1 25 16 https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/7edecf36ade37298c6633bcba2ea6732.pdf eb961dcccfb66712990de41ce7fdecd9 PDF Text Text Village of Sleepy Hollow Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting February 17, 2021 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 Gorete Crowe Craig Lis Margaret Rubick Sandra Tripp Thomas Chang Also Present: Sean McCarthy, Village Architect Absent: Richard Hughes Pamela Kroll, Secretary to the Zoning Board Agenda: 1) GTY NY Leasing, Inc., 215 North Broadway, Proposed signage - Public hearing 2) Approval of minutes and resolutions, December 16, 2020 1. GTY NY Leasing Inc., 215 North Broadway, Proposed signage - Public hearing Chairman Church read the public notice 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 asked if the applicant has contacted the Building Department to request a postponement or advise the Board of any technical problems that may prevent them from being a part of this meeting. Sean McCarthy stated that the Building Department has not been contacted regarding any technical problems logging onto the meeting. Mr. McCarthy suggested that the Zoning Board review the minutes first. Sean McCarthy solicited comments from the Board. 1 (ZBA 2/17/2020) �Margaret Rubick asked if the signs have already been installed and asked if the applicant is aware of the size limitations for signage. Sean McCarthy stated that the proposed signs have not been installed. Mr. McCarthy stated that the application was originally heard by the Planning Board because the parcel is subject to a site plan approval. The Planning Board has jurisdiction as the Architectural Review Board, and it was determined that the proposed signage was too large and consists of material that is not permitted. The application was referred to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Thomas Chang questioned the applicants reasoning for the designs and sizes of the proposed signage and if it relates to corporate logo requirements. Sean McCarthy stated that the applicant did not provide specific corporation logo reasoning for the proposed signage sizes. Sandra Tripp asked if there are Tarrytown residential properties that abut the application property location. Sean McCarthy stated that all of the adjacent lots are in the Village of Sleepy Hollow but there are residential properties that abut the applicant's property. Sandra Tripp stated that the neighbors may object to the proposed size of the signs. Sean McCarthy stated that they are also proposing both of the signs to be illuminated. Motion was made to adjourn the application hearing to the March 17, 2021 meeting. Moved: Church Seconded: Lis Vote 6-0 2. Approval of minutes and resolutions, December 16, 2020 Motion was made to approve the December 16, 2020 minutes as amended and the resolutions from December 16, 2020. Moved: Church Seconded: Crowe Timothy Church, Chairman- yes Gorete Crowe - yes Margaret Rubick - yes Sandra Tripp - yes Craig Lis - yes Thomas Chang - abstained Vote: 5-0-1 APPROVED Motion was made to adjourn the meeting at 8:17 pm. Moved: Church Seconded: Crowe 2 Vote 6-0 (ZBA 2/17/2020) �3 (ZBA 2/17/2020) � 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-2021 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_2021-02-17_Approved Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2021 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2021 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/4b245121c93119ae8d110512972850a4.pdf 09efb911bed514916bac920b06bae2a5 PDF Text Text Village of Sleepy Hollow Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting March 17, 2021 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 Gorete Crowe Craig Lis Margaret Rubick Sandra Tripp Thomas Chang Richard Hughes Also Present: Sean McCarthy, Village Architect Pamela Kroll, Secretary to the Zoning Board Agenda: 1) GTY NY Leasing, Inc., 215 North Broadway, Proposed signage - Public hearing 2) Ivan and Sonia Vukusic, 143 Webber Avenue, Proposed subdivision-preliminary plat 3) Approval of minutes and resolutions, February 17, 2021 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 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. GTY NY Leasing Inc., 215 North Broadway, Proposed signage - Public hearing Chairman Church stated that the public notice has been read and all the mailing receipts have been received. Chairman Church stated that the applicant is applying for eight variances and invited the applicant to present the application. 1 (ZBA 3/17/2021) �Nancy Forrest is an associate with GNS Group and stated that they represent over one-hundred Chestnut Markets along the East Coast. Ms. Forrest stated that the majority of the markets are located on corner lots where they propose signage on both the front and the sides of the building. Ms. Forrest stated that the proposed signage is within the permitted square footage and width on each fa9ade. Ms. Forrest stated that she believes that the issue is the proposed stacking of the lettering. Chairman Church requested more details for the proposed signage. Nancy Forrest stated that the proposed front sign was calculated a little over 18.0 square feet using the square footage of the logo and the lettering. The side sign is proposed at just under 28.0 square feet. Chairman Church stated that the requested variance states that the maximum permitted area for signage is 9.0 square feet and the requested area for the front sign is 19.50 square feet. Nancy Forrest stated that the proposed variance for the front sign square footage seems to have been calculated by using the full width of the sign from the top of the logo to the bottom of the letters. The applicant calculated each section of the sign separately. Chairman Church asked Nancy Forrest if they considered adjusting the signage to avoid requiring a variance. Nancy Forrest stated that the word "market" is approximately 5 square feet and reducing the remainder of the sign to fit within 9 square feet would make the sign unreadable. Chairman Church asked Sean McCarthy if a larger sign is permitted if it is not illuminated. Sean McCarthy stated that a larger sign that is not illuminated is not permitted. The Village Code calculates the total sign area based on the entire stacked area of the signage. Nancy Forrest stated that the proposed signage includes channel lit lettering and lighting for the outline of the logo. Chairman Church asked Nancy Forest if there is a business model or franchise agreement that requires the size and lighting for the signage. Nancy Forrest stated that the logo is franchised and that the majority of the signage they are proposing include the lit channel lettering but there are some places that have external lighting lieu of lit lettering. Sandra Tripp asked Nancy Forrest to confirm the terminology of the channel lit lighting they propose for the lettering. 2 (ZBA 3/17/2021) �Nancy Forrest explained the two types of channel lit lettering and that the lighting for the proposed signs would contain lighting coming out from the front. Chairman Church asked why the proposed side sign needs to be a larger size and lit where it heads into the inner village. Nancy Forrest stated that the proposed sign sizes were determined by what is appropriate based on the size of the fa9ade. Gorete Crowe questioned the proposed location of the front sign. Nancy Forrest stated that the front sign is proposed to be on the back wall at the peak of the building over the double doors. Chairman Church stated that the location for the proposed signage is out of character with the neighborhood. Margaret Rubick stated that the surrounding areas are mostly residential and that there is currently no commercial establishments that are lit up at night. Ms. Rubick stated there is already a Chestnut Market sign on the building and that she has never had a problem seeing the existing sign and that this application should be considered a self-imposed hardship. Richard Hughes suggested it would be helpful to see photographs of other lighted sign locations at night. Craig Lis asked Sean McCarthy if there are time regulations for the hours that the signs can be lit. Sean McCarthy stated that there no Code restrictions for lighted hours, but it could be a condition of approval. Thomas Chang asked Sean McCarthy if the Sleepy Hollow High School has an electronic sign that announces events. Sean McCarthy stated that the sign at the high school is electronic and that Village Hall has a television that is mounted on the building fa9ade to project events instead of a digital readout. Thomas Chang suggested that the amount of light that illuminates the signs at the school and Village Hall may be a good alternative to what is proposed for the market. Sean McCarthy stated that Mobil is also proposing to replace the canopy over the pumps and install LED lighting around the entire canopy. Thomas Chang asked Nancy Forrest if Mobil and Chestnut Market are separate organizations. 3 (ZBA 3/17/2021) �Nancy Forest stated that Chestnut Petroleum owns all of the Mobil signs and are now a Chestnut Corporation that have separate entities for the gas stations and the convenience stores. Thomas Chang suggested that all permit requests be submitted for the building as a whole. Nancy Forest stated that Corporate Mobil uses a different company that handles all the signs for the Mobil gas stations. Gorete Crowe asked Sean McCarthy if the Mobil station is proposing to reduce the size of the canopy. Sean McCarthy stated that the canopy structure will remain but the surface around the canopy is proposed to be replaced with the same type of lighted signage and a lit canopy. The pedestals on the property also has a lighted digital LED sign, and the gas pumps are also lit. Gorete Crowe stated that she is concerned about the side sign being lit 24 hours, 7 days a week. Chairman Church stated that they are several commercial businesses in that area that do not have lighted signage. The Zoning Code permits lighted signage at certain dimensions to avoid the amount of lighting within the Village. Sandra Tripp stated that there are size and illumination issues with the proposed signage and asked Sean McCarthy to confirm what is permitted as of right. Sean McCarthy stated that both of the proposed signs exceed the maximum permitted area, are proposed to be illuminated, and are constructed of materials that are not permitted in the Code. They are permitted to have one illuminated sign that identifies the type of business on the ground floor level. On a corner lot, they are permitted to have one sign on each fa9ade. Sandra Tripp asked if the Mobil signs are considered in the permitted sign count for the building. Sean McCarthy stated that gas stations have special requirements that allow for the additional signage for the building. Thomas Chang asked if both signs are permitted as of right to be illuminated. Sean McCarthy stated that because it is corner lot, both signs are permitted to be illuminated as of right. Both of the signs require a variance for the proposed area based on how the signs are calculated as per the Code. There was a discussion regarding the permitted and proposed sign materials. Chairman Church suggested that the applicant confirm the proposed signage material with the Building Department and reconsider the dimensions for the side sign to see if a variance will be required. 4 (ZBA 3/17/2021) �Nancy Forrest stated that they will be seeking a variance for the proposed front sign. She agrees to continue the public hearing but asked if they would have to send the notices out again. Sean McCarthy stated that the applicant would not be required to mail the public notices again. Chairman Church suggested that Nancy Forrest revise the application as discussed and provide other locations and what type of signage other businesses have in the area. Nancy Forrest agreed that she will revise the drawings for both of the signs to reduce the size of the side wall sign and consider if they can reduce the front wall sign without compromising the integrity of the design. She will communicate with the applicant that the Board would prefer to not have the side sign not internally illuminated since it will face a residential area. Margaret Rubick requested that Nancy Forrest submit photographs of another sign location at night. Thomas Chang requested that Nancy Forrest provide addresses where the similar signs have been installed. Sean McCarthy stated that similar signs were installed recently on the corner of Route 119 and Route 100 in Greenburgh. Nancy Forrest stated that she will email the revised drawings to Sean McCarthy prior to the next meeting date so that the Board can review. Motion was made to adjourn the public hearing to the April 21, 2020 meeting. Moved: Church Seconded: Lis Vote 7-0 2. Ivan and Sonia Vukusic, 143 Webber Avenue, Proposed subdivision-preliminary plat Public hearing Chairman Church read the public notice. Chairman Church listed the documents submitted with the application and stated that the Board received a letter from the Mr. and Mrs. Zegarelli, the owners of 141 Webber Avenue. 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. Michael Stein, P.E. is the President of Hudson Engineering & Consulting, P.C. representing the applicant. Mr. Stein stated that the application proposes a three-lot subdivision of the property. Mr. Stein stated that the application was submitted incorrectly to state that there is an existing four-family house on the property when the existing residence is a three-family residence. Mr. Stein summarized the reasons for the requested variances and stated that they relate to the non5 (ZBA 3/17/2021) �conforming use of the existing house and the lot frontage of the proposed additional lots. The current driveway for the residence uses a shared easement with 141 Webber Avenue that was agreed to for a three-family house. Mr. Stein provided examples of previously approved subdivisions in which the lot frontage and width reductions for multi-family residences exist. The proposed two lots are zoning compliant. It is the existing lot that is non-conforming. Chairman Church asked Michael Stein if the previously approved subdivisions on Webber Avenue required Zoning Board of Appeals approvals. Michael Stein stated that he could not find evidence in the Village records indicating that variances were granted for the other approved subdivisions. Chairman Church asked Michael Stein for the proposed square footage of the homes on for the new lots. Michael Stein stated that that proposed homes would be approximately 2,800 square feet each. Chairman Church questioned that environmental impacts of the proposed application. Michael Stein stated that they have not received the reports back from the wetlands specialist and that should be able to submit the information with the revised application. Chairman Church questioned if the applicant can achieve a reasonable economic return on the property without the proposed subdivision and why the application would not be considered a self-created hardship. Michael Stein stated that he would consult with the owners to obtain financial information. Craig Lis requested that Michael Stein provide photographs of the property and the existing conditions for the next meeting. Motion was made to open the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Tripp Vote 7-0 Chairman Church solicited comments from the public. Philip Zegarelli is the owner of 141 Webber Avenue. Mr. Zegarelli stated that the proposed application would be detriment to their house and the property value. Mr. Zegarellli provided a history of the property, the easement agreement, and how the proposed application would affect their property and the encroachment and the preservation of the existing bridge. Mr Zegarelli stated that there are environmental and wetland concerns related to the proposed application. Mr. Zegarelli requested that the Zoning Board give close consideration in reviewing this application and invited them to visit their property to evaluate the potential impacts. 6 (ZBA 3/17/2021) �Chairman Church requested that Mr. Zegarelli submit a copy of the easement agreement for the Boards review. Motion was made to close the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Crowe Vote 7-0 Chairman Church stated that the application is withdrawn and that the application will be resubmitted. 3. Approval of minutes and resolutions, February 17, 2021 Motion was made to approve the February 17, 2021 minutes and the resolutions. Moved: Church Seconded: Rubick Timothy Church, Chairman- yes Gorete Crowe - yes Margaret Rubick - yes Sandra Tripp - yes Craig Lis - yes Thomas Chang - yes Vote: 7-0 APPROVED Motion was made to adjourn the meeting at 9:20 pm. Moved: Church Seconded: Lis Vote 7-0 Respectfully Submitted, Pamela Kroll Secretary to the Zoning Board of Appeals 7 (ZBA 3/17/2021) � 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-2021 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_2021-03-17_Approved Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2021 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2021 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/11ef7246326f3b74cb79e71f5081cf2c.pdf 94db7022da59005f6f7960542e754b07 PDF Text Text RESOLUTION Adopted at the April 21, 2021 Meeting of the Village of Sleepy Hollow Zoning Board of Appeals RESOLUTION: Area Variances PROPOSED: Signage LOCATION: 215 North Broadway TAX MAP DESIGNATION: Section 115.11, Block 5, Lot 32 ZONING DISTRICT: C-l WHEREAS, on January 8, 2021 an application was submitted by GNS Group, Ltd on behalf of GTY NY Leasing Inc. (the "Applicants") to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Sleepy Hollow {the "ZBA") requesting area variances to install signage (the "Application") pursuant to the Article IV of the Code of the Village of Sleepy Hollow, NY; and WHEREAS, the Applicants are seeking variances from Article IV, Section 338-4.J of the Code of the Village of Sleepy Hollow, NY, Prohibited signs; vacuum plastic form faced sign is proposed where vacuum plastic form faced signs or letters are prohibited; and WHEREAS, the Applicants are seeking variances from Article IV, Section 338-6.E.(2) of the Code of the Village of Sleepy Hollow, NY, Signs in commercial districts, where the maximum permitted area for signage is 9.0 square feet and the proposed areas for the signage are 19.50 square feet and 19.40 square feet; and WHEREAS, the Applicants are seeking variances from Article IV, Section 338-6.E.(3) Signs in commercial districts, where the maximum permitted letter heights are 18.0 inches and the proposed letter heights are 45.0 inches and 60 inches and; WHEREAS, the Applicants are seeking variances from Article IV, Section 338-6.E.(l) of the Code of the Village of Sleepy Hollow, NY, Signs in commercial districts, where the required maximum permitted sign height is 24 inches and the proposed heights are 45 inches and 60 inches.; 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 Part 1 and Part 2 of 4 signed by Kathy Regalbuto dated December 4, 2020 2. Zoning Board of Appeals Application Part 3 or 4, proxy statement signed by Joshua Dicker, Executive VP of GTY NY Leasing Inc., dated December 17, 2020 Page 1 of 4 �3. Short Environmental Assessment Form, Part 1- Project Information signed by Nancy Forrest, dated December 21, 2020 4. Property survey prepared by Morris Associates, P.L.L.C, dated February 8, 2016 5. Special Warranty Deed dated January 13, 2011 6. Westchester County Recording & Endorsement Page dated February 10, 2011 7. Zoning Compliance Form dated January 6, 2021 8. Drawings prepared by Murdoch Engineering as follows: a. Sheet 1.1, Elevation Rendering.cdr, dated January 17,2020 b. Sheet 1.2, Elevation Rendering.cdr, dated February 24, 2020 c. Sheet 2.1, Elevation Rendering.cdr, dated January 17,2020 d. Sheet 2.2, Elevation Rendering.cdr, dated January 17, 2020 9. Revised drawings dated April 1, 2021 as follows: a. Sheet 1.1. dated April 1, 2021 b. Sheet 1.2 dated April 1, 2021 c. Sheet 2.1 dated April 1, 2021 d. Sheet 2.2 dated April 1, 2021 WHEREAS, the ZBA held duly noticed public hearing on February 17, 2021 and was continued on March 17, 2021 and April 21, 2021, via Zoom Webinar to hear and consider the application; and WHEREAS, on April 6, 2021 revised drawings were submitted to the ZBA requesting reduced signage sizes and changes in the lighting used for the lettering in lieu of the originally proposed application; and WHEREAS, testimony was received Nancy Forrest, on behalf of the applicant stating that she is an associate of GNS Group and that they represent over one-hundred Chestnut Markets along the East Coast and that the majority of the markets are located on corner lots where signage is proposed on the front and sides of the buildings. The proposed signage lettering and underscore will be constructed of painted aluminum faces. The "Squirrel" only will be constructed of half inch push-thru, edge-lit acrylic with an opaque face in Chestnut Green. The signage will be illuminated with halo lit channel lettering. WHEREAS, testimony was received from Sean McCarthy stating that the Village Code permits illuminated signage but requires a timer that will turn off the lighting by 2:00 AM and that the stacked products in the windows and outside the building also count as signage and are subject to Code Enforcement. WHEREAS, the ZBA determined that variances were only required for the front and rear sign heights and that they would vote to approval the following variances: Article IV, Section 338-6.E.(l) of the Code of the Village of Sleepy Hollow, NY, Signs in commercial districts, where the required maximum permitted sign height is 24 inches and the proposed heights are 29 inches and 45 inches.; and Page 2 of 4 �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 and the proposed signage is appropriate for the gas station. 2. The requested variances are not substantial in relation to the permitted signage heights. The applicant made significant changes to the size and lighting methods for the signage. Timers will restrict the lighted signage hours in the Village. 3. Granting of the area variances is the feasible and minimal method to achieve the benefits sought by the applicants. 4. Granting of the proposed area variances will not have a permanent adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 5. There was no opposition from the public for the proposed signage. 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, Page 3 of 4 �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 VILLAGtOF SLEEftYKOLLOiAr? Timothy Church, Chairman C Z<sZ,\ Date .the undersigned true copy of an extract^duly adopted by the^Board of ', ^Ttosteg^lanni. e of Sleepy Hollow, on t h e ^ ^ j d a y of , and of Ihe whole thereof, and I further certify that the same entered into the minutes of the meeting of said Bottd Of Tflistees/Planning/Zoning held on said cbte. I N WITNESS WHEREOf, I havejiereunio set my hand teal this^A dav of C S ^ ^ / 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-2021 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_2021-04-21_215-North-Broadway-ZBA-Signed-Resolution Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2021 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2021 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/bf91465156b2917b7aaa5c6db54f2ef4.pdf de152ae77110a3d0cd1370c1f286085d PDF Text Text Village of Sleepy Hollow Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting April 21, 2021 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 Gorete Crowe Craig Lis Sandra Tripp Thomas Chang Richard Hughes Absent: Margaret Rubick Also Present: Sean McCarthy, Village Architect Pamela Kroll, Secretary to the Zoning Board Agenda: 1) GTY NY Leasing, Inc., 215 North Broadway, Proposed signage- Continued public hearing 2) David Starkey, 199 Webber Avenue, Proposed additions and alterations- Public hearing 3) Tap Zee Realty LLC, 47 Clinton Street, Proposed change of use- Public hearing 4) Approval of minutes - March 17, 2021 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. GTY NY Leasing Inc., 215 North Broadway, Proposed signage - Public hearing 1 (ZBA 4/21/2021) �Chairman Church stated that the public notice has been previously read and invited the applicant to present the changes to the proposed application. Nancy Forrest is an associate with GNS Group and stated the revised drawings propose to reduce the sizes of the front and side signs and use backlit halo lettering. Sandra Tripp asked Sean McCarthy if a variance is required for the signs to be illuminated. Sean McCarthy stated that the signs are permitted to be illuminated but the Village Code requires that illuminated signs have a timer that will turn off lighted signs by 2:00 am. Mr. McCarthy stated that there are excessive stacked products in the window and outside the building that also count as signage and are subject to Code Enforcement. Discussion ensued on the size reduction of the proposed signage from the previous application. The Zoning Board members expressed their satisfaction for the proposed signage changes. Motion was made to open the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Crowe Vote 6-0 Chairman Church solicited comments from the public. There were no public comments. Motion was made to close the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Crowe Vote 6-0 Motion was made by Chairman Church to approve the variances requested for the proposed signage heights based on the following criteria: 1. Granting of the area variances will not be detrimental to the character of the neighborhood and are appropriate for the gas station. 2. The applicant has made significant changes to the size and lighting methods for the signage and timers will restrict the lighted hours. 3. Granting of the area variances will not have a permanent adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 4. There was no opposition from the public for the proposed signage . Motion was made to approve the variances as requested. Moved: Church Seconded: Tripp Timothy Church, Chairman- yes 2 (ZBA 4/21/2021) �Richard Hughes - yes Gorete Crowe - yes Sandra Tripp - yes Thomas Chang - yes Craig Lis - yes Vote 6-0 APPROVED 2. David Starkey, 199 Webber Avenue, Proposed additions and alterations - Public hearing Chairman Church read the public notice. Chairman Church asked Sean McCarthy if all of the mailing receipts have been received. Sean McCarthy stated that all of the mailing receipts have been received. Luis Saiz is the architect representing the applicant and stated that they are seeking variances for the front yard and the side yard for an accessory structure. Mr. Saiz stated that both structures are existing non-conforming. Mr. Saiz shared photographs and drawings, and summarized the details for the proposed additions in relation to the neighboring properties. Mr. Saiz stated that the proposed application will not be a detriment to the neighborhood and will increase the street appeal. Sandra Tripp asked Luis Saiz how the proposed garage addition effects the encroachment of the side yard set-back. Luis Saiz stated that the differential between the existing low hip roof and the proposed new gable roof is a slight increase over the existing base of the garage. Gorete Crowe asked if the proposed art studio could be a future rentable space. Luis Saiz stated that there are no plans for a bathroom or any heating or air conditioning in the art studio space and it will not allow for the use of a rental apartment. Thomas Chang requested the proposed materials for the front porch. David Starkey is the owner of 199 Webber Avenue and stated that they intend to match the materials of the existing home which consist of wood framing and shingles. Richard Hughes asked if any comments were received from the public in opposition of the proposed additions. Sean McCarthy stated that all of the public notices were mailed and that the Building Department has not received any correspondence or phone calls from the neighboring property owners. Sandra Tripp asked if the two car garage use will remain. 3 (ZBA 4/21/2021) �Luis Saiz stated that the only change to the garage is the proposed art studio above it. David Starkey stated that they don't have a finished basement and that this is the main reason for the proposed art studio. Motion was made to open the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Lis Vote 6-0 Chairman Church solicited comments from the public. There were no public comments. Motion was made to close the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Lis Vote 6-0 Chairman Church solicited comments from the Board. Comments were received from the Board in favor of the application. Motion was made by Chairman Church to approve the requested variances based on the following criteria: 1. Granting of the area variances will enhance the character of the neighborhood. 2. The requested variances are not substantial as the request for the increase in square footage is for the extension of an existing porch. The set-backs are existing non-conforming. The footprint of the existing garage will not change, and that the slight side yard set-back increase relates to the roof height and type. 3. Granting of the area variances will not have a permanent adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 4. There was no opposition from the public for the proposed additions. Motion was made to approve the variances as requested. Moved: Church Seconded: Chang Timothy Church, Chairman- yes Richard Hughes - yes Gorete Crowe - yes Sandra Tripp - yes Thomas Chang - yes 4 (ZBA 4/21/2021) �Craig Lis - yes Vote 6-0 APPROVED 3. Tap Zee Realty LLC, 47 Clinton Street, Proposed change of use - Public hearing Chairman Church read the public notice. Chairman Church listed the documents submitted with the application and asked Sean McCarthy if all of the mailing receipts have been received. Sean McCarthy stated that all of the mailing receipts have been received. James Vassalotti is the architect representing the applicant and stated that their consultants will present the application. Tony Gioffre is member of the law firm Cuddy & Feder. Mr. Gioffre summarized the existing use of building and the proposed application to reduce the size of the first floor laundromat to add two residential units. Mr. Gioffre stated that the building is existing non-conforming and currently does not have any off-street parking spaces. They are seeking a variance for the required three off-street parking spaces. Carlitto Holt is a Managing Partner of Provident Design Engineering and stated that they submitted a parking study which found that the calculations for the required parking spaces omitted the amount of the laundromat area that would be displaced by the residential units. Mr. Holt stated that the reduction in the laundromat space would eliminate one of the required offstreet parking space for the business and that the requested variance is for the net requirement of two additional off-street parking spaces. Mr. Holt stated that on-street parking surveys were completed to demonstrate the parking spaces available at different days and times during the week on Clinton Street and the surrounding areas. Mr. Holt stated that creating off-street parking spaces and a driveway will eliminate some of the existing on-street parking spaces. Discussion ensued between the Board and the applicant's representatives regarding the parking space conditions at 47 Clinton Street, the remainder of Clinton Street, and the neighboring streets. Chairman Church asked James Vassalotti for the proposed square footage of the proposed residential units. James Vassalotti stated that the proposed one bedroom unit would be 600 square feet and the studio apartment would be 400 square feet. Motion was made to open the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Hughes Vote 6-0 Chairman Church solicited comments from the public. There were no public comments. 5 (ZBA 4/21/2021) �Motion was made to close the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Lis Vote 6-0 Chairman Church solicited comments from the Board. Sandra Tripp stated parking is a problem in the Village and asked for the applicant to explain why the application is not a self-created hardship. Tony Gioffre stated that a self-created hardship is only one of the five factors for the Board to consider for review of the application. There is no alternative to minimize the required variances and achieve the goals that would benefit the applicant. The approval of the requested variances will not cause a detriment to the neighborhood because their studies show that there are always two available parking spaces that can be absorbed in the area. Sean McCarthy asked if the applicant would consider proposing one residential unit in lieu of two units. Tony Gioffre requested that the Board adjourn the public hearing so that they can discuss the options with the applicant. Motion was made to adjourn the public hearing to the May 19, 2021 meeting. Moved: Church Seconded: Lis Vote 6-0 4. Approval of minutes - March 17, 2021 Motion was made to approve the March 17, 2021 minutes. Moved: Church Seconded: Hughes Timothy Church, Chairman- yes Gorete Crowe - yes Sandra Tripp - yes Craig Lis - yes Thomas Chang - yes Richard Hughes - yes Vote: 6-0 APPROVED Motion was made to adjourn the meeting at 9:24 pm. Moved: Church Seconded: Lis Vote 6-0 Respectfully Submitted, Pa^rLeJas A^&M Pamela Kroll Secretary to the Zoning Board of Appeals 6 (ZBA 4/21/2021) � 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-2021 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_2021-04-21_-Approved-ZBA-Minutes Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2021 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2021 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/b6d02bdbeca261b80dfb0b45186aab59.pdf effdfbc402ff4c1a741c28c5897feb70 PDF Text Text RESOLUTION Adopted at the April 21, 2021 Meeting of the Village of Sleepy Hollow Zoning Board of Appeals RESOLUTION: Area Variances PROPOSED: Two-story addition, covered porch, second floor garage addition LOCATION: 199 Webber Avenue TAX MAP DESIGNATION: Section 115.8, Block 1, Lot 8 ZONING DISTRICT: R-3 WHEREAS, on March 11,2021 an application was submitted by David Starkey (the "Applicant") to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "ZBA") requesting area variances to construct a two story addition, covered porch, and a second floor garage 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 or lot, where the required minimum front yard set-back for a principle structure is 20.00 feet and the existing front yard set-back is 16.80 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 or lot, where the ( required minimum side yard set-back for an accessory structure is 3.00 feet and'the existing accessory structure side yard set-back is 2.60 feet; and WHEREAS, the Applicant is seeking a variance from Article VI, Section 450-3$: Of the Zoning Code, Schedule of Regulations, where the required minimum front yard set-back is 20.00 feet, and the proposed front yard set-back is 16.80 feet; and WHEREAS, the Applicant is seeking a variance from Article VII, Section 450-E (2) (c). of the Zoning Code, Coverage and open space, location of accessory uses in residential districts, where the required minimum side yard set-back is 3.00 feet, and the proposed side yard set-back is 2.60 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 January 15, 2021 2. Zoning Board of Appeals Application Part 1 -4 signed by David Starkey, dated March 10, 2021 3. Zoning Compliance Form signed by Luis Saiz, Jr., R.A., dated January 4, 2021 Page 1 of 3 �4. Short Environmental Assessment Form Part-1 Project information, signed by David Starkey, dated March 10,2021 5. Survey prepared by Ward Carpenter Engineers, Inc., completed on November 24, 2020 6. Photograph of existing conditions 7. Construction drawings prepared by Luis Saiz, Jr., architect dated May 26, 2020: a. ZBA1- Existing & Proposed Plans & Garage Addition b. ZBA2- Existing & Proposed Plans & Exterior Elevations c. ZBA3- Proposed Exterior Elevations d. A200- Exterior Elevations e. A201- Exterior Elevations WHEREAS, the ZBA held duly noticed public hearing on April 21, 2021 via Zoom Webinar to hear and consider the application; and WHEREAS, testimony was received from Luis Saiz, Jr., architect on behalf of the applicant stating that the main house and the garage are existing non-conforming structures. The proposed covered porch extension will provide shelter from the weather. The proposed garage art studio space will not be a conditioned space, will not contain a bathroom, and will not be used as a rentable space. The proposed additions will not be a detriment to the neighborhood and will increase street appeal; and WHEREAS, testimony was received from David Starkey, stating that they do not have a finished basement and is the main reason for the proposed art studio above the garage. They intend to match the materials of the existing house for the covered porch and additions; 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 2 of 3 �1. Granting of the area variances will not create an undesirable change or be a detriment to the character of the neighborhood and the proposed additions will enhance the character of the neighborhood and there is no opposition from the public. 2. The requested variances are not substantial as the increase in square footage is for the extension of an existing porch. The set-backs are existing non-conforming. The footprint of the existing garage will not change and the side yard set-back increase relates to the proposed roof height and type. 3. Granting of the area variances is the feasible and minimal method to achieve the benefits sought by the applicant. 4. The requested variances are a self-created hardship but are due to the existing non-conforming conditions of the structures. 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 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 plans. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS VILLAGE Or^LEEBY^LLO Timoth .the undersigned Cbffc/Deputy Clerk, do hereby certify that the foregoingjs a tali copy of an extract duly adopted by the (Board <rf Village of Sleepy Hollow, r on thftj y^ day d T ^ f A ^ C . 20 and of tie whole thereof, and I further certify that the same was entered into the minutes of the meeting of said Board <rfTrostees/Ranning/Znpi'-n hnw - - s=jid r I N WITNESS W H F r jiereui,, jet my hand and official sea! ^ v t o A 202d— � 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-2021 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_2021-04-21_RES_199-Webber-Avenue_ZBA-Signed-Resolution Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2021 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2021 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/ef07361ef89bf8263e8786c6e6898042.pdf 8f39c76b2e645401a39a88fe92995358 PDF Text Text RESOLUTION Adopted at the May 19,2021 Meeting of the Village of Sleepy Hollow Zoning Board of Appeals RESOLUTION: Area Variances PROPOSED: Conversion of commercial space to residential apartments LOCATION: 47 Clinton Street TAX MAP DESIGNATION: Section 115.15, Block 2, Lot 24 ZONING DISTRICT: C-2 WHEREAS, on March 15, 2021 an application was submitted by Tap Zee Realty LLC (the "Applicant") to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "ZBA") requesting area variances to install convert part of the ground floor commercial space to (2) residential apartments (the "Application") pursuant to the Article IV of the Code of the Village of Sleepy Hollow, NY; and WHEREAS, the Applicant is seeking a variance from Article VII, Section 450-34.B. of the Code of the Village of Sleepy Hollow, NY, Supplementary Regulations, adding to and altering an existing nonconforming building or lot, where the required number of parking spaces is 17 and there are no existing parking spaces; and WHEREAS, the Applicants are seeking a variance from Article VIII, Section 450-51.C. of the Code of the Village of Sleepy Hollow, NY, Supplemental Regulations, Off-street parking and loading spaces, where the required number of parking spaces is 20, there are no existing parking spaces 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 Part 1-4 signed by James Vassalotti, architect, dated March 9,2Q21 2. froxy statement signed by Salvatore Alesci 3. 'Zoning'Compliance Form signed by James Vassalotti, dated March 9, 2021 4. -Short Environmental Assessment Form, Part 1- Project Information signed by James Vassalotti, dated March 9, 2021 5. Property survey prepared by Summit Land Surveying P.C. date June 16, 2017 6. '-Deed dated July 14, 2017 7. Westchester County Recording & Endorsement Page dated July 25, 2017 8. Westcor Land Title Insurance Company Schedule A -description 9. Town of Mount Pleasant School 2020 tax certificate 10. Town of Mount Pleasant County 2020 tax certificate Page 1 of 4 �11. Village of Sleepy Hollow 2019 tax certificate 12. Photograph of existing conditions 13. Drawings prepared by Vassalotti Architects, LLP, dated March 16, 2021 as follows: a. T-001.00 - Cover Sheet, General Notes, Zoning Information, Location Plan & Site Plan b. A-001.00 - Ground Floor Demolition Plan, New Construction Plan, Door & Finish Schedules, Typical Notes, and Details 14. Parking analysis prepared by Provident Design Engineering, dated April 14, 2021 15. Revised drawing prepared by Vassalotti Architects, LLP dated May 4, 2021 as follows: a. A-2 - Proposed Ground Floor Plan b. 47 Clinton Street Parking Requirements Table WHEREAS, the ZBA held duly noticed public hearing on April 21, 2021 and was continued on May 19, 2021, via Zoom Webinar to hear and consider the application; and WHEREAS, on April 16, 2021, a parking analysis, prepared by Provident Design Engineering was submitted to the ZBA; and WHEREAS, on May 5, 2021, a revised ground floor drawing and a parking requirement table, prepared by Vassalotti Architects, LLP was submitted to the ZBA; and WHEREAS, testimony was received from Tony Gioffre from the law firm of Cuddy & Fedar on behalf of the applicant stating that the revised application proposes to reduce the size of the first floor laundromat to add (1) two-bedroom residential unit. The building is existing non-conforming and does not have any off-street parking spaces. The requested variance for one required on-street parking space can be absorbed by the surrounding areas and there is no alternative to minimize the required variance and achieve the goals sought by the applicant; and WHEREAS, testimony was received from Carlitto Holt of Provident Design Engineering on behalf of the applicant stating that on-street parking surveys were completed and demonstrate that there are onstreet parking spaces available at different days and time during the week on Clinton Street and the surrounding areas and that the creation of off-street parking spaces with a driveway would eliminate some of the existing on-street parking spaces. WHEREAS, testimony was received from James Vassalotti, architect on behalf of the applicant stating that the owner intends to reduce the size of the laundromat space and invest in replacing the old equipment to create a more efficient use of water consumption and electrical service needs. WHEREAS, testimony was received from Sean McCarthy, Building Inspector stating that the proposed application for (1) residential unit on the ground floor requires a variance for (1) additional off-street parking space and that the creation of an additional commercial business would require one space for every 200 square feet for a retail use, one space for every 300 square feet for an office use; and one space for every five seats for a restaurant use. WHEREAS, the ZBA determined that the required variances for the revised application are as follows: Page 2 of 4 �1. Article VII, Section 450-34.B. of the Code of the Village of Sleepy Hollow, NY, Supplementary Regulations, adding to and altering an existing non-conforming building or lot, where the required number of parking spaces is 17 and there are no existing parking spaces 2. Article VIII, Section 450-51.C. of the Code of the Village of Sleepy Hollow, NY, Supplemental Regulations, Off-street parking and loading spaces, where the required number of parking spaces is 19, there are no existing parking spaces and there are no parking spaces proposed 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 or nearby properties as not change to the building footprint is proposed. 2. Granting of the area variances are a feasible way to achieve the benefit sought by the applicant and the establishment of an additional commercial business would increase the parking requirements. 3. The requested area variances for one additional parking space are not substantial in relation to the existing conditions of the building. 4. Granting of the proposed area variances will not have a permanent adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 5. The requested variances are a self-created hardship but it is not the only factor that the Board considers for approval. Page 3 of 4 �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 VILLAGE OF SLEt Date Timolhy Church, Chairman A •hr, '.'ndersioned ; ie foregoipg is a hsrr Cierk/pop'itv ir.rk r.K c .iy ,:douted bvjhe Board of irue «.op, • my of the Village^i Sleepy Hollow, Tru*t'ies/f ot ^ , 20 and of on the , and further certify that the same was the whole ih entered into the minutes of the meeting of said Board of Trustees/Plapdng/Zoning held on said date. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal this day of 20 I, ,, ^ . ^ c w H f t q h f r v j ^ ifm|nm|flnod Clerk/Deputy Clerk, do hereby certify that the foregoing fee true copy of an extract duly adopted by tt^Bwdjrf TfUtleesWannii^^^of the Village of Sleepy Holtow, on the f ± ^ d a y rflH^W . a i g j ^ t f the whole thereof, and I furtherNcertify that the same wee 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 officii s£al thisX^jday of Q y o ^ - e 20 2 / Clerk 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-2021 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_2021-05-19_47-Clinton-Street-ZBA-Signed-Resolution Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2021 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2021 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/b59027496e666c2695406343901724f8.pdf 926c87f52a6da7cef4419018fbc2d223 PDF Text Text Village of Sleepy Hollow Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting May 19, 2021 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 Gorete Crowe Craig Lis Sandra Tripp Thomas Chang Margaret Rubick Also Present: Sean McCarthy, Village Architect Pamela Kroll, Secretary to the Zoning Board Agenda: 1) Tap Zee Realty LLC, 47 Clinton Street, Proposed change of use- Continued public hearing 2) Savvas and Marinna Kyriakidis, 23 Amos Street, Proposed additions- Public hearing 3) Brian Hecht and Morgan Ridler, 259 Hunter Avenue, Proposed additions- Public hearing 4) Miles Greaves and Jennifer Woolf, 2 Lakeview Avenue, Legalization of rear terracePublic hearing 5) Approval of minutes - April 21, 2021 Chairman Church stated that Richard Hughes has resigned from the Board and thanked him for his service. Chairman Church stated that they have six members present for the meeting. 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 (ZBA 5/19/2021) �1. Tap Zee Realty LLC, 47 Clinton Street, Proposed change of use- Continued Public hearing Chairman Church stated that a revised floor plan and parking requirement table was submitted by the applicant on May 5, 2021 proposing to construct (1) two-bedroom apartment in lieu of (1) one-bedroom apartment and (1) studio apartment on the ground floor and that this application would require 18 parking spaces. Chairman Church invited the applicant to present the details of the revised submission. Tony Gioffre is member of the law firm Cuddy & Feder representing the applicant. Mr. Gioffre stated that reducing the proposed residential unit count to a (1) two-bedroom apartment reduces the requested parking variance to one required parking space. The analysis completed by Provident Engineering suggests that one additional parking space can be absorbed by the surrounding areas. Mr. Gioffre requested that the Zoning Board close the public hearing and grant a variance for one parking space. Chairman Church requested clarification from Sean McCarthy on the requested variances and the required parking spaces based on the proposed application changes. Sean McCarthy stated that the reduced parking calculations from 20 required spaces to 19 spaces on the application is correct and that half spaces are rounded up. Since there is no existing parking, the parking variance is based on the additional parking requirement for the proposed application. Chairman Church requested that the applicant explain the economic reasons for proposing residential units on the ground floor space in lieu of a commercial business. James Vassalotti is the architect representing the applicant. Mr. Vassalotti stated that the existing laundromat space is financially a loss because the equipment is outdated and utility bills are high. The owner intends to reduce the size of the space and invest $200,000.00 to replace the old equipment and create a more efficient use of water consumption and electrical service needs. Chairman Church asked if the applicant has considered reducing the size of the laundromat and keeping the space as a commercial use. Chairman Church asked Sean McCarthy if an additional commercial business would increase the required number of parking spaces. Sean McCarthy stated that an additional commercial business may require more parking spaces depending on the type of use and the square footage of the space. Residential unit parking requirements are based on the bedroom counts. Sean McCarthy stated that if a retail space was proposed, the parking requirement would be one space for every 200 square feet. An office space would require one space for every 300 square feet. A food establishment would require one space for every five seats in a restaurant. 2 (ZBA 5/19/2021) �Chairman Church asked James Vassalotti to confirm that the owner intends to file for a Building Permit to renovate the reduced laundromat space if the variance is approved. James Vassalotti stated that that the owner intends to file the permits necessary to renovate and improve the reduced laundromat space. Chairman Church solicited questions from the Board. There were no questions from the Board. Motion was made to open the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Crowe Vote 6-0 Chairman Church solicited comments from the public. There were no public comments. 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 variance requested for the revised proposed application based on the following criteria: 1. Granting of the area variance will not be detrimental to the character of the neighborhood or nearby properties as no change to the building footprint is proposed. 2. Granting of the area variance is a feasible way to achieve the benefit sought by the applicant and the establishment of an additional commercial business would increase the parking requirements. 3. The requested area variance for one additional parking space is not substantial in relation to the existing conditions of the building. 4. Granting of the area variance will not have a permanent adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood and the intended improvements to the existing laundromat space will benefit the Village. 5. The requested variance is a self-created hardship but it is not the only factor that the Board considers for approval. Chairman Church stated that the application meets the requirements for a Type II action under SEQRA 617.5 and that no further environmental review is required. 3 (ZBA 5/19/2021) �Motion was made to approve the variance application as requested. Moved: Church Seconded: Lis Timothy Church, Chairman- yes Margaret Rubick - yes Gorete Crowe - yes Sandra Tripp - yes Thomas Chang - yes Craig Lis - yes Vote 6-0 APPROVED 2. Savvas and Marinna Kyriakidis, 23 Amost Street, Proposed additions - Public hearing Chairman Church read the public notice and listed the documents submitted with the application. Chairman Church asked Sean McCarthy if 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. William Simeoforides is the architect representing the applicant. Mr. Simeoforides stated that the house is a modular two-story single-family house with a narrow galley kitchen. The application proposes to construct a 25 ^ foot wide by 8 foot deep rear addition to expand the kitchen and the dining room areas and a covered deck to the west of the proposed addition. The applicant is seeking a variance for the existing non-conforming rear and front yard set-backs. The proposed addition requires an additional variance for rear yard. There are no proposed changes to the front entry porch at the front yard set-back. Chairman Church requested the square footage for the proposed rear addition. William Simeoforides stated that the proposed addition is approximately 10 square feet. Chairman Church asked Sean McCarthy if there has been any opposition from the neighbors. Sean McCarthy stated no public comments have been received. Chairman Church solicited comments from the Board. Craig Lis asked if there is another property behind the existing rear retaining wall. William Simeoforides stated that there is another property behind the applicant's house. Motion was made to open the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Lis 4 Vote 6-0 (ZBA 5/19/2021) �Chairman Church solicited comments from the public. There were no public comments. Motion was made to close the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Chang Vote 6-0 Chairman Church solicited comments from the Board. Comments were received from the Board in favor of the application. Chairman Church stated that the application meets the requirements for a Type II action under SEQRA 617.5 and that no further environmental review is required. Motion was made by Chairman Church to approve the requested variances based on the following criteria: 1. Granting of the area variances will not be detrimental to the character of the neighborhood or the neighboring properties as the proposed addition is located at the rear of a sloped lot. 2. The requested variances are not substantial in relation to the existing non-conformities of the lot and the location of the proposed addition. 3. Granting of the area variances is the feasible and minimal method to achieve the benefits sought by the applicants on a property that is irregular in shape. 4. The requested variances are a self-created hardship but there has been no opposition from the neighboring properties and it is not the only factor the Board considers when approving an application. 5. Granting of the area variances will not have a permanent adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. Motion was made to approve the variances as requested. Moved: Church Seconded: Tripp Timothy Church, Chairman- yes Margaret Rubick - yes Gorete Crowe - yes Sandra Tripp - yes Thomas Chang - yes Craig Lis - yes Vote 6-0 APPROVED 5 (ZBA 5/19/2021) �3. Brian Hecht and Morgan Ridler, 259 Hunter Avenue, Proposed additions - Public hearing Chairman Church read the public notice and listed the documents submitted with the application. Chairman Church asked Sean McCarthy if all of the mailing receipts have been received. Sean McCarthy stated that the mailing receipts have been received. Amanda Linhart is the architect representing the applicant. Ms. Linhart presented photographs of the existing house and stated that the application proposes to construct a rear second story addition to create a master bedroom suite by increasing the size of the existing dormer and raising the ceiling height. The proposed addition will add 64 square feet to the existing house. Ms. Linhart presented the proposed elevations drawings and stated that the roof line will remain the same and that they propose to increase the size of the west windows to increase the views to the Hudson River. Ms. Linhart presented the floor plans to show the proposed master bedroom and bathroom. There are no proposed changes to the existing non-conforming garage accessory structure. Chairman Church asked Amanda Linhart to confirm that the proposed addition will not be seen from the front of the house or from the road and asked her to describe the existing landscaping between the house and the neighboring property owner. Amanda Linhart stated that the addition will be not be seen from the road and that the only neighbor affected by the proposed application would be the neighbor to the left on Riverside Drive. The owner has spoken to the neighbor said they don't have any objections. Morgan Ridler is the owner of 259 Hunter Avenue and stated that there are Pine trees and hedges between the neighbors' house. Motion was made to open the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Tripp Vote 6-0 Chairman Church solicited comments from the public. There were no public comments. Motion was made to close the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Lis Vote 6-0 Chairman Church solicited comments from the Board. Comments were received from members in favor of the application. Chairman Church stated that theBoard application meets the requirements for a Type II action under SEQRA 617.5 and that no further environmental review is required. 6 (ZBA 5/19/2021) �Motion was made by Chairman Church to approve the requested variances based on the following criteria: 1. Granting of the area variances will not be detrimental to the character of the neighborhood or the neighboring properties as the proposed addition will not be seen from the road, there are no proposed changes to the roof line or the footprint of the house. 2. The requested variances are not substantial as the proposed application will not increase the footprint of the building and the existing non-conformities of the property are minimal. 3. Granting of the area variances is the feasible and minimal method to achieve the benefits sought by the applicants. 4. The requested variances are a self-created hardship but there has been no opposition from the neighboring properties and it is not the only factor the Board considers when approving an application. 5. Granting of the area variances will not have a permanent adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. Motion was made to approve the variances as requested. Moved: Church Seconded: Rubick Timothy Church, Chairman- yes Margaret Rubick - yes Gorete Crowe - yes Sandra Tripp - yes Thomas Chang - yes Craig Lis - yes Vote 6-0 APPROVED 4. Miles Greaves and Jennifer Woolf, 2 Lakeview Avenue, Legalization of rear terracePublic hearing Chairman Church read the public notice and listed the documents submitted with the application. Chairman Church stated that they received an email dated May 14, 2021 from the Howard Katseff and Bonnie Goodman, the owners of 4 Lakeview Avenue, in support of the application. (see Exhibit #1) Chairman Church asked Sean McCarthy if all of the mailing receipts have been received. Sean McCarthy stated that the mailing receipts have been received. 7 (ZBA 5/19/2021) �Chairman Church invited the applicant to present the application. Miles Greaves and Jennifer Woolf are the owners of 2 Lakeview Avenue. Mr. Greaves stated that the patio has low visibility from the street or the neighboring properties. They have spoken with their neighbors and there have been no objections. The patio provides enjoyment for their backyard and increases the value of their property. Chairman Church asked Sean McCarthy to provide the history of the application. Sean McCarthy stated that in 2017 a Code Enforcement Officer was called to investigate work being performed without a Building Permit by the previous owner and a stop work order was issued. An agreement was made prior to the closing in order to allow the sale of the property to move forward which stated that the new owner would file the required documents to legalize the structure or remove it. Chairman Church asked Sean McCarthy if a railing is required. Sean McCarthy stated that if the height of the terrace is less than 30 inches above the ground a fall protection railing is not a code requirement. Chairman Church stated that since the terrace is not an elevated structure, it makes the requested variance less substantial. Chairman Church stated that if the variance is granted and the owners decide they want to elevate the terrace to be flush with the sloped grade and the door, they would be required to come back for another variance. Miles Greaves stated that they will add railings to the terrace if required. Chairman Church solicited questions from the Board. Discussion ensued between the Board and Sean McCarthy regarding the history of the application and the Village Code requirements related to the application. Motion was made to open the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Lis Vote 6-0 Chairman Church solicited comments from the public. There were no public comments. Motion was made to close the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Crowe Vote 6-0 Chairman Church stated that the application meets the requirements for a Type II action under SEQRA 617.5 and that no further environmental review is required. 8 (ZBA 5/19/2021) �Motion was made by Chairman Church to approve the requested variances based on the following criteria: 1. Granting of the area variances will not be detrimental to the character of the neighborhood or the neighboring properties as the terrace is flat and not an elevated structure. 2. The requested variances are not substantial as the rear yard set-back is existing nonconforming and the additional encroachment in the rear yard is minimal. 3. Granting of the area variances is the feasible and minimal method to achieve the benefits sought by the applicants. 4. There has been no opposition from the neighboring properties and a letter in support of legalizing the terrace was received from the neighboring property owner. 5. Granting of the area variances will not have a permanent adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. Motion was made to approve the variances as requested. Moved: Church Seconded: Rubick Timothy Church, Chairman- yes Margaret Rubick - yes Gorete Crowe - yes Sandra Tripp - yes Thomas Chang - yes Craig Lis - yes Vote 6-0 APPROVED 5. Approve of minuties - April 21, 2021 Motion was made to approve the April 21, 2021 minutes as amended. Moved: Church Seconded: Crowe Timothy Church, Chairman- yes Gorete Crowe - yes Sandra Tripp - yes Craig Lis - yes Thomas Chang - yes Margaret Rubick - yes Vote: 6-0 APPROVED 9 (ZBA 5/19/2021) �Motion was made to adjourn the meeting at 9:00 pm. Moved: Church Seconded: Rubick Vote 6-0 Respectfully Submitted, Pa^rueJa/Kt^M Pamela Kroll Secretary to the Zoning Board of Appeals 10 (ZBA 5/19/2021) � 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-2021 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_2021-05-19_Approved Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2021 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2021 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/64d0cc0a6d587c91e2c14c0e220175db.pdf aeb47ffd8aac574212fb4f1c750f9aca PDF Text Text RESOLUTION Adopted at the May 19,2021 Meeting of the Village of Sleepy Hollow Zoning Board of Appeals RESOLUTION: Area Variances PROPOSED: One story rear addition and covered deck LOCATION: 23 Amos Street TAX MAP DESIGNATION: Section 115.8, Block 2, Lot 12 ZONING DISTRICT: R-3 WHEREAS, on April 5, 2021 an application was submitted by Savvas and Marinna Kyriakidis (the "Applicants") to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "ZBA") requesting area variances to construct a one story rear addition and covered deck (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 or lot, where the required minimum rear yard set-back is 25.00 feet and the existing rear yard set-back is 22.00 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 front yard set-back is 20.00 feet and the existing front yard set-back is 15.00 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, the existing rear yard set-back is 22.00 feet, and the proposed rear yard set-back is 20.50 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 Part 1 -4 signed by Savvas Kyriakidis, dated April 1, 2021 2. Zoning Compliance Form signed by William Simeoforides, architect, dated March 25, 2021 3. Short Environmental Assessment Form Part-1 Project information, signed by Savvas Kyriakidis, dated March 25, 2021 4. Survey of Property prepared by Steven J. Willard, dated December 9, 2020 5. Photograph of existing conditions 6. Property deed dated March 24, 2005 7. Construction drawings prepared by William Simeofordies, architect dated March 21, 2021: a. SK-3A - Site Plan, First Floor Plan, Views of House, Zoning Chart Page 1 of 3 �b. SK-3B - Front (North) Elevation, Side (West) Elevation c. SK-3C - Rear (South) Elevation, Side (East) Elevation WHEREAS, the ZBA held duly noticed public hearing on May 19, 2021 via Zoom Webinar to hear and consider the application; and WHEREAS, testimony was received from William Simeoforides, architect on behalf of the applicant stating that the application proposes to construct a 25 Yi foot wide by 8 foot deep addition to expand the existing kitchen and dining area and a covered deck to the west of the proposed addition. The proposed rear addition is approximately 10 square feet and there are no proposed changes the front entry porch at the front yard set-back; and WHEREAS, testimony was received from Sean McCarthy, the Building Inspector, stating that no public comments have been received; 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: 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 addition is located at the rear of a sloped lot. 2. The requested variances are not substantial in relation to the existing non-conformities of the lot and the location of the proposed addition. 3. Granting of the area variances is the feasible and minimal method to achieve the benefits sought by the applicant on a property that is irregular in shape. Page 2 of 3 �4. The requested variances are a self-created hardship but there has been no opposition from the neighboring properties and it is not the only factor the Board considers when approving an application. 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 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 plans. Date true copy of an extract duly adopted by the(fk»id of Trustees/Btenning^i^bf the Village of Sleepy Hotow, ±_**t<* M C L M ,202j_andof 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. IM WITNESS 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-2021 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_2021-05-19_RES_23-Amos-Street-ZBA-Signed-Resolution Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2021 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2021 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/8fe0143740a308efd1b03f88bfba9991.pdf 4640329adb0ae7e358c0d43d6c5475ad PDF Text Text RESOLUTION Adopted at the May 19,2021 Meeting of the Village of Sleepy Hollow Zoning Board of Appeals RESOLUTION: Area Variances PROPOSED: Second story addition LOCATION: 259 Hunter Avenue TAX MAP DESIGNATION: Section 110.19, Block 1, Lot 2 ZONING DISTRICT: R-2 WHEREAS, on April 15, 2021 an application was submitted by Brian Hecht and Morgan Ridler (the "Applicants") to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "ZBA") requesting area variances to construct a second story 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 450-34.B. of the Zoning Code, Applicability of regulations, adding to and altering an existing non-conforming building or lot, where the required minimum one side yard set-back is 10.00 feet and the existing one side yard set-back is 9.40 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 combined side yard set-back is 25.00 feet and the existing combined side yard setback is 19.10 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 maximum building coverage is 20.00 percent and the existing building coverage is 20.07 percent; 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 minimum lot area is 10,000 square feet and the existing lot area is 9,000 square 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 minimum lot width is 75.00 feet and the existing lot width is 60.00 feet; and WHEREAS, the Applicants are seeking a variance from Article VI, Section 450-40.E.(2)(c). of the Zoning Code, Coverage and open space-accessory structure, where the required minimum side yard set-back is 5.00 feet, the existing side yard set-back is 4.30 feet; and Page 1 of 4 �WHEREAS, the Applicants are seeking a variance from Article VI, Section 450-40.E.(2)(c). of the Zoning Code, Coverage and open space-accessory structure, where the maximum building coverage is 30.00 percent and the existing building coverage is 35.00 percent; 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 Part 1 -4 signed by Morgan Ridler, dated April 13, 2021 2. Zoning Compliance Form signed by Amanda Linhart, architect, dated April 9, 2021 3. Short Environmental Assessment Form Part-1 Project information, signed by Amanda Linhart, dated April 13, 2021 4. Survey of Property prepared by Ward Carpenter Engineers, dated July 10, 2015 5. Photograph of existing conditions 6. Property deed dated August 24, 2015 7. Construction drawings prepared by Amanda Linhart, architect dated April 8,2021: a. A-001.00-Title Sheet b. A-002.00-Site Plan c. A-201.00 - Demo & New Construction Plans d. A-202.00 - Power and Finish Plans e. A-203.00 - Framing Plans f. A-301.00 - Exterior Elevations g. A-601.00 - Interior Renovations WHEREAS, the ZBA held duly noticed public hearing on May 19, 2021 via Zoom Webinar to hear and consider the application; and WHEREAS, testimony was received from Amanda Linhart, architect on behalf of the applicant stating that the application proposes to construct a rear second story addition to create a master bedroom suite by increasing the size of the existing dormer and raising the ceiling height. The proposed addition will add 64 square feet to the existing house. The roof line will remain the same and size of the west windows will be increased to expand the views of the Hudson River. The proposed addition will not be visible from the road and the neighbor to the left on Riverside Drive does not have any objections. The application does not propose changes to the existing non-conforming garage accessory structure; and WHEREAS, testimony was received from Morgan Ridler stating that there are Pine trees and hedges between their house and the neighbors' property; 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 Page 2 of 4 �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 addition will not be visible from the road and there are no proposed changes to the roof line or the footprint of the house. 2. The requested variances are not substantial as the proposed addition will not increase the footprint of the house and the existing non-conformities of the property are minimal. 3. Granting of the area variances is the feasible and minimal method to achieve the benefits sought by the applicant to create additional living space. 4. The requested variances are a self-created hardship but there has been no opposition from the neighboring properties and it is not the only factor the Board considers when approving an application. 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 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 plans. Page 3 of 4 �ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS VILLAGE OF SLEEPY.HOLLOW J Timothy CnuvehTLhairman Date / V the undersigned . , — j t h e foregoing is 8 true copy of an extract duly adopted by the Board of TlruileesflRtarming/Zoning of the Village of Sleepy Hoto*, «1 (he J i L d a y of 202£_andof Hit wholeftereof,and I further^ certify that the same was entered Mo the minutes of the meeting of said Board of Trustees/Planning/Zoning held on said date. M WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official jsealfois^ day of A K ^ - i on?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-2021 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_2021-05-19_RES_259-Hunter-Ave-ZBA-Signed-Resolution Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2021 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2021 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/410cee6ba9c2230c471e461d6b56f1b0.pdf c88d53d61f31b3815fc7df5023faa484 PDF Text Text RESOLUTION Adopted at the May 19,2021 Meeting of the Village of Sleepy Hollow Zoning Board of Appeals RESOLUTION: Area Variances PROPOSED: Legalization of rear terrace LOCATION: 2 Lakeview Avenue TAX MAP DESIGNATION: Section 110.15, Block 2, Lot 5 ZONING DISTRICT: R-2A WHEREAS, on April 15, 2021 an application was submitted by Miles Greaves and Jennifer Woolf (the "Applicants") to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "ZBA") requesting area variances to legalize a rear terrace installed without a Building Permit (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 or lot, where the required minimum rear yard set-back is 25.00 feet and the existing rear yard set-back is 15.00 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, the existing rear yard set-back is 15.00 feet, and the proposed rear yard set-back is 7.50 feet; and WHEREAS, the ZBA has reviewed the following documents for consideration as well as the oral presentations to the ZBA: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Stop Work Order dated June 20, 2017 Determination letter prepared by the Building Department dated July 21, 2017 Letter prepared by the Building Department dated October 1, 2020 Zoning Board of Appeals Application Part 1 -4 signed by Miles Greaves, dated April 14, 2021 Rider A -Answers to six questions included in Zoning Board of Appeals Application Zoning Compliance Form signed by Deirdre O'Farrelly, dated April 23, 2021 Short Environmental Assessment Form Part-1 Project information, signed by Miles Greaves Survey of Property prepared by Scalice Land Surveying, dated December 9, 2020 Photograph of existing conditions Property deed dated January 15, 2021 Construction drawings prepared by Deirdre O'Farrelly, architect dated October 19, 2020: a. Al.l- Rear Patio, Permit Drawing As-Built Plan of Patio b. A1.2- Rear Patio, Permit Drawing Elevation and Section Page 1 of 3 �12. Email correspondence received on May 14, 2021 from Howard Katseff and Bonnie Goodman, the owners of 4 Lakeview Avenue in favor of approving the application. WHEREAS, the ZBA held duly noticed public hearing on May 19, 2021 via Zoom Webinar to hear and consider the application; and WHEREAS, testimony was received from Miles Greaves stating that the terrace has low visibility from the street and the neighboring properties and that they have spoken with their neighbors and there have been no objections. The terrace provides enjoyment in their backyard and increases the value of their property and they will install railings to the terrace if required by the Building Department; and WHEREAS, testimony was received from Sean McCarthy, the Building Inspector, stating that a stop work order was issued in 2017 because the previous owner installed the terrace without a Building Permit. An agreement was made in order to allow the sale of the property to move forward which stated that the new owner would file the required documents to legalize the terrace structure; 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: 1. Granting of the area variances will not create an undesirable change or be a detriment to the character of the neighborhood as the terrace is flat and not an elevated structure. 2. The requested variances are not substantial as the rear yard set-back is existing non-conforming and the additional encroachment in the rear yard is minimal. 3. Granting of the area variances is the feasible and minimal method to achieve the benefits sought by the applicant. Page 2 of 3 �4. The requested variances are a self-created hardship but there has been no opposition from the neighboring properties and a letter in support of legalizing the terrace has been received. 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 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 Application to the ZBA is hereby granted approval for the variances with the following condition: 1. The applicant is required to request a variance approval if they wish to elevate the terrace to be flush with the sloped grade and the door. 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 plans. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Date .the undersigned XMs/Deputy Clerk, do hereby certify that the fbregoii^b a true copy of an extract duly adopted by the<6oaro of Tnistees/Planning^ing^f the Village of Sleepy Hotow, on the R djyflTMOcM . » 2 4 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. ' ltd 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-2021 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_2021-05-19_RES_2-Lakeview-Avenue_ZBA-Signed-Resolution Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2021 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2021 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/8bca79aa4ad96d721476985a19d442f7.pdf 13a306e085f743c1a91f1c0ec3ffdcad PDF Text Text RESOLUTION Adopted at the September 15, 2021 Meeting of the Village of Sleepy Hollow Zoning Board of Appeals RESOLUTION: Area Variances PROPOSED: Two-story addition LOCATION: 42 Hudson Street TAX MAP DESIGNATION: Section 115.15, Block 1, Lot 30 ZONING DISTRICT: R-4A WHEREAS, on May 15, 2021 an application was submitted by Jeffrey White (the "Applicant") to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "ZBA") requesting area variances to construct a two-story 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 or lot, where the required minimum lot area is 4,000 square feet and the existing lot area is 2,971 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 or lot, where the required minimum lot width is 40.00 feet and the existing lot width is 25.00 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 or lot, where the required minimum one side yard set-back is 3.00 feet and the existing one side yard set-back is 0.60 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 or lot, where the required minimum combined side yard set-back is 12.00 feet and the existing combined side yard setback is 5.98 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 or lot, where the required minimum front yard set-back is 20.00 feet and the existing front yard set-back is 4.67 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 one side yard set-back is 3.00 feet, the existing one side yard set-back is 0.60 feet, and the proposed one side yard set-back is 0.60 feet; and Page 1 of 4 �WHEREAS, the Applicants are seeking a variance from Article VI, Section 450-35. of the Zoning Code, Schedule of regulations, where the required minimum combined side yard set-back is 12.00 feet, the existing combined side yard set-back is 5.98 feet, and the proposed combined side yard set-back is 5.98 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 Part 1 -4 signed by Applicant, dated May 14, 2021 2. Zoning Compliance Form, dated June 1, 2021 3. Short Environmental Assessment Form Part-1 Project information, signed by Applicant, dated May 13, 2021 4. Survey of Property prepared by Edward J. Martine, Jr. Engineer Surveyor, dated January 26, 1995 5. Photograph of existing conditions 6. Property deed dated August 3, 2017 7. Westchester County recording and endorsement page, recorded August 9, 2017 8. Partial site plan drawing, renderings, and sketches drawn by Applicant WHEREAS, the ZBA cancelled the duly noticed public hearing scheduled for July 21, 2021; and WHEREAS, the ZBA held duly noticed public hearing on September 15, 2021 to hear and consider the application; and WHEREAS, testimony was received from Jeffrey White stating that the existing house is a two-story, two bedroom, and one bathroom structure. The application proposes to construct a 15 x 18 foot two-story addition on the back of the house to add one bedroom, one bathroom, a closet on the main level, and an unfinished screened-in-area on the lower level. The proposed addition will not exceed the permitted building coverage area; and WHEREAS, testimony was received from Sean McCarthy, the Building Inspector, stating that the plans submitted were schematic and if the application is approved by the Zoning Board, full architectural drawings will be submitted and reviewed for compliance with the Village Code and the New York State Building and Fire Codes as part of the Building Permit Application. Since the property is only 25 feetwide and it would be impossible for the owner to achieve the goals of his application if he was required to comply with the minimum setback requirements; 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 Page 2 of 4 �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 in the character of the neighborhood or be a detriment to the nearby properties as the proposed addition will affect the rear of the property. 2. Granting of the area variances is the only feasible way to achieve the benefits sought by the applicant and cannot be achieved by another method because the addition would only be permitted to be 13 feet wide if the applicant was required to conform to the minimum setback requirements. 3. The requested variances are substantial, however because the proposed addition will match the existing building setbacks and will not exceed the building coverage requirement. 4. Granting of the area variances will not have a permanent adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood. 5. The required variances are self-created hardship but it is not the only factor that the Board considers when they review an application. 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 Application to the ZBA is hereby granted approval for the variances with the following condition; 1. Drawings will be prepared by a registered architect and will be submitted with the Building Permit application for review by the Department of Architecture, Land Use Development, Buildings and Building Compliance to ensure compliance with the Code of the Village of Sleepy Hollow, New York State Building Code, New York State Fire Code, and with variances approved by the ZBA. Page 3 of 4 �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 plans. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS VILLAGE OF,,SLEEPY HOLLOW n 117/te z < Timothy Date the undersigned (4erk/Deputy Clerk, do hereby certify that the foregoing is , ^ true copy of an extract duly adopted by the Board of 2OM/KT Trustees of the Village of Sleepy Hollow, on the Q day J f ^ f e ^ e v ^ W . 102 ( and of the whole thereof, id I further certify that the same was entered into the mutes of the meeting of said Board of Trustees held on jid date. iN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal this/? dav of , 202&_. 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-2021 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_2021-09-15_42-Hudson-Street-Approved-Resolution Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2021 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2021 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/97286ef2d206a4bc673364c8d9bb2644.pdf 984f4aa4156b0db2d3ba0a893a55df62 PDF Text Text Village of Sleepy Hollow Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting September 15, 2021 Chairman Timothy Church called the meeting to order at 8:00 pm Present: Timothy Church, Chairman Gorete Crowe Craig Lis Sandra Tripp Thomas Chang Margaret Rubick Also Present: Sean McCarthy, Village Architect Clinton Smith, Village Attorney Pamela Kroll, Secretary to the Zoning Board Agenda: 1) Jeffrey White, 42 Hudson Street, Proposed addition- Public hearing 2) Michael Gelb and Deborah Domanski, 120 Gorey Brook Road, Determination /Appeal- Public hearing 3) Approval of minutes - May 19, 2021 Chairman Church read the agenda. 1. Jeffrey White, 42 Hudson Street, Proposed addition - Public hearing Chairman Church read the public notice and listed the document submitted by the applicant. Chairman Church asked Sean McCarthy to confirm that all of the mail receipts have been received. Sean McCarthy stated that all of the mailing receipts have been received. Chairman Church invited the applicant to present the details of the application Jeffrey White is the owner of 42 Hudson Street and stated that the existing house is a two-story, two bedroom, one bathroom structure that is located in the inner Village where all of the properties are very close together without sufficient setbacks. Mr. White stated that the application proposes to construct a 15 x 18 foot one-story addition on the back of the house to add one bedroom, one bathroom, a closet, and an unfinished screened-in area below the addition, off the back of the existing kitchen. Mr. White stated that the proposed addition will not be over the permitted building coverage area. 1 (ZBA 9/15/2021) �Chairman Church asked Mr. White if the application proposes an extension to the kitchen or the creation of a bedroom. Mr. White stated the application proposes to add a bedroom and to add a screened-in area under the addition. The existing kitchen is located at the garden level and they will need to excavate to bring the garden level down to where the existing foundation is. The addition will be constructed on columns. Chairman Church stated that the proposed addition will extend the same distance to the rear yard property line of the neighbor to the south and less distance than the rear yard property line of the neighbor on the north side. Craig Lis stated that there are no variances required for the rear yard or front yard setbacks. The variances required are for the existing non-conforming side yard setbacks. Chairman Church asked Mr. White to confirm that his property backs up to the Metro-North Railroad and not another residential property. Mr. White confirmed that his property backs up to Metro-North Railroad. Chairman Church asked Sean McCarthy to confirm that the Building Department will review the architectural plans submitted to ensure that the application complies with variances granted by the Zoning Board. Sean McCarthy stated that schematic plans were submitted and if the application is approved by the Zoning Board, the Building Department will review the architectural plans as part of the Building Permit Application to make sure that are compliant with the Building Codes and any conditions that the Zoning Board imposes. Any Fire Code issues related to the minimum required setbacks will be worked out in the construction drawings. The property is only 25 feetwide, if the applicant had to comply with the minimum setback requirements he would not be able to achieve the goal of his application. Sandra Tripp asked Mr. White to confirm that the house will remain a single-family residence. Jeffrey White stated that the house will remain a single-family residence. He has two daughters and he would like them each to have their own room. The bedroom addition will become his room or a room for his mother if needed. Motion was made to open the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Crowe Vote 6-0 Chairman Church solicited comments from the public. There were no public comments. 2 (ZBA 9/15/2021) �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 based on the following criteria: 1. Granting of the area variances will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or be a detriment to the nearby properties as the proposed addition will affect the rear of the property, not the front. 2. Granting of the areas variances is the most feasible way to achieve the benefits sought by the applicant and cannot be achieved by another method because the addition would only be permitted to be 13 feet wide if the applicant was required to conform to the minimum setback requirements. 3. The requested area variances are substantial, however the proposed addition will match the existing building setbacks and will not exceed the building coverage requirement.. 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. The requested variances are a self-created hardship but it is not the only factor that the Board considers when reviewing an application. Granting of the area variances will include the following condition: 1. Drawings will be prepared by a New York State registered architect and will be submitted with the Building Permit Application for review by the Building Department to ensure compliance with the Code of the Village of Sleepy Hollow, New York State Building Code, New York State Fire Code, and the variances approved by the Board. Motion was made to approve the application as requested. Moved: Church Seconded: Lis Timothy Church, Chairman- yes Margaret Rubick - yes Gorete Crowe - yes Sandra Tripp - yes Thomas Chang - yes Craig Lis - yes Vote 6-0 APPROVED 3 (ZBA 9/15/2021) �2. Michael Gelb and Deborah Domanski, 120 Gorey Brook Road, Determination/Appeal Public hearing Chairman Church read the public notice and asked Sean McCarthy if all of the mailing receipts have been received. Pamela Kroll stated that all of the mailing receipts have been received. Chairman Church stated that a letter, application, and supporting documents were received from the applicant on July 8, 2021. Letters was received from Mark Vaughan and Jill Parella, the owners of 1 Ridge Street, dated August 30, 2021, and September 9, 2021. A letter was received from Tammy Gales, the owner of 37 Gorey Brook Road, dated September 13, 2021. Chairman Church invited the applicant or representative to present the application. Katherine Zalantis is an attorney from the law firm of Silverberg Zalantis LLC representing the applicants. Ms. Zalantis stated that their appeal challenges a redetermination of the decisions made by the Building Inspector. The first item they are challenging is the decision made by the Building Inspector to issue a Building Permit to the owners of 1 Ridge Lane to allow the owners of 1 Ridge Lane to install stone landscaping steps on her client's property. The second item that they are challenging is the Building Inspector's failure to rectify his decision and revoke the Building Permit, even when presented with proof that her clients are the owners of the property. The third item they are challenging is the Apparent Notice of Violation and the Building Inspector's failure to close it out when he was presented with proof. Ms. Zalantis stated that her client should not have been forced to bring this appeal before this Board. It all should have been dealt with at the Building Department stage. Chairman Church requested that Ms. Zalantis agree that her clients are here based on the decisions of the Sleepy Hollow Building Department and that the Zoning Board is authorized to review the decisions. Katherine Zalantis stated that under State Law, the Board has the authority to reverse or modify the decisions of the Building Inspector; not only reverse or modify the decisions of the Building Inspector but to make the decisions, by the opinion of the Board, that the ought to have been made by the Building Inspector. Ms. Zalantis stated that Exhibit #1 is the Building Permit that was issued authorizing the owners of 1 Ridge Street to construct bluestone landscaping steps on her clients' property and to place, subject to the Building Departments approval, a mailbox on her clients' property. Ms. Zalantis stated that Exhibit #4 is a copy of the client's survey. Ms. Zalantis distributed enlarged copies of the survey to the Board members. Ms. Zalantis demonstrated on the survey where the proposed landscaping steps and the mailbox will be located and stated that that this portion of the property is owned by her clients and will be referred to as the "Driveway Parcel" 4 (ZBA 9/15/2021) �Margaret Rubick requested that Ms. Zalantis indicate where the mailbox for 1 Ridge Street is currently located. Ms. Zalantis pointed to a location on the survey where the mailbox for 1 Ridge Street was originally proposed and stated that they have since moved it to an area that is not on her client's property but is abutting the client's "Driveway Parcel". Ms. Zalantis stated that the Village doesn't own the "Driveway Parcel"; the "Driveway Parcel" is not a municipal right-of-way; it is not a private right-of-way; the owners of 1 Ridge Street do not have any interest in the "Driveway Parcel", or a right of access to the "Driveway Parcel". It is fully and completely owned by her clients. Since 1850 the clients' predecessors-in-interest have acquired title to what was referred to as the "Gore" and this is discussed in the extensive title research report that was provided. Ms. Zalantis stated that there was a clerical mistake and the Driveway Parcel metes and bounds description did not appear on her clients' 2016 deed. When their immediate predecessor's-in-interest, the Zegarellis, conveyed the property to her clients, her clients acquired and ownership interest in the "Driveway Parcel". Chairman Church stated that the submission received does not map out the history from the earliest deeds and documents that shows that the "Driveway Parcel" was conveyed at the beginning and consistently through to her clients. Ms. Zalantis stated that if the Board doesn't want to recognize or agree with the conclusion that the abstract or title company stating that her clients have a fee interest in the "Driveway Parcel", the Board doesn't have to look at the report because they now have a Correction Deed. Ms. Zalantis stated that whatever alleged issue existed with the metes and bounds description, was replaced by a Correction Deed, recorded on June 29, 2021. Chairman Church asked Mr. Zalantis why the Board cannot be presented with quotes from each land transaction of conveyance that identifies that the parcel was conveyed to the owners after 1850, and to confirm that the parcel was only mistakenly not conveyed to the current owner/applicants in 2016, which then required a Correction Deed. Ms. Zalantis stated that a complex title research was completed and provided to the Board. They came to the conclusion that by the 1850's, her client's predecessors-in-interest acquired title to "Parcel One" as well as "the Gore" or "Driveway Parcel" Ms. Zalantis stated that the chain of title was continued to their immediate predecessor-in-interest, the Zegarellis, and included the "Gore Parcel". When it was conveyed to her clients in 2016, they acquired a fee interest. Ms. Zalantis stated that research isn't required because the Correction Deed is prima facie evidence that her clients own the "Driveway Parcel". Chairman Church asked Ms. Zalantis who filed the Correction Deed. Ms. Zalantis stated that the Correction Deed was conveyed from the Zegarellis to her clients and their attorney. 5 (ZBA 9/15/2021) �Chairman Church asked Ms. Zalantis who drafted the Correction Deed and who filed it with the County. Ms. Zalantis stated that one of the attorneys in the transaction drafted and filed the Correction Deed. Chairman Church asked Ms. Zalantis who retained the attorney. Ms. Zalantis stated that she is not aware of who retained the attorney, or who drafted the Correction Deed; whether it was the Zegarrelli's attorney or her clients, but it is prima facie evidence that her clients own the property. Ms. Zalantis stated that she doesn't know how the Board could state that they didn't provide the evidence that her client acquired the title of the property and that it is clear in the title search provided. They don't need the Correction Deed to establish the ownership as it was established prior to the filing of the Correction Deed. The Correction Deed makes it clear that although the metes and bounds description was left out of the 2016 Deed it is now included. Ms. Zalantis stated the Building Inspector should never have issued the Building Permit because prior the issuance the Building Inspector had the title research. The Village "policy" to authorize construction on land that is not owned by the Village, not owned by 1 Ridge Street, and that 1 Ridge Street has no interest in does not trump her client's ownership interest of the "Driveway Parcel" Chairman Church stated that the Village agrees that the parcel is not a public right-of-way. The application is requesting the Board to decide if the property is owned by the applicants. If it is determined that the applicants own the property, then a Building Permit cannot be issued complete construction on someone else's property. Mr. Church questioned if there is an agreement in place that the property is a shared right-of-way. Ms. Zalantis stated that the property is not a shared right-of-way. Chairman Church stated that the ownership of the property and the metes and bounds description was not included in the deed that transferred the property to the current owner. Chairman Church questioned what will become of the property if the Board determines that the property is not owned by the applicant. Ms. Zalantis stated that if the Board decides that the property is not a private right-of-way, her clients intend to pursue every available resource to appeal it. This is not a property dispute between homeowners. This is an instance where the Village, through the Building Department, is using its' authority and weight, as a municipality, to tip the scale in favor of one property owner over another and using its' authority to allow one resident to construct on another residents property. Chairman Church asked Ms. Zalantis if the Board determines that the parcel is a shared private right-of-way, will the applicants still contest that the Building Department has the authority to issue a Building Permit to construct the bluestone steps. 6 (ZBA 9/15/2021) �Ms. Zalantis stated that if the parcel is a shared right-of-way, the only people that have interest in the shared private right-of-way are the owners of the shared private right-of-way. Without getting consent of all of the owners on a shared private right-of-way, the Building Department has no such authority. The Building Department has the authority to issue Building Permits on a municipal right-of-way because those are controlled by the Village. Chairman Church stated that no documentation has been submitted to state that if the parcel is a shared right-of-way, that the Building Department does not have the authority to issue a Building Permit. If the property is owned by the applicants, then the Building Permit was issued in error. If the property is a shared right-of-way, then the Board needs to determine to how to address the issue. Ms. Zalantis stated that the Board has a Correction Deed in front of them and that it is not the Boards purview or the Building Inspectors' purview to question the Correction Deed. The Correction Deed is prima facie evidence that her clients own the property. Unless a court says otherwise, her clients own the property. As of now, no one has challenged the Deed, no one has raised an issue about the Deed; so the Deed stands. The Board does not have the authority to question the validity of the Correction Deed. Ms. Zalantis requested the Board ask the Village attorney if the Board has the right to determine the interest of two private landowners. Chairman Church stated that the Board has been asked to hear an appeal filed by the applicants for the Building Departments decision to grant a Building Permit because the applicants are contesting that they own the property. The Building Department has not yet found that the property is owned by the applicants. Ms. Zalantis stated that she has not seen a determination from the Building Department showing that the applicants do not own the property. Chairman Church stated that there are facts that need to be conveyed to the Board to convince them that the applicants own the property. Chairman Church requested that the applicants map out the deeds, quotes, and metes and bounds descriptions to show that from each conveyance that the "Driveway Parcel" was transferred. Chairman Church requested that the applicants submit evidence as to why the 2016 Deed did not include the correct description and why an unidentified attorney filed a Correction Deed. There would not be a need for a Correction Deed if the first deed was properly described. The filing of a Correction Deed does not determine that the property is owned by her clients. Ms. Zalantis stated that she will map out the previous deed conveyances. Ms. Zalantis requested that she be supplied with the opposition letters. Ms. Zalantis distributed copies of a Site Plan to only the members of the Board and stated that the Building Permit violates the approved Site Plan for 1 Ridge Street. The approved Site Plan shows that the retaining wall was to be setback five (5) feet. Ms. Zalantis used to the site plan to demonstrate to the Board members that the retaining wall has been constructed on and over the side property line. Ms. Zalantis used the site plan to demonstrate to the Board members where 7 (ZBA 9/15/2021) �the proposed bluestone steps will be located. As per the condition of the Planning Board Site Plan approval, if the plan needs to be amended, they were required to go back to the Planning Board with an as-built plan. Ms. Zalantis questioned who would be liable if someone falls off the retaining wall onto her client's property. Chairman Church asked Ms. Zalantis what documents were submitted to the Board to confirm that the retaining wall was built over the applicant's side property line. Ms. Zalantis stated that pictures were provided to the Board to show the location of the retaining wall and that the clients will provide testimony of its location. Ms. Zalantis stated again that the Correction Deed is uncontroversial proof that her clients own the "Driveway Parcel" Chairman Church stated that based on the photograph submitted, the Board cannot conclude that the retaining wall encroaches on the five (5) foot setback. Ms. Zalantis suggested that the Board request for the Building Inspector to confirm the setback of the retaining wall. Margaret Rubick asked Ms. Zalantis who is currently using the property in dispute and who else has been using it. Ms. Zalantis stated that the "Driveway Parcel" is the only access to her client's property and no one else is allowed to use it. Ms. Zalantis stated that the driveway and the garage for 1 Ridge Street are located on Ridge Street, so their mailbox should be located on Ridge Street. Chairman Church asked Ms. Zalantis where the front door for 1 Ridge Street is located. Ms. Zalantis stated that she does not know where the front door for 1 Ridge Street is located. Chairman Church stated that the front door for 1 Ridge Street is located on the west side of the house. Ms. Zalantis stated that the location of the mailbox for 1 Ridge Street has created an issue of life and safety because the mail trucks are stopping at the driveway and blocking access to her client's property. Ms. Zalantis stated that the Correction Deed and the title research establishes that the property is not a private right-of-way or any other right-of-way. Ms. Zalantis cited the Zoning provisions that are relevant to the Boards review. Sandra Tripp stated that the Building Permit was issued by the Building Department prior to the establishment of the Correction Deed and that it is possible that the permit was issued in good faith. 8 (ZBA 9/15/2021) �Ms. Zalantis stated that if the title research was not understood, once the Building Department was presented with the Correction Deed, the permit should have been revoked. Ms. Zalantis requested the documentation that the Board has that shows that 1 Ridge Street has any interest in the "Driveway Parcel" and stated that the Board has no such evidence before them. Chairman Church asked Ms. Zalantis who provided the title report, what their role was in the overall transaction, and when were they retained. Ms. Zalantis stated that she doesn't understand the basis of the questions and asked Chairman Church if he is questioning the veracity of the title report and the Correction Deed. The role of the title company was to explain to the Building Inspector and the Village how the title concept works and how her clients acquired the property. Ms. Zalantis stated that the Board is asking questions that are beyond their purview and suggested that the Board go into Executive Session and get advice from the Village Council so that the Board may understand their purview and their authority to question and access the rights of ownership between two private individuals. The Board is not being asked to question and review the Correction Deed and its legitimacy. The Board and the Building Inspector do not have the authority to ignore the Correction Deed. Chairman Church asked Ms. Zalantis what authority she is relying on to compel them to follow the Correction Deed. Ms. Zalantis stated that the Correction Deed includes the metes and bounds description of the "Driveway Parcel". It has been recorded and stands until such time a court overturns it. Chairman Church asked if the letters submitted by 1 Ridge Street were provided to the applicants. Pamela Kroll stated that letters submitted by the owners of 1 Ridge Street were not provided to the applicants. Chairman Church stated that the letters submitted by the owners of 1 Ridge Street include documents related to the disputed land and include a heading stating that the Ridge Street RightOf-Way has been a shared roadway for over one-hundred and sixty years and provides documents to support it. It would be helpful for the applicants to receive the documents in order for them to have time to review and submit comments. The Board will not likely make a decision tonight. Ms. Zalantis again stated that the extensive title research and the Correction Deed is prima facie evidence and it is all the Board needs to see. If her clients cannot get relieve from the Board, she will encourage them to commence an Article 78 proceedings to bring damages action against the Village for violation of their constitutionally protected rights because the Village is acting law and attempting to strip them of their property rights. Chairman Church invited the applicants to speak on behalf of their application. 9 (ZBA 9/15/2021) �Deborah Domanksi stated that she is the owner of 120 Gorey Brook Road. Ms. Domanski stated that they moved to Sleepy Hollow in 2015. Ms. Domanski stated that they are seeking an appeal to restore the feeling of a safe and unobstructed access to their home. Their driveway is the only access to their home. Their neighbors on 1 Ridge Street have their own driveway on Ridge Street. The western boundary of the 1 Ridge lot is clearly defined and 1 Ridge has no legal claim to the property beyond the western line. The Village of Sleepy Hollow has no legal claim and no interest in the property. The permit issued to 1 Ridge Street to do work over their western boundary line and the violation notice sent to them about their gate are predicated on the false assumption that the bottom of their driveway is a Sleepy Hollow Village municipal right-of-way. They challenged this assumption and appealed to their title insured, Stewart Title Company, to do a deep search. The Chief Executive Claims council Eric Zeni did an extensive search and he issued his report in April of this year concluding that no part of their driveway had ever been conveyed to the Village or anyone else. It has always been private property belonging to 120 Gorey Brook Road. Andres Valdespino communicated the results of the title report to the Building Department and other Village officials and requested that the permit not be issued to 1 Ridge Street and the violation notice for their property be withdrawn. Mr. Valdespino reviewed the chain of title, the language in their original deed, and the information brought forth by the title company. Mr. Valdespino determined that the full driveway and the strips of land on either side, collectively known as the "Purdy Gore" have always been a part of the 120 Gorey Brook Road property. A Correction Deed was prepared, executed, and recorded at the Westchester County Clerk and the tax authority has been informed so that the tax maps can also be corrected. More than one-hundred years of tradition, continuous maintenance, the chain of title, a recorded Correction Deed, and a revised survey show that the full driveway and the strips of land on either side are a part of the 120 Gorey Brook Road property. The assumptions upon which the permit and the violation notice was issued is invalid and therefore must be withdrawn. She requested that the Board consider the implications of the decision for public safety and order. The intersection of their driveway, Gorey Brook Road, the old Croton Aqueduct, and Ridge Street is confusing and dangerous. Since the mailbox for 1 Ridge Street has been placed on their driveway it has become more confusing and dangerous. The Fire Chief, John Korzelius accessed the danger and stated that his younger people will not know where 120 Gorey Brook is and might get confused. It would better and safer if the 1 Ridge mailbox wasn't on the 120 Gorey Brook driveway. Delivery drivers for 1 Ridge Street pull into their driveway instead of the 1 Ridge Driveway blocking their only access to their home. It will be more dangerous and confusing if a staircase is allowed that would encourage pedestrian traffic on their active driveway. If the presence of the stairs encourages a child to trespass on their active driveway, they may get hit by a confused delivery driver. If the Village allows the 1 Ridge Street mailbox on their driveway, allows 1 Ridge Street to build a stairway on their driveway, and encourages the 1 Ridge Street guests and residents to trespass on their private property to get their mail or to enter their property, then the Village must assume all moral responsibility and legal liability for any accidents, damage to property, injury, or death that may result. Another liability issue that the Board should consider is the retaining wall on the west side of the 1 Ridge Street property. It was allowed to be built, despite their written objection, right up to and in some areas over their property line. It was a clear violation of the five (5) foot setback in the approved Site Plan. The wall has no fencing and no guardrail. If someone falls off of the wall directly onto their property 10 (ZBA 9/15/2021) �and hits their head on their driveway, please note for the record that the Village will be solely liable for any injury or damages. The respect of property rights and legal boundaries are important to the welfare of all. They request that the Board honor these rights and boundaries and appeal to the Board to restore the safety and order to the neighborhood and to protect their unobstructed access to the only entrance to their home. Chairman Chuch asked if there is numbering on the mailbox indicating that it is for 1 Ridge Street and not 120 Gorey Brook Road. Michael Gelb is the owner of 120 Gorey Brook Road and stated there is a gate at the bottom of their driveway that has been there for twenty (20) years and that is was constructed as per the regulations at that time. Their mailbox is next to the gate and has been there for seven (7) years. The mailbox has the house number and street on it and it is the sole identifier for their house. On October 11, 2020 the owners of 1 Ridge Street placed their mailbox on their driveway right next to theirs and obscured the view of their mailbox. To resolve the problem, they contacted Andres Valdespino. Although the neighbors recently moved their mailbox further away, it is still confusing and dangerous. The Fire Chief agreed with Mr. Gelb and stated that is doesn't make sense to have a Ridge Street mailbox on a Gorey Brook driveway. The owners of 1 Ridge Street have an identifier on their home and on their driveway. Their main door is on the side of their house and their garage faces Ridge Street. They are genuinely concerned about the safety of the retaining wall. Delivery trucks get confused and often stop in their driveway. When they were told that the property was a municipal right-of-way and part of the "Ridge Street Extension", they requested time to investigate. They hired Andres Valdespino and a title company to request why the ownership of the property wasn't clear when they bought the property. Mr. Valdespino found documentation to prove that the property was a part of their original deed and promptly informed the Building Department. Chairman Church asked where the other Ridge Street mailboxes face. Michael Gelb stated that all of other Ridge Street mailboxes face Ridge Street. The owners of 1 Ridge Street have a mailbox on their main door. They consulted with the Postal Service and they agreed that they would deliver mail right up to the 1 Ridge Street mailbox on the door. Chairman Church asked if there is a walkway on 1 Ridge Street to the mailbox at the main door. Michael Gelb stated that there a walkway from the driveway to their main door. Mr. Gelb stated that there is a big slope down to their driveway from the 1 Ridge Street property so it doesn't make sense for them to walk down the side of their house and on his active driveway. They have no objection to the owners of 1 Ridge Street building stairway on Ridge Street. They would also be willing to allow them to use the corner so it is very clear that the path leads to their home on their property. Sandra Tripp stated that the Board is asking questions in order to understand the issues. The real issue is that the Board has the purview to weigh in on the application. They are not trying to sway the decision one way or another. She does not appreciate the tone in which some of the 11 (ZBA 9/15/2021) �questions from Mr. Gelb's attorney were directed at them. They are volunteers who are trying to help the Village. She is appreciative that he has taken the time to share the clear details with the Board. Thomas Chang stated that from the testimony given before the owners, he was confused and thought that they wanted to put steps up to their house and that his attorney was arguing on behalf of 1 Ridge Street as to why the stairs should not be permitted. The Board is not hear to try and make things difficult. They are trying to confirm what the application is asking the Board to make a determination on. Michael Gelb stated that they are willing to have Sean McCarthy mediate the situation. Margaret Rubick stated that she drove by the property today and was so confused about what she read in the application verses what she saw, and that she will go back after this meeting. Chairman Church requested that the applicants' attorney continue the presentation. He informed Peter Zegarelli that he will have the opportunity to speak when they open the public hearing for comments. Katherine Zalantis stated that Exhibit 3 of the application is the Notice of Apparent Violation issued to the applicants. In the letter prepared by Sean McCarthy dated May 11, 2020, he agreed to defer the advancing of the Notice of Violation while the research was being done. Ms. Zalantis read the Village Code associated with item #1 and stated that the property is not public property and that the violation related to the motion detectors and cameras should be closed out because the property is owned by her clients. Ms. Zalantis read the Village Code associated with item #2 and stated that her clients own the driveway parcel and it is not a wall or a fence. It is gate and her clients are permitted to have a gate on a driveway. Chairman Church stated that, putting aside whether or not the gate is considered a fence, the gate was installed years ago according to past regulations. Chairman Church questioned if the applicants agree that the gate is not in compliance with the current Zoning Regulations. Ms. Zalantis stated that the gate is not subject to the provisions of the Code because the gate is not a wall and it is not located on a front yard. Chairman Church asked Ms. Zalantis if they maintain that the front yard for 120 Gorey Brook Road is the west facing part of the parcel. Ms. Zalantis agreed that the front yard for 120 Gorey Brook Road is the west facing part of the parcel. Chairman Church requested that Sean McCarthy describe how fencing is determined for corner lot properties. 12 (ZBA 9/15/2021) �Sean McCarthy stated that the existing structure is both a fence and a gate and requires a Building Permit. A corner lot has two front yards. The apparent violation was deferred pending the investigation of the ownership of the property. This is why no further action has been taken. Chairman Church stated that the Board does not have evidence that shows that the gate was constructed in conformance with the Zoning regulations twenty (20) years ago. Motion was made to go into an executive session at 9:25 PM. Moved: Church Seconded: Rubick Vote 6-0 The Board returned from executive session at 10:10 PM. Chairman Church requested that the applicants trace the deeds and conveyances of the property, including the contentious area, so that the Board has a clear understanding of the conveyances. He suggested that the applicants and their counsel visit with the Building Department and Sean McCarthy to go over the Village records so that the applicants will have full knowledge of what the Building Department has found. The applicants can then present or submit further documentation that will clarify the issues of the ownership of the area in contention. The applicants will also be provided with the comment letters submitted by the owners of 1 Ridge Street. Chairman Church requested that the applicants describe the location of the proposed steps in relation to the existing gate. Katherine Zalantis requested that going forward, they are provided with submissions made regarding the application. Michael Gelb stated that the updated survey clearly defines the ownership of their property and the property of 1 Ridge Street. If the area of the property was a shared right-of-way, they should have a say considering it is their only means of ingress and egress to their property. Chairman Church stated that the Building Department would need to be consulted on the regulations for constructing steps on shared a right-of-way. Michael Gelb stated that it has been established on the surveys that the 1 Ridge Street boundary is clear. The owners of 1 Ridge Street have no claim to the driveway parcel, the Village has no interest in the property, and there are no records of it being a Village municipal right-of-way. The benefit of a doubt should go to them because they have a Correction Deed and a survey that shows that they own the property. Thomas Chang stated that they are asking the applicants to compare the documents that they have with the records that the Building Department has so that a determination can be made. Michael Gelb described the location of their gate and their mailbox and stated where the landscape plans shows the proposed steps for 1 Ridge Street would be constructed. The proposed stairs will not be aesthetically pleasing and would make the area more confusing. Mr. Gelb 13 (ZBA 9/15/2021) �described a solution for the proposed stairs that would make it more acceptable to them. He would much prefer a wise resolution for everyone's interest. Clinton Smith stated that if Mr. Gelb wants a wise decision for everyone's best interest, he is at the wrong forum. This is a Zoning Board of Appeals meeting and after this, your attorney stated that she will pursue action in court. The judges and juries of a court will not look at everyone's' interest. The court will look at the logs. If Mr. Gelb is seeking a solution that is in everyone's interest, he and his wife should speak with the owners of 1 Ridge Street. Mr. Gelb stated that the owners of 1 Ridge Street will not agree to speak with them. Mr. Gelb stated that they are then required to ask what does the law say, what is the responsibility of the Zoning Board of Appeals, and does the Zoning Board make decisions on if it is legitimate to grant a permit to build on property which there is clearly a strong claim on. Sandra Tripp stated that the Village's documentation shows actual facts that the driveway parcel is Village property. In order to settle the dispute, the applicants and the Village needs to get together to review document findings from both parties. Thomas Chang stated that before the Board can have these discussions, there has be meeting between the parties and their attorneys to determine the findings based on the registered surveys, come to conclusions, and then make their arguments. Chairman Church stated that the last issue brought up by the applicant was the wall and its' alleged location encroaching over the 5-foot setback. Chairman Church asked Sean McCarthy to provide details of the construction of the retaining wall. Sean McCarthy stated that the wall at 1 Ridge Street was part of the Site Plan Approval. On September 4, 2019, a site inspection of the property was conducted. The contractor advised the Building Department that they wanted approval to move the stone wall closer to the property line. On September 19, 2019, the requested change was brought up at a Planning Board Work Session because the resolution stated that any material changes requested to the approved Site Plan would require them to go back for Planning Board Approval. The Planning Board was presented with the proposed changes to the wall location and the Planning Board had no objections and did not require the applicant to go back to the Planning Board for amended Site Plan approval. The applicant proceeded with revising the plans and constructed a portion of the wall on the property line. The wall maintains the originally approved design and the patio location did not change. A retaining wall or a fence is permitted to be installed on the property line. An as-built survey was submitted as required for the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy showing the wall located on the property line. Michael Gelb stated that they were never informed of the relocation of the wall. There was no variance, no public notice, and no opportunity for them to weigh in about the change. 14 (ZBA 9/15/2021) �Chairman Church stated that the applicants will have an opportunity at the next hearing to discuss whether or not the applicants want to contest the construction of the retaining wall. Ms. Zalantis stated that the Planning Board resolution required that if there was a material change, they were required to go back for site plan amendment and that didn't happen. Sean McCarthy stated that the scope of the work that was being revised on the site was within the authority of the Building Department to make a decision on whether the change needed to be brought back to the Planning Board. It was brought to the Planning Board for their consideration and the Planning Board determined that the proposed change was not material enough to require an amended site plan. If an application was submitted today for a retaining wall on the 1 Ridge Street property, it would not require site plan approval; nor would a gate or a patio require site plan approval. The construction of the single-family house did require site plan approval and that is what was approved. Katherine Zalantis attempted to interrupt Mr. McCarthy. Chairman Church stated that the Board wishes to avoid a back and forth dialog. Sean McCarthy stated that questioning the issue of not being able to issue the Building Permit to construct the steps is incorrect. The appeal should have claimed that the Certificate of Occupancy for the house was issued in because of the construction of the wall; and not that a future Building Permit cannot be issued because one has nothing to do with the other. Katherine Zalantis stated that there is a pending violation. Sean McCarthy stated that there is not a violation on the property. Clinton Smith stated that the question is if the moving of the wall was a material change. The issue can be debated, analyzed, and be presented but he doesn't think it was a material change and believes it was discussed with the Planning Board. Sean McCarthy stated that the construction of the retaining wall is not a part of the public notice before the Board. Katherine Zalantis stated that the construction of the retaining wall was argued in their appeal. This relates to the issuance of the Building Permit because she argues that the change to the retaining wall was a material change when a five-foot setback is established in the approval and then construction was allowed within the five-foot setback. Motion was made to open the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Crowe Vote 6-0 Chairman Church solicited comments from the public. 15 (ZBA 9/15/2021) �Peter Zegarelli stated that he is the resident of 21 Ridge Street. Mr. Zegarelli stated that his family owned the 120 Gorey Brook Road property and the lots on Ridge Street from 1949 to 2015. He has lived on Ridge Street since 2004. The portion of the driveway in question belongs to 120. The property has always been maintained by his family. His father had it paved more than once, they cut the grass, swept the roadway, raked the leaves, and plowed the snow. The Village has never serviced the roadway or the property on either side of it. When Mayor Ken Wray recently commented on the issues and the driveway, he said that the Village of Sleepy Hollow has no interest in the property. Not only does the Village have no interest but they have no legal interest in it. The Village has never had any interest in the property. They recognize it as my family's property; the whole neighborhood has recognized it as that. He and his brothers collectively owned the Ridge Street lots for several decades and each of them understood that the lots all face south to Ridge Street and that was their only access point. The lots had no access to the east, the north, or the west. Lot 1, which is now occupied by 1 Ridge Street, did not have any rights of access to the west onto the 120 Gorey Brook Road property, nor the driveway. The placement of the 1 Ridge Street mailbox facing Gorey Brook Road has brought a dispute out into the neighborhood and is causing a safety issue. When you drive up to Gorey Brook Road you go up a very long hill to the crest where it flattens out and forks. It is at this intersection where things get confusing. To the left is Gorey Brook Road and to the right is the Gorey Brook Road Extension; not Ridge Street Extension, which further rises up to meet the 120 Gorey Brook Road driveway on a straight line. On the right Ridge Street rises at 90 degree angle, almost hidden. The 120 driveway is several hundred feet long and looks like a road. The convention for mailboxes is that they should face the road to which it is on. The 1 Ridge Street owners have placed their mailbox, not facing south to Ridge Street, but facing west to Gorey Brook Road. The mailbox for 1 Ridge Street should be on Ridge Street near their driveway and face Ridge Street. The first thing you see when you are at the intersection is the mailbox for 1 Ridge Street. Mr. Zegarelli provided an example of a confused driver and stated that the driver claimed that there was a mailbox with Ridge Street on it that pointed left so that is the direction he went. If an emergency vehicle made the wrong turn, it would be difficult to turn around and it could be delayed. Mr. Zegarelli asked if this Village and certain private individuals in the room, want to assume the liabilities that would arise if an emergency vehicle was delayed, the delay caused harm to the injured or ill person, or a fire got out of control all because of the improper placement of a mailbox. The solution is that there needs to be respect for property lines metes and bounds. If this stands then any property owner can claim access over a neighboring property as long as it give them access to a Village Right-of-Way. Any building identifying markers such as a mailboxes must be placed as to indicate where the building is and the street it faces to not cause misdirection to that building or neighboring properties. Tammy Gales is the owner 37 Gorey Brook Road and stated that she would like to read the letter that she submitted to the Board on September 14, 2021. (See Exhibit #1) Mark Vaughn stated that he and Jill Parella are the owners of 1 Ridge Street. Mr. Vaughn stated that they support the decision by the Building Department both in terms of the Ridge Street Right-of-Way, what is existing as of today, which is a property that is not owned by anyone, and also the issuance of the permit to build steps on the west side of their property. Mr. Vaughn provided examples of how they plan to use the proposed steps. His eleven year old daughter gets 16 (ZBA 9/15/2021) �off the bus at the intersection of Gorey Brook Road and Ridge Street. She would like her to cross the street and use the steps to get to their front door. He and his wife will use the steps for access to work on the landscaping on their property. The mail carrier is excited for the steps to be constructed so that he can have an easier access to deliver packages to their front door. They like to walk to the farmers market and would like to go out through their front door to the right-ofway. Mr. Vaughn stated that as in the letters submitted to the Board, the Ridge Street Right-ofWay has been a shared roadway for over one-hundred and sixty years and it is very clear historically from the deeds and the maps. He has gone through the documents to try and figure who owns what and no one knows. None of the deeds filed with Westchester County currently have the right-of-way in their boundaries of property. It doesn't exist in the metes and bounds of any of the filed deeds with the County since the 1860s. The Right-of-Way is not on the Village or Town tax rolls and as it was mentioned earlier by the applicants that they want to add it to the tax rolls. It has never been on the tax rolls because no one owns it. The Correction Deed filed by the owners of 120 Gorey Road Road is a meaningless set of documents. There is no merit to what they have put together. It is meaningless because it contradicts one-hundred and sixty years of historical documentation that show it as a shared roadway. It is beyond him to know why the owners of the properties back then decided it would be shared. His guess is that they needed to share the land in order to sell it. The Correction Deed is meaningless because the Zegarrelli estate signed the correction. The Zegarelli estate didn't own the property to begin with so they can't convey something to the current owners if they didn't own it. The Correction Deed itself does not include the Ridge Street Right-of-Way in the metes and bounds description of the property. They didn't include it because they would have to extend the boundaries of the property, which they can't do. In summary, this leaves the Board with a meaningless set of documents parading as a Correction Deed that was filed with Westchester County Clerk that does not and cannot convey the property to the owners of 120 Gorey Brook Road. The conclusion that he comes to is that the appeal should be denied. Chairman Church asked Mark Vaughn if he wanted to provide comments on the placement of the mailbox. Mark Vaughn stated that they originally put the mailbox on their house. There is still a mailbox on the house because he has hopes that the Post Office will someday change their mind. The Post Master came to them and told them they didn't want to deliver to it and told them to move it. They had a discussion with the Post Master and it was decided that because of the large gutters on both sides of their driveway on Ridge Street, the best place to put it was in the Right-of-Way. It has been moved once because of the permit. Sean McCarthy asked them to move if further away from the 120 Gorey Brook Road mailbox so that you could clearly see their address. It is now located in the easement of Ridge Street. Chairman Church asked if the proposed steps will be located where the applicants described. Mark Vaughn stated that the proposed location is correct but with the gate in its current location, the steps will be in-between their gate and their mailbox. They suggest that the owners of 120 Gorey Brook Road move their mailbox across the Right-of-Way so it will be clearer that their 17 (ZBA 9/15/2021) �house is located up the hill. Since their mailbox sits adjacent to their property, they get their deliveries. Chairman Church solicited comments from the Board. Sandra Tripp asked Mr. Vaughn that based on the comments received from the neighboring properties, would they consider moving the mailbox to Ridge Street. Mr. Vaughn stated if the Village would finish the road so they could have proper drainage and so the road doesn't gutter down, they would consider moving the mailbox to Ridge Street. Thomas Chang asked Mark Vaughn how they received their mail prior to the current mailbox location. Mr. Vaughn stated that they delivered the mail to the front door for about a month before they were contacted by the Post Office to say they would stop the mail delivery to that mailbox because it is too far for the mail carrier to go up the driveway. Even when they had the mailbox on their front door, the confusion related to 120 Gorey Brook Road was already occurring because the driveway to 120 Gorey Brook Road is on Ridge Street and not on Gorey Brook Road. Clinton Smith asked if the other houses on Ridge Street have the same gutter issues. Mark Vaughn stated that their house is the only house that has a gutter in front of the driveway. Sandra Tripp asked if they considered the suggested location for the steps at the corner from Ridge Street. Mark Vaughn stated that his preference is to have the shortest set of stairs from his sidewalk down to the Right-of-Way. Chairman Church solicited additional comments from the public. There were no other public comments. Motion was made to adjourn the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Tripp Vote 6-0 Motion was made to continue the public hearing to the October meeting. Moved: Church Seconded: Lis 3. Approval of minuties - May 19, 2021 Motion was made to approve the May 19, 2021 minutes. Moved: Church Seconded: Lis 18 (ZBA 9/15/2021) �Timothy Church, Chairman- yes Gorete Crowe - yes Sandra Tripp - yes Craig Lis - yes Thomas Chang - yes Margaret Rubick - yes Vote: 6-0 APPROVED Motion was made to adjourn the meeting at 11:05 pm. Moved: Church Seconded: Lis Vote 6-0 Respectfully Submitted, Pamela Kroll Secretary to the Zoning Board of Appeals 19 (ZBA 9/15/2021) �EXHIBIT #1 RECEIVED SEP 1 4 2021 September 13, 2021 Dear Chair Church and Village ol Sleepy Hollow Board Members, BUILDING DEPT. VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW I am writing in regard to the certified letter residents received about the Public Hearing to take place on Wednesday, September 15. 2021. about the properties at 120 Gory Brook Rd. and 1 Ridge St. 1 live at 37 Gory Brook Rd. I am currently writing in two capacities: 1) as a neighbor who has been negatively affected by the mailbox placement of 1 Ridge St. for the past year, and 2) as a professor who studies language and law reading "the spirit'' of our Village code. First, over the past year with the placement of the 1 Ridge St. mailbox on the driveway of 120 Gory Brook Rd., I have had an overwhelming number of lost delivery drivers outside of my home. This impacts me both in term of noise (especially since I've been teaching at home) and fumes from the vehicles while idling (especially while windows are open during the warmer months). Specifically, my house sits across the street from where the OCA crosses Gory Brook Rd. and at the base of Ridge St. When people come up to the dead ends of either Gory Brook Rd. or Ridge St., they turn around in front of my home. This is generally not an issue since they continue moving down Gory Brook Rd. However, since the mailbox of 1 Ridge St. was placed on the driveway of 120 Gory Brook Rd.. I have had numerous delivery vehicles come up Gory Brook, turn around on Ridge/Gory Brook, and then let their delivery vehicles idle in front of my home while they try to figure out where 120 Gory Brook Rd. is. The most recent occurrence actually happened on the day I receive the certified letter about this hearing. In that instance, a UPS driver drove up and down Gory Brook and Ridge several times, turned around, and idled in front of my home for approximately 10 minutes. After I finished the work meeting I was in, I went outside to inquire if he needed directions. "Yes. 120 Gory Brook Rd.?" Even after I pointed him in the right direction, he questioned me. asking if that was correct given the prominent placement of the 1 Ridge St. address on the first mailbox. This is not the first time I've had to confirm that 'yes, indeed, that is 120 Gory Brook Rd.' (And the most frustrating times are when the drivers see me working from home and actually ring my bell - oftentimes during class or meetings - to ask for directions to 120 Gory Brook Rd.) These frequent requests for directions did not happen prior to the placement of the I Ridge St. mailbox on the driveway of 120 Gory Brook Rd. Given where I live, 1 am used to giving directions to hikers who have come off the OCA trail across from my home and are looking for the next connecting point. That is understandable and quiet (and not part of the Village's responsibility). The idling trucks, the ringing doorbell, and the lost delivery drivers (let alone the potentially lost emergency vehicles) are the Village's responsibility, and the issue is easy to solve. Please support that any signage related to 1 Ridge St. (including the mailbox) be relocated to Ridge St. and not remain on Gory Brook Rd. Second, I purchased my home on Gory Brook Rd. in 2013 and it needed a complete renovation in order to qualify for a C/O. 1 have worked extensively (and continue to do so) with the Building Department. Since 2013,1 have had continual positive interactions with all members of �that department. I believe a large part of our successful interactions stem from the fact that we adhere to the Village code - and the "spirit" of the Village code, as it specifically states. In that respect, I'd like to point out two aspects of the Village code that address "the spirit" of the current situation. 1) Village code section 151-4 emphasizes that building numbers should comply with a logical sequence, which is based on the number or numbers of properties on either side, and which are located on the same side of the street. This includes numbers attached to a mailbox. While this clause may refer to the assignment of building numbers, within "the spirit of these regulations," this must also logically refer to the placement of such assigned numbers. Surely placing numbers out of a logical sequence and on two different roads does not adhere to the spirit of our code. 2) Village code section 151-2 addresses the placement of building numbers which face "two or more public roadways." In the case of 1 Ridge St., the driveway faces Ridge St. and the home does have an address marker attached to their home appropriately facing that road. The double placement of their address on the driveway of 120 Gory Brook Rd., which is not a public roadway, is therefore unnecessary and misleading. As noted above, this causes great confusion for delivery (and possibly emergency) vehicles who need to find the driveway for 120 Gory Brook Rd. (and possibly others on Ridge St. if vehicles continue up the 120 Gory Brook Rd. driveway instead of driving up Ridge St.) In "the spirit" of the code, it is therefore clear that the placement of the 1 Ridge St. mailbox should be moved to Ridge St. for the benefit of all neighbors, service vehicles, and, especially, emergency vehicles. I greatly appreciate your time and attention. Please feel free to reach out if you have further questions. I greatly enjoy living in this Village and hope to support a peaceful co-existence with all neighbors. Best, Tammy Gales 37 Gory Brook Rd. Sleepy Hollow, NY 10591 � 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-2021 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_2021-09-15_Approved Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2021 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2021 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/522c3d337366f379e3c5e78c1db37597.pdf 0029fa5fc321e79aa84e23999e6919e7 PDF Text Text RESOLUTION Adopted at the October 20, 2021 Meeting of the Village of Sleepy Hollow Zoning Board of Appeals RESOLUTION: Area Variances PROPOSED: Exterior stair and fencing LOCATION: 67 Sleepy Hollow Road DESIGNATION: Section 115.8, Block 2, Lot 16 ZONING DISTRICT: R-3 WHEREAS, on June 14, 2021 an application was submitted by Larry Welch and Nana Lamouse-Welch (the "Applicants") to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "ZBA") requesting area variances to construct an exterior stair and fencing (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 or lot, where the required minimum one side yard set-back is 10.00 feet and the existing one side yard set-back is 5.84 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 one side yard set-back is 10.00 feet, the existing one side yard set-back is 5.84 feet, and the proposed one side yard set-back is 0.00 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 combined side yard set-back is 15.00 feet, the existing combined side yard set-back is 17.40 feet, and the proposed combined side yard set-back is 11.56 feet; and WHEREAS, the Applicants are seeking a variance from Article VII, Section 450-40.F. of the Zoning Code, Supplementary regulations, Coverage and open space-fences and walls, where the maximum permitted fence height is 3.00 feet, and the proposed fence height 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. Application summary letter prepared by Christina Griffin, Architect, dated June 14, 2021 2. Zoning Board of Appeals application signed by Nana Lamouse-Welch, dated May 21, 2021 3. Zoning Compliance Form, signed by Christina Griffin, dated June 11, 2021 4. Short Environmental Assessment Form Part-1 Project information, signed by Christina Griffin, dated June 11, 2021 Page 1 of 4 �5. Property deed recorded April 29, 2019 6. Survey of Property prepared by Charles Riley, Licensed Surveyor, dated October 4 , 1 9 7 2 7. Architectural drawings prepared by Christina Griffin Architect, dated June 14, 2021 as follows: 8. a. Title Sheet, General Notes, Climatic & Geographical Criteria, Dates, and List of Drawings b. S - l - Site Plan, Zoning Compliance, Location Map, Photographs of Property, Site Details c. A - l - Lower Level Plan d. A-2-First Floor Plan e. A-3- Exterior Elevations f. A-5- Photographs of Site Survey of Property prepared by Gerald T. O'Buckley, dated August 4, 2021 WHEREAS, the ZBA held duly noticed public hearing on October 20, 2021 to hear and consider the application; and WHEREAS, testimony was received from Christina Griffin, on behalf of the applications stating that the side yard is existing non-conforming. The existing side yard set-back is 5.84 feet. The application proposes to construct an exterior staircase 2.5 feet from the property line, along the existing retaining wall, to gain access from the front yard to the rear yard. There is an existing terrace within the setback that extends to the property line. The application also proposes to install a 9-foot extension of 4-foot high fencing on the top of the retaining wall, at a 90 degree angle, to provide safety from falling over the corner of the stone wall; and WHEREAS, testimony was received from Sean McCarthy, the Building Inspector, stating that the existing 4-foot high fence is within the front yard setback of a corner lot and should also have been 3 feet in height; 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 Page 2 of 4 �BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, after due consideration the ZBA makes the following determination for the proposed exterior staircase: 1. Granting of the area variance will not create an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or be a detriment to the nearby properties as the neighboring property on the south side has a similar staircase. 2. Granting of the area variance is the only feasible way to achieve the benefits sought by the applicant to access the rear yard from the front of house and cannot be achieved by another method due to steep slope of the front yard. 3. The requested variance is not substantial when compared to the existing structures that are within the side yard setbacks. 4. Granting of the area variance will not have a permanent adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood. 5. The required variance is a self-created hardship but it is difficult to access the properties' rear yard without the proposed staircase; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, after due consideration the ZBA makes the following determination for the proposed 4-foot high fencing: 1. Granting of the area variance will not create an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or be a detriment to the nearby properties as the existing fence and the proposed 9-foot extension of 4-foot high fencing will not block views to the neighboring properties due to its height and location on the property. 2. Granting of the area variance is the feasible method to achieve the benefits sought by the applicants because they propose to continue the same style of transparent fencing material and are only requesting to install 9 feet of fencing to ensure safety from the steep slope of the front yard to the driveway. 3. The requested variance is not substantial from 3 feet in height to 4 feet in height when installing the same style transparent fencing. 4. Granting of the area variance will not have a permanent adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood. 5. The requested variance is a self-created hardship but it is not the only factor that the Board considers when reviewing an application. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Application to the ZBA is hereby granted approval for the side yard variance for the stair and height variance for the fence with the following condition: Page 3 of 4 �1. Approval is granted to install 9 feet of 4-foot high fencing of transparent material, similar to the existing fence. Any material change would be required to come back to the Zoning Board of Appeals for approval. 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 plans. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS u i imotny tnurcn, tnairman Date / r7 11 the undersigned C^cSk/peputy Clerk, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of an extract duly adopted by the Board of Trustees/Plannin^mngj5f the Village of Sleepy Hollow, on t h d a v of <Tffet&K, 20£1_ 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^niDpield on said date. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand andofficic " ' " '' ^ 20£i__ 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-2021 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_2021-10-20_67-Sleepy-Hollow-Road-Approved-Resolution Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2021 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2021 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/ca450dc1517dcbbe375fb23a3b603da8.pdf 7bbd04e40125f27629151a73da6a2648 PDF Text Text Village of Sleepy Hollow Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting October 20, 2021 Chairman Timothy Church called the meeting to order at 8:00 pm. Present: Timothy Church, Chairman Gorete Crowe Sandra Tripp Thomas Chang Margaret Rubick Also Present: Sean McCarthy, Village Architect Pamela Kroll, Secretary to the Zoning Board Absent: Craig Lis Agenda: 1) Michael Gelb and Deborah Domanski, 120 Gorey Brook Road, Determination/AppealContinued public hearing 2) Larry Welch and Nana Lamouse-Welch, 67 Sleepy Hollow Road, Proposed exterior stair and fencing- Public hearing 3) Approval of minutes - September 15, 2021 1. Michael Gelb and Deborah Domanski, 120 Gorey Brook Road, Determination/AppealContinued Public hearing Chairman Church stated that the applicants have requested an adjournment to the November meeting. Motion was made to adjourn the public hearing to the November 17, 2021 meeting. Moved: Church Seconded: Tripp Vote 5-0 2. Larry Welch and Nana Lamouse-Welch, 67 Sleepy Hollow Road, Proposed exterior stair and fencing - Public hearing Chairman Church read the public notice and listed the documents submitted with the application. Chairman Church asked Sean McCarthy if all of the mailing receipts have been received. Sean McCarthy stated that all of the mailing receipts have been received. 1 (ZBA 10/20/2021) �Chairman Church invited the applicant to present the application. Christina Griffin is the architect representing the applicants. Ms. Griffin presented the property survey and stated that the side yard is existing non-conforming. The application proposes to construct an exterior stair in the side yard that will allow the applicants to gain access from the front yard to the rear yard of the house. Ms. Griffin presented the site plan and stated that the applicants are planning improvements to the rear patio and wish to include the addition of the new staircase on the left side of the house. The existing side yard set-back is 5.84 feet and the staircase is proposed to be constructed within the set-back and be 2.5 feet from the property line, along the side of house where the existing retaining wall is located. There is an existing terrace, within the setback, that extends to the property line. Chairman Church requested that Christina Griffin demonstrate where the existing terrace is located on the site plan. Christina Griffin presented photographs and elevation drawings and indicated where the exiting terrace is on the site plan. Christina Griffin stated that the application also proposes to extend the 4-foot high fencing on the top of the retaining wall to align with the existing fence and provide safety from the steep drop of the property. The proposed staircase is proposed to go from the rear patio to the upper grade and provide access from the existing terrace up to the top of the retaining wall. Chairman Church requested that Christine Griffin describe what currently exists. Christina Griffin presented photographs of the existing conditions and stated that there is a railing at the top of the retaining wall. The proposed stair would provide access from the rear patio to the front of the house. Chairman Church requested that Christina Griffin confirm that the neighbors on the south side own the retaining wall and that there is currently is no access from the front yard to the rear yard. Christina Griffin stated that the retaining wall is owned by the neighboring property and that the applicants propose to remove the railing and install the staircase. Chairman Church requested that Christina Griffin present an elevation drawing that shows the proposed staircase from the south side and asked what will be viewed by the neighboring property. Christina Griffin stated that the neighboring property, to the left, also has a staircase against the house and that the stairs stop where the retaining wall begins. Gorete Crowe asked if the neighboring property has a patio on the top of the retaining wall. Christina Griffin stated that she is not certain if there is anything beyond the retaining wall on the neighboring property. 2 (ZBA 10/20/2021) �Sandra Tripp requested that Christina Griffin confirm if the only the current access to the rear yard is from the street. Margaret Rubick requested that Christina Griffin present the current accessibility to the rear yard from the front of the house. Christina Griffin presented photographs to show that because of the steep slope of the front yard, the only way to access the rear yard is to go from the inside of the house or around on the street and driveway. Chairman Church asked if there has been any feedback received from the neighboring property owners and if the house is occupied. Christina Griffin stated that she hasn't received any comments from the neighboring property owner and she can't confirm if the house is currently occupied. Chairman Church stated that the stairs are a reasonable request and solicited comments from the Board. There were no comments from the Board. Chairman Church requested that Christina Griffin describe the proposed fencing. Christina Griffin stated that there is an existing piece of 4-foot high fencing at the top of the retaining wall to the left of the garage, and that the applicants are requesting to extend the 4-foot high fence by 9 feet, at 90 degrees, along the top of the retaining wall to provide safety from falling over the corner of the stone wall. Chairman Church asked Sean McCarthy if the existing 4-foot high fence is permitted on the property. Sean McCarthy stated that the existing fencing is within the front yard setback of the corner lot and should have also been 3 feet in height. Chairman Church stated that the requested variance should include the existing fence and the proposed additional 9 feet of 4-foot high fencing. Christina Griffin stated that the existing fencing is in good shape and that is the reason why they are proposing to extend it. Chairman Church asked Christina Griffin how high the drop is from the existing fence to the driveway. Christina Griffin estimated that there is a 7-foot drop from the existing fence to the driveway. 3 (ZBA 10/20/2021) �Chairman Church asked Christina Griffin if she believes that a 3-foot high fence would not be sufficient for safety reasons in that corner. Christina Griffin stated that in cases where there is a drop, it would probably be safer to have a 5foot high fence. Margaret Rubick questioned how long the existing fence has been on the property. Christina Griffin stated that the fence was installed prior to the applicants purchasing the house. Thomas Chang asked Christina Griffin to describe what is behind the retaining wall. Christina Griffin stated that the street is behind the retaining wall. 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 public comments. Motion was made to close the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Rubick Vote 5-0 Chairman Church stated that the requested variance to construct the exterior staircase is a reasonable request because although it will extend into the buffer zone, it will not increase the view into the neighboring property and the neighboring property has a similar staircase. The existence of the neighboring staircase indicates how desirable it is for the applicants. The proposed stair will not increase the height of the home or create an eyesore. Motion was made by Chairman Church to approve the requested variance for the exterior stair based on the following criteria: 1. Granting of the area variance will not be detrimental to the character of the neighborhood or the neighboring properties as the neighboring property has a similar staircase. 2. Granting of the area variances is the only feasible method to achieve the benefits sought by the applicants to access the rear yard from the front of the house and prevent using the street. 3. The requested variance is not substantial when compared to the other structures that are within the side yard setbacks. 4 (ZBA 10/20/2021) �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. The requested variance is a self-created hardship but it is difficult to access the property's rear yard without the proposed exterior stair. Motion was made to approve the variance for the exterior staircase as requested. Moved: Church Seconded: Rubick Timothy Church, Chairman- yes Margaret Rubick - yes Gorete Crowe - yes Sandra Tripp - yes Thomas Chang - yes Vote 5-0 APPROVED Chairman Church stated that in regards to the proposed fencing, the Villages' 3-foot fence height requirement for front yards and corner lots is a benefit to the community because it allows views across properties and is safer for cars. In this case, the existing 4-foot high fence is not blocking anyone's view because it is on top of the driveway and above a 6 to 7-foot drop. The proposed 9foot fence extension will be abutting a sloped street that already prevents views of the front yard. The requested 9-foot extension of the fencing is reasonable but does not justify the addition of a 4-foot high fence in other areas of the property. Chairman Church solicited comments from the Board. Sandra Tripp stated that she is concerned about setting a precedent with the approval of variance for 4-foot high fence and questioned if the transparency of the material can be incorporated into the criteria of the approval. Sean McCarthy stated that the Board could impose a condition of approval stating that the material design is to remain similar to the existing fencing if the applicant chooses to replace it in the future. Motion was made by Chairman Church to approve the requested variance for the proposed 4-foot high fencing based on the following criteria: 1. Granting of the area variance will not be detrimental to the character of the neighborhood or the neighboring properties as the existing fence and the proposed 9foot extension of the 4-foot high fencing will not block views to the neighboring properties due to its height and location on the property. 2. Granting of the area variance is the feasible method to achieve the benefits sought by the applicants because they propose to continue the same style of transparent fencing and only extend it by 9 feet. 5 (ZBA 10/20/2021) �3. The requested variance is not substantial from 3 feet in height to 4 feet in height when installing the same style fence. 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. The requested variance is a self-created hardship but it is not the only factor that Board considers when reviewing an application. Granting of the area variance will include the following condition: 1. Approval is granted to install the requested 9-foot extension of 4-foot high fencing of transparent material, similar to the existing fence. Any material change would be required to come back to the Zoning Board of Appeals for approval. Motion was made to approve the variance for the existing 4-foot fence and the installation of 9 feet of 4-foot high fencing as requested. Moved: Church Seconded: Tripp Timothy Church, Chairman- yes Margaret Rubick - yes Gorete Crowe - yes Sandra Tripp - yes Thomas Chang - yes Vote 5-0 APPROVED 3. Approve of minutes - September 15, 2021 Motion was made to table the September 15, 2021 minutes to the November 17, 2021 meeting. Moved: Church Seconded: Crowe Motion was made to adjourn the meeting at 8:35 pm. Moved: Church Seconded: Crowe Vote 5-0 Respectfully Submitted, Pamela Kroll Secretary to the Zoning Board of Appeals 6 (ZBA 10/20/2021) � 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-2021 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_2021-10-20_Approved Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2021 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2021 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/8ae79d22018fb1aa8ed744229ad7f3da.pdf 5668738591f9c10bb369bfd1f7283cb3 PDF Text Text Village of Sleepy Hollow Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting December 15, 2021 Chairman Timothy Church called the meeting to order at 7:05 pm. Present: Timothy Church, Chairman Gorete Crowe Thomas Chang Margaret Rubick Craig Lis Also Present: Sean McCarthy, Village Architect Pamela Kroll, Secretary to the Zoning Board Absent: Sandra Tripp Agenda: 1) Michael Gelb and Deborah Domanski, 120 Gorey Brook Road, Determination/AppealContinued public hearing 2) Jeffrey and Morgan Moriarty, 21 Kingsland Road, Proposed fencing and detached storage shed- Public hearing 3) 14 Clinton LLC, 14 Clinton Street, Proposed two-family residence- Public hearing 4) Lighthouse Landing Communities, LLC, Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development, Legend Drive, Phase III, Block O/P, Proposed townhome development- Request for height variance 5) Approval of minutes - September 15, 2021, October 20, 2021 1. Michael Gelb and Deborah Domanski, 120 Gorey Brook Road, Determination/AppealContinued Public hearing Chairman Church stated that the applicants have requested an adjournment to the January 19, 2022 meeting. Motion was made to adjourn the public hearing to the January 19, 2022 meeting. Moved: Church Seconded: Rubick Vote 5-0 2. Jeffrey and Morgan Moriarty, 21 Kingsland Road, Proposed fencing and detached storage shed - Public hearing 1 (ZBA 12/15/2021) �Chairman Church read the public notice and listed the documents submitted with the application. Chairman Church asked Sean McCarthy if 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. Morgan Moriarty and John Moriarty are the owners of 21 Kingsland Road. Mrs. Moriarty stated on their behalf that they are seeking to put up a 5-foot high fence around the perimeter of their property. Mrs. Moriarty stated that the house is on the corner of Kingsland Road and Lakeview Avenue. The area of the requested variance is for the side of the house that is on Lakeview Avenue. Mrs. Moriarty stated they have spoken to their neighbors at 2 Lakeview Avenue and that they are in full support of the application for a 5-foot high fence. Mrs. Moriarty stated that they are proposing to install the fencing closer to the property line so that it will follow the path of the existing stone retaining wall. Mrs. Moriarty stated that they are also seeking a variance to install a storage shed on the other side of the property. They have spoken with their neighbors at 10 Evergreen Way and the owners have no objections to the shed being closer to the property line. Chairman Church requested that Mrs. Moriarty provide an explanation of why they wish to install 5-foot high fencing in the areas where a maximum of 3-feet in height is permitted. Mrs. Moriarty stated that one of their dogs is a greyhound and can easily scale a 3-foot high fence. There are areas of the retaining wall where someone can easily climb over the top of the wall with a 3-foot fence, and that a higher fence would be safer. Chairman Church asked Mrs. Moriarty to confirm that the proposed fencing would be on the grass portion of the property, if they own the property beyond the stone wall, if the proposed 5foot high fencing will border Lakeview Avenue, and do they intend to create a closed-in area with a gate. Mrs. Moriarty confirmed that the proposed fencing would be on the grass portion of the property, and that the proposed 5-foot high fencing would border Lakeview Avenue. Mrs. Moriarty stated that they intend to create a closed-in area in the rear yard to allow the dog to be out and for the yard to be safer for their daughter. Chairman Church suggested putting a 3-foot fence on the opposite side of the stone wall so that the fence is above the wall to eliminate the ability to climb the wall and get over the fence. Mrs. Moriarty stated that they propose to install the fencing around the perimeter in front of the top of the wall and that there are portions of the property that are sloped and where the retaining wall is lower than 3-feet from the ground; so if they run the fence along the perimeter, in front of the wall, the dog would still be able to scale it. 2 (ZBA 12/15/2021) �Craig Lis asked to Mrs. Moriarty to confirm that the wall will be within the proposed fenced area. Mrs. Moriarty stated that the proposed fencing will be within the wall area. Margaret Rubick asked Mrs. Moriarty to explain where the shed is proposed. Mrs. Moriarty stated that if you are standing on Kingsland Road, the shed is proposed on the right hand side portion of their side yard next to the garage. Chairman Church requested that Mrs. Moriarty describe where the proposed 5-foot high fence will run along the sloped incline above the wall. Mrs. Moriarty stated that the part of the proposed fence that will face Kingsland Road will be 23feet back from the property line. The portion of the fencing that requires the variance is the portion on Kingsland Road, and a 25-foot section along their side yard that borders 3 Lakeview Drive. Chairman Church requested that Sean McCarthy confirm if the part of the proposed fencing that requires a variance begins where it contacts the house. Sean McCarthy stated that the length of the proposed fence on the Lakeview Avenue side, from the property line in, where the red line on the drawing is going perpendicular with the house and 25-feet in would require a variance as well as the portion of the fence that is located at the wall wrapping around at a 25-feet distance from the property line. Mr. McCarthy stated that the distance from the property line on the side to the corner of the house is 40.2-feet. Thomas Chang asked Mrs. Moriarty to describe the distance between the proposed fence and the wall. Mrs. Moriarty stated that there is approximately 1-foot between the proposed fencing and the wall and that their intention is to add landscaping in between. Thomas Chang asked Sean McCarthy to confirm if the applicants installed the fence 25-feet in from Lakeview Avenue and cut across to meet the other side of the fence, it would not require a variance. Mr. McCarthy stated that if the 5-foot fence was installed, set back 25-feet in from Lakeview Drive, it would not require a variance. Mrs. Moriarty stated that the wall is 4-feet high with steps and that is they would like to enclose the wall with the 5-foot high fencing so that they are not able to step over the wall and over a 3foot high fence. Thomas Chang asked Mrs. Moriarty why a variance is required for the proposed shed location. 3 (ZBA 12/15/2021) �Mrs. Moriarty stated that they do not have enough side yard distance from the property line and distance from their house. Margaret Rubick asked Mrs. Moriarty to confirm if the shed will border the backyard of the neighboring property on Evergreen Way. Mrs. Moriarty stated that there is landscaping between her property and the neighboring property on Evergreen Way. The proposed shed would be seen from the neighboring properties backyard. They have spoken to the owners of the property on Evergreen Way and they have no objections. Chairman Church asked Mrs. Moriarty to explain why the fence is proposed at a 5-foot height at the Lakeview section of the property. Mrs. Moriarty stated that in the areas where it is flat, their dog would be able to scale a 3-foot high fence and that enclosing the wall with 5-foot high fencing will be more consistent and appealing to their neighbors and safer for their family. Chairman Church stated that if they installed a 3-foot high fence along the landscaped portion of the wall, it would follow the same sloped grade of the wall, and suggested that they could install a 3-foot high fence running perpendicular from the house to Lakeview Drive so that it would not be affected by the wall. Chairman Church stated that the Village of Sleepy Zoning Code limits the fence height on street facing portion of homes because it provides for better views for the community and that the Board needs to be careful when considering granting a variance that remains with the property and that may create a precedent for future property owners requesting a variance for a 5-foot high fence. Craig Lis asked Mr. McCarthy where the proposed 5-foot high fencing could be installed along the Lakeview Avenue side to eliminate the need for a variance. Mr. McCarthy stated that if the front yard set-back on Kingsland Road is 29.5-feet and the setback from Lakeview Avenue is 40.2-feet, the applicant is permitted to install the 5-foot high fencing to the corner of the property line. On the Lakeview side, if the applicant went back 25feet, it would allow them 15-feet off the front of the house and the applicant could then run the fencing parallel with the property line on Lakeview Avenue and make the connection without requiring a variance. Chairman Church suggested that the applicant consider installing the 3-foot high fence and an invisible dog fence. Margaret Rubick suggested that adding additional landscape plantings would avoid the need for 5-foot high fencing. 4 (ZBA 12/15/2021) �Gorette Crowe stated that she doesn't understand the need for the 5-foot high fencing where the wall slopes with the property. Chairman Church stated that the fence is permitted to be 5-feet high if installed 25-feet in from Lakeview Avenue and suggested that the applicant could install 3-foot high fencing and then graduate to 5-foot fencing where permitted. 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 public comments. Motion was made to close the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Lis Vote 5-0 Chairman Church asked Mrs. Moriarty which neighbor was in support of the application. Mrs. Moriarty stated that the owners of 2 Lakeview Avenue are in support of the application. (See Exhibit #1) Chairman Church stated that he cannot support the request to grant a variance for 5-foot high fencing based on the following criteria: 1. Lakeview Avenue is a public street and the Zoning Law requires that fences are not greater than 3-feet in height in the front yards. The Board requires a good reason to disregard the Zoning Law without creating a precedent for other property owners to request to have 5-foot high fencing. A dog is not a permanent structure and is not a valid reason to grant the variance. 2. Graduating the 3-foot and 5-foot height fencing can be accomplished without effecting the aesthetics of the property and is not a valid reason for granting a variance for 5-foot high fencing in areas where 3-foot high fencing is permitted. 3. The existing wall will slope with the fencing and the wall does not provide a distinguishing factor to grant the requested variance for a 5-foot high fence. Chairman Church stated that the Board looks for an exceptional reason to grant a variance. Margaret Rubick stated that she is concerned about creating a precedent. Chairman Church provided examples of applications that provided exceptional reasons for granting variances, applications that were denied, and applications in which a compromise was made in order to grant a variance for requested fence heights. 5 (ZBA 12/15/2021) �Mrs. Moriarty asked the Board if they would consider granting a variance for a 4-foot high fence. Chairman Church stated that the Board would consider granting a lower height variance depending on the distance proposed from the public road. Craig Lis stated that the regulations were made for a reason and that the Board is there to uphold them and make decisions based on the reasons for the requested variances. Chairman Church suggested that the applicant request an adjournment and come back at the next meeting with additional information or suggested changes to the application. Mrs. Moriarty asked the Board if they would feel more comfortable if they agreed to install a 3foot high fence at the Lakeview portion and then graduate from 4 to 5-feet at the backside of the corner. Chairman Church stated that he would be more comfortable with the proposed changes and that Mrs. Moriarty should detail where they would be requesting the 4 and 5-foot height fencing. Chairman Church stated that he doesn't see a problem with the requested variance for the proposed shed location. Motion was made to adjourn the public hearing to the January 19, 2022 meeting. Moved: Church Seconded: Rubick Vote 5-0 3. 14 Clinton LLC, 14 Clinton Street, Proposed two-family residence, Public hearing Chairman Church read the public notice and listed the documents submitted with the application. Chairman Church asked Sean McCarthy if 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. James Dibbini is an attorney representing the applicant. Mr. Dibbini stated that the applicant purchased the property in April of 2017. Prior to the fire that destroyed the house, it was a twostory two-family house. The applicant submitted an application to the Building Department and the Planning Board and there have been several meetings in which changes were made to the plans as suggested. Mr. Dibbini stated presented the five points that the Board considers when reviewing an application and stated that 1. There will be no undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood resulting from the requested variances. There will not be any detrimental conditions to the neighborhood resulting from the granting of the area variances. The proposed new two-family house will be an improvement to the neighborhood. The proposed new two-family house will be contained in similar setbacks to the other buildings in the neighborhood. The Board will 6 (ZBA 12/15/2021) �2. 3. 4. 5. not be setting a negative precedent as the proposed new two-family house will have a similar footprint to the original two-family house that was there. The benefits sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by any other means and the applicant has considered all possible options, and has had numerous reviews with the Building Department and the Planning Board. The requested variances are not substantial in context with the entire application and the requirements of the Zoning District. The neighboring properties have similar or less buffer setbacks in between the houses and the front sidewalks. Parking will not be an issue as there is ample parking available on the street. The requested variances will not produce an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood. There will be no significant change to the neighborhood from the prior structure. The application is not a self-hardship as the applicant seeks to construct a two-family house where there was an existing two-family house that will be code compliant and better designed with similar setback of the existing structure. Chairman Church asked Mr. Dibbini to confirm the side yard set-back of the original building, prior to the fire. Mr. Dibbini stated that he is not aware of the side yard set-back of the original house but that it was very similar to what it being proposed now other than the rear is proposed to be pushed back 6-feet further back, which doesn't require a variance. Chairman Church asked Mr. Dibbini to confirm the previous building of the building. Mr. Dibbini stated that the original house was a two-family building. Sean McCarthy stated that the original structure was a single-family residence. Chairman Church requested that Mr. Dibbini provide some of the changes that were incorporated into the application based on the suggestions from the Planning Board and the Building Department. Mr. Dibbini stated that changes were made to the windows and the roof pitch, a rear porch was added, a rear staircase was eliminated, and a landscape plan was developed as requested. The proposed building was also moved further from the neighboring mechanic shop. Chairman Church requested that Mr. Dibbini provide an explanation as to why the applicant is requesting the variance for a 2 foot side yard setback. Mr. Dibbini stated that the lot is narrow and difficult to design for useful space. Chairman Church asked Mr. Dibbini if the proposed setback was reviewed with the Building Department prior to the submission of the application. 7 (ZBA 12/15/2021) �Mr. Dibbini stated that the application was reviewed by the Building Department. Sean McCarthy stated that he suggested that the applicant increase the original proposed side yard setback, which was less than 1 foot. The Building Department did not determine what the requested proposed setback would be. Chairman Church asked Sean McCarthy to confirm if there are other properties that have do not have the required minimum 3 foot side yard setback. Mr. McCarthy stated that there are existing homes that have alleyways. There has not been any new construction that was granted a variance for a similar setback. Most of the structures in the neighborhood are existing non-conforming. Chairman Church asked Sean McCarthy if it is unreasonable for the applicant to lose a foot to the house in order to comply with the 3.00 foot side yard setback. Sean McCarthy stated that there are several lots on Beekman Avenue and in the R-5 Zoning District that are less than 30-feet wide and have houses that are one, two, and three-family homes; so the applicant could afford to lose another foot in the house. The architect could rearrange the space to add another foot. The additional foot would also increase the fire distance between the property line and the structure and provide a benefit to the applicant. Mr. Dibbini stated that there is a parking lot on the side of the applicants' property and it doesn't pose a direct threat for a fire to jump into another house or window; and the neighboring structure is a one-car garage that is set back on the property. Sean McCarthy stated that when the Building Department looks at fire ratings and fire separations, it is based upon the New York State Code which overlaps with the Zoning Ordinance. Fire rating and separation requirements are based on fire approaching the building as well as fire from the inside going to the neighboring property. If you have less than a 3 foot side yard setback, the applicants may be required to change the wall construction type to comply with the stricter requirement of the State Code. Chairman Church asked Sean McCarthy if the neighboring property is permitted to construct a house where the existing parking lot and mechanic shop is located. Sean McCarthy stated that the neighboring property can build as house as it is a permitted use in the C-2 Zoning District. It is currently a non-conforming use and they are permitted to change the use in order develop the property. There was a discussion between the Board and Mr. McCarthy regarding the setback requirements for residential and mixed uses verses commercial uses in the C-2 Zoning District. Mr. Dibbini stated that the applicant has advised him that the proposed width of the house is code compliant and that if the size of rooms it reduced, the building won't comply with the code. 8 (ZBA 12/15/2021) �Mr. McCarthy stated that the room sizes are based on the New York State Code requirements and that the minimum room size for a habitable space is 7 feet wide. Chairman Church asked if the proposed home could extend further into the rear yard. Mr. McCarthy stated that the proposed house could be extended further back in the rear yard as long as it meets the coverage requirements. The proposed application received the benefit of aligning the front of the house with the average setback of the other buildings on the street which allowed the front yard setback not to require a variance. The recent adoption of the Zoning Code amendments also eliminated the parking requirements since the lot is less than 30 feet wide. Chairman Church stated that the letters of opposition that were received from Frank Morabito and the responses that were received from the applicant and representatives were entered into the public record. (See Exhibits #s 2-6) Motion was made to open the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Lis Vote 5-0 Chairman Church solicited comments from the public. Elizabeth Garrity stated that she is at the meeting on behalf of the Moribitos, the owners of the adjoining property, and stated the required combined side yard setback is 12 feet and that the applicant is asking for a total variance of 9 feet. Motion was made to close the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Lis Vote 5-0 Chairman Church asked Mr. Dibbini if he wanted to provide a response to the public comments. Mr. Dibbini stated that the variance they are seeking, as it relates the Moribito property, is for 2 feet. Chairman Church stated that the requested variance to construct a two-family home is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood and will benefit the community. Complying with the full required combined side yard setbacks is not a feasible method for the applicants to construct a home that is a reasonable size in the small lot area. However, there is not a compelling reason to grant the 2 foot side yard variance on the west side of the property due to the New York State Fire Code regulations and the room sizes permitted for habitable space. There is also an opportunity for the applicant to push the house further into the backyard and increase the square footage without a required variance. Chairman Church made a motion to grant the variances for the pre-existing non-conforming conditions of the lot area and lot width and grant a variance for the combined side yard setback with modifications and criteria as follows: 9 (ZBA 12/15/2021) �1. Granting of the area variances to construct a two-family home is in keeping with the character or the neighborhood. The proposed home will enhance the character of the neighborhood and will benefit the community by having a code compliant new structure. 2. The requested variances for the lot area and lot width are not substantial when compared to the other properties in the neighborhood. 3. Requiring the applicant to comply with the total required side yard setbacks would have a permanent adverse effect and impact on the physical aesthetics in the neighborhood. 4. The requested variance for the one side yard setback is not feasible due to the New York State Code regulations. If the neighboring property was developed in the future, there would be access issues. 5. The requested variances are a self-created hardship but the development of the property for the applicants benefit would be difficult without granting the variances for the existing non-conformities of the lot area and width. Motion was made to approve the variances related to the existing non-conformities of the existing lot area and the lot width. Moved: Church Seconded: Liz Timothy Church, Chairman- yes Margaret Rubick - yes Gorete Crowe - yes Thomas Chang - yes Craig Lis- yes Vote 5-0 APPROVED Motion was made to approve the variance for a combined side yard setback of 6 feet and with the condition that the west side yard setback will be 3 feet. Moved: Church Seconded: Rubick Timothy Church, Chairman- yes Margaret Rubick - yes Gorete Crowe - yes Thomas Chang - yes Craig Lis- yes Vote 5-0 APPROVED Motion was made to deny the requested variance for a 2 foot one side yard setback. Moved: Church Seconded: Rubick 10 (ZBA 12/15/2021) �Timothy Church, Chairman- yes Margaret Rubick - yes Gorete Crowe - yes Thomas Chang- yes Craig Lis- yes Vote 5-0 DENIED 4. Lighthouse Landing Communities LLC, Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development, Legend Drive, Phase III, Block O/P, Proposed townhouse development - Request for height variance Chairman Church stated that the applicant has requested adjournment to the January meeting. Motion was made to adjourn the public hearing to the January 19, 2022 meeting. Moved: Church Seconded: Lis Vote 5-0 5. Approve of minutes - September 15, 2021, October 20, 2021 Motion was made to approve the September 15, 2021 and the October 20, 2021 minutes. Moved: Church Seconded: Rubick Timothy Church, Chairman- yes Margaret Rubick - yes Gorete Crowe - yes Thomas Chang -yes Craig Lis - yes Vote 5-0 APPROVED Motion was made to adjourn the meeting at 8:30 pm. Moved: Church Seconded: Crowe Vote 5-0 Respectfully Submitted, Pamela Kroll Secretary to the Zoning Board of Appeals 11 (ZBA 12/15/2021) �Exhibit #1 From: Miles Greaves Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2021 1:34 PM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.org> Cc: Jen Woolf Subject: 21 Kingsland fence Hi Sean, This is Miles Greaves and Jennifer Woolf, from 2 Lakeview Ave (the couple that bought the house with the patio). We're writing in regard to the Moriartys' application to build a 5' fence (they live in 21 Kingsland Road), and want to say that we live across the street from them and have absolutely no problem with their fence proposal. It sounds like it will be a nice addition to the neighborhood and help keep their family safe! Thanks very much, Miles �EXHIBIT #2 REC3HX w i DEC 0 9 2021 BUILDING DEPT. VIUAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW From: ff 177 <ffl77fahotnnail.com> Sent: Thursday, December 9, 2021 6:14 PM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthyfo)sleepyhollownv.ore> Subject: 14 Clinton Street Zoning Board of Appeals Application Village of Sleepy Hollow Mr. Sean McCarthy, RA. Building Inspector 28 Beekman Ave Sleepy Hollow, N Y 10591 Re: Zoning Board of Appeals Application 14 Clinton Street, LLC Proposed Development of Vacant Lot - 14 Clinton St Dear Mr. McCarthy: I have reviewed the proposed plans for construction of a two-family residence at the above-reference property which will require substantial variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals. As stated in my previous letter, I am an adjoining property owner of the proposed development and remain staunchly opposed to granting the requested variances. The applicant is requesting substantial variances to develop a grossly undersized vacant lot with a two-family residence with no on-site parking. Pursuant to N e w York State Town law the zoning board of appeals shall take into consideration the benefit to the applicant weighed against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community by granting the variances. The board shall also consider: 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. The Board must consider the substantial proposed deviation from the bulk and area requirements with the density and physical aspects of surrounding properties, traffic and parking impacts. The Boards should also consider whether granting the variances will set a negative precedent for allowing development on grossly undersized lots and reduced lot widths. 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. The applicant has not, according to the plans and documents submitted, provided alternative designs (such as smaller single-family residence) that achieves the benefit the applicant is seeking and eliminates or lessens the need the side lot variances. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. . The C-2 Zoning District requires a minimum 4,000 sq. ft. lot for development. The �property is question is only 2,917 sq. ft., (1,083 sq. ft. less than was is permitted) requiring substantial variance of 72.9% reduction in lot size and, if granted, will permit the creation of a substandard lot. Second, required lot width is 40 ft., however the existing lot is only 25.02 ft., requiring a 6 2 . 5 5 % reduction in width. The requested side yard setback from 3 ft. to 2 ft. while appearing de minimus is actually substantial when viewing it from the lens of overdeveloped Clinton Street. Lastly, the combined side yard setback is 12 ft. however the proposed is 5 ft.,total combined side yard, resulting in a 4 1 . 6 6 % reduction. The percentages calculated above give a quick illustration that all of the requested variances are substantial. 4. W h e t h e r the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The construction of a two-family residence with no on-site parking will have a negative impact to the neighboring properties. The lot, although preexisting, is grossly undersized for the development proposed. Clinton Street is an over-developed street scattered with multi-family apartment houses, one and two-family houses and commercial uses. The variances, if granted will permit construction of a building 3 feet from the lot on the left of the property and 2 on the right. Since there has already been a massive tire at this location that damaged my property, 1 am concerned with the location of the building and its proximity to my property. 5. W h e t h e r the alleged difficulty w a s self-created The applicant knew was aware of the zoning and the deficiencies in the lot prior to attempting to redevelop it and therefore the hardship is indeed self-created. Although self-created hardship alone does not preclude the granting of the variance, I request the Board consider the self-created nature of the variance for its impact on the neighbors. I respectfully request that the Board consider the impact granting these variances would have on the neighboring properties as well as the negative precedent it would be setting. Thank you, Frank Morabito �EXHIBIT #3 From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Attachments: ycolombo casny.net Eugen Thercaj Pamela Kroll; Dena Alto; Sean McCarthy Re: 14 Clinton ZBA Application - Comments Received Friday, December 10, 2021 2:48:09 PM 12-9-21 14 Clinton Street Comments Rec from Frank Morabito.pdf Good afternoon, I am speechless. How can someone that owns the most terrible eyesore along the full length of Clinton Street write a letter like this?. His business is the one that's detrimental for the neighborhood and definitely not the proposed modest new, fully sprinklered, up to code and energy efficient 2 family. Im sure all neighbors would benefit from the development we are proposing as it will bring their property values up. Thank you, Yahaira M Volquez Colombo, RA, AIA, LEED GA Colombo Architectural Studio PC, WMBE Architectural Services - Special Inspection Agency 22 Villa Avenue Yonkers New York 10704 Tel: 347 767 0591 Fax: 646 357 1660 �EXHIBIT #4 From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Attachments: Eugen Thercaj Pamela Kroll Dena Alto; ycolombo casny.net; Sean McCarthy Re: 14 Clinton ZBA Application - Comments Received Friday, December 10, 2021 10:30:10 AM 12-9-21 14 Clinton Street Comments Rec from Frank Morabito.pdf Hi, He is doing all this to buy my land for 50k which will never happen. I will never sell in this life. Very mad because we spoke together and we had an agreement. Thanks On Dec 10, 2021, at 10:05 AM, Pamela Kroll <pkroll@sleepyhollowny.org> wrote: Team, Please see the attached letter received in regards to the Zoning Board Application submitted for 14 Clinton Street. Regards, Pam Pamela Kroll Secretary to Planning & Zoning Boards Village of Sleepy Hollow 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow NY, 10591 914-366-5111 pkroll@sleepyhollowny.org �EXHIBIT #5 From: To: Subject: Date: Sean McCarthy Pamela Kroll FW: Response to letter to the zoning board from Frank morabito Monday, December 13, 2021 8:54:46 AM Sean E. McCarthy, RA Village Architect Village of Sleepy Hollow 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, New York 10591 914-366-5124 From: nygal462 <nygal462@aol.com> Sent: Monday, December 13, 2021 7:37 AM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.org>; Pamela Kroll <pkroll@sleepyhollowny.org>; ycolombo casny.net <ycolombo@casny.net>; Sarah Murray <sarahm@drpilla.com>; Eugen Thercaj <eugenthercaj@hotmail.com> Subject: Response to letter to the zoning board from Frank morabito Dear mr McCarthy zoning board members In response to Mr Morabito's letter I am totally speechless as well as shocked our situation started myself and my partners with Mr Morabito who wanted to buy our property which was and is not for sale we are looking to enhance the neighborhood he is using the board as a tool to intimidate us not allow us to build and to sell it to him our property at $50,000 which will enable him to expand his mechanic shop which is next door I am still in shock that he would go this far everything in his letter is an untruth and another plot to try and obtain our property to expand his mechanic shop we have been working on this for a year and the house is going to be beautiful the mechanic shop utilizes all street parking with the mechanics on the street which if you look at the photos I am providing you will see what actually goes on cars are running polluting the air you also have them changing oil and normal parking spots on Street mechanic shop is dirty they threw food all over we've even had clean up our property several times from the tires that garbage I asked you to take in consideration the facts that are at hand the only thing that is actually negative on Clinton Street would be the mechanic shop which brings a great deal of traffic pollution to the area as well as making the area extremely dirty there are families with children in the area I would like if possible the board members board members and mister McCarthy to meet me at the property to see what a day is like by the mechanic shop thank you Dena Alto Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device ��V mi v< w �t �vV v m it 0 �EXHIBIT #6 RECEIVED DEC 1 5 2021 BUILDING DEPT. VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW From: ff 177 <ffl77@hotmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2021 1:59 PM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.org> Subject: Response to comments from 14 Clinton Street LLC Dear Mr. McCarthy: I have read the comments posted on Sleepy Hollow's ZBA webpage from the owner and architect of 14 Clinton Street regarding my objections to the proposed development and find it necessary to refute the allegations therein. First, 1 have not offered to purchase the lot for $50,000 or any other amount, rather this developer, on multiple occasions, has requested to purchase my property. Second, my objections are based on the substantial variances requested, the negative precedent the granting of the variances would create and the overall scope of the project. I do not object to the development of the property by the applicants, rather my objection is only to the overall scope of the proposal. I am certain their architect can prepare plans that will reduce the size of the building, thereby achieving the goal of the applicant and lessening the impact. Finally, as property owner I have a vested right and duty to object to any applications that I believe will have a negative impact to the area and my property directly. Thank you, Frank Morabito � 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-2021 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_2021-12-15_Approved-ZBA-Minutes Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2021 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2021 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/dfef290f8f3c4552d1ceb23740f79535.pdf 63fe124781d019a853c4fadc10b1e8ef PDF Text Text RESOLUTION Adopted at the December 15, 2021 Meeting of the Village of Sleepy Hollow Zoning Board of Appeals RESOLUTION: Area Variances PROPOSED: Two-family residence LOCATION: 14 Clinton Street DESIGNATION: Section 115.15, Block 1, Lot 67 ZONING DISTRICT: C-2 WHEREAS, on March 3, 2021 an application was submitted to the Planning Board requesting Site Plan approval to construct a two-family residence. WHEREAS, on October 21, 2021 meeting the Planning Board referred the application to the Zoning Board of Appeals for the required variances; and WHEREAS, on November 16, 2021 an application was submitted by Eugeno Thercaj of 14 Clinton LLC (the "Applicant") to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "ZBA") requesting area variances to construct an 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, where the required minimum lot area is 4,000 square feet and the existing lot area is 2,917 square feet; and WHEREAS, the Applicant is seeking a variance from Article VI, Section 450-34.B. of the Zoning Code, Applicability of regulations, where the required minimum lot width is 40.00 feet and the existing lot width is 25.02 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 one side yard set-back is 3.00 feet and the proposed one side yard set-back is 2.00 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 combined side yard set-back is 12.00 feet and the proposed combined side yard set-back is 5.00 feet; and WHEREAS, the ZBA has reviewed the following documents: 1. Zoning Board of Appeals application signed by Eugeno Thercaj, dated November 19, 2021 2. Zoning Compliance Form, signed by Yahaira M. Volquez Colombo, architect, dated November 10, 2021 Page 1 of 4 �3. Short Environmental Assessment Form Part-1 Project information, signed by Yahaira M. Volquez Colombo, architect dated November 18, 2021 4. Property deed recorded with Westchester County on April 13, 2017 5. Topographical Survey prepared by Vincent Teutonico, Licensed Surveyor, dated August 30, 2021 6. Photographs of the existing vacant lot 7. Architectural drawings prepared by Colombo Architecture Studio PC, dated November 8, 2021 as follows: a. A-101.00- Site Plan, Tax Parcel, Viewer, Scope of Work, Zoning Calculations, Fema Map b. A-102.00- Basement Proposed Plan, First Floor Proposed Plan, Second Floor Proposed Plan c. A-103.00- Front Elevation, Rear Elevation, Left Side Elevation d. A-104.00- Front Elevation, Rear Elevation, Left Side Elevation 2013, Google Picture, Design Criteria 8. Letter prepared by Frank Morabito, dated December 9, 2021 9. Responses from applicant team dated December 10, 2021 and December 13, 2021 10. Letter prepared by Frank Morabito, dated December 15, 2021 WHEREAS, the ZBA held a duly noticed public hearing on December 15, 2021 to hear and consider the application; and WHEREAS, testimony was received from James Dibbini, on behalf of the applicant stating that no undesirable change or detrimental conditions to the neighborhood will result from granting of the variances; the proposed two-family house will be an improvement to the neighborhood; the benefits sought by the applicant sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by any other means; the requested variances are not substantial in relation to the neighboring properties; the requested variances will not produce an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; the applicant seeks to construct a house that will be code compliant and better designed than the original single-family residence. James Dibbini stated that the one side yard setback of 2.00 feet is requested because the lot is narrow and difficult to design for useful space; and WHEREAS, testimony was received from Sean McCarthy, the Building Inspector, stating that there has not been any new construction that has been granted a variance for a 2.00 foot one side yard setback; there are several lots in the R-5 Zoning District that have lots that are less than 30.00 feet wide and the architect could rearrange the plan and increase the distance between the property line and structure; WHEREAS, testimony was received from Elizabeth Garrity on behalf of the Morabitos, the owners of the adjoining property, stating that the required combined side yard setback is 12.00 feet and the applicants are requesting a total variance of 9.00 feet 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 Page 2 of 4 �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 the 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 for the proposed application: 1. Granting of the area variances will not create an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or be a detriment to the nearby properties as the proposed two-family house is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood and will benefit the community by having a new code compliant new structure. 2. Granting of the area variances is the only feasible way to achieve the benefits sought by the applicant to build a usable two-family structure and requiring the applicant to comply with the total required side yard setbacks would not be practicable. The requested variance for a 2.00 foot side yard setback is not recommended due to the New York State Fire Code regulations for fire ratings and separations between the building and the property line. 3. The requested variances for the lot area and lot width are not substantial when compared to the other properties in the neighborhood. 4. Granting of the area variances for the existing non-conforming lot area and lot width will not have a permanent adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood. 5. The required variance is a self-created hardship but it would be difficult to develop the property for the applicant's benefit without granting the variances for the existing non-conformities of the lot area, lot width and the total combined side yards requirements. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Application to the ZBA is hereby granted approval for existing lot area and the existing lot width and the combined side yards setback of 6.00 feet with the following condition: 1. The west side yard setback will be 3.00 feet minimum. 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 with the approved plans. 'McL/i ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW'' / U I, / Timothy Church, Chairman Date t J ^ i 0 ' a " e x t f a c t d u l y ^opted by the B o i of Wjjw^anning/Zoning of the Village of Sleepy Hollow on the ^ L d a y of the whole thereof, and I further certify that tf^m. ^ 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 andoffjcialsealthis^davof / W ' U < _ 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-2021 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_2021-12-15_14 Clinton Street Approved ZBA Resolution Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2021 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2021 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