital; and WHEREAS, testimony was received from Dickerson Miles, stating that the proposed design of the rear addition will shift the current views of the hospital property by installing smaller high windows towards the north; and WHEREAS, testimony was received from Marie Guarnieri, the owner of 1 Terrace Close, stating that she supports the application because the proposed additions will be barely visible from the far rear yard of her property; and WHEREAS, testimony was received from Katrina Lempenski, the owner of 4 Terrace Close, stating that she supports the application because she is unable to see the applicants house from her property; and WHEREAS, testimony was received from Jennifer Miles stating that they are requesting an exception to be made outside of the normal Zoning Regulations because their lot size is irregular and the backyard is not useful to them; and WHEREAS, testimony was received from Tang Di Garvey, the owner of 20 Hemlock Drive, stating that she supports the application because the applicants' side yard serves and their backyard and the proposed additions will not be seen from the front of the house; and WHEREAS, testimony was received from Mark Kaminsky, the owner of 32 Lakeview Drive, stating that he supports the application since the proposed additions will enhance the home and will not be visible to the neighbors; and WHEREAS, in making its determination as to whether the applicant should be granted the area variances, the ZBA considered the following factors: 1) whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance; 2) whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance; 3) whether the requested area variance is substantial; 4) whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and 5) whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the board of appeals, but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that ZBA, after review of the materials submitted, public comments, including written correspondence and recommendations, has determined that in accordance with the criteria set forth in Part 617.7 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and based upon review of the Environmental Assessment Form, all of the documents submitted to the ZBA and all other materials which were prepared and submitted, the ZBA determines the application meets the requirements for a Type II action under SEQRA 617.5 and therefore requires no further processing under SEQRA; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, after due consideration the ZBA makes the following determination: Page 3 of 4 �1. Granting of the area variances will not create an undesirable change or be a detriment to the character of the neighborhood as the proposed additions will not be visible to the general public and the neighboring property owners have voiced their support. 2. The requested variances are not substantial in relation to the permitted building square footage for the lot. 3. Granting of the area variances is the feasible and minimal method to achieve the benefits sought by the applicants as the additions in another location would have a greater impact on the neighboring properties. 4. The requested variances are a self-created hardship but due to the unusual configuration of the existing lot, the application proposed is the best solution. 5. Granting of the proposed area variances will not have a permanent adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the area variances requested by the Applicants are granted approval subject to the land and will remain in effect until amended, repealed or otherwise changed, in whole or in part, by the Village of Sleepy Hollow and; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Applicants may obtain the endorsed approval of the ZBA Chairman on a copy of this resolution. This approval shall expire (1) year after the date of this resolution if the conditions have not been completed to the satisfaction of the ZBA and the Department of Architecture, Land Use Development, Buildings and Building Compliance and the Applicants has not obtained the required Building Permit for construction in accordance with the approved plans. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Date Page 4 of 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-2020 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_2020-12-16_Approved-ZBA-Resolution_3-Terrace-Close Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2020 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2020 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/2b2cf6f2bdd24a4e1aed0bc964d6aa3b.pdf aea2ae89889bf91757d4808851262b28 PDF Text Text RESOLUTION Adopted at the December 16,2020 Meeting of the Village of Sleepy Hollow Zoning Board of Appeals RESOLUTION: Area Variances PROPOSED: Change of Use LOCATION: 45,47,49 Beekman Avenue TAX MAP DESIGNATION: Section 115.11, Block 3, Lots 27, 28, and 29 ZONING DISTRICT: C-2 WHEREAS, on November 16,2020 an application was submitted by Sleepy Hollow Associates, LLC as contract vendee, (the "Applicant") to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "ZBA") requesting area variances to convert part of the existing commercial spaces to (16) residential apartments (the "Application") pursuant to the Article XII of the Zoning Code of the Village of Sleepy Hollow; and WHEREAS, the Applicant is seeking a variance from Article VII, Section 450-41.E. of the Zoning Code, Supplementary Regulations, Off-street parking and loading spaces, Required parking spaces, where the number of required parking spaces is (43), the existing number of parking spaces is (43) and the proposed number of parking spaces is (39); and WHEREAS, the Applicant is seeking a variance from Article VII, Section 450-41.F of the Zoning Code, Supplementary Regulations, Off-street parking and loading spaces, Required loading spaces, where the one loading zone is required, and there is no loading zone proposed; and WHEREAS, the Applicant is seeking a variance from Article VII, Section 450-41.D. (1) of the Zoning Code, Supplementary Regulations, Off-street parking and loading spaces, where off-street parking areas for three or more vehicles shall be effectively screened by a fence or hedge, where no screening is proposed; and WHEREAS, the Applicant is seeking a variance from Article VIII, Section 450-51.C. of the Zoning Code, Supplementary Regulations Applicable to Specific Uses Mixed-use (commercial and residential) developments, where the non-residential uses of a mixed-use building shall be limited to the first story level of a building, where (2) apartments are proposed on the first floor level, at the rear of 49 Beekman Avenue; and WHEREAS, the ZBA has reviewed the.following documents for consideration as well as the oral presentations to the ZBA: 1. Table of Contents prepared by David W. Mooney, architect Page 1 of 4 �2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Narrative application letter prepared by Kyle C. McGovern Zoning Compliance Form prepared by David Mooney Zoning Board Application Part 1 of 4 signed by David Mooney Zoning Board Application Parts 3 & 4 signed by Philip Adler Short Environmental Assessment Form, Part 1-Project Information signed by David Mooney Property Deeds for 45-49 Beekman Avenue Photographs of existing conditions Property owners within 200 feet of the properties Property survey prepared by Ward Carpenter Engineers, Inc. dated February 15,2020 Architectural Drawings prepared by David Mooney dated November 4,2020 to include: a) SI- Site Plan Existing b) S2- Proposed Site Plan c) A-1.0- 49 Beekman Avenue Existing Basement Floor Plan d) A-2.0- 49 Beekman Avenue Existing First Floor Plan e) A-3.0- 49 Beekman Avenue Existing Second Floor Plan f) A-4.0- 49 Beekman Avenue Proposed First Floor Plan g) A-5.0- 49 Beekman Avenue Proposed Second Floor Plan h) A-6.0- 49 Beekman Avenue Elevations i) A-7.0- 47 Beekman Avenue Existing Basement Floor Plan j) A-8.0- 47 Beekman Avenue Existing First Floor Plan k) A-9.0- 47 Beekman Avenue Existing Second Floor Plan I) A-10.0- 47 Beekman Avenue Existing Third Floor Plan m) A-11.0- 47 Beekman Avenue Proposed Second Floor Plan n) A-12.0- 47 Beekman Avenue Proposed Third Floor Plan o) A-13.0- 47 Beekman Avenue Elevations 12. Supplemental submission letter prepared by Kyle McGovern dated December 8,2020 13. Comment letter received via email from Rachael Ricker, owner of 255 North Washington Street, dated December 16,2020 WHEREAS, the ZBA held a duly noticed public hearing on December 16,2020, via Zoom Webinar, to hear and consider the application; and WHEREAS, testimony was received from Kyle McGovern, an attorney from Lyons McGovern LLP, on behalf of the applicant, stating that the proposal is to continue the commercial uses on the first floors of 45,47, and 49 Beekman Avenue and to construct (16) residential rental apartment units at 47 and 49 Beekman Avenue. The proposed improvements will stay entirely within the current footprint of the existing structures and will include facade improvements to the exteriors of the buildings. The proposed project is consistent with the Sleepy Hollow Comprehensive Plan and the units will be targeted towards young professionals at market based rental costs. The proposed first floor apartments at 49 Beekman Avenue will have separate entrances on North Washington Street. The residential uses will not increase the need for a loading zone and the existing parking lot can handle deliveries. Moving the existing fence to create the required buffer area would result in the loss of (15) parking spaces in the pre-existing nonforming parking lot; and Page 2 of 4 �WHEREAS, testimony was received from David Mooney, architect on behalf of the applicant, stating the reduced number of parking spaces from the (43) to (39) in the proposed parking layout plan is necessary to create (2) code compliant sized handicap parking spaces, and the enclosed refuse areas for the garbage and recycling. Screening is proposed to be installed to the existing fencing that runs along the property line between the back parking lot and the neighboring multi-family residence to provide screening between the two parking lots. The proposed units, located at the ground floor level of 49 Beekman Avenue, will be ADA adaptable by providing the proper door clearances and structural supports that would allow minor modifications to be made if requested by a handicap tenant; and WHEREAS, testimony was received from Sean McCarthy, the Village Architect, stating that the Zoning Board has granted variances for this type of application in the past. If a change of use is requested for a future commercial entity, the loading zones and parking requirements would require site plan approval by the Planning Board and evaluated for possible conditions or restrictions; and WHEREAS, testimony was received from Rachael Ricker, who resides at 255 North Washington Street, stating that she is concerned about the loss of parking spaces. WHEREAS, in making its determination as to whether the applicant should be granted the area variances, the ZBA considered the following factors: 1) whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance; 2) whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance; 3) whether the requested area variance is substantial; 4) whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and 5) whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the board of appeals, but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that ZBA, after review of the materials submitted, public comments, including written correspondence and recommendations, has determined that in accordance with the criteria set forth in Part 617.7 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and based upon review of the Environmental Assessment Form, all of the documents submitted to the ZBA and all other materials which were prepared and submitted, the ZBA determines the application meets the requirements for a Type II action under SEQRA 617.5 and therefore requires no further processing under SEQRA; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, after due consideration the ZBA makes the following determination: 1. Granting of the area variances will not create an undesirable change or be a detriment to the character of the neighborhood as the proposed first floor residential apartments in the 49 Beekman Avenue building will provide for ADA adaptable units, and the separate entrance on North Washington Street will be consistent with the neighborhood. Residential apartments above commercial spaces is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. Page 3 of 4 �2. Granting of the area variance for the absence of a loading zone is not substantial because it is pre-existing non-conforming condition, and it is not needed for the existing commercial uses. The requested variance for the reduction in the number of parking spaces is necessary to create code compliant sized ADA parking spaces. The parking lot is a pre-existing non-conforming condition in which compliance with the required setbacks for a landscape buffer would eliminate (15) existing parking spaces. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the variances requested by the Applicants are granted approval subject to the land and will remain in effect until amended, repealed or otherwise changed, in whole or in part, by the Village of Sleepy Hollow and; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Application to the ZBA is hereby granted approval for the variance with the following condition: 1. New fencing will be installed along the north side of the parking lot as determined by the Village Architect, the Village Engineers, and the Planning Board. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Applicants may obtain the endorsed approval of the ZBA Chairman on a copy of this resolution. This approval shall expire (1) year after the date of this resolution if the conditions have not been completed to the satisfaction of the ZBA and the Department of Architecture, Land Use Development, Buildings and Building Compliance and the Applicants has not obtained the required Building Permit for construction in accordance with the approved plan. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Date OT I T ^ ^ f vn u i e ~ ~ ' and I further certify that the same was entered Into the minutes of the meatinaof said Board of Trustees hefd on said date. INWITNES official sea! Page 4 of 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-2020 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_2020-12-16_Approved-ZBA-Resolution_45-49-Beekman-Avenue Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2020 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2020 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/9ef53e168ea033d25fc83e65eaac5419.pdf b276ef4eed56056dfb7e6b9891a5e80b PDF Text Text RESOLUTION Adopted at the December 16,2020 Meeting of the Village of Sleepy Hollow Zoning Board of Appeals RESOLUTION: Area Variance PROPOSED: Building height increase LOCATION: 199 Beekman Avenue TAX MAP DESIGNATION: Section 115.10, Block 1, Lot 1.1 ZONING DISTRICT: RF WHEREAS, on November 16,2020 an application was submitted by Lighthouse Landing Communities, LLC (the "Applicant") to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "ZBA") requesting an area variance to increase the permitted height of buildings in Block O/P of the Edge-onHudson Riverfront Development (the "Application") pursuant to the Article XII of the Zoning Code of the Village of Sleepy Hollow; and WHEREAS, the Applicants are seeking a variance from Article VI, Section 450-20.B. (5) of the Zoning Code, Riverfront Development District, Height and setback restrictions, where the maximum permitted building height is 42.0 feet and the proposed building height is 48.0 feet.; and WHEREAS, the ZBA has reviewed the following documents for consideration as well as the oral presentations to the ZBA: 1. Application summary letter prepared by Janet J. Giris of DelBello Donnellan Weigarten Wise and Wiederkehr, LLC dated November 13,2020 2. Table of Contents 3. Statement of Principal Points 4. Exhibit A: Figure No. 1- RF District Building Heights Zones, prepared by Divney Tung Schwalbe LLP dated November 15, 2020 5. Exhibit B: Figure No. 2 - Block O/P Height Variance -Cross Section/Elevation, prepared by Divney Tung Schwalbe LLP dated November 15,2020 6. Exhibit C: Schematic Building Section -Entitled Vs. Proposed and Schematic Building Section at Block O/P and Block I, prepared by KTGY Architecture + Planning 7. Zoning Board of Appeals Application Parts 1 & 2 of 4 signed by Dale Strickland, authorized to sign for Lighthouse Landing Communities, LLC 8. All-purpose certificate of acknowledgement and proxy statement signed by Dale Strickland 9. Zoning Compliance Form signed by Andrew Tung dated November 13,2020 10. Short Environmental Assessment Form-Part 1-Project Information signed by Andrew Tung 11. Subdivision Plat prepared by Control Point Associates, Inc. dated May 7,2015 12. Westchester County Recording & Endorsement page recorded January 11,2016 Page 1 of 3 �13. Bargain & Sale Deed without Covenant Against Grantors' Acts dated December 4, 2015 14. Lot 1 Metes and Bounds Description prepared by First Order LLC 15. Lot 3 Metes and Bounds Description prepared by First Order LLC WHEREAS, the ZBA held a duly noticed public hearing on December 16,2020 via Zoom Webinar to hear and consider the application; and WHEREAS, testimony was received from Janet Giris, partner with DelBello Donnellen Weingarten Wise & Wiederkehr, LLC on behalf of the applicant stating that they are seeking approval to increase the building heights of three townhome units, within the 300-foot wide reduced height zone, from 42.0 feet to 48.0 feet for better marketability of the units; and WHEREAS, testimony was received from Andrew Tung, associate with Divney Tung Schwalbe LLP, on behalf of the applicant stating that variances were issued for Block-I in 2015 and for Block-J and Block-E in 2018 for the requested building height of 48.0 feet. The proposed buildings will be perceived as threestory buildings because they will face the street with the fourth floor stepping back from the facade; and WHEREAS, testimony was received from Sean McCarty, the Village Architect, stating that the building height restriction west of the Metro-North Railroad tracks was created in anticipation of a residential development on the East Parcel, to provide the East Parcel units with a better westerly view, which is no longer proposed. WHEREAS, testimony was received from Jonathan Stein, the Managing Member of Diversified Realty Advisors, LLC stating that the proposed variance is required to fulfill the market conditions and that currently there are no townhomes less than 48.0 feet in height. WHERES, testimony was received from Peter Chavkin, the Managing Partner of Biddle Real Estate, stating that they do anticipate requesting additional variances for the 48-foot increased building height for the balance of the Block O/P development. WHEREAS, in making its determination as to whether the applicant should be granted the area variances, the ZBA considered the following factors: 1) whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance; 2) whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to (StirsSie, ather than an area variance; 3) whether the requested area variance is substantial; 4) whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and 5) whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the board of appeals, but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that ZBA, after review of the materials submitted, public comments, including written correspondence and recommendations, has determined that in accordance with the criteria set forth in Part 617.7 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and based upon review of the Environmental Assessment Form, all of the documents submitted to the ZBA and all other materials which were prepared and submitted, the Page 2 of 3 �ZBA determines the application meets the requirements for a Type II action under SEQRA 617.5 and therefore requires no further processing under SEQRA; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, after due consideration the ZBA makes the following determination: 1. Granting of the area variance will not create an undesirable change or be a detriment to the character of the neighborhood as the variance for the 48-foot height restriction would be consistent with the surrounding buildings. 2. The requested variance is not substantial and the same variances have been granted in the past for the development. 3. Granting of the area variance is the feasible method to achieve the benefits sought by the applicant to construct four story townhome units with 9-foot ceiling heights. 4. Granting of the proposed area variance will not have a permanent adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 5. The requested variance is a self-created hardship but the restrictions are no long applicable to the proposed application. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the area variance requested by the Applicants are granted approval subject to the land and will remain in effect until amended, repealed or otherwise changed, in whole or in part, by the Village of Sleepy Hollow and; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Applicants may obtain the endorsed approval of the ZBA Chairman on a copy of this resolution. This approval shall expire (1) year after the date of this resolution if the conditions have not been completed to the satisfaction of the ZBA and the Department of Architecture, Land Use Development, Buildings and Building Compliance and the Applicants has not obtained the required Building Permit for construction in accordance with the approved plan. and I further certify that the same was entered into the ^minutes of the meetfn&of said Bbwtf ofTrustees held on said date. IN wrmess WHEREOF, I have hereu0to $et my handatf Page 3 of 3 � 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-2020 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_2020-12-16_Approved-ZBA-Resolution-199-Beekman-Ave_-Block-OP Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2020 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2020 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