1 25 25 https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/ba047f502e95dc936bd61b41a9202b43.pdf 9a0800196c3217bf3ef701602905f228 PDF Text 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 Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2022 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_2022-12-22_22 Lawrence Avenue Approved ZBA Resolution Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2022 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2022 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/30501caa90baeab8f030ceb496e132e9.pdf bf8d6ac0e496f56877101935dfa66a99 PDF Text Text Village of Sleepy Hollow Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting December 21, 2022 Chairman Timothy Church called the meeting to order at 7:02 pm. Present: Timothy Church, Chairman Craig Lis Thomas Chang Margaret Rubick Sandra Tripp Also Present: Sean McCarthy, Village Architect Pamela Kroll, Secretary to the Zoning Board Absent: Gorete Crowe Agenda: 1) George Gerlanc and Sonia Kazazis, 11 Tappan Avenue, Interpretation /Appeal, Legalization of a basement dwelling and a three-family residence- Continued public hearing 2) Andrew Cannistra and Rebecca Heck, 214 Palmer Avenue, Proposed additions and alterations- Public hearing, requested adjournment 3) 46 Hudson St. LLC, 46 Hudson Street, Proposed three-family residence - Public hearing 4) Kirsten Hase and Barry McLauglin, 43 New Broadway, Proposed deck expansion and stone walkway steps- Public hearing 5) Filipe and Jose Ribeiro, 22 Lawrence Avenue, Proposed covered rear stair- Public hearing 6) Approval of minutes, 1. George Gerlanc and Sonia Kazazis, 11 Tappan Avenue, Interpretation/Appeal, Legalization of a basement dwelling and a three-family residence- Continued public hearing Chairman Church stated that although he was not present, he has watched the November 16, 2022 meeting. The Board had requested that the applicant provide further documentation to show that the house was a three-family use in 1964 and to demonstrate that the three-family use has continued from 1964 to the present. Chairman Church invited the applicant to present the supplemental findings. 1 (ZBA 12/21/2022) �Maximillian Mahalek stated that he is an associate of Cuddy + Feder, LLP presenting on behalf of the applicants. Mr. Mahalek stated that he met with Sean McCarthy and the Village Counsel on November 28, 2022, and that they went through the records to translate the history of the property before 1964 and up until the present day. Mr. Mahalek stated that the documents submitted on December 8, 2022 contained all of the documents reviewed with the Village staff. Mr. Mahalek stated that the December 8, 2022 submission included two signed and notarized statements from residents stating that they recall a woman named Ella living in the basement of the residence as of the late 1950s, into the early 1960s, and after 1964. The copy of a Death Certificate submitted for Ella Clark states that her address was 11 Tappan Avenue. Chairman Church asked Mr. Mahalek how they know there were two other families living in the home when Ella Clark was occupying the basement. Mr. Mahalek stated that the affidavit provided by Eda Modesta stated that the Gerlancs lived on the main level, Ella lived in the basement, and William and Regina Horner lived on the top floor. Mr. Mahalek stated that a Town of Mount Pleasant Property card, with an inspection date of 1963, lists the home as a three-family residence. According to conversations with Grace Papa, the Receiver of Taxes and James Timmings, the Assessor, this is the only property card on file with the town. Mr. Mahalek presented photographs and requested that George Gerlanc state what year the pictures were from and who was in them. Mr. Gerlanc provided testimony stating that the pictures submitted were taken in 1961 and that he was included in the pictures. Mr. Mahalek stated that the pictures show a separate gate, walkway, and mailbox for the basement residence. Mr. Mahalek reviewed the other documents submitted, including a survey from 1955, a report from a licensed home inspector, and a letter from a licensed electrician that indicate the likely use of the three-family residence. Chairman Church asked Mr. Mahalek if there are records between the years of 1964 and 1980 that indicate the use as a three-family residence. Mr. Mahalek stated that Mr. McCarthy found a Building Permit application from 1976 in the Village records that listed the home as a three-family residence at that time. Mr. Mahalek stated that he did not find any Building Department records from 1964 to 1980 that indicate the use of a three-family residence. Mr. Mahalek described documents from after 1980 that describe the home as a three-family residence. Chairman Church asked Mr. Mahalek if the owner lived in one unit and rented the other two units, and if there is any evidence of rent rolls. 2 (ZBA 12/21/2022) �Mr. Mahalek stated that the applicant’s parents occupied one unit as their residence and rented the other two units. Mr. Mahalek stated that they have not found any evidence of formal rent rolls. Chairman Church asked Mr. Mahalek if there are additional Building Permit Applications that reference the two-family or three-family use. Mr. Mahalek stated that there were plans filed in 1976 for work to the basement. George Gerlanc stated that in 1976 his parents got a permit for an extension to the home that provided for additional space on the first floor and the basement. There was also a permit issued in 1980 to complete the kitchen in the basement apartment. Chairman Church asked Mr. Gerlanc if the permit request was to add the kitchen or to renovate an existing kitchen. Mr. Gerlanc stated that the permit application requested to move and renovate the existing kitchen into the expanded space. Chairman Church suggested that the Board open the public hearing and address the evidence of continuous use of the home as a three-family residence from 1964 to the present, and vote on that part of the application. Chairman Church asked Sean McCarthy if the Village records contain documents that were not part of submission that are relevant for the Boards’ consideration. Sean McCarthy stated that the owner indicated the structure was a three-family residence on the 1976 permit application. Motion was made to open the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Tripp Vote 5-0 Chairman Church solicited comments from the public. Thomas Capossela stated that he is the owner of 5 Tappan Avenue. Mr. Capossela stated that he has lived in his residence since 1958 and that he has no problem with the basement apartment. Mr. Capossela stated that the covered patio located on the northeast corner of the property has no setbacks to his property. He believes there is a 3 foot required setback from the property line and there is currently no setback on the north side or the east side. The covered patio is an illegal structure that the Board cannot considered grandfathered. Chairman Church stated that the Board is voting on granting permission for the three-family use and the patio structure is not part of the application. Thomas Capossela requested a response from Sean McCarthy. 3 (ZBA 12/21/2022) �Sean McCarthy stated that the Building Department acknowledges his comments. There were no other comments from the public. Motion was made to close the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Rubick Vote 5-0 Chairman Church stated that the applicant has established the existence of the three-family use before 1964 and that it has been continuous periodically over the years. Chairman Church made a motion stating that the Building Department may approve a certificate of occupancy for a three-family residence based on the “grandfather” law. The Board did not address the arguments that an area variance is required to legalize the number of dwellings units, and not a use variance. Motion was made to approve the continuation of an existing non-conforming three-family residence. Moved: Church Seconded: Rubick Timothy Church, Chairman - yes Margaret Rubick - yes Craig Lis - yes Sandra Tripp – yes Thomas Chang- yes Vote 5-0 APPROVED 2. Andrew Cannistra and Rebecca Heck, 214 Palmer Avenue, Proposed additions and alterations - Public hearing Chairman Church stated that the applicant has requested an adjournment until the January 18, 2023 meeting. 3. 46 Hudson St. LLC, 46 Hudson Street, Proposed three-family residence- Public hearing Chairman Church stated that the application will been adjourned to the January 18, 2023 meeting due to notification requirements. 4. Kirsten Hase and Barry McLaughlin, 43 New Broadway, Proposed deck expansionPublic hearing and stone walkway steps- Public hearing Chairman Church read the public notice and listed the documents submitted with the application, and asked Sean McCarthy to confirm that all of the mailing receipts have been received. Sean McCarthy stated that all of the mailing receipts were received. 4 (ZBA 12/21/2022) �Chairman Church invited the applicant to present the application. Barry McLaughlin is the owner of the property and stated that the application proposes to construct a deck addition, stairs, and to extend the stone walkway along the side of the house to meet the new stair landing. The existing walkway is six inches off the property line and not in good shape. Chairman Church asked Mr. McLaughlin to describe the addition. Mr. McLaughlin stated that they are proposing to construct a 4-foot extension to the first floor deck and to construct a second floor deck. Kirsten Hase is the owner of the property and stated that they have an existing deck and a side yard walkway that has three steps that need replacement. They are proposing to expand the first floor deck and to add stairs and a stone walkway. The proposed walkway is non-compliant and requires a variance. The design intent of the walkway is so it will meet the deck and provide safe accessibility with the property grade change. Margaret Rubick asked the owners to explain why they are proposing to widen the existing stairs. Barry McLoughlin stated that the existing stairs are not code compliant. Sandra Tripp asked Sean McCarthy to explain what is causing the change requested for the one side yard variance. Sean McCarthy stated that the 0.80 ft. refers to the north side of the property but counts as part of the minimum combined side yard requirement. The property has one side yard that is only 0.80 ft. The house sits 3.5 feet from the property line. In order to have a legal width stair that will architecturally align with walkway, they have no choice but to encroach on the 3.00 ft. setback. Since the walkway will be stepping with the grade, it will not appear as a large structure sticking out of the ground. Because of the property setback on the north side, the south side is their only access to the backyard. Motion was made to open the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Lis Vote 5-0 Chairman Church solicited comments from the public. There were no comments from the public. Motion was made to close the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Rubick 5 Vote 5-0 (ZBA 12/21/2022) �Chairman Church made a motion to approve the requested variances based on the following criteria: 1. Granting of the area variances will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood as the proposed walkway will be barely visible from the street. 2. The benefits sought be the applicants to construct a walkway and code compliant stairs on the south side of the property is the only feasible method to access to the rear yard and cannot be achieved due to the existing non-conformities of the north side yard setback. 3. The requested area variances are not substantial as they are only required for the stairs. 4. Granting of the area variance will not cause an impact to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood. 5. The requested variances are self-created but are necessary to improve the condition of the house. Motion was made to approve the application. Moved: Church Seconded: Lis Timothy Church, Chairman - yes Margaret Rubick - yes Craig Lis - yes Sandra Tripp - yes Thomas Chang- yes Vote 5-0 APPROVED 5. Filipe and Jose Ribeiro, 22 Lawrence Avenue, Proposed covered rear stair- Public hearing Chairman Church read the public notice and listed the documents submitted with the application, and asked Sean McCarthy to confirm that all of the mailing receipts have been received. Sean McCarthy stated that all of the mailing receipts were received. Chairman Church invited the applicant to present the application. Jorge B. Hernandez stated that he is the architect representing the applicant. Mr. Hernandez stated that while construction work was in progress, they found structural damage to the existing enclosed porches and the exterior of the house that needed further repairs. Mr. Hernandez stated that revised plans submitted show that the proposed porches are outside of the required property setback lines. Mr. Hernandez stated that there were interior stairs within the porch area that were not code compliant and unstable. The application proposes to construct code compliant stairs to the exterior of the building structure. Mr. Hernandez presented a photograph of the building and 6 (ZBA 12/21/2022) �stated the previous owner had permits to enclose the porches. The applicants filed for permits to restore the rear porches to open air structures. Chairman Church asked Mr. Hernandez if adding the exterior stairs to the side of the house increases the lot area occupied by the structure and asked why the applicants are requesting variance approvals. Mr. Hernandez stated that the addition of the exterior stairs increases the lot space occupied by the structure. Sandra Tripp asked if the applicant is required to move the stairs to the exterior in order to be compliant with the code. Sean McCarthy stated that the applicant could reconstruct code compliant interior stairs within the rear porches. The current structure used the porches as the second means of egress. The application proposes to create covered porches, and to construct the stair portion as an addition to the existing building structure. The proposed stairs would increase the total area of the building structure. Chairman Church asked Mr. Hernandez if the proposed application would result in a loss of parking. Mr. Hernandez stated that proposed application would not affect the parking. Sandra Tripp asked Mr. Hernandez where the proposed stairs would land on the property. Mr. Hernandez stated that the stairs would be on the right side of the existing patio. Motion was made to open the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Lis Vote 5-0 Chairman Church solicited comments from the public. Julio Carchi stated that he lives at 30 Lawrence Avenue and is there on behalf of Zoila Naulasaca. Mr. Carchi asked Mr. Hernandez to describe what side the stairs will be located on in relation to his house. Chairman Church stated that the applicant is proposing stairs that are within the rear yard. Sandra Tripp asked Mr. Hernandez to confirm that the proposed stairs will not extend beyond the existing flagstone patio. Mr. Hernandez stated that the stairs would not extend beyond the existing side flagstone patio. 7 (ZBA 12/21/2022) �Motion was made to close the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Lis Vote 5-0 Sean McCarthy stated that the upper portion of stair structure would go beyond the existing flagstone patio. Mr. McCarthy suggested that the applicants consider rebuilding the deck structure to be compliant with the required rear yard setback and to align with the proposed stair structure. Mr. Hernandez stated that he would have to consult with the applicant. Sean McCarthy suggested that if the applicant centered the proposed porch structure and the stairs with the main roofline it would create a new roof overhang covering that would be more architecturally appropriate for the building. Mr. Hernandez stated that the original intention was to renovate the existing structure and that finding the damage was what led them to the Zoning Board. Sean McCarthy stated that there was a permit issued to remove the walls around the porches. The applicants received a Stop Work Order because the Applicants extended the decks and started the work without a permit. Mr. McCarthy stated that since the applicants are reconstructing the structure, the Board is requesting that Mr. Hernandez create a new design that would be more architecturally appropriate and be more compliant with the Zoning Code. Mr. McCarthy stated that the applicant could still achieve their goals for increasing the size of the porches without an interior stair. Mr. McCarthy suggested that the applicant could be more compliant with the side yard requirements if they center the structure with the back of house and that it might be beneficial to cover the stair. Mr. Hernandez stated that the rear and side yard setbacks are existing non-conforming conditions. Mr. Hernandez asked if the applicant agreed to move the deck rear deck in 1.9 feet, would the Board vote to approve the requested side yard variance. Sean McCarthy stated that the Board can vote to approve the variances if the applicant agrees to revise the application to construct the covered rear porch and covered stair to align with the existing building structure and to stay within the required rear yard setback. Chairman Church made a motion to approve a revised application to construct a covered porch 1.9 feet in from the rear yard setback to be code compliant with the 25 foot rear yard setback and to construct a covered stair the will be centered with the rear of the house structure based on the following criteria: 1. Granting the area variances for the existing non-conformities of the property related to lot area, lot width, building coverage, and front and side yard setbacks will not produce an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to the nearby properties. 8 (ZBA 12/21/2022) �2. Granting the area variances for the revised application is the feasible method to achieve the goals for a covered porch and stairs. Moving the stairs to the rear of the property will be more architecturally appropriate for the building and reduce the variances requested for the other pre-existing non-conforming conditions of the property. 3. Granting of the area variances for the revised application are not substantial because the applicant would be not increase the pre-existing nonconformities of the property. 4. Granting of the area variances for proposed additions will not cause an impact to the environmental or physical conditions of the neighborhood. 5. The requested variances are self-created but the revised application will result in an improvement to the building structure. Motion was made to approve the application. Moved: Church Seconded: Rubick Timothy Church, Chairman - yes Margaret Rubick - yes Craig Lis - yes Sandra Tripp – yes Thomas Chang- yes Vote 5-0 APPROVED Chairman Church stated that if the applicant does not agree with the suggested revisions, the Board could reopen the public hearing without revising the public notice. 6. Approval of minutes- November 16, 2022 Motion was made to approve the November 16, 2022 minutes as amended. Moved: Church Seconded: Rubick Timothy Church, Chairman - yes Margaret Rubick - yes Craig Lis - yes Sandra Tripp – yes Thomas Chang- yes Vote 5-0 APPROVED Motion was made to adjourn the meeting at 8:15 pm. Moved: Church Seconded: Rubick 9 Vote 5-0 (ZBA 12/21/2022) �Respectfully Submitted, Pamela Kroll Secretary to the Zoning Board of Appeals 10 (ZBA 12/21/2022) � 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-2022 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_2022-12-21_Approved ZBA Minutes Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2022 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2022 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/7ba76ddc05e2a987959d9ea32bad4a7c.pdf 99d4635de0a21781f27fbc88bef57b41 PDF Text 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 Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2022 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_2022-12-21_43 New Broadway Approved ZBA Resolution Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2022 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2022 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/2010a39db25b816045985a7b5167129d.pdf f462d3dad5f4ba489a8857e8b611bdea PDF Text 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 Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2022 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_2022-12-21_11 Tappan Avenue Approved ZBA Resolution Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2022 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2022 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/239daf5eac849746c22eecbb11ffccb8.pdf e1844c34e9bfb660a0b010765f4ecf63 PDF Text Text Village of Sleepy Hollow Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting November 16, 2022 Chairman Craig Lis called the meeting to order at 7:05 pm. Present: Craig Lis, Acting Chairman Gorete Crowe Thomas Chang Margaret Rubick Sandra Tripp Also Present: Sean McCarthy, Village Architect Pamela Kroll, Secretary to the Zoning Board Absent: Timothy Church, Chairman Agenda: 1) Maria Martins, 11 Kendall Avenue, Appeal and Interpretation of the Building Inspectors determination that the proposed application for the development at 135 Beekman Avenue complies with the Zoning Code- Withdrawn 2) George Gerlanc and Sonia Kazazis, 11 Tappan Avenue, Interpretation /Appeal, Legalization of a basement dwelling and a three-family residence 3) Approval of minutes, September 21, 2022 1. Maria Martins, 11 Kendall Avenue, Appeal and Interpretation of the Building Inspectors determination that the proposed application for the development at 135 Beekman Avenue complies with the Zoning Code- Public hearing, withdrawn Chairman Lis stated that the applicant has requested to withdraw the application. 2. George Gerlanc and Sonia Kazazis, 11 Tappan Avenue, Interpretation/Appeal, Legalization of a basement dwelling and a three-family residence- Public hearing Chairman Lis read the public notice, listed the documents submitted with the application, and asked Sean McCarthy to confirm that the mailing receipts have been received. Sean McCarthy stated that the mailing receipts were received. Chairman Lis invited the applicant to present the application. 1 (ZBA 11/16/2022) �Maximillian Mahalek stated that he is an associate of Cuddy + Feder, LLP speaking on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Mahalek stated that 11 Tappan Avenue contains three living units and it is a common use in the Webber Park neighborhood. Mr. Mahalek stated that the submission lists many homes in the area that have more than two dwelling units The Applicants were informed that there was not a permit on file for the basement dwelling unit. Mr. Mahalek stated that the application proposes three requests; that the existing basement dwelling unit be grandfathered as an existing legal non-conforming use; in the alternative, the Applicants are requesting that an area variance is required instead of a use variance to permit the increase in density, in a second alternative; the Applicants are requesting a use variance. Mr. Mahalek stated that similar criteria relate to both alternative requests. Allowing the existing use of the basement apartment would not cause impact to the character of the neighborhood because there would not be any change to the environmental or physical conditions. Removing the basement apartment is not a feasible alternative for the Applicants. The removal of the basement unit would be a substantial financial burden on the Applicants and would diminish the return from any future rental revenues or future sale of the home by only being able to lease and or market the house as a two-family home. The hardship was not self-created. The Applicants recently inherited the home and the Applicants’ family has been paying taxes as a three-family dwelling for as long as they can remember. George Gerlanc stated he is the owner of 11 Tappan Avenue and stated that he and his sister became the owners of 11 Tappan Avenue when their parents passed away in 2021. Mr. Gerlanc stated that his parents first rented the first floor apartment when they married in October of 1959 and then purchased the home from William and Regina Horner in 1963. As long as his family can recall the house has contained three apartments and his earliest memory of a tenant in the basement was in 1964. The letters and documents submitted to the Board show that the apartment existed before this time. Mr. Gerlanc stated that he hopes that the letters submitted by the neighbors underscore the longevity of the use of the basement apartment for more than sixty years. Mr. Mahalek stated that they have a number of photographs of houses and real estate listings that show the common existence of three-family homes in the neighborhood. Craig Lis solicited comments from the Board. There were no questions from the Board. Motion was made to open the public hearing. Moved: Lis Seconded: Chang Vote 5-0 Chairman Lis solicited comments from the public. Sonya Munroe stated that she lives at 63 New Broadway and that she is in support of keeping 11 Tappan Avenue as a three-family house because housing in great demand in the Sleepy Hollow Webber Park area. A dwelling that has been recognized by the Village as a three-family residence where taxes and utilities were paid for as a three-family and off-street parking was provided should not be eliminated. 2 (ZBA 11/16/2022) �Correspondence was received from the following residents regarding the application: a) Ron Simcoe of 21 Tappan Avenue, dated October 1, 2022 (See Exhibit #1) b) Sonya & Pat Munroe of 63 New Broadway, dated October 3, 2022 (See Exhibit #2) c) Edie O’Reilly of 43 Bedford Road, dated October 5, 2022 (See Exhibit #3) d) Lena O’Neill, dated October 13, 2022 (See Exhibit #4) e) Thomas Capossela, of 5 Tappan Avenue, dated October 17, 2022 (See Exhibit #5) f) Eda Modesta, dated October 18, 2022 (See Exhibit #6) g) Salvatore and Maria Modica, dated October 19, 2022 (See Exhibit #7) h) Norma Zaicek of 12 Tappan Avenue, dated November 13, 2022 (See Exhibit #8) i) Sonya Munroe of 63 New Broadway, received November 14, 2022 (See Exhibit #9) Motion was made to close the public comments Moved: Lis Seconded: Tripp Vote 5-0 Sandra Tripp asked how many electrical meters are active at the residence. Mr. Gerlanc stated that there are (3) electrical meters at the residence. Chairman Lis requested that the Board hold an executive session to seek advice from the Village Counsel at 7:30 PM The Board returned from executive session at 8:04 PM. Chairman Lis stated the based on the amount of information received, the Board suggests that they keep the public hearing open until next month and encourage the Applicants to meet with Sean E. McCarthy, the Village Architect. Mr. Lis stated that the Board is seeking more proof to show that that the basement apartment is a pre-existing non-conforming dwelling unit. The Village has documentation that conflicts with what they presented. Mr. Mahalek asked Chairman Lis when the alternative requests for an area variance would come into play. Joshua Subin, the Village Attorney, stated that if the facts establish a prior non-conforming use, then the Board would not have to address the need for a variance. Mr. Mahalek stated that he would set up a meeting with Sean McCarthy. Mr. Mahalek presented a survey dated November 18, 1955 and stated that it listed the existence of the basement residence and it is believed that Mary Evans owned the home in the 1940s. Joshua Subin stated that the existence of the non-conforming basement unit must be proven from at least 1964. Mr. Mahalek presented a photograph and stated that 47 New Broadway just sold in August as a three-family home to show that the use is common in the neighborhood. 3 (ZBA 11/16/2022) �Sean McCarthy stated that the listing shows that the Village of Sleepy Hollow indicates that 47 New Broadway is a two-family residence and shows the discrepancy that the Town of Mount Pleasant has it listed as a three-family residence. Mr. McCarthy stated that he will provide the updated information to him for the properties listed in his submission. Chairman Lis stated that they hope to have all of the Board members present at the next meeting. Motion was made to adjourn the public hearing to the December 21, 2022 meeting. Moved: Lis Seconded: Crowe Vote 5-0 3. Approval of minutes- September 21, 2022 Motion was made to approve the September 21, 2022 minutes. Moved: Lis Seconded: Tripp Craig Lis, Acting Chairman - yes Margaret Rubick- yes Sandra Tripp - yes Gorete Crowe- yes Thomas Chang -yes Vote 5-0 APPROVED Motion was made to adjourn the meeting at 8:10 pm. Moved: Lis Seconded: Rubick Vote 5-0 Respectfully Submitted, Pamela Kroll Secretary to the Zoning Board of Appeals 4 (ZBA 11/16/2022) �Exhibit #1 Subject: 11 Tappan Avenue-Comments Received from 21 Tappan Avenue From: Ron Simcoe Sent: Saturday, October 1, 2022 5:26 PM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny org> Subject: FW: Oct. 19, 2022 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Re: 11 Tappan Avenue Property RECEIVED OC1 O 3 2022 BUILDING DEPT, LLOW VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HO To Whom It May Concern: I am the owner and resident of a single family home next-door to this property. The property has continuously been occupied as a three family dwelling since I bought my home in the Village in 1987. I have personally known the property owners, who lived at the property, and all their tenants during that period. Over the years, I often visited both the owners and their tenants in their residences. Following numerous conversations with the tenants and my physical observations of their residences, I formed the opinion that the property has always been very well maintained. Thus, from my perspective, the property can readily continue to accommodate three families. Sincerely, Ronald L. Simcoe 21 Tappan Avenue 914-4185114 �Exhibit #2 Subject: 10-3-22 Comments Recei ved Re: 11 Tappan from 63 New Broadway RECEIVED From: Sonya Munroe Sent: Monday, October 3, 2022 8:26 PM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny org> Subject: 11 Tappan Ave is a 3-family dwelling OCT O 3 2022 BUILDING DEPT. LOW VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOL Dear Sean, We have owned 63 New Broadway since 1969. For decades before that, we were friends of Carl & Francesca Gerlanc, the late owners of 11 Tappan Avenue, where we often visited them. The Gerlancs were paying taxes and utilities on a 3-family residence the entire time. All the while they lived there, we knew it to be a three-family residence, well suited for that and well cared for. It is among the best maintained 3-family homes in Webber Park. The Village should regard it as a three-family residence. Please notify us if you view this differently. Sincerely, Sonya & Pat Munroe c: Tim Church �Exhibit #3 Subject: 11 Tappan Comments Received from 43 Bedford Road From: Edie O'reilly Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2022 8:51 PM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny org> Subject: 11 Tappan Ave, Sleepy Hollow Hello Mr. McCarthy - RECEIVED OCT O 6 2022 BUILDING DEPT, HOLLOW VILLAGE OF SLEEPY My family has lived at 43 Bedford Rd, Sleepy Hollow for over 50 years. I would like you to know that I am in support of the Applicant's request to legalize the third dwelling unit at 11 Tappan Ave, Sleepy Hollow. The unit has been there for as long as I can remember and is consistent with the character of neighborhood. This unit has had no negative impact and its continued use will not impact the community. The Gerlancs have been and continue to be responsible property owners and dedicated to upholding the character of the neighborhood. Thank you for your time and consideration. Edie O'Reilly �Exhibit #4 RECEIVED OCT 1) 2022 BUILDING DEPT. VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW From: Lena O'Neill <lena.oneill@randrealty.com> Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2022 9:32 AM To: Sean McCarthy Subject: 11 Tappan ave ****[CAUTION: This email originated from an external source. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.]**** Re: 11 Tappan Ave To whom it may concern. I'm related to the owners of 11 Tappan ave and also own a home on New broadway and as long as I remember this home has always been a 3 family. My Uncle and Aunt have always had great pride in their home and have always kept the home in pristine condition. I'm a real estate agent since 1986 and do strongly feel that this home can accommodate 3 familys. 2011 Ft•lurt'd Top Ager ToPAGEI ■ RAND REALTY c/lr.mrJ et£1y.,1;,,rt1c,r HOWARD HANNA l.1•11a O 1·111 I Inward 11,urna Rand ri.:alty 654 Columbus Avenue Thornwood NY 10594 Cell orText 914 391 379 www.lenaoneill.randrealty.com AWARD-WINNING Real EslateSales Person �Exhibit #5 RECEIVED OCT 1 7 2022 Subject: Date: 11 Tappan Avenue - Comment /Complaint Received from 5 Tappan Avenue Monday, October 17, 2022 BUILDING DEPT. VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW -----Original Message----­ From: Thomas Capossela Sent: Monday. October 17, 2022 12 :54 PM To: Scan McCatthy <smccarthy@slccpyhollowny.org> Subject: 11 Tappan ave covered patio Mr McCarthy and building Dept. I am the property owner at 5 Tappan ave. My property abuts I I Tappan ave on the cast side. My concern is the covered patio which is on the north east corner of the property directly on the property line with no set back where a set back is required by the village code . The patio is covered with a wooden structure and has a natural gas line running to a grill from the house. There is ample room on this property for a legal patio with proper setbacks in compliance with the village code to be built. I am respectfully asking the Building depa11ment to look at this non conforming illegal structure abutting my property and have it moved to a compliant location with the proper setbacks or removed altogether. Thank you. Tommy Capossela Sent from my iPad �Exhibit #6 RECEIVED OCT 1 8 2022 BUILDING DEPT, HOLLOW VILLAGE OF SLEEPY From: Eda Modesta Sent: Tuesday. October 18, 2022 11:56 AM To: Scan McCarthy <smccar1hy@sleepyhollowny.org>; smccarthy@slccpyhollow.org Subject: 11 Tappan Ave. Sleepy Hollow NY Dear Mr. McCarthy. I am writing in support of the application seeking to continue 11 Tappan Avenue as a three-family dwelling. I am very familiar with the house as it was owned and lived in by my aunt and uncle for decades and I grew up spending much time there. I am now 70 years old and my earliest recollection of the house for over 60 years was that it was always a three family dwelling. I currently own 127 New Broadway which is a block H\\·ay from I I Tappan Avenue. In my opinion 11 Tappan Avenue is an asset to the neighborhood. It is a lovely building beautifully maintained which fits in well within the neighborhood. There is more than adequate parking on the property for three apartments meaning that on-street parking is not. and will not be. burdened. For at least 60 years-and no doubt many decades earlier-I I Tappan /\venue has been a good neighbor to its community as a three-family dwelling. I have no doubt that given your approval it will continue lo be so for many decades to come. Thank you for allowing me to express my opinion. Sincerely. Eda Modesta �Exhibit #7 October 19, 2022 Mr. Timothy Church, Chairperson and Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals Village of Sleepy Hollow 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, New York 10591 Re: RECEIVED OCT 2 4 2022 BUILDING DEPT. VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW Gerlanc Residence -Application to ZBA 11 Tappan Avenue, Sleepy Hollow, New York Section 115.7 Block 2, Lot 6 Dear Chai rperson Church and Members of the Z.B.A.: I am a neighbor of the Gerlanc property, and I reside at 27 Anderson Avenue, Sleepy Hollow NY 10591. I have lived at my address for 42 years. I would like you to know that I am in support of the Applicant's request to legalize the third dwelling unit on the premises, as it has been in existence for as long as I can recall and is in line with the character of neighborhood. This unit has had no negative impact and its continued use wi11 not impact our community. The Gerlanc's are responsible property owners and dedicated to upholding the character of our neighborhood. Sincerely, Salvatore and Maria Modica 27 Anderson Ave, Sleepy Hollow NY, 10591 Name and address �Exhibit #8 RECEIVED NOV 1 4 2022 To the Sleepy Hollow Village Zoning Board of Appeals/Building Department: BUILDING DEPT. VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW My name is Norma Zaicek. I reside at 12 Tappan Ave. I have lived in the Webber Park neighborhood from June 1957 until I married in April of 1961, and then again from 1996 after I inherited the home upon the death of my mother. I can recall the basement residence at 11 Tappan Avenue being utilized throughout all those times. This has been in constant use and has not created a nuisance for the neighborhood. This type of accessory use is common throughout the neighborhood. Name: Norma Zaicek Notary: 6. A MUNROE NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF NEW YORK Registration No. OIMU48f6456 Qualified in Wew:hesttr County Commission Expires April 30, 20� �Exhibit #9 RECEIVED NOV 1 4 2022 To the Sleepy Hollow Village Zoning Board of Appeals/Building Department: BUILDING DEPT. VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW My name is Sonya Munroe. I reside at 63 New Broadway in Sleepy Hollow. I have resided in the Webber Park neighborhood since 1963. I can recall the basement residence at 11 Tappan Avenue being utilized since 1959 when we first visited the Gerlancs there. This has been a constant use and has not created a nuisance for the neighborhood. T his type of accessory use is common throughout the neighborhood. Name: Notary: Sworn to me this day. � 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-2022 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_2022-11-16_ Approved Minutes Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2022 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2022 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/72c8647c0229c1f7d71401bcd97a1aa4.pdf 642fc8a14b9d6b2ddc0a6902bdda018b PDF Text 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 Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2022 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_2022-09-21_18 Anderson Avenue ZBA Approved Resolution Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2022 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2022 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/fbdddbe54b060d5a0e7a20b54238a3ae.pdf 5dbbe8ca7f60722654b611c487b66ffb PDF Text 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 Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2022 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_2022-09-21_10 Kingsland Road Approved Resolution Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2022 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2022 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/e66106d565769bd20cb91aa52028b904.pdf 479758fce609b703b0e1d7ce37a13bf0 PDF Text Text Village of Sleepy Hollow Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting September 21, 2022 Chairman Timothy Church called the meeting to order at 7:06 pm. Present: Timothy Church, Chairman Gorete Crowe Thomas Chang Craig Lis Margaret Rubick Also Present: Sean McCarthy, Village Architect Pamela Kroll, Secretary to the Zoning Board Absent: Sandra Tripp Agenda: 1) Maria Martins, 11 Kendall Avenue, Appeal and Interpretation of the Building Inspectors determination that the proposed application for the development at 135 Beekman Avenue complies with the Zoning Code- Public hearing 2) Kersten Harries, 18 Anderson Avenue, Proposed additions and alterations- Public hearing 3) Warren and Kimberly Russell, 10 Kingsland Road, Proposed detached storage shedPublic hearing 4) Approval of minutes, July 20, 2022 1. Maria Martins, 11 Kendall Avenue, Appeal and Interpretation of the Building Inspectors determination that the proposed application for the development at 135 Beekman Avenue complies with the Zoning Code- Public hearing Chairman Church stated that the Planning Board and the Board of Trustees are reviewing the Zoning Code. The applicant has requested an adjournment until the October 19, 2022 meeting. The public hearing was adjourned to the October 19, 2022 meeting. 2. Kersten Harries, 18 Anderson Avenue, Proposed additions and alterations- Public Hearing Chairman Church read the public notice, listed the documents submitted with the application, and asked Sean McCarthy to confirm that the mailing receipts have been received. 1 (ZBA 9/21/2022) �Sean McCarthy stated that the mailing receipts were received. Chairman Church invited the applicant to present the application. Kersten Harries stated that she is the owner and the architect of 18 Anderson Avenue and that she resides at 47 Depeyster Street. Ms. Harries stated that the house is a single-family home and that the proposed application includes additions at the front entry, the rear of the property, and second story dormer additions. The requested variances relate to existing non-conformities of the property. Ms. Harries presented the first floor plans and stated she proposes to extend the entry roof to create a front porch. The existing rear bump out will be expanded to enlarge the kitchen and to add patio doors from the dining room to the back patio. The location of the basement stairs will be modified. Ms. Harries presented the second floor plans and stated that she proposes to enlarge the bedroom, reconfigure the bathroom, and add a home office and open study. Ms. Harries presented renderings of the existing house and views of the proposed additions from the street. Ms. Harries stated that she plans to install new siding and windows. The requested variances for the side yard setbacks are required for the installation of new rigid board insulation that will improve the thermal envelope of the house. The roofline extension at the eave and rake will provide better protection to the side of the house. Ms. Harries presented a map to detail how the front yard setback of 18 Anderson Avenue compares with neighboring properties. Ms. Harries presented photographs of the existing house and neighboring properties and stated she will maintain the roof ridgeline and that the neighboring houses have similar shed dormers. Chairman Church solicited comments from the Board. There were no comments or questions from the Board. Motion was made to open the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Lis Vote 5-0 Chairman Church solicited comments from the public. There were no comments from the public. Motion was made to close the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Crowe Vote 5-0 Chairman Church made a motion to approve the requested variances based on the following criteria: 1. The proposed additions are appropriate, will be an enhancement to the character of the neighborhood, and will not cause a detriment to nearby properties. 2. The benefits sought by the applicant to add improved insulation protection to the house will result in a minor increase into the existing non-conforming side yard setbacks, and will not be noticeable to the neighboring properties. 2 (ZBA 9/21/2022) �3. The requested variances are not substantial due to the existing non-conformities of the lot. 4. The requested variances will not cause an adverse effect to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood. 5. Although the requested variances are self-created, the Applicant is proposing to update the house and enhance the character of the neighborhood. Motion was made to approve the application. Moved: Church Seconded: Rubick Timothy Church, Chairman - yes Margaret Rubick- yes Craig Lis - yes Gorete Crowe- yes Thomas Chang -yes Vote 5-0 APPROVED 3. Warren and Kimberly Russell, 10 Kingsland Road, Proposed detached storage shed Public hearing Chairman Church read the public notice, listed the documents submitted with the application, and asked Sean McCarthy to confirm that the mailing receipts have been received. Sean McCarthy stated that the mailing receipts were received. Chairman Church invited the applicant to present the application. Warren Russell stated that he and his wife Kimberly are the owners of the property. Mr. Russell stated that they are seeking variance approvals for a 1 foot setback from the East side of their property line and a 2 foot setback from the North side of their property line to install a 10 foot wide by 7.5 foot long, 8 foot-7 inches high shed. The proposed shed will be constructed of quality materials, painted to match their home, and will be consistent with the architecture of the neighborhood. Mr. Russell presented an overview of the proposal and described the purpose of the shed. Mr. Russell presented a copy of his survey and photographs of the existing property views showing the proposed shed location on the property. Chairman Church asked Mr. Russell what would happen if they brought the shed 5 feet forward from the rear property line. Mr. Russell stated that they are unable to install the shed 5 feet forward because of the existing retaining wall and that the yard slopes down in the rear yard. 3 (ZBA 9/21/2022) �Chairman Church asked Mr. Russell if they have considered bringing the retaining wall towards the house and grading the rear yard to avoid seeking a variance. Mr. Russell stated that moving the retaining wall and grading the property would cost thousands of dollars. Chairman Church asked Mr. Russell if the objecting neighbor lives on the other side of the fence; and asked Mr. Russell if they have considered alternatives to the application. Mr. Russell stated that the objections are from the neighboring property owner on the other side of the fence and that they do have a proposed alternative. Mr. Russell presented photographs of other properties in Sleepy Hollow that have similar shed locations. Chairman Church asked Mr. Russell if any of the shed examples are less than 5 feet from the rear property line. Mr. Russell stated they are appear to be less than 5 feet from the side yard properties lines and that one shed is right against the fence line. Kimberly Russell provided responses to the concerns in the letter written by the owners of 5 Webb Road as they relate to the height, pitch, and drainage of the proposed shed. Mrs. Russell addressed the concerns related to the proximity of the proposed shed to their property line, the safety of the materials that will be stored, and stated that the proposed shed would not obstruct sunlight or sight lines to Kingsland Road. Mrs. Russell stated that they have substantially improved the character of the neighborhood since they purchased the house in 2017, and that the addition of the proposed shed will not have a negative effect on the neighboring property value. Chairman Church asked Mrs. Russell if there have been discussions with the owners of 5 Webb Road since the letter submitted to the Board. (See Exhibit #1). Mr. Russell stated that they have spoken with the owners of 5 Webb Road and that they are still opposed to the shed. Chairman Church stated that the application is before the ZBA requesting variance approvals that will run with the life of the land. The ZBA can accept or reject the variance requests. If the ZBA denies the variance requests, the applicants will have to wait six months before they can resubmit an application, unless they materially change the application. The Board is being asked to render a decision that will make either the applicant or the neighbor unhappy, and suggested that the applicants work on a potential solution. Chairman Church asked Sean McCarthy if there are Fire Code requirements for accessory structures that are close to a neighboring property yard. 4 (ZBA 9/21/2022) �Sean McCarthy stated that there are the Zoning requirements governed by the ZBA, and there are New York State Code requirements for minimum setback distances from property lines. If the structure is less than 3 feet from the property line, a fire-rated wall is required. Chairman Church asked Sean McCarthy to describe the definition of a fire-rated wall and asked if the proposed shed material would meet the requirements. Mr. McCarthy stated that a fire-rated wall is an assembly of materials that prevents the spread of fire based upon the hourly ratings. The proposed shed is a wood structure so the fire rating will depend on the siding material; it would not meet the fire-rating standard if it placed less than 3 feet from the property line. Chairman Church asked Mr. McCarthy if this would increase the costs. Mr. McCarthy stated installing the fire-rated wall would increase costs or it would require a variance from New York State to waive the distance separation. Chairman Church asked the applicants why they are unable to bring the shed 4 feet forward from the proposed location. Mrs. Russell stated that if they install a smaller, narrower shed, they could reduce the side and rear setbacks to 3 feet in lieu the requested 1-foot setbacks. Mrs. Russell distributed a specification for a smaller shed to the Board. Mr. Russell stated that the smaller shed would be 6 feet wide and would address the neighbors concern relating to the pitch of the roof. Mr. McCarthy stated that the 3-foot setbacks would satisfy the Fire Code requirements. Chairman Church solicited comments from the Board. There were no comments from the Board. Motion was made to open the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Crowe Vote 6-0 Chairman Church solicited comments from the public. Jordon Margolis is the owner of 5 Webb Road and stated that the application before the Board relates to the Zoning Code and the requests for variances; not the conditions of their existing fence. Neela Pooraansingh-Margolis is the owner of 5 Webb Road and stated that the requested 1-foot variance would be too close to their fence and that the shed would be in front of where they sit in 5 (ZBA 9/21/2022) �their backyard. Mrs. Margolis stated that they are concerned that the items stored in the shed could affect their vegetable garden. Chairman Church asked Mrs. Margolis if the applicants have shared the alternative shed option with them. Mrs. Margolis stated that this is the first time they are seeing the smaller shed option. She objects to the location of the shed in proximity to the fence, and believes there are other areas on the property where they can install it. Craig Lis stated that the applicants may install the shed in the proposed location, 5 feet from the fence in the rear and side yards without a variance, and that the applicants are willing to reduce the variance request to 3 feet. Thomas Chang stated that the smaller shed fits into granting the variances for 3 feet and suggested that the neighbors work together since there will be a shed in that location whether they grant a variance or not. Correspondence was received from the owners of 21 Kingsland Road in favor of the application. (See Exhibit #2) There were no other public comments. Motion was made to close the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Lis Vote 5-0 Chairman Church invited the applicants to make further comments. Kimberly Russell stated that are willing to agree to the alternative solution for the shed they want to construct on their property. Sean McCarthy suggested that the Board consider granting the 3-foot variances for the rear and side yard setbacks without restricting the size of the shed size so if the applicants decide to move the retaining wall, the applicants would have the option of installing the larger shed and not be required to come back before the Board. Chairman Church made a motion to approve 3-foot variances for the rear and side yard setbacks based on the following criteria: 1. Granting of the area variances will not create an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood and the applicants have proven that a shed is consistent with neighboring properties. 2. Both of the proposed shed structures are not substantial as they relate to the property and are within the permitted height requirements. 6 (ZBA 9/21/2022) �3. Granting of the 3-foot variances will not cause an impact to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood. 4. The benefits sought by the applicant to construct a shed in the requested location is the feasible method and will not require the disturbance of established landscaping or the removal of structures. 5. Although the requested variances are a self-created difficulty, the applicants have revised their application to comply with the Fire Code and to address some of concerns of the neighboring property owners. Motion was made to approve the 3-foot variances for the rear and the side yards of the property and that the Applicants may construct the 6-foot wide smaller shed or choose to move the retaining wall and install the 10-foot wide larger shed. Moved: Church Seconded: Crowe Timothy Church, Chairman- yes Margaret Rubick- yes Craig Lis - yes Gorete Crowe- yes Thomas Chang- yes Vote 5-0 APPROVED 4. Approval of minutes- July 20, 2022 Motion was made to approve the July 20, 2022 minutes as amended. Moved: Church Seconded: Lis Timothy Church, Chairman - yes Margaret Rubick- yes Craig Lis - yes Gorete Crowe- yes Thomas Chang -yes Vote 5-0 APPROVED Motion was made to adjourn the meeting at 8:00 pm. Moved: Church Seconded: Lis Vote 5-0 Respectfully Submitted, Pamela Kroll Secretary to the Zoning Board of Appeals 7 (ZBA 9/21/2022) �Exhibit #1 RECEIVED SEP 1 5 2022 10 Kingsland Road •Comments Received from 5 Webb Road Thursday, September 15, 2022 11:09:12 AM BUILDING DEPT, VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW From: Jordan Margolis Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2022 7:12 AM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.org> Subject: 10 Kingsland Road Zoning Board of Appeals application Dear Timothy Church, Chairperson of the Sleepy Hollow Zoning Board of Appeals, and Sean E. McCarthy, Village Architect, We have reviewed Kimberly and Warren Russell's Zoning Board of Appeals application (attached) for a proposed utility shed that would abut our backyard. We have the following concerns: I. The application mentions that we were consulted and were amenable to the proposal. While we were briefly informed of the Russells' intention to erect a shed, it is incorrect to present that we were fully informed of and consented to the proposal. We were apprised of neither the intended proximity to our property line, nor the scope of the shed size and design. 2. The combination of the shed roof height and pitch and 1-foot proximity to our property Ii ne would result in rain runoff from the shed roof into our yard, either directly from the roof or due to pooling on the property line. 3. Environmental contamination concerns arise with the storage of gasoline and lawn mower/ other equipment using gasoline, which can potentially leak into our backyard, especially in areas where we are growing fruits and vegetables. 4. In an already shady area, there would be a further decrease in sunlight due to the proposed siting of the shed. 5. Given that the proposed site would be proximal to the only part of our backyard conducive to sitting and dining, there would be obstructed sight-lines to Kingsland Road and the sky and diminished airflow, contributing to an overall negative impact on quality of life. 6. A I-foot gap between the shed and exisiting fence would facilitate the collection of - and hinder access to clean - naturally accumulating debris. This would generate the potential for rodents and other pests to make nests behind the shed. 7. The factors listed above would negatively affect the resale value of our home. Due to the above concerns, we oppose this request for a zoning variance. Sincerely, Neela Pooransingh-Margolis and Jordan Margolis 5 Webb Road Sleepy Hollow, NY I 0591 �Exhibit #2 RECEIVED SEP 2 0 2022 10 Kingsland Shed Comments from 21 Kingsland BUILDING DEPT. VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW From: Morgan Moriarty Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2022 4:28 PM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.org> Cc: Jeff Moriarty Subject: 10 Kingsland Shed Sean Jeff and I are writing to express our support for the proposed shed at IO Kingsland Rd. The shed will be clearly visible from our home, in particular our living room. We believe the addition of the shed will add to the curb appeal of the neighborhood by enabling the Russells to park their vehicles in their garage. In addition, we appreciate the opportunity for the Russells to move lawn equipment and tools to a secure location, as our children often play at their home. Best, Morgan and Jeff Morgan Metz Moriarty 217.652.8934 � 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-2022 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_2022-09-21 Approved ZBA Minutes Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2022 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2022 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/ad2a838e1f173b696c14f71f99672f54.pdf 8d18402d6d8dfad3dab95f3588c5f9f8 PDF Text 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 Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2022 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 2022-07-20 231 Webber Avenue Approved ZBA Resolution Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2022 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2022 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/168576b3efc861418cffdecbe3604518.pdf de291bf642d9928c097c7d7117a333c6 PDF Text 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 Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2022 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_2022-07-20_130-Palmer-Avenue-Signed-Resolution Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2022 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2022 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/90543315ecb490ca68de4abfe0a4bac3.pdf ae8c7922d316e405e9767b8cd5903a23 PDF Text 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 Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2022 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_2022-07-20_20-Continental-Approved-Resolution Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2022 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2022 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/f633b5fcf666e917de04ace1464fce8d.pdf 65f292d538faef624d3e643d2456211a PDF Text 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 Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2022 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_2022-07-20_180-Bedford-Road-Approved-Resolution Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2022 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2022 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/1e18ce1b81726ef80bbe2e88841de153.pdf eb7308b04e87c64f78c9b12b834808d0 PDF Text Text Village of Sleepy Hollow Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting July 20, 2022 Chairman Timothy Church called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. Present: Timothy Church, Chairman Gorete Crowe Sandra Tripp Thomas Chang Craig Lis Margaret Rubick Also Present: Sean McCarthy, Village Architect Absent: Pamela Kroll, Secretary to the Zoning Board Agenda: 1) Maria Martins, 11 Kendall Avenue, Appeal and Interpretation of the Building Inspectors determination that the proposed application for the development at 135 Beekman Avenue complies with the Zoning Code- Public hearing 2) Filipe and Jose Ribeiro, 20 Continental Street, Proposed addition and alterationContinued public hearing 3) Hudson Pines LLC, 180 Bedford Road, Proposed exterior stair and catwalk- Public hearing 4) Pia Salk and Peter Neidell, 130 Palmer Avenue, Storage of recreational vehicle- Public hearing 5) Landrock LLC, 231 Webber Avenue, Proposed entrance gates, walls, piers, fencingPublic hearing 6) Approval of minutes, May 18, 2022 1. Maria Martins, 11 Kendall Avenue, Appeal and Interpretation of the Building Inspectors determination that the proposed application for the development at 135 Beekman Avenue complies with the Zoning Code- Public hearing Chairman Church stated that the Planning Board and the Board of Trustees are reviewing the Zoning Code. The applicant has requested an adjournment until the September 21, 2022 meeting. Motion was made to adjourn the public hearing to the September 21, 2002 meeting. Moved: Church Seconded: Lis 1 Vote 6-0 (ZBA 7/20/2022) �2. Filipe and Jose Ribeiro, 20 Continental Street, Proposed addition and alterations- Public Hearing Chairman Church stated that the Board received the revised drawings submitted at the last meeting and the additional drawings dated May 23, 2022. Chairman Church invited the architect to present the recent materials. Jorge B. Hernandez is the architect representing the applicants. Mr. Hernandez stated that revisions include removing the bollard in the driveway to provide two parking spaces, and moving the garbage containers to the driveway side of the property. Chairman Church asked Mr. Hernandez if moving the garbage containers would affect the parking. Mr. Hernandez stated that the parking in the driveway would not affect the parking. Mr. Hernandez stated that they have eliminated the window wells near the east property line. There are balconies proposed on the rear of the building to step back the bulk of the proposed addition and to provide emergency access from the units. Mr. Hernandez presented comparison elevation drawings to show the changes from the original application. Mr. Hernandez presented the solar study to show the shade implications to the neighboring homes during the day at different times of the year. Chairman Church asked Mr. Hernandez to confirm how many parking spaces require a variance. Mr. Hernandez stated that the proposed application requires (8) parking spaces, there will be (2) existing parking spaces on site: so they are requesting a variance for (6) parking spaces. Gorete Crowe asked if fire escape stairs are proposed. Mr. Hernandez stated that fire exit stairs are no longer required by Code. Sean McCarthy stated that since the building will have a full fire sprinkler system, it reduces the requirement for two fire exits from each floor. Chairman Church asked Sean McCarthy if any of the variance request calculations change due to the revised application. Sean McCarthy stated that the revised submission would not affect the proposed building coverage. Although the proposed addition changes the bulk of the building, the coverage does not change because the footprint of the ground floor will remain the same size. The required number of parking spaces increases by (2) because the proposed addition creates an additional bedroom. Chairman Church solicited comments from the Board. 2 (ZBA 7/20/2022) �There were no comments from the Board. Motion was made to open the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Lis Vote 6-0 Chairman Church solicited comments from the public. Cheryl Cappello is the owner of 18 Continental Street and stated that she lives next door to the building. Ms. Cappello stated that the post was removed but that only (1) car is being parked in the driveway, and the garbage cans are still in the back by the shed. Ms. Cappello asked Mr. Hernandez to confirm that there will not be stairs from the porches and if the tenants will be able to put grills on the porches. Ms. Cappello asked Mr. Hernandez to confirm how far the building will extend out before it hits Howard Street, where the egress windows will be located, if the proposed condensers take up more space from the property line, and if a playroom is proposed in the basement. Mr. Hernandez stated there would not be stairs coming down from the porches. There will be (1) egress window on the side of the building, opposite from the driveway. The dimension from the rear of the property to Howard Street is 25 feet. The HVAC unit will take up a few feet in the rear yard. There is a playroom proposed in the basement level. Chairman Church stated that a variance is not required for the rear yard setback. Ms. Cappello stated that she is against the proposed addition. There were no other comments from the public. Motion was made to close the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Lis Vote 6-0 Chairman Church stated that the original application proposed a larger scope of work than the revised plan. Chairman Church made a motion to approve the application based on the following criteria: 1. The applicant restored the (2) existing parking spaces in the driveway and reduced the number of required parking spaces. 2. The installation of a fire sprinkler system in the entire building will increase fire safety for the neighboring properties and eliminate the stair egress from each floor. 3. The proposed rear yard elevations will be stepped back to maximize the sunlight and minimize the shade impacts to the neighboring properties and reduce the bulk of the addition. 3 (ZBA 7/20/2022) �4. The requested variances are not substantial in relation to the existing non-conformities of the existing lot area, lot width, setbacks, and building coverage. 5. The proposed overall improvements will be a benefit to the neighborhood. 6. The requested variances are not a self-created difficulty due to the existing nonconformities of the property. Sandra Tripp asked Chairman Church to read the requested variances. Chairman Church read the requested variances. Sandra Tripp requested an explanation for the building coverage variance. Sean McCarthy stated that the existing detached garage structure is part of the overall building coverage. The application proposes to remove the detached structure, and the proposed addition will replace most of the demolished area. Mr. Hernandez stated that the existing side yard setback is 0.60 feet and the proposed addition complies with the Zoning Code. Craig Lis stated that the revised application addresses some of the concerns expressed to the Board. Motion was made to approve the application. Moved: Church Seconded: Crowe Timothy Church, Chairman - yes Margaret Rubick- yes Craig Lis - yes Gorete Crowe- yes Sandra Tripp- yes Thomas Chang -yes Vote 6-0 APPROVED 3. Hudson Pines LLC, 180 Bedford Road, Proposed exterior stair and catwalk Public hearing Chairman Church read the public notice, listed the documents submitted with the application, and asked Sean McCarthy to confirm that all of the mailing receipts have been received. Sean McCarthy stated that all of the mailing receipts were received. 4 (ZBA 7/20/2022) �Chairman Church invited the applicant to present the application. Kimberly Martelli is the architect representing the applicant. Ms. Martelli stated that the property is a single-family residential site with multiple accessory structures. The Music Room is a single large room with the primary level on grade, a mezzanine level with (2) spiral staircases, and a basement level that houses the utilities and a pantry kitchen. The application proposes to construct a catwalk and exterior stair to allow circulation down to the sloped side of the building and to provide access from the main level down to the basement level kitchen. The applicant will be submitting a Building Permit Application requesting to construct a small catering kitchen on the main level. The use of the Music Room will not change and will remain as a place to showcase art or music events. There are (3) existing powder rooms within the structure. Chairman Church asked Ms. Martelli to describe the main element that requires an encroachment on the front yard setback. Ms. Martelli stated that the proposed catwalk is an accessory structure because it sits above the grade by a full level and falls 100 percent into the front yard setback. The existing Music Room building requires a 75-foot front yard setback and is currently existing non-conforming and 36.70 feet away from Bedford Road. The proposed catwalk would decrease the front yard setback to 32.20 feet. The proposed catwalk, with the railing, is 3.5 feet wide and would measure a little over 4 feet on an angle encroaching into the setback. Ms. Martelli presented photographs of the existing building conditions and described where the proposed catwalk, stair, and railings would be located. Chairman Church solicited comments from the Board. There were no comments from the Board. Motion was made to open the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Tripp Vote 6-0 Chairman Church solicited comments from the public. Michael Rockefeller is the Managing Member of Landrock LLC and stated that he is support of the application to make the space more useable and modern. There were no other public comments. Motion was made to close the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Lis Vote 6-0 Chairman Church made a motion to approve the application based on the following criteria: 5 (ZBA 7/20/2022) �1. Granting of the area variance will not produce an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood because the building is not visible from the road. 2. The requested variance of 4.5 feet into the front yard setback is not substantial because the pre-existing structure encroaches into the front yard setback and the proposed increase of 4.5 feet into the setback is for an open metal structure that would not be an obvious change to the structure, and will not result in making the structure larger. 3. The benefits sought by the applicant to construct a catwalk is a feasible method to provide access to the basement level of the existing building. 4. The requested variance for the front yard setback is self-created but is not the only factor the Board considers when granting a variance. Motion was made to approve the application. Moved: Church Seconded: Rubick Timothy Church, Chairman- yes Margaret Rubick- yes Craig Lis - yes Gorete Crowe- yes Sandra Tripp- yes Thomas Chang- yes Vote 6-0 APPROVED 4. Pia Salk and Peter Neidell, 130 Palmer Avenue, Storage of recreational vehicle-Public hearing Chairman Church read the public notice, listed the documents submitted with the application, and asked Sean McCarthy to confirm that all of the mailing receipts have been received. Sean McCarthy stated that all of the mailing receipts were received. Pia Salk and Peter Neidell are the owners of the property. Ms. Salk presented a photograph of the recreational vehicle and stated that it is a 1976 GMC motorhome. Mr. Neidell stated that the vehicle is 26 feet in length. Ms. Salk stated they are seeking permission to park the motorhome in the driveway yearly from May 1st to November 1st and stated that they would be willing to change the time from June 1st to September 1st. Ms. Salk stated that they are unable to use the RV in a reasonable manner if they are unable to access it in their driveway as they prepare for and return from summer trips. Ms. Salk stated that the requested variance is not substantial because it is for a specific vehicle that fits within their driveway, and because it is for a limited portion of the calendar year. There will not be an adverse impact on the environmental or physical conditions in the neighborhood or district. Ms. Salk stated that the request is self-created as they purchased the vehicle to provide a remedy to the COVID pandemic in order to provide a secure safe way for recreational activities for their family. They do not intend to store the RV in 6 (ZBA 7/20/2022) �their driveway when it is not in regular use, the RV does not require a trailer to move it, and the RV and their cars can be contained in the driveway without the use of street parking. Ms. Salk stated that parking a RV in the driveway during select months for regular use does not constitute the term for storage and that the storage of a boat is different because it is not in the water. The RV would be parked in the driveway and not in their front yard. They do not keep the RV in the driveway when it is not in regular use. Ms. Salk stated that their house sits sideways on their property and that the driveway is on the side of the house. The front yard sits off the street behind the front gate. If the house was front facing, they would be able to store the RV according to the Code. Chairman Church asked Pia Salk to explain why a request to park the RV in the driveway during the summer months should not be subject to the Code regulation, and how it differs from storing a boat in the winter months or keeping it in the driveway during the summer and bringing it to the water to use. Chairman Church asked Ms. Salk where they store the RV during the winter months, where it is currently stored, and if they have researched other options for storing the RV in other areas of the Village. Chairman Church asked Ms. Salk if she has considered how the neighborhood would be impacted if recreational vehicles were permitted to be stored in the front yards of homes. Chairman Church asked Ms. Salk how many vehicles they have and if they are able to park the cars in the driveway when the RV is in the driveway. Chairman Church asked Ms. Salk if there is any availability in the side yard. Pia Salk stated that the term storage implies to something that is not moving regularly and when a boat is stored during the winter, it is not used. The RV is currently stored at a friend’s house and that they will make other storage arrangements for the winter months. Ms. Salk stated that she would not want to see large RV’s stored on neighboring properties and that the vehicle they have is small, fits in the driveway that is screened with trees. Their property does not allow for other options. Ms. Salk stated that they have (2) other vehicles and that they can fit the cars and the RV in the driveway. There is not availability in the side yard. Chairman Church solicited comments from the Board. Gorete Crowe asked Ms. Salk if she was aware of the Zoning regulations when they purchased the RV. Ms. Salk stated that they thought they could park the RV in the driveway because the vehicle is self-propelled, does not need a trailer, and could fit in their driveway. Gorete Crowe stated that the Board has to consider that if they grant the request, others would expect to request similar approvals. Sandra Tripp stated that she is unclear on the interpretation of the Code as it relates to driveways and front yards and asked Sean McCarthy if there are as-of-right locations where an RV could be stored on the property that complies with the Zoning Code. 7 (ZBA 7/20/2022) �Sean McCarthy stated that the storage of an RV is permitted if it stored beyond the front yard setback. Mr. McCarthy stated that the restriction with the applicant’s property is that their existing fence prohibits the ability to extend the driveway back further to comply and be within the setback. Thomas Chang stated that consideration should be consistent when looking at the Code ordinance for setbacks as they relate to boats, RV’s and commercial work vehicles. Sean McCarthy stated that the Building Department is not a patrolling agency. This application arose because of a complaint received in which the violation was visible from the street. Margaret Rubick stated that the Board is not an enforcement agency. Her concern relates to creating a precedent, and the Board received a letter from a resident who is unhappy about this application. Sean McCarthy stated that the words “storage” and “parking” get used interchangeably and quoted the general restrictions of the Code, which reads that “It should be unlawful for any person to park any of the following defined recreational vehicles on any residential property or street in the Village except as provided” There was a discussion with the Board, the applicants, and Sean McCarthy regarding the property conditions, if the driveway could be altered to comply with the setback requirements, if the side yard could be utilized, and what the required front yard setback is in that neighborhood. The Board suggested locations where the applicants could pay for storage of the RV. Motion was made to open the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Crowe Vote 6-0 Chairman Church solicited comments from the public. Michael Doorley is the owner of 128 Palmer Avenue and stated that he owns the house that is adjacent to the applicant. Mr. Doorley requested that the Board not make a decision until they have read the document that he submitted (See Exhibit #1). Mr. Doorley stated that the owner did not provide a picture that shows all (3) of their vehicles in the driveway at the same time. Mr. Doorley submitted a photograph to the Board to show that the car sticks out onto the sidewalk when both cars are stacked in the driveway (See Exhibit #2). Mr. Doorley described some of the reasons for his objection that were included in the letter he submitted to the Board. Public comment letters were received from the owners of 216 Palmer Avenue (See Exhibit #3) and 126 Palmer Avenue (See Exhibit #4). There were no other public comments. Motion was made to close the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Rubick 8 Vote 6-0 (ZBA 7/20/2022) �Chairman Church invited the applicants to speak in response to Mr. Doorley’s comments. Pia Salk stated that their application is true and that Mr. Doorley did not provide any documentation to support his comments related to safety issues, realtors, and the driveway size. Ms. Salk stated that the dates Mr. Doorley provided for times that they were away are incorrect. Ms. Salk stated that altering their property is not feasible and not related to cost. They do not intend to use the RV as an extension of their home. Chairman Church stated that granting a variance is an exception to the Code regardless of any requested length of time. Creating a precedent or creating rules around the term regular use of a vehicle would require enforcement by the Village Building Department and they do not have the resources to regulate a conditional variance. Chairman Church made a motion to deny the application based on the following criteria: 1. Granting of the requested variance would create an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by obtaining vehicle storage locally or in other neighboring communities. 3. The requested variance would not create an adverse physical or environmental condition in the neighborhood or district. 4. The requested variance is self-created and granting a conditional variance is not enforceable by the Village. Motion was made to deny the application. Moved: Church Seconded: Rubick Timothy Church, Chairman- yes Margaret Rubick- yes Craig Lis - yes Gorete Crowe- yes Sandra Tripp- abstained Thomas Chang- yes Vote 5-0-1 APPROVED 5. Landrock LLC, 231 Webber Avenue, Proposed entrance gates, walls, piers, fencingPublic hearing Chairman Church read the public notice, listed the documents submitted with the application, and asked Sean McCarthy to confirm that all of the mailing receipts have been received. 9 (ZBA 7/20/2022) �Sean McCarthy stated that all of the mailing receipts were received. William Null is a partner with Cuddy & Fedar LLP representing the applicant and stated that there are (2) principle reasons for requesting the proposed variances. If they installed the proposed gates, piers, fences, and walls within the front yard 75-foot setback, the structures would be on the other side of the bridge and not provide effective security methods to prevent people from coming on to the property. The application requests permission to install the structures closer to road that are higher than 3 feet. Donna Maiello is an associate of DTS Provident Design Engineering LLP representing the applicant. Ms. Maiello presented photographs to show existing local structures that are similar to what is proposed. Ms. Maiello presented an illustrative site plan and elevation drawings, and described the size and locations of the proposed structures. William Null stated that the proposed structures are 18 feet from the road. Although the structures are close to the property line, there is a good distance from the road before you get to piers. Ms. Maiello presented the photographs of the existing property conditions and Mr. Null stated that the existing metal gate is 4 plus feet high and that the existing stone wall, along the edge of the driveway, is 3 feet high. Craig Lis asked Ms. Maiello if the existing stone wall will be removed. Ms. Maiello stated that the existing stone wall will remain and will be pushed back to make room for the gates, and then curve up to meet the new stone wall. Mr. Null stated that there are similar walls along the Rockefeller State Park Reserve. Ms. Maiello stated that the existing split rail fences in the park are also 4 feet high. Chairman Church asked Ms. Maiello for the length of the proposed split rail fencing. Ms. Maiello stated that the application proposes 100 feet of the 4-foot split rail fencing. There was a discussion regarding properties that the applicant referenced as having entrance structures of similar character. Mr. Null stated that they submitted a Statement of Principle Points for the review of area variance standards. A 3-foot high fence would not provide enough security to prevent vehicles from entering the private property of (3) house sites on 35 acres. The gates will be operable with security and will be accessible for emergency vehicles. Chairman Church asked Mr. Null where else the 4-foot split rail fence is present on the Rockefeller Estate. 10 (ZBA 7/20/2022) �Mr. Null stated that there are split rail fences along the paths of the Rockefeller Estate. There was a discussion between the Board and the applicant regarding the interpretation of the rendering perspective and the space between the road and the proposed entrance structures. Chairman Church stated that the Board has reviewed several applications for requested fence heights and they have been consistent in saying that the Board of Trustees decided the fence height regulations. The Board’s concern is granting a variance for a self-created hardship that would establish a precedent that invites other applications requesting a similar variance. Chairman Church invited the applicant to explain why the proposed application is unique. Mr. Null stated that the driveway is essentially a private road to (3) homes. Although the front yard is large enough to put a higher fence further back, it would not meet the security requirements. Pedestrians have been using the private property as a public park for years and now the property will be used by (3) individual private homes, so it is necessary to have structures that delineate the property line. Mr. Null stated that the proposed improvements would enhance the character of the neighborhood and will be in keeping with a property that is next to Rockefeller State Park. Chairman Church asked Mr. Null if the applicant would agree that if a variance was granted for the 4-foot fence height, the material for the proposed split rail wood fence material and style would be maintained. Mr. Null stated that the applicant would agree to the condition that the fence material and style would remain as shown in the application. Chairman Church solicited comments from the Board. Sandra Tripp asked Ms. Maiello to confirm the proposed height of the driveway gate. Ms. Maiello stated that the proposed driveway gate will be at a 5-foot maximum height and that it will gradually slope down to 4 feet. Sandra Tripp asked Sean McCarthy if there is any precedent in the Village describing the driveway as a private street verses an individual private driveway. Sean McCarthy stated that the most recent similar situation is located at Bedford Road, right before County House Road, where there is a private shared driveway for (3) homes with similar piers and walls at the entrance. Gorete Crowe stated that the location Sean described does not have a gate and that she does not believe the piers or walls are 6-foot high. Sean McCarthy asked Mr. Null to demonstrate where the 75-foot setback is on the property. 11 (ZBA 7/20/2022) �Mr. Null indicated on the illustrative site plan where the 75-foot setback is on the property and stated that it is past the bridge. Gorete Crowe stated that even if the structures were 3 feet high, it would still discourage the public from entering the property, and that the gate and columns would immediately indicate that it is private property. Mr. Null stated that a 3-foot high gate would not look appropriate in the location. Craig Lis stated that a fenced in yard is very different from an entranceway aesthetically. Sandra Tripp stated that she is concerned about the proposed gate height not being in the setback and asked if the driveway is considered a street or a driveway. Margaret Rubick asked Mr. Null to explain the issue related to the bridge and installing the structures within the setback. Mr. Null stated if the applicant installed the structures within the setback, past the bridge, there are concerns that people would drive down the driveway and not be able to turn around. Margaret Rubick asked Mr. Null if there is a sign that says “Private Drive”. Mr. Null stated that the applicant may install a private drive sign but that he is not sure it would be meaningful to people. Margaret Rubick stated that a split rail fence would also not be a deterrent for those who want to enter private property. Mr. Null stated that the split rail fencing would delineate the private property as separate from the park. Margaret Rubick stated she is also concerned about establishing a precedent given how many applications the Board receives for fence heights. Michael Rockefeller is Managing Partner for Landrock LLC. Mr. Rockefeller stated that this application is truly different. Mr. Rockefeller stated that if the Board looks at the AllTrails internet engine, that keeps track of parks and trails, they would find that the property is listed 60 different times as an area where people are directed to go up to the top of the hill for beautiful views and get access to the State Park trails. Mr. Rockefeller stated that Landrock feels strongly that if there is not a visual deterrent, people are going to continue to enter where the driveway is, causing a safety issue. The public has had access to the property since 1940. Margaret Rubick asked if they expect to have a transition period while people learn it is not open park land. 12 (ZBA 7/20/2022) �Mr. Rockefeller stated that when he purchased the property in 2002, he made the decision to keep the land open to the public even though he was advised to put a chain link fence around the entire property. Mr. Rockefeller stated that when people enjoy something they take it for granted and continue to use it. Chairman Church stated that there is an open concept to the top of the gate so it will not obstruct anyone’s view. Sandra Tripp stated that her issue is not with the design but with creating a precedent. Craig Lis stated that if someone came before the Board stating that 200 people were crossing their back yard, it would also be a reasonable request to grant an exception. 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 comments from the public. Motion was made to close the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Crowe Vote 6-0 Chairman Church stated that the property is unique. The propose fence is consistent with farmland fencing and the surrounding land. A substantial portion of the proposed fencing would be recessed in between the road and the property. The applicant is permitted to install a larger fence, within the setback, that may not be in character with the surrounding park fences. Chairman Church made a motion to approve the variance for the 100 feet of 4-foot wooden split rail fence based on the following criteria: 1. Granting of the variance for the wood fence will not create an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood and the neighboring property doesn’t object. 2. The requested variance for a 4-foot fence where a 3-foot fence is permitted is not substantial based on the proposed design. Sean McCarthy asked the applicant if wire attachments are proposed to the wood split rail fencing and if the landscape buffer in front of the walls and pillars will be maintained. Michael Rockefeller stated that they do not plan on adding wire attachments to the wood split rail fencing. 13 (ZBA 7/20/2022) �Mr. Null agreed that a condition of approval could include maintaining the landscape buffer in front of the walls and pillars. Chairman Church stated that granting of the area variance for 100 feet of 4-foot wooden split rail fencing includes the following condition: 1. Any deviation from the fence material in the proposed design is prohibited and will be result in a fine from the Village, and require the applicant to resubmit an application to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Chairman Church made a motion to approve the proposed 5-foot driveway gate, 6-foot piers, 7- foot piers, and 4-foot walls based on the following criteria: 1. Piers are part of the natural features of some of the properties in the Village, do not obstruct views, and are proportional, and aesthetically appropriate. 2. The proposed 5-foot gate will have a sloping concave design from the piers to the middle and have an open element. The gate will enhance the character of the neighborhood by replacing the existing metal gate. 3. The applicant has substantiated the factors for an exception to the Code related to granting area variances and the approval will not establish a precedent for future applications that do not have similar property conditions. Chairman Church stated that granting of the area variances for the 5-foot gates, 6-7foot piers, and 4-foot walls include the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall maintain the landscape buffer in front of the piers and walls. Motion was made to approve the requested variances and conditions. Moved: Church Seconded: Rubick Timothy Church, Chairman- yes Margaret Rubick- yes Craig Lis - yes Gorete Crowe- yes Sandra Tripp- yes Thomas Chang- yes Vote 6-0 APPROVED 6. Approval of minutes- May 18, 2022 Motion was made to approve the May 18, 2022 minutes as amended. Moved: Church Seconded: Crowe 14 (ZBA 7/20/2022) �Timothy Church, Chairman - yes Margaret Rubick- yes Craig Lis - yes Gorete Crowe- yes Sandra Tripp- yes Thomas Chang -yes Vote 6-0 APPROVED Motion was made to adjourn the meeting at 8:58 pm. Moved: Church Seconded: Tripp Vote 6-0 Respectfully Submitted, Pamela Kroll Secretary to the Zoning Board of Appeals 15 (ZBA 7/20/2022) �Exhibit #1 130 Palmer Avenue -ZBA Application Submission Doorley Comments 1 .JUL 2 0 2022 From: To: Cc: Date: Subject: �/'M .. L. Michael Doorley Timothy Church, Chaii;;gn - Sleepy Hollow Zoning Board of Appeals Sean McCarthy July 20, 2022 130 Palmer Avenue-ZBA Application Submission ·co:- ::,:.cL Introduction I am writing in opposition to the above referenced matter. I have owned various properties on Palmer Avenue for over 35 years. And I own 128 Palmer Avenue, the property and house adjacent to 130 Palmer Avenue to the east. It was along my property line where the RV was stored for six months in 2021, in violation of the Village Code (the "Code"). This document comprises an introduction, a summary, a review of the application, and a conclusion. The review of the application is an accurate retelling of specific questions and answers submitted in the Village of Sleepy Hollow ("Village") Zoning Board of Appeals ("Board") Application: Part 2 of 5 ("Application"). I add my comments and point out where I believe the Applicant did not answer the question, or where the answer is deficient, misleading, or untrue. And I explain my objections to the matter under consideration by the Board. I like my neighbors, Pia and Peter, (hereinafter for simplicity, I will refer to them individually or collectively as the "Applicant"), and I like recreation vehicles ("RVs"). I hope the Applicant has many years enjoying their RV consistent with the existing Code but not at my expense or the expense of others. This is an important issue not only for my property, or for Philipse Manor, but potentially for the entire Village. Requests to store or park an RV visible to neighbors or to the street are not unique to our Village. Our neighboring villages of Irvington and Tarrytown, and many municipalities throughout the country, have considered the question of storing RVs. And I believe they overwhelmingly do not permit them. I respect the Applicant's right to an interpretation of the Code. Likewise, I hope the Applicant will respect my right to protect my property value and interest. If the Applicant, Board, or anyone else takes issue with anything I wrote herein, and they can demonstrate to me that I am incorrect, I will stand corrected, apologize, and amend my comments. Y HOLLOW �130 Palmer Avenue - ZBA Application Submission Doorley Comments 2 Summary The following is a summary of some of the points discussed in greater detail in The Application (below). I understand the request for an interpretation of the Code or for an area variance was caused solely by the Applicant's storing of their RV in their front driveway, which is clearly visible to Palmer Avenue. This was caused by the Applicant not verifying with the Village whether storing or parking an RV would be in compliance with the Code before acquiring the RV. Had the Applicant made this simple inqui ry , they could have addressed this issue before being in violation of the Code or needing to request an area variance. This situation can be resolved through feasible means without the granting of an area variance. Although viable alternatives are available, it appears Applicant is seeking a favorable interpretation of the Code, or variance, for their convenience and cost saving while knowingly harming my property value, and likely that of others. And the granting of a favorable decision may create a slippery slope and cause an unnecessary, and undesirable, change in the neighborhood and possibly the village. Irvington, Tarry town, and likely most municipalities throughout the country do not permit the parking or storing of an RV visible to the street. Applicant may already be in violation of Village Code 400-43, if applicable, even before the addition of the RV. And the addition of their RV could be an avoidable obstacle to emergency personnel and apparatus. After a close review of the Application, I state my positions, and support my conclusions, that the answers to various questions in the Application contain deficient, misleading, or untrue statements. I submit that the Application does not provide justification or substantive documentation for the Board to arrive at a favorable interpretation of the Code or for the Board to grant an area vanance. I object to any interpretation of the Code permitting the storing or parking of an RV or the granting of an area variance permitting the storing or parking of an RV inconsistent with the existing Code or visible to neighbors or to the street. �130 Palmer Avenue - ZBA Application Submission Doorley Comments 3 The Application I acknowledge that it is not my role to evaluate the Applicant's responses to the questions (noted in bold typeface) in the Application. That said, after reading the Application and identifying what I believe are deficient, misleading, or untrue statements in certain responses contained therein, I felt, in the interest of fairness, obligated to comment. Question 3. Describe the scope of the project: The Applicant_requests permission to park their RV in their driveway during the summer months, defined by the Applicant as May 1 to November 1 yearly. Since the summer months are June to September, the Applicant either defined the "summer months" incorrectly or the Applicant is requesting two additional months, or 50% more time, for a total of six months, one-half of the calendar year. Question 6. AREA VARIANCE - the Applicant was instructed to explain specifically how it satisfies each of the following criteria and attach any documentation that supports its position. I submit - I believe the Applicant's responses to this question are in part deficient, in part misleading, and in part untrue. And the Applicant did not support their statements, which were mostly opinions, with credible supporting documentation. a. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by granting of the area variance. The Applicant stated that an undesirable change will not be produced in the neighborhood's character. A detriment to nearby properties will not be created, iii) the vintage/antique nature of the RV is in keeping with the neighborhoods sophistication and the value placed upon preservation. We keep the RV in pristine condition, and it fits comfortably in their driveway, shielded by trees. Many neighbors in fact enjoyed the vehicle and have expressed disappointment that it is no longer on our property. Please see attached support letters from a majority of our direct neighbors. I submit i) With respect to the Applicant stating an undesirable change will not be produced in the neighborhood's character or a detriment to nearby properties will not be created the Applicant failed to support its statement with credible independent documentation. For example, the Applicant could have submitted a statement �130 Palmer Avenue - ZBA Application Submission Doorley Comments 4 from independent local, active realtors in the neighborhood, or other authoritative sources. ii) Applicant failed to support its statement that a detriment to nearby properties will not be created with credible independent documentation. In addition, in July of 2021, which was well before Applicant completed and submitted the Application, I told the Applicant, in no uncertain terms, that I object to the parking of the RV, and I wanted to talk to them about it before talking to the Village. I also told the Applicant that I had been recently informed by a local realtor, active in the neighborhood, that the parking of their RV was a detriment to the curb appeal of my property and thus reduced the value of my property. After that conversation, the Applicant has acknowledged to me that I objected to the parking of the RV. Since that conversation I have not changed my position, nor have I ever remotely given the Applicant any reason to believe I have changed my position. In addition, the RV is visible from the front door and every front window of my property. iii) The Applicant stated that the RV is in "pristine condition." I do not see how this statement is relevant. If the Board deems it relevant, the Board might note that the Applicant offered no independent third-party appraisal or other supporting documentation of the RV's physical condition such as from the National Auto Auction Vehicle Condition Grading Scale Association or a similar organization specifically for RVs. From the photo on page 29 of the Application, one can easily see the rusted bumper, faded paint, dulled chrome, and the general wear and tear on this almost 50-year-old RY. In my opinion, it is in significantly less than "pristine condition" which is even more evident when viewed in person. iv) The Applicant stated the RV fits "comfortably' in their driveway. They submitted three photos of the RV in the driveway. The Board may note that the Applicant did not submit one photo showing the RV and Applicant's two passenger cars in the driveway at the same time. I submit, when two cars and the RV (that approximates the size in length and width of two cars) are all parked in the driveway at the same time the word "comfortable" is misleading. The two cars are stacked almost bumper to bumper terminating at or very near the sidewalk and forcing one car to be moved to the street so the other car can enter or exit. If applicable, Village Code Section 400-43-Parking space dimensions-states the following: "A parking space shall be 300 square feet. Each parking space shall include the individual car parking area, and necessary aisle space for parking areas, but does not include space required for exit or entrance from parking area to street." �130 Palmer Avenue -ZBA Application Submission Doorley Comments 5 The code specifically states the word "car" and not "vehicle" or "RV." It is likely the Village was only granting authority to passenger automobiles. The Applicant's blacktop driveway measures approximately 20 feet wide by 27 feet long or 540 square feet. The Applicant parks two cars in the driveway, which in accordance with the Code requires 600 square feet. That leaves no space for an additional car, in accordance with the Code, let alone an RV that is almost the size of two additional cars. If storing the RV is permitted, and this Code section is applicable, then the Applicant would need to double the size of their driveway, possibly to 1,200 square feet. Because the blacktop driveway's size for Applicant's two passenger cars is below the minimum dimensions set forth in the Code, parking the RV in the driveway due to its size and height, for any length of time is a potential obstruction to emergency personnel and their equipment, such as fire, in the case of an emergency. Thus, parking the RV is a potential detriment to the Applicant and their property as well as to me and my property. In addition, I have heard from others outside the Village that it can be a slippery slope - first boats, then RVs, then commercial vehicles in residential driveways. That is not what I would like, and I believe most others would agree. v) The Applicant stated the RV is shielded by trees. However, the Applicant failed to submit documentation supporting this statement. From the photo on page 29, which was taken from a northly viewpoint looking south, one can easily see that this statement is not true. There is no shielding or screening at all; thus, the view of the rear of the RV is unobstructed and fully visible from Palmer Avenue. Although not fully shown from points to the east and to the west, the RV is visible to various extents from a distance. For example, the RV was present on June 28, 2022. I was able to see various lengths of the RV from the northwest side of the street at the intersection of Palmer and Munroe to the northeast side of Palmer and Bellwood and beyond, a distance of almost 500 feet. I also point out that the screening to the east is primarily weed shrubs on my property, that I plan to cut down when I replace and extend the old rotten and falling down fence along the property line. Moreover, the branches of the one tree start approximately IO feet high, thereby providing no screening for the RV. Also of note, the east side of Applicant's blacktop driveway tenninates at the property line. If I remove the shrubs, Applicant will not be able to plant screening without first removing a sufficient section of their blacktop, thereby further reducing the size of their already noncom pliant driveway. �130 Palmer Avenue - ZBA Application Submission vi) Doorley Comments 6 With respect to the "support letters" submitted with the Application, the letters state that the signers are the residents. I believe the letters must state that they are from the owners of the properties whose property value is at risk. Case in point, the letter from 151 Palmer was signed by Ben Dickson. I believe Mr. Dickson is a tenant. According to tax records, the registered owner of the property is a Nanette Aguirren. In addition, these letters are over one year old, and they do not make any representations as to the qualitative and/or financial impact to neighbors and property values. A support letter was received by the Village on July 13. The commenter states that they understand the Applicant: i) needs to store their RV on their property from time to time, during ce11ain times of the year, ii) they have no problem with them keeping the vehicles on their property during these times, iii) since the house sits sideways it doesn't allow Applicant to store the RV in their backyard, and iv) allowing them to keep the vehicle on their property is the neighborly thing to do. I submit, i) the Applicant does not "need" to store their RV on their property and it is not "from time to time." I believe it is merely a cost saving and a convenience for Applicant, and it is likely for half of the year, ii) the house sits sideways - see my comment in 8. INRERPRETATION/APPEAL, iii) the commenter has no problem with them keeping the vehicle on the property. The commenter lives a block away - well outside the 200-foot area designated by the Village as directly impacted, and iv) I counter that the neighborly thing to do is not to request a variance to the Code for your savings and your convenience which will knowingly devalue your neighbor's property value. b. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an area variance; Applicant stated we are unable to make use of the RV in a reasonable manor if we are unable to access it in our own driveway as we prepare for and return from frequent summer trips. I submit: i) The Applicant failed to answer the question. The question asked for some feasible method and not some reasonable method. There's a significant difference between the words feasible and reasonable. The Applicant responded with what the Applicant subjectively felt was reasonable, not what was feasible and could be independently supported through a study or other means. The Applicant could both feasibly and reasonably achieve the benefit of the RV through means other than an area variance. For example, the Applicant could do what many RV owners throughout the country do: store or park the RV at a location zoned for RV storage, then drive the RV to the Applicant's home on the �130 Palmer Avenue - ZBA Application Submission Doorley Comments 7 day ofdeparture for a multi-day trip, prepare the RV, then depart on the trip, and do the reverse on the return trip. Or the Applicant can extend its driveway and make the necessary alterations to store the RV at the back ofthe Applicant's property. The Applicant could plant mature, full screening trees to conceal the RV from neighbors' sightline consistent with the Code. Or the Applicant could build a garage suitable for the RV. These are all feasible. Whether the Applicant will choose to do any ofthese and bear the cost is the Applicant's decision. In addition, the Applicant failed to offer specific reasons or examples as to why they would be unable to use the RV in a reasonable manor. The primary purpose ofan RV is to travel to a location, enjoy the RV at a location zoned for RV use, and return from the destination. Unless, ofcourse, it is intended to be used as an extension to one's home. ii) The Applicant stated taking frequent summer trips but offered no definition of "frequent" or supporting dates or documentation ofthese trips. I believe this statement is misleading. I recall, the RV arrived in early May 2021 and last departed on November 1, 2021. This was approximately 184 days, or six months. Under advice from people I know, who experienced similar issues and warned me ofa potential request for a variance, starting on July 9, 2021, I maintained a contemporaneous record ofthe overnight days the RV left the property and returned, with the exception ofthe evening ofAugust 10 through to August 13, when I was away. The dates in 2021 after July 9, when I observed the RV was gone, with the exception of August 10 through August 13, were as follows: Departed July 19 July 24 Sept. 1 Nov. 1 Returned July 22 July 31 Sept. 3 # of Overni�hts 3 7 2 Therefore, the RV was on a multi-day trip and not in the driveway for 12, possibly 15, days out ofa period of 115 days (or three months and 23 days) from July 9 to November 1. With respect to the dates before July 9, I recall the RV having temporary license plates throughout the month ofMay and being there every day. I believe the Applicant's daughter was in school during the month ofMay and most ofJune, and my recollection is the RV was there most, ifnot all, ofthese months. Ifwe count from May 1, the RV was used for approximately 15 days in a six-month period. Which means it was stored in the driveway for approximately five and one-halfmonths. �130 Palmer Avenue -ZBA Application Submission Doorley Comments 8 If the Applicant believes my dates are incorrect or there were additional multi-day trips in 2021, the Applicant could offer the Board documentation, such as the RV park reservation receipts, or other proof, demonstrating the RV was away overnight. c. Whether the requested area variance is substantial; The Applicant stated the requested variance is not substantial. It is for a very specific vehicle that fits comfortably within the driveway and only for a portion of the calendar year. I submit - The Applicant did not provide any independent third-party documentation supporting their position that the variance is not substantial. The Applicant only offered its opinion. I believe, as do others, that a favorable interpretation for the Applicant or approval of this variance would have a substantial adverse impact on the character of the neighborhood, curb appeal of my property and home value, and likely that of others, and potentially may be used as a precedent for future applications, as supported by a realtor's comments. d. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; The Applicant stated it will not have an adverse impact on the environment or physical conditions. Pease again refer to neighborhood support letters. I submit - The Applicant failed to offer any credible, independent third-party documentation as to whether the proposed variance would have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental condition of the neighborhood or district. e. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created; The Applicant stated we originally purchased the RV as a remedy to the CO YID pandemic in order to secure a safe summer of recreation activities for our daughter. We have greatly enjoyed it and are hopeful that we can continue to do so in the upcoming summer. I submit - The Applicant failed to answer the question by not stating whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. I believe it was self-created. From a conversation I had with the Applicant in July 2021, I learned they were unaware of the Village Code before acquiring the RY. Thus, I submit this alleged difficulty was self-created by the Applicant. Should the Board determine �130 Palmer Avenue -ZBA Application Submission Doorley Comments 9 where the RV is parked in regard to the COVID-19 pandemic, I submit that most people's reactions to the pandemic with respect to mask wearing and social distancing in the summer of2021 are dramatically different now, especially after the availability of multiple vaccines. Even then, the RV can be as well protected in a secure off premise parking facility. f. State any additional information that you believe would be helpful to the Board in making a determination; The Applicant stated that it would seem reasonable to think my family and I should be able to park our vehicle in our own driveway between frequent trips - especially during the summer months. We do not intend to 'store' it in our driveway when it is not in regular use. Parking an RV such as ours in distinctly different from 'storing' a boat that by definition is being 'stored' because it is not in fact in the water. I submit - With respect to the Applicant's response, I previously addressed "frequent trips," "summer months," and "regular use." I will explain why I believe the Applicant's reference to boats does not support their case. I am an active member of the U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary and have been for 25 years. I must stress that I am not authorized to speak on behalf of the U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary, and therefore, will not. My views and comments herein are solely mine and not those of the U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary. I only mention that I am an active Auxiliarist as a matter of fact, and to support that I have more than a layperson's knowledge of boating. I submit that an RV is primarily intended for traveling to a location, living in it while traveling and returning from a location, and not for long-term parking or storage in a driveway- unless its intended use is as a home or extension to a home. The primary use of an RV that is not used as an extension to a home is not all that different from a boat stored on a trailer that will be towed by a vehicle for periodic use on different bodies of water and returned to its storage location. Many boaters throughout the country routinely store their boats on trailers at locations zoned for such storage. They trailer the boat to the body of water, put it in the water at the boat ramp, use it in that body of water for a period of time, and return it to its storage location. In my opinion, that's no different from an RV travelling to and from a location. Question 7. USE VARIANCE The Applicant is required to show and prove that the applicable zoning regulations and restrictions have caused unnecessary hardship and: �130 Palmer Avenue -ZBA Application Submission Doorley Comments 10 a. Under applicable zoning regulations, the Applicant is deprived of all reasonable economic use or benefit from the property in question, which deprivation must be established by competent financial evidence; The Applicant responded "N/A." I submit, the Applicant failed to answer this question and demonstrate, with supporting competent financial evidence, that the restrictions have caused unnecessary hardship and that the Applicant would be deprived of all reasonable economic use or benefit from the RV. The Applicant will have use of their home and reasonable use of their RV, if the RV is stored behind their house or is not stored at 130 Palmer Avenue. b. The alleged hardship relating to the property in question is unique and does not apply to a substantial portion of the district or neighborhood; The Applicant did not submit an answer. I submit - I believe the alleged hardship is not unique to the Applicant. Virtually every house in Philipse Manor has a driveway, and any homeowner in Philipse Manor could own an RV or a boat and want to store it in their driveway. And Applicant's driveway can be extended. c. The requested use variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood; and The Applicant did not submit an answer. I submit - I was told by more than one realtor that the parking of an RV in the Applicant's driveway adversely affects the curb appeal of my property. I don't know of any property whose value either increased or somehow was not adversely affected by the visible storing or parking of an RV next to it. I reference my initial comment about other municipalities not permitting the visible storing of RVs in part because they do adversely alter the essential character of a neighborhood. d. The alleged hardship has not been self-created. The Applicant did not submit an answer. I submit - The hardship was self-created by the Applicant not seeking and receiving a favorable interpretation of the Code or not seeking and receiving a variance from the Village prior to the acquiring the RV. �130 Palmer Avenue -ZBA Application Submission Doorley Comments 11 Question 8. INRERPRETATION/APPEAL b. Provie a detailed explanation as to why you believe the Village Official's interpretation is not correct; Applicant stated - It is debatable whether parking this vehicle during select months in which it is in regular use, constituted 'storage.' We do not intend to 'store the vehicle in our driveway when it is not in regular use. Parking an RV such as ours is distinctly different from storing a boat that- by definition is being 'stored' because it is not in fact in the water where one uses it. Furthermore, the RV would be in or driveway, not our"front yard' as the code states. Please note- While it may not be relevant, it is worth noting that 130 Palmer is unique in so far as it sits sideways and therefore the driveway is effectively on the side of the house. To attempt to accommodate the vehicle outside of the driveway would block the front entrance. I submit - I believe the Village's interpretation of"store" is correct, and I believe the Village should not grant an area variance as I discussed earlier. 130 Palmer does sits sideways, which is different from most houses in the neighborhood. But that difference was created by a previous owner and known to the Applicant when they purchased the property. The RV would not block the front entrance of the house if the RV was stored off-site or the driveway was extended and the RV properly stored in the rear yard, in compliance with the Code, either of which are feasible. The Applicant has not demonstrated unnecessary hardship or deprivation of any or all economic use or benefit of the RV. In addition, the RV is a detriment to neighbors' property values, and it will produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood. The RV was infrequently used in 2021, the driveway does not meet the minimum space dimensions making the parking or storage a potential safety issue, the RV is clearly visible from the front windows of my property and from the street on three sides, and the Applicant submitted no independent third-party documentation supporting Applicant's responses based on the questions asked in the Application. c. State the conclusion you believe the Board of Appeals should reach. Applicant concluded - Parking an RV that comfortably fits in a driveway, during specific months in which it is regular use, is distinctly different from"storing" an unused RV or boat in a"front yard." To barr the homeowner doing so effectively precludes that homeowner from realistically owing and using an RV at all. We, as a family, Applicant's �130 Palmer Avenue -ZBA Application Submission Doorley Comments 12 deserve to be able to use their property, our home and our driveway in a respectful yet realistic manner that does not impinge on our rights as homeowners. I submit - In conclusion, most of the Applicant's answers either failed to answer the question or were deficient, misleading, or untrue. And where requested, the Applicant failed to submit credible, relevant supporting documentation. In addition, Applicant did not demonstrate unnecessary hardship or deprivation of all economic use or benefit of the RV, particularly because of a situation caused solely by the Applicant, that can otherwise be mitigated. Applicant produced no logical reason or support as to why they are effectively precluded from realistically owing and using an RV at all. Applicant's statement is contrary to thousands of RV owners throughout the country who store their RV in a location zoned for RV storage and yet still use it and enjoy it. I believe Applicant's request for a favorable interpretation of the word "store" or their request for an area variance are for the sole use, convenience, enjoyment, and cost saving of the Applicant and to the detriment and expense of their neighbors, neighborhood, and Village. And it devalues my property and impinges on the rights of others. Therefore, I believe that the Applicant has not met the basic criteria for the Board to make a favorable interpretation of the Code or for the board to grant an area variance. Thank you. I'll be happy to answer any questions at, or after, the meeting. �Exhibit #2 �Exhibit #3 Subject: Date: Fwd: 7-13-22_Comments from Owner of 216 Palmer Avenue Wednesday, July 13, 2022 10:47:2S AM RECEIVED JUL 1 3 2022 From: Denise Scaglione Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2022 8:50 AM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.org> Subject: Zoning Board Public Hearing - Salk/Neidell BUILDING DEPT. VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW Hi Sean, I am writing to show my support for my neighbors on Pia Salk & Pete Neidell. My understanding is that they need to store their RV on their property from time to time, during certain times of the year. I have no problem with them keeping the vehicle on their property during these times. They have a house that is not situated like most houses and it sits sideways, therefore not allowing them to store the RV in their back yard. I fully support them being allowed to keep their vehicle on the property, it's the neighborly thing to do. Please submit my comments for public record for the zoning hearing on 7 /20/22. Thanks. Denise Scaglione 216 Palmer Ave. SH, NY �Exhibit #4 -----Original Messagc----From: Stephan Murphy <stcphanmurphy®verizon.nct> Sent: Monday. July 18. 2022 8:36 PM To: Scan McCarthy <smccarthy@slcepyhollowny.org> Subject: 130 Palmer Ave Variance Application To whom it may concern. RECEIVED JUL 1 8 2022 BUILDING DEPT. VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW We arc neighbors and friends of the applicant and appreciate their desire to park their RV in their front yard driveway during the Summer Months ··May to November"·. We like kitsch and the Green Gherkin is a special antique vehicle. Our primary concerns arc parking their other vehicle on the street exasperating an already unsafe condition with street parking on Palmer Ave with the very high volume or traffic; i.e. Kingsland Park. Summer Day Camp. the train station and the beach club. Too many cars arc parking on the street already. An accident is waiting to happen with someone. a child or a dog walking between cars into the street. Additionally. the existing variance is there for a reason. no RV·s in the front yard. Simply put. it's a convenience but also an eyesore and property degradation for others. Finally. we look at summer months as the calendar identifies. June 21 through September 21st. We do not dislike the Mighty Gherkin. in fact we arc fans. But the nostalgia and convenience of parking it in the front yard should be considered versus the existing variance. safety or the street (too many cars already parked in the street) and the nature of a precedent. Creating exceptions for one inevitably creates exceptions for many. Let's keep the quality of the neighborhood. visually and by safety standards to the high quality that exists. Rcspcctfi.illy yours. Stephan Murphy and Cass Anderson 126 Palmer Ave Stcphanmurphy@vcrizon.net 914-391-3237 Sent from my iPad � 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-2022 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_2022-07-20_Approved-ZBA-Minutes Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2022 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2022 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/174694f975ff73f71c1c2b8505bbb4bc.pdf aa26f00122f635d4c8737b56c37d6c63 PDF Text 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 Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2022 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_2022-05-18 544 Bellwood Avenue Approved ZBA Resolution Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2022 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2022 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/558daf3151088e0acb98a131fdfaceee.pdf f2d08d02a94ed8ab1e31b17fe6e11eb6 PDF Text Text Village of Sleepy Hollow Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting May 18, 2022 Chairman Church called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. Present: Timothy Church, Chairman Gorete Crowe - arrived to meeting at 7:29 pm Sandra Tripp Thomas Chang Craig Lis Margaret Rubick Also Present: Sean McCarthy, Village Architect Absent: Pamela Kroll, Secretary to the Zoning Board Agenda: 1) Maria Martins, 11 Kendall Avenue, Appeal and Interpretation of the Building Inspectors determination that the proposed application for the development at 135 Beekman Avenue complies with the Zoning Code- Public hearing 2) Filipe and Jose Ribeiro, 20 Continental Street, Proposed addition and alterationContinued public hearing 3) Harry Ledley, 544 Bellwood Avenue, Proposed 6 foot high- Public hearing 4) Approval of minutes, February 16, 2022, April 20, 2022 1. Maria Martins, 11 Kendall Avenue, Appeal and Interpretation of the Building Inspectors determination that the proposed application for the development at 135 Beekman Avenue complies with the Zoning Code- Public hearing Chairman Church stated that the Planning Board and the Board of Trustees are reviewing the Zoning Code. The applicant has requested an adjournment until the June 15, 2022 meeting. Motion was made to adjourn the public hearing to the June 15, 2022 meeting. Moved: Church Seconded: Lis Vote 5-0 2. Filipe and Jose Ribeiro, 20 Continental Street, Proposed addition and alterations- Public Hearing Chairman Church invited the architect the present the proposed changes. 1 (ZBA 5/18/2022) �Jorge B. Hernandez is the architect representing the applicants. Mr. Hernandez stated he was unable to submit the revised submissions in time for review prior to the meeting. He submitted revised hard copies to the Board and stated that he will describe the proposed changes to the application. Mr. Hernandez presented the revised plans and stated that he reduced the proposed number of bedrooms to two from four, which reduces the required number of parking spaces to seven. The size of the addition has been reduced, and upper and lower decks with stairs were added to the rear side so that the impact to the neighboring properties will be reduced and emergency access will be provided from the upper floor. Mr. Hernandez presented a solar impact study that demonstrates the shade implications during the day at different times of the year. Mr. Hernandez stated fire safety will be provided by the addition of the fire sprinklers and the new construction. The driveway bollard will be removed so that the two parking spaces in the driveway can be used. Chairman Church stated that the revised application needs to be posted on the Village website so that members of the public have the opportunity to review the plans before the Board votes on the application. Chairman Church asked Mr. Hernandez to confirm the required number of parking spaces needed based on the revised application. Mr. Hernandez stated that the revised application would require seven parking spaces. Sean McCarthy asked Mr. Hernandez to describe how the revised application will reduce the footprint of the building. Mr. Hernandez stated that there are no changes proposed to the first floor. The second and third floors will be set back in order to construct the decks and stairs that will provide the ability to walk outside and reduce the impact to the adjacent properties. Mr. McCarthy asked Mr. Hernandez to confirm that the plans show that the new air conditioning condenser units are proposed to be in the backyard, away from the neighbors. Mr. Hernandez stated that the air conditioning units were moved to the rear yard and that the specifications for the units are noise compliant. The garbage will be located on the driveway side so that it is further from the nearest property. Chairman Church suggested that Mr. Hernandez speak with Sean McCarthy to see if any other changes are needed before the next meeting. Chairman Church asked Sean McCarthy if the public notice will need to be updated. Mr. McCarthy stated that based on the revised application, all of the requested variances will be reduced and not require a new public notice. He will check to make sure that the new application complies with the Zoning Code and if required, the Building Department will issue a new public notice. Upon receipt of a new digital file, the Building Department will publish the revised submission on the Village website. 2 (ZBA 5/18/2022) �Chairman Church solicited questions from the Board. Craig Lis requested that Mr. Hernandez provide a comparison showing the difference between the original application and the proposed changes. Motion was made to open the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Tripp Vote 5-0 Chairman Church solicited comments from the public. Anne White lives at 3301 Kendal Way. Ms. White asked if this is the first time that Sean McCarthy and the Zoning Board are seeing the revised application. Chairman Church stated that this is the first time the Board is seeing the revised submission and stated that the Board will not vote on the application tonight. The revised submission will be published on the Village website so that the public can review before the next meeting. Anne White stated that she is concerned that the proposed basement playroom could make it easy for the applicant to make into an additional apartment. Chairman Church stated that the Board evaluates the application and that they are not involved with the Code enforcement issues. Sean McCarthy stated that the Building Department will require the plans to have the rooms labeled for the proposed usage and the applicants will have to show compliance to both the Zoning Code and the Building Code. Any future violation of the approved plans would be a violation of the Certificate of Occupancy that will be subject to enforcement. Cheryl Cappello is the owner of 18 Continental Street and asked Mr. Hernandez to confirm the revised dimensions of the addition, if they are still proposing the playroom in the basement, and if the proposed fire escapes the will extend the addition out further. Mr. Hernandez stated that the proposed first level will be 28 feet wide, the second level will be 20 feet wide, and the third level will be 16 feet wide. A playroom is proposed in the basement level. The roof of the lower level will become the deck on the next level. Ms. Cappello asked if there is a law that prohibits putting bedrooms outside of a kitchen and if there is a maximum capacity for one-bedroom apartments. Mr. Hernandez stated that two people are permitted per bedroom. Anne White asked Mr. Hernandez if the basement escape exits are still located to the east and asked what the proposed rooflines will be. 3 (ZBA 5/18/2022) �Mr. Hernandez stated that there will be one escape exit from the basement and that the applicants are deciding if it will be located on the east or the west. Mr. Hernandez stated that the proposed rooflines will be flat. Motion was made to continue the public hearing to the June 15, 2022 meeting. Moved: Church Seconded: Tripp Vote 6-0 The Board received comment letters on May 18, 2022 prior to the meeting. (See Exhibit #s 2 & 3) 3. Harry and Rebecca Ledley, 544 Bellwood Avenue, Proposed 6 foot high fencing Public hearing Chairman Church read the public notice and listed the documents submitted with the application. Chairman Church stated that the Board has received a letter in support of the application (See Exhibit #1) Chairman Church invited the applicant to present the application. Harry Ledley is the owner of the property. Mr. Ledley presented photographs of the different types and heights of the existing fencing on his property and stated that they propose to replace all of the fencing with 6 foot high white vinyl fencing. Sandra Tripp asked Sean McCarthy to confirm the fencing regulations. Sean McCarthy stated that the maximum permitted fence height in the required front yard setback is 3 feet and that anything beyond the front yard setback is permitted at a maximum of 5 feet in height. Mr. Ledley stated that they moved into the house eighteen months ago and that all of the fencing is existing. Mr. Ledley presented a photograph of the 5-foot high wood fencing that is located on the shared property line and stated that the neighbor has 6-foot high fence around their property. Mr. Ledley stated that the proposed vinyl fencing would look nice on both sides. He is working with his neighbor to agree to have both of their fences removed so that they can just install one shared 6-foot fence at the shared driveway. Margaret Rubick asked Mr. Ledley if the proposed fencing would be solid. Mr. Ledley presented a photograph of the proposed vinyl fencing and stated that it would be privacy fencing with a scalloped top. Margaret Rubick asked Mr. Ledley how high the scalloped portion of the fence is. Mr. Ledley stated that the fence posts are at a 6-foot height and that he is not sure how high the scalloped portion is. Mr. Ledley stated that the reasons they are requesting to install 6-foot high 4 (ZBA 5/18/2022) �fencing are to match the neighbor’s property adjacent to the driveway and to block the noise and the view of Broadway. Sandra Tripp asked if the fencing is behind the existing stone wall or if it is on top. Mr. Ledley stated that the stone wall is 3 feet high. The existing fence posts go into the rocks and existing fence height is approximately 4 feet high. Vinyl fence posts are bigger than wooden posts so most likely the fence would be installed directly behind the stone wall from the ground up. Craig Lis asked Mr. Ledley if the grade of the property is the same behind the stone wall. Mr. Ledley stated that the property is the same behind the wall but the property goes slightly up hill beyond the fence. Margaret Rubick asked Mr. Ledley what is on the other side of the existing fence. Mr. Ledley stated that there is an empty lot on the other side of the fence. Chairman Church asked if the neighboring property has a variance for their 6-foot fencing. Sean McCarthy stated that he would have to check the records. Mr. Ledley stated that people have told him that lots that are directly on Broadway often have 6foot fences. Chairman Church stated there are no 6-foot fence height zoning regulations for properties along Broadway and he suggested that Mr. Ledley could achieve consistency with his neighbor by installing a 6-foot fence at the shared section of his lot and then installing 5-foot fencing on the rest of the proposed areas. Chairman Church solicited comments from the Board. There were no comments from the Board. Motion was made to open the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Lis Vote 6-0 Chairman Church solicited comments from the public. Darren Bushey is the owner of 546 Bellwood Avenue and stated that he is the neighbor adjacent to. Mr. Bushey stated he supports the 6-foot fencing because he also believes in consistency with the neighboring properties. They will have to replace their fencing at some point and 6 foot fencing provides more safety and privacy for the applicant’s dog and small child. 5 (ZBA 5/18/2022) �Motion was made to close the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Rubick Vote 6-0 Chairman solicited comments from the Board. Thomas Chang stated that applicant’s house is in a high traffic area opening into Philips Manor but stated that the fencing would not be visible from the street. Craig Lis stated that three out of the five sides of the yards are not visible to the public. Sandra Tripp stated that granting a variance for a height change is not something she is comfortable approving. Ms. Tripp stated that the rules were put in place to keep consistency in the Village that she is concerned about setting a precedent for other applications. Chairman Church stated that when the Board of Trustees adopted the 5-foot height regulation, he is sure that safety was a consideration. Although the fencing may not be visible from the road, there is a potential for it to affect the residents that are living there now and the potential for the development on the vacant lot in the future. Each time the Board allows a variance for the height of a fence, a neighbor is affected and they will want permission to do the same thing. Gorette Crowe stated that she also has concerns about creating a precedent. Chairman Church made a motion to deny the application based on the following criteria: 1. Granting of the area variance will produce an undesirable and inconsistent change to the neighborhood because although the Board is aware that there are properties with 6-foot fences, the maximum permitted fence height is 5 feet and that only 3 foot high fences are permitted where they are facing roadways. 2. The requested variance is substantial because granting a variance for above the 5-foot fence height code regulation will create a precedent for future applications. Changing the fence height regulations is an issue for the Board of Trustees to consider. 3. The applicant can achieve the benefits sought and can maintain consistency with a 5-foot fence and possibly higher shrubbery, and there would be minimal inconsistency with the neighboring property. 4. The requested variance for the proposed 6-foot fencing will not cause an impact to the environmental or physical conditions of the neighborhood. 5. The requested variance for the proposed 6-foot fencing is self-created. Motion was made to deny the application. Moved: Church Seconded: Rubick 6 (ZBA 5/18/2022) �Timothy Church, Chairman- yes Margaret Rubick- yes Craig Lis - yes Gorete Crowe- yes Sandra Tripp- yes Thomas Chang- abstained Vote 5-0-1 DENIED Chairman Church permitted Darren Bushey to comment on the Board’s decision. Darren Bushey stated that he and the applicant have a shared property line and denying the application will be inconsistent with the 6-foot fencing on his property. The fencing on his property will remain at 6 feet in height to provide safety and privacy. Gorette Crowe stated that when Mr. Bushey chooses to replace his fencing in the future, he will be required to install 5-foot high fencing and not be permitted to install new 6-foot fencing without a variance. 4. Approval of minutes- February 16, 2022, April 20, 2022 Motion was made to approve the February 16, 2022 minutes as amended. Moved: Church Seconded: Lis Timothy Church, Chairman- abstained Margaret Rubick- yes Craig Lis - yes Gorete Crowe- yes Sandra Tripp- yes Thomas Chang -yes Vote 5-0-1 APPROVED Motion was made to approve the April 20, 2022 minutes as amended. Moved: Church Seconded: Lis Timothy Church, Chairman- yes Margaret Rubick- yes Craig Lis - yes Gorete Crowe- yes Sandra Tripp- abstained Thomas Chang- yes Vote 5-0-1 APPROVED Motion was made to adjourn the meeting at 7:50 pm. Moved: Church Seconded: Tripp 7 Vote 6-0 (ZBA 5/18/2022) �Respectfully Submitted, Pamela Kroll Secretary to the Zoning Board of Appeals 8 (ZBA 5/18/2022) �Exhibit #1 Comment Letter Received from 546 Bellwood Avenue From: Darren Bushey Sent: Friday, May 6, 2022 8:37 AM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.org> Cc: Annmarie Zito Subject: 544 Bellwood - Fence Proposal To whom it may concern, My wife and I are the next door neighbors to Harry and Rebecca Ledley of 544 Bellwood Avenue, and we are writing in support of their request of a 6ft fence. We understand they have a small child and dog. Given the proximity to route 9, it will be helpful, not only for privacy, but also their safety. We sincerely hope that you will honor this request. Thank you, Darren and Annmarie Bushey �Exhibit #2 Subject: Date: 5-18-22 Comments Received from 34 Continental Street Wednesday, May 18, 2022 1:46:21 PM From: Contact form at Sleepy Hollow NY <cmsmailer@civicplus.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2022 11:26 AM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.org> Subject: [Sleepy Hollow NY] 20 Continental St (Sent by Linda Moiron,) Hello smccarthy, Linda Moiron has sent you a message via your contact form (https://www.sleepyhollowny.gov/users/smccarthy/contact) at Sleepy Hollow NY. If you don't want to receive such e-mails, you can change your settings at https://www.sleepyhollowny.gov/user/81/edit. Message: Hi Sean, I can’t attend the meeting tonight but would like to voice my opinion on the variance request. An undesirable change in the neighborhood if the variance is granted by increasing density and lack of parking in a neighborhood which already is very dense and parking problems. The benefit sought by applicant is purely monetary. The applicant does not live on site and has only used it for rental income. The proposed variance will have an adverse effect on neighborhood. Continental Street according to the Mayor will be a two way street in the near future which means more traffic as this will be a means of egress from the NÉ part of the development. We need to keep as much green and open space for the families that live here. Talking away the porches to build enclosed bedrooms does exactly the opposite. Thank you for listening. Linda Moiron 34 Continental St. �Exhibit #3 Subject: Date: 5-18-22 Comments Received from 51 Howard Street Wednesday, May 18, 2022 1:52:35 PM From: Contact form at Sleepy Hollow NY <cmsmailer@civicplus.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2022 1:27 PM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.org> Subject: [Sleepy Hollow NY] 20 Continental Street (Sent by Matthew C Evans, Hello smccarthy, Matthew C Evans has sent you a message via your contact form (https://www.sleepyhollowny.gov/users/smccarthy/contact) at Sleepy Hollow NY. If you don't want to receive such e-mails, you can change your settings at https://www.sleepyhollowny.gov/user/81/edit. Message: HI Sean, I am writing to you to express my deep concerns with the proposed addition to 20 Continental Street. This addition will not benefit our neighborhood in anyway. First and foremost it will make an already large multi-family house and turn it into an apartment building. I would imagine the landlord (that doesn't live locally) is looking to fill it with room rentals to maximize his revenue. This will add more cars to a neighborhood that already doesn't have enough parking spaces. Another concern is the esthetics of how this house will change the look of our neighborhood. Yes we have multiple family houses, but this is not the same. It can potentially bring more transient people to our family oriented area. I am also concerned about the building process. The digging and building process will have an impact on our water/gas lines and home foundations that have already been impacted by the multiple trucks passing our neighborhood, and the pounding involved in building the East Parcel. There are other smaller concerns like lack of privacy in an already compact situation, as well as shading and losing sunlight for plants, trees to maintain green spaces. Please feel free to reach out to discuss if you like. I am unfortunately unable to attend the meeting tonight (5/18) due to work conflicts. Thank you for your time and consideration. � 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-2022 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_2022-05-18 Approved ZBA Minutes Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2022 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2022 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/7818eff80dc2f9d7402641c8fe817888.pdf 5a15ec08a4d57ab6bd801d4f769d0366 PDF Text 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 Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2022 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_2022-04-20 214 Harwood Avenue ZBA Approved Resolution Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2022 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2022 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/54cd6663caf3f62c3b9ded303e3de050.pdf ef7989748bf6c6dcc33290c30f767945 PDF Text Text Village of Sleepy Hollow Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting April 20, 2022 Chairman Church called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. Present: Timothy Church, Chairman Gorete Crowe Craig Lis Margaret Rubick Also Present: Sean McCarthy, Village Architect Joshua Subin, Village Attorney Absent: Sandra Tripp Thomas Chang Pamela Kroll, Secretary to the Zoning Board Agenda: 1) Maria Martins, 11 Kendall Avenue, Appeal and Interpretation of the Building Inspectors determination that the proposed application for the development at 135 Beekman Avenue complies with the Zoning Code- Public hearing 2) Filipe and Jose Ribeiro, 20 Continental Street, Proposed addition and alteration-Public hearing 3) Michael and Amy Witmer, 214 Harwood Avenue, Proposed screened-in porch and deck additions- Public hearing 4) Approval of minutes, February 16, 2022 1. Maria Martins, 11 Kendall Avenue, Appeal and Interpretation of the Building Inspectors determination that the proposed application for the development at 135 Beekman Avenue complies with the Zoning Code- Public hearing Chairman Church stated that the applicant has requested an adjournment to the May 19, 2022 meeting. 2. Filipe and Jose Ribeiro, 20 Continental Street, Proposed addition and alterations- Public Hearing Chairman Church read the public notice, listed the documents submitted with the application, and asked Sean McCarthy to confirm that all of the mailing receipts have been received. Sean McCarthy stated that all of the mailing receipts were received. 1 (ZBA 4/20/2022) �Chairman Church invited the applicant to present the application. Jorge B. Hernandez is the architect representing the applicants. Mr. Hernandez stated the property is located in the R-5 Zoning District. The application proposes to construct a 12 x 28 foot addition that will enlarge the existing bedrooms and add additional bedrooms on each level. Chairman Church asked Mr. Hernandez what currently exists in the area where they propose the addition. Mr. Hernandez indicated on the existing site plan that the proposed addition would be located in the rear of the property. Mr. Hernandez presented the demolition plans to show the interior areas proposed for renovations. Chairman Church asked Mr. Hernandez if the applicant proposes to add a bedroom on each floor. Mr. Hernandez stated that the application proposes to add two bedrooms on the lower level and one bedroom on the each of the other levels. Chairman Church asked Mr. Hernandez to confirm the proposed additional square footage. Mr. Hernandez stated that the applicants intend to go from 740 square feet to 1,260 square feet on each floor. He stated that the floors will mirror each other and that the applicants plans to convert the existing bedrooms into a larger living area and have the two bedrooms in the back of each unit. Mr. Hernandez presented the elevation drawings for the proposed rear addition and stated that they propose to add more windows in the living room/dining areas to allow more light into the units. Mr. Hernandez stated that there is off-street parking and a municipal parking lot available in the area. There are 21 homes between Pleasant Street and Continental Street and approximately 8-10 of the homes have private parking on their properties. Chairman Church asked Mr. Hernandez if the existing building has fire sprinklers, if the proposed application includes the installation of a fire sprinkler system, and if additional fire protection is proposed in the exterior walls to protect the neighboring buildings. Mr. Hernandez stated that the existing building does not have a fire sprinkler system and that the application proposes to install fire sprinklers in the entire building. Mr. Hernandez stated that they are increasing the insulation, installing new siding, and removing the wood deck in the back. Chairman Church asked how egress would be provided from the top floor. Mr. Hernandez stated that each bedroom would have a door and an egress window. Chairman Church asked if the existing tenants are using the driveway for parking. 2 (ZBA 4/20/2022) �Mr. Hernandez stated that the existing driveway is too narrow for cars to get in and out and the owners have a bollard in the driveway preventing the tenants from parking. Chairman Church asked Sean McCarthy to confirm that there is a bollard in the driveway restricting the tenants from parking. Sean McCarthy stated there is a bollard installed but the driveway used to be an active driveway where cars were permitted to park. Mr. McCarthy stated that the driveway is non-conforming and does not meet the required width for a new driveway but does appear as an existing use on the older surveys. Chairman Church stated that based on a pre-existing nonconformity, the owner is allowed to have two parking spots in the driveway. Gorette Crowe asked if the current conditions of the existing driveway will be affected when the proposed addition will create less space in the rear yard. Mr. McCarthy stated that the existing lot is too small to allow cars to turn around in the driveway; however, the driveway could be used as a tandem driveway for two vehicles. Chairman Church asked Mr. Hernandez why the application states that they have no existing parking spaces if there is the possibility of having two spaces in the driveway. Mr. Hernandez stated that the application is based on the existing bollard in the driveway and that he could confer with the owners on the use of the driveway, but there were problems with the neighboring property owners and the use of the driveway creating hazards to fencing and damage to cars. Mr. McCarthy stated that the building is a three-family house and that tenants with compact cars could use the driveway. Margaret Rubick asked Mr. Hernandez if the existing building is fully occupied. Mr. Hernandez stated that the existing building is fully occupied. Craig Lis asked Mr. Hernandez if the proposed addition complies with the required setbacks from the rear yard setback. Mr. Hernandez stated that the proposed addition is 25 feet from the rear property line and complies with the required rear yard setbacks. Chairman Church asked Mr. Hernandez how many parking spots are currently required for the house. 3 (ZBA 4/20/2022) �Mr. Hernandez stated that the existing building requires six parking spaces and the proposed bedrooms will increase the amount of required parking spaces to eight. Chairman Church asked if the same number of parking spaces would be required if the owner removed the driveway bollard and removed one bedroom. Mr. Hernandez stated that six parking spaces would still be required at the existing building. Gorette Crowe asked Mr. Hernandez what heating and cooling systems are proposed for the addition and if there will be changes to the existing systems. Mr. Hernandez stated that the existing house has oil heating and that he can discuss other possibilities with the owner. Motion was made to open the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Rubick Vote 4-0 Chairman Church solicited comments from the public. Karin Lane lives at 24 Continental Street and stated that the existing building is not in character with the neighborhood. Most of the surrounding homes are two-story buildings and the house at 20 Continental is a three-story structure that takes up most of the frontage of the lot. The proposed addition would increase the three-story structure and affect the character of her backyard. Ms. Lane requested that the Board deny the appeal. Anne White lives at 3301 Kendal Way and stated that copies of her testimony were submitted to the Board (See Exhibit #1). Ms. White stated that she is opposed to granting the requested variances because they would deny the Continental Street neighborhood the very protections that the R-5 Zoning District is designed to ensure, i.e., the livability of the residential district. Ms. White read the testimony that she submitted to the Board on April 20, 2022, prior to the meeting, and requested that the Board refer to the exhibits submitted while she spoke. Linda Moyron lives at 34 Continental Street and stated that the East Parcel is still being developed and that the intent is that Continental Street will become a two-way street. This would result in parking being taken off the street and leave less available spaces then there is now, so she is opposed to the requested variance for eight parking spaces. Ms. Myron stated that the property owner does not live in the house and the benefits sought is to increase the value in order to rent out the apartments, so it should be considered as a self-created hardship. Martina Brown lives on 3 Pleasant Street. Ms. Brown requested that the Board reject the variance requests because the existing house already feels out of place in the neighborhood because it is big and bulky and this addition will make it worse. The area is very dense and there are already parking problems and no additional spaces available. 4 (ZBA 4/20/2022) �Seth Markowitz is the owner of 5 Pleasant Street and stated that parking is already an issue and that cars are often triple parked on Pleasant Street, at the dead end, that are not residents of the street. The proposed addition would take up more of the lot and change the character of neighborhood. Given the planned development of the East Parcel, the Boards approval of the current design would send a message as to what the section of the Zoning District should be going forward and make residents pause about the future of the neighborhood they live in. Mr. Markowitz asked the Board to explain their view on the building coverage taking up the entire lot. Cheryl Cappello lives at 18 Continental Street and stated that she submitted a letter to the Board. (See Exhibit #2). Ms. Cappello read her letter and presented photographs of existing conditions and the views from her house. She requested that the Board reject the application. Chairman Church asked Mr. Hernandez to explain the details of the proposed building coverage. Mr. Hernandez stated that the applicant proposes to remove the existing rear covered wooden deck structure and the existing shed for the proposed addition, and this would cause the reduction in the building coverage. Mr. Hernandez stated that the overall building coverage relates to all of the structures on property. Chairman Church asked Mr. Hernandez to describe where the proposed addition will be in relation to the existing canopy heading east. Mr. Hernandez stated that the proposed addition would go beyond the canopy. Sean McCarthy stated that the proposed addition would be at least three feet beyond the canopy. Mr. Hernandez stated that he will provide a photo showing the aerial view with the proposed addition. Gorette Crowe stated that the existing house has stairs that provide access to the rear yard in an emergency and questioned why they propose to remove them. Mr. Hernandez stated that there would be egress windows for emergency access from the third floor. Gorette Crowe stated she has concerns on not supplying stairs for emergency exits and stated that children will be scared to use a window. Sean McCarthy stated that in regards to building coverage, the Code allows for a 30% coverage in the R-5 District for this property. The architect has provided a table to show what the existing coverages are and what is proposed. The table shows that the main building is proposed at 742 square feet, the addition is proposed at 420 square feet, the front covered porch is at 98 square feet. The total coverage proposed is 42% of the lot area and is 12% over what is permitted. Mr. McCarthy stated that the current property has 93% of the impervious surfaces. Removing the 5 (ZBA 4/20/2022) �open deck and shed structures would bring the amount of impervious surfaces down to 67%. Building coverage calculations are based on roofed structures. Margaret Rubick asked if the addition is going to take the place of an existing open deck. Sean McCarthy stated that the application is proposing to remove the existing covered deck. Mr. McCarthy stated that because the existing deck is a roofed structure, it counts in the building coverage calculations. Chairman Church asked where the air conditioning condensers would be located. Mr. Hernandez stated that the air conditioning condensers would be located on the side of the new addition and will not go beyond the line of the existing house. Anne White stated that the application proposes a 50% increase in the building. The proposed building coverage gives the wrong impression because the existing coverage includes the low sheds. The proposed three-story high building would fill up almost as much space on the lot. Seth Markowitz stated it is hard from him to disconnect the driveway variance and the coverage variance from each other because he thinks the 40% coverage requirement would be inclusive of a lot meeting the requirements to have parking on the lot itself. This application shows a strip of impervious surface that cannot be used as a driveway where the applicant is proposing to expand the building. Chairman Church stated that a unanimous vote of four Board members is required in order to obtain a variance. Since there are only four members present, the applicant has the option of adjourning to decision to the next meeting. Chairman Church stated that he sees a problem with the proposed expansion because the two spots in the driveway have worked in the past and the Board heard testimony stating the prior owner parked a large vehicle in the spot. The application proposes to reduce the amount of available parking spaces from two to zero and to increase the number or parking spaces required. The applicant could reduce the parking requirements by repairing the driveway or reducing the number of the proposed bedrooms. Although the application technically results in a reduction of building coverage, it is still a large addition for the lot. Chairman Church suggested that the applicant consider moving the addition further from the back yard or reducing a story on the addition. Gorete Crowe stated that she is also in favor of reducing the amount of bedrooms and that eliminating the third floor would improve fire safety. The existing house already sticks out from the neighboring houses. Margaret Rubick stated as part of the review of a variance, the applicant is required to demonstrate that the alleged hardship is unique and does not apply to a substantial portion of the 6 (ZBA 4/20/2022) �district or neighborhood. A number of people have come forward tonight who believe that the proposed addition would be detrimental to the neighborhood. The property is a rental property and the applicant’s intent is to create revenue: which makes the application a self-created hardship. Craig Lis stated that although several of the variances are existing non-conformities of the property, the real issue is the effect the proposed addition will have on the neighborhood. Decreasing the third-story would open up the sky for neighboring properties and still enable the applicant to accomplish their goals. Mr. Lis stated suggested that the applicant find a way modify the driveway so the two parking spaces in the driveway could be used. Mr. Hernandez stated that he would consult with the applicant, discuss the issues, and resubmit a modified application for the Board to review. Motion was made to adjourn the public hearing to the May 18, 2022 meeting. Moved: Church Seconded: Crowe Vote 4-0 A letter was received from Kevin Donovan, the owner of 12 Continental Street (See Exhibit #3) 3. Michael and Amy Witmer, 214 Harwood Avenue, Proposed screened-in porch and deck additions- Public hearing Chairman Church read the public notice and listed the documents submitted with the application. Chairman Church invited the applicant to present the application. Kimberly Martelli is the Principle of KTM Architect representing the applicants. Ms. Martelli stated that the proposed scope of the work at the Witmers’ single-family residence is to construct a rear yard screened-in-porch and a open deck. Ms. Martelli stated that the goal for constructing the additions is to maintain the existing 8.3-foot side yard setback at the right side of the house so that the architecture aligns with the side façade. The applicants are seeking a variance for a 1.7-foot encroachment into the side yard setback. Ms. Martelli presented the site plan and stated that the proposed porch would be 24 inches above grade. The porch will have a shed roof that is approximately 8 feet high. Chairman Church asked Ms. Martelli to indicate on the site plan where the screened-in-porch and the deck are proposed. Ms. Martelli stated that the proposed screened-in-porch is 13 feet deep by 22.5 feet wide and represented in dark grey on the site plan and the proposed deck is show in light grey on the site plan. Chairman Church asked Ms. Martelli if there are railings proposed for around the deck since it is 24 inches off the ground. 7 (ZBA 4/20/2022) �Ms. Martelli stated that a railing is only proposed for the back side of the deck and the deck will be open to the side yard. Craig Lis asked Ms. Martelli to confirm that the proposed porch and deck will not be seen from the front yard. Ms. Martelli stated that the only thing you will see from the front yard is the side entry stairs leading to the back deck and that the stairs are compliant with the side yard setback. Ms. Martelli stated that the applicants have met with the neighboring property owners that would be effected by the proposed construction and letters of support have been submitted to the Board. (See Exhibit #4) Chairman Church solicited comments from the Board. There were no comments from the Board. Motion was made to open the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Lis Vote 4-0 Chairman Church solicited comments from the public. There were no comments from the public. Motion was made to close the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Rubick Vote 4-0 Chairman Church made a motion to approve the application based on the following criteria: 1. Granting of the area variances will not produce an undesirable change to the neighborhood as the proposed additions will not be visible from the front yard and the neighbors that would be affected by the proposed additions have voiced their support. 2. The requested variances are not substantial due to the existing non-conformities of the property. 3. The requested variances are a feasible and reasonable method for the applicants to achieve the benefits sought. 4. Granting of the area variances for the proposed additions will not cause an impact to the environmental or physical conditions of the neighborhood or the district. 5. The requested variances for the side yard setbacks is self-created but that is not the only factor that the Board considers when reviewing the applications. 8 (ZBA 4/20/2022) �Motion was made to approve the application. Moved: Church Seconded: Rubick Timothy Church, Chairman- yes Margaret Rubick- yes Craig Lis - yes Gorete Crowe- yes Vote 4-0 APPROVED 4. Approval of minutes- February 16, 2022 Motion was made to table the February 16, 2022 minutes to the May 18, 2022 meeting. Moved: Church Seconded: Lis Vote 4-0 Motion was made to adjourn the meeting at 8:20 pm. Moved: Church Seconded: Crowe Vote 4-0 Respectfully Submitted, Pamela Kroll Secretary to the Zoning Board of Appeals 9 (ZBA 4/20/2022) �Exhibit #1 ANNE WHITE TESTIMONY in opposition to the granting of variances to allow for construction of a 3-story addition to the apartment building located at 20 Continental Street Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing April 20, 2022, 7:00 pm RECEIVED APR 2 0 2022 BUILDING DEPT VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW I come before the BZA tonight to oppose the granting of the six (6!) zoning code variances that would be required to allow for construction of the addition that is proposed by the owner of 20 Continental Street. Granting these variances would deny the Continental Street neighborhood the very protections the R5 zoning is designed to assure - the livability of this residential district. Simply put, the proposed 15x28 foot, 3-story addition to the existing apartment building is just too big to squeeze onto this 3000 square foot lot. (5000 sf is required.) Oversized buildings in a crowded neighborhood. The existing building at 20 Continental Street is already oversized in comparison to the other houses on the street, and it would become even more out of scale with the surrounding neighborhood if the variances for the addition were granted. 3-story buildings are allowed in R5 zoning districts, but the height and bulk of this existing building, with its flat roof, already overwhelm and overshadow the adjacent houses. The addition, with three additional bedrooms, would add 50% more space to the existing building, with FAR rising from 1945 to 2911. It's just too big. Overshadowing the neighborhood. Adding an additional 28 feet to the back of the existing building would put the house and yard immediately to the east in shadow for most of the afternoon, with lesser impacts on other adjacent buildings and yards. (See attached Google map view of shadows at about 11 :30 am and imagine the shadows cast by the length of the building when the sun is in the west. Note the smaller shadows of the other houses with peaked roofs). Parking impacts. The existing building at 20 Continental Street currently provides zero parking spaces for the tenants, with six required, according to the Building Department. And while I believe the zoning code allows the current level of noncompliance to continue when a new addition is built, in this case, the level of noncompliance would actually increase, with eight spaces required and zero off-street parking spaces provided for tenants. In fact, it was the issue of parking for Continental Street residents - or rather lack of parking - that first connected me to this neighborhood when I moved to Sleepy Hollow in 2016. After being appointed to the Waterfront Advisory Committee, and charged with reviewing the environmental impacts of proposed plans for the East Parcel, I quickly learned that one of the most important issues for Continental Street residents was too much traffic and too few spaces to park. Now, six years later, this is still the case. With typical Continental Street lots just 30 feet wide, most houses have no off-street parking, and must rely on street parking. This situation will be exacerbated if a new �addition is built at 20 Continental Street, adding three new bedrooms, but with zero parking spaces provided, where 8 are required. Fire danger. With the recent tragic fire just down the street, people are understandably concerned about the dangers of a fire in this crowded neighborhood. The existing building sits less than two feet away from the adjoining house at 18 Continental Street, making the danger of fire spreading very real. (See attached photos.) And the proposed addition would make the situation even worse, with the egress windows from the basement playroom opening into wells on the east side of the building next to the neighbor's property line, where there is no direct escape route to get out to the street. In summary, I urge the BZA to deny the requested variances for this addition, based on the adverse effects it would have on the adjacent houses and the Continental Street neighborhood. This is contrary to the claims of the property owner on his application, that the proposed addition would have "no adverse effect or impact to or in the neighborhood or district." I emphatically disagree. • The already oversized building would become even bigger, overshadowing the neighboring small houses. • The proposed addition, instead of decreasing the level of noncompliance with parking requirements (6 required, 0 provided), instead increases it (8 required, 0 provided), making residents' struggle to find parking even worse. The property owner should provide at least 2 off-street parking spaces, ideally more. • With the existing building so close to the house next door, the danger of fire spreading through the neighborhood is great, and the proposed 3-story addition, with basement egress window wells that open into the back yard of the house next door, would add to the danger of someone being trapped in a fire. Thank you for your time. Anne White 3301 Kendal Way Sleepy Hollow, NY 10591 914-922-1849 ����Exhibit #2 April 11, 2022 Chairman Timothy Church C/O Village of Sleepy Hollow Department of Architecture Land Use Development Buildings and Building Compliance 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, NY 10591 RECEIVED APR 1 8 2022 BUILDING DEPT. VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW To Whom It May Concern: I would like to thank you for this opportunity to allow me to write that I am against the three story addition for 20 Continental Street in Sleepy Hollow. If this addition is granted, I will not be able to put solar panels on my home. The addition will block the sunlight into the family room. master bedroom and the view from the windows of the trees and sky. When digging for the ten foot playroom that they will be responsible for the surrounding homes if their foundations. gas, water and sewer lines are damaged? Item number three on the public notice it talks about parking. Required parking spaces eight and that their existing parking spaces are two (lied on his application). Right now the tenants are not allowed to park in the driveway and there has been a permanent post drilled in the ground that does not allow any tenants to park there. The building department is aware of this issue and I was told in an email from Sean McCarthy on September 23, 2020 that the post would be removed and it has not been removed as of today. The neighbor already has a parking issue. With this addition it will impact our street with more cars needing to park with limited spaces available. The proposed change does not comply with our current zoning code. The proposed addition goes way over the maximum coverage area on a lot where the building is already over maximum. Will there be storm water gutter system for the addition? With the addition they are going to make a play room in the basement and put two egresses facing 18 Continental Street home and if there is a fire they will have to run behind the building for safety (or jump the fence to 18 Continental Streets property which would be a liability issue if someone gets hurt). The egress windows and air condensers should be put facing 22 Continental Street. There will be an impact of noise level with these running day and night to the neighboring homes. If there is a fire there. how would the fire department access the fire in the rear of the building? Are there going to be fire escapes from the second and third 0oor additions? After the 305 N Washington Street fire I am totally against this addition for the safety of our homes which are already too close together and a neighbor that will go up in smoke. Some of the homes on that street were built in 1875. Thank you, Cheryl A Cappello 18 Continental Street Sleepy Hollow, NY 10591 914-261-8325 �1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. Won't be able to get solar panels Additional egresses from addition More garbage less greenery Not enough parking for existing and new tenants in the addition Addition will block sunlight in homes Responsibility of damaged foundations Responsibility of damaged sewer lines Responsibility of damaged water lines Responsibility of damaged gas lines Impact of noise level with three air condensers Egress basement windows for safe exiting of building Storm water gutter system Access to the rear of the building in case of fire �May.18.2022 PAGE. 02:52 PM Exhibit #3 April 18, 2022 Zoning Bo rd of Appeals 28 Beekmap Avenue Sleepy Ho' low NY 10591 Regarding 3 story addition proposed for 20 Continental Street pl ase be advised I am very concerned for neigh­ borhood a . all these houses are already on top of each other, Another c ncern is that there is not enough parking for residents on street now. He does n t meet any minimum requirements presently, St. NY 1/ 1 �Exhibit #4 Dear Neighbor, We are seeking approval from the Village of Sleepy Hollow Zoning Board of Appeals for proposed improvements to our home including a rear, screened-in porch and open deck located at 214 Harwood Avenue. The additions will align with the right side of our current home but require a variance for construction 1.7-feet into the minimum required side yard. We appreciate your support of our application by signing the petition below. /rJh; � Name Havvi s l_ L 5 I{ V/ouvtn--� Jf,e,�p7 Address Name Address Name Address ff, /i,v, )J '7 Address I � .)!lo l¾.l'WDocl be. Ah (,(Cl\ A\-\ubcwrv-.__ Name Address Signature � 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-2022 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_2022-04-20 Approved ZBA Minutes Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2022 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2022 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/b50b05d6d048d327d3b266d56ea0c29b.pdf dbabbd1782f0bbf13988fae2a866328f PDF Text 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 Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2022 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_2022-02-16_138 Harwood Avenue Approved ZBA Resolution Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2022 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2022 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/3ed492dddb26aa0358dfa2c0143bcbf0.pdf fd812275c7e72813d427d58aafd22583 PDF Text 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 Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2022 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_2022-02-16_16 Pokahoe Drive Approved ZBA Resolution Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2022 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2022 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/6c0f126057da3a62b28c0379751b101c.pdf 9999ce988c9c145689738b90099a34fc PDF Text 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 Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2022 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_2022-02-16_9 Hemlock Drive Approved ZBA Resolution Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2022 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2022 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/2f2bc3285da0c535d812d447fe0da3cf.pdf a9a252bd2cfd2fa1c78e9cedf0381d7d PDF Text 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 Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2022 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_2022-02-16_EOH OP Townhomes II Approved ZBA Resolution Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2022 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2022 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/a7b931a4a2928d5a62ed162df4bfdf03.pdf 112562273732ed7f0e762d1c7de77bc1 PDF Text Text Village of Sleepy Hollow Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting February 16, 2022 Acting Chairman Lis called the meeting to order at 7:05 pm. Present: Craig Lis, Acting Chairman Sandra Tripp Thomas Chang Gorete Crowe Margaret Rubick Also Present: Sean McCarthy, Village Architect Joshua Subin, Village Attorney Pamela Kroll, Secretary to the Zoning Board Absent: Timothy Church, Chairman Agenda: 1) Richard and Elizabeth Pacheco, 9 Hemlock Drive, Proposed fencing- Continued public hearing 2) Lighthouse Landing Communities, LLC, Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development, Legend Drive, Phase III, Block O/P, Proposed townhome development, Height variancePublic hearing 3) Sean and Mara Kennedy, 138 Harwood Avenue, Proposed two-story addition- Public hearing 4) Alan and Lauren Perlman, 16 Pokahoe Drive, Proposed additions and alterationsPublic hearing 5) Hudson Pines, LLC, 180 Bedford Road, Interpretation/Appeal, Proposed recreation complex- Public hearing 6) Approval of minutes - December 15, 2021, January 19, 2022 1. Richard and Elizabeth Pacheco, 9 Hemlock Drive, Proposed fencing- Continued Public hearing Chairman Lis stated that the Board has received a revised proposal from the applicant and an additional comment letter from a neighbor (See Exhibit #1). Chairman Lis invited the applicant to describe the changes to the application. Rich Pacheco is the owner of 9 Hemlock Drive. Mr. Pacheco presented a survey and an aerial view of his property to detail where the 15 foot setback is located and where he proposes to 1 (ZBA 2/16/2022) �install a 4 foot high fence. Mr. Pacheco presented photographs of the property and stated that there is existing mature shrubbery that will conceal the view of the fence along Kingsland Road. Mr. Pacheco stated that the proposed fencing will be on his property line and will be approximately 7 feet from Kingsland Road. Mr. Pacheco stated that in order to address the concerns of his neighbor, he proposes to install the fence on an angle at the corner of Kingsland Road, and add additional plantings. Mr. Pacheco stated that the reasons for the proposed 4 foot fence height are that a 3 foot fence would be custom and cost more to install and that they plan on getting a dog, and that breeders recommend installing a fence that is 4 feet high. Chairman Lis solicited comments from the Board. Sean McCarthy asked Mr. Pacheco if any of the shrubbery would need to be removed to install the proposed fencing. Mr. Pacheco stated that two fence contractors have stated that the existing shrubbery would not need to be removed in order to install the fencing. Motion was made to open the public hearing. Moved: Lis Seconded: Rubick Vote 5-0 Chairman Lis solicited comments from the public. Arthur McKinley is the owner of 18 Kingsland Road and stated that he is opposed to the height and extent of the proposed fencing. Mr. McKinley stated that the proposed application fails to meet the five point test for granting zoning variances. Mr. McKinley stated that the application does not provide measurements to show how far the proposed fencing will be from Kingsland Road and disputes that the existing vegetation would need to be removed in order to install the fencing. Chairman Lis questioned if Mr. McKinley would have the same objections to a 3 foot fence and stated that his objection seems to be for the fence regardless of the height. Mr. McKinley stated that he is opposed to fencing in general and stated that Sleepy Hollow Manor has very few fences. Mr. McKinley stated that he is opposed to granting variances and stated that if a 3 foot fence is allowed, then the Board should stick with the Code. Harry Eagan is the owner of 17 Kingsland Road and stated that the fences that exist in Sleepy Hollow Manor are installed in the back yards of properties that are not corner lots and are not seen from the street. Mr. Eagan asked Mr. Pacheco for the cost increase to install the 3 foot fencing. Mr. Pacheco stated that he received two quotes to install the 4 foot high fencing ranging between $12,000-$15,000 and that it would cost over $20,000 to install 3 foot high fencing. 2 (ZBA 2/16/2022) �Amanda Linhart is the owner of 4 Pokahoe Drive and stated that the proposed fence design is transparent and that it will not been seen along Kingsland Road behind the shrubbery. Catherine McKinley is the owner of 18 Kingsland Road and stated that the applicants’ property is not very big and that having a big dog in a fenced area is not common in the neighborhood, and it is not appropriate to leave a dog outside all day. Chairman Lis stated that it is not relevant how the neighbor utilizes the fence. Arthur McKinley requested the proposed setback from Kingsland Road and stated that there are no measurements on the plan. Mr. Pacheco stated that Kingsland Road is approximately 7 feet from his property line and that he plans on hiring a surveyor to stake his property lines before installing the fencing. Sean McCarthy stated that the survey submitted with the application indicates all of the setbacks from the house to the property line. The property line is referenced from the house to the property line, not from the street. The fencing is permitted to be installed on the property line. The distance from the front corner of the house to Kingsland Road is 24.64 feet to the property line and the distance from the rear corner of the house to Kingsland Road is 23.43 feet to the property line. Arthur McKinley asked Mr. McCarthy to explain how the 15 foot distance from the property line is relevant to installing a fence. Mr. McCarthy stated that the 15 foot setback from the property line is where the applicant is permitted to install a fence that is higher than 3 feet without requiring a variance. Motion was made to close the public hearing. Moved: Lis Seconded: Rubick Vote 5-0 Chairman Lis solicited additional comments from the Board. Thomas Chang questioned what the distance is from the property line to the 15 foot setback line. Mr. Pacheco stated that there is approximately 10 feet from the 15 foot setback to the property line. Chairman Lis stated that a fence running through the middle of the side yard would be less aesthetically pleasing than installing the fence along the property line. Chairman Lis made a motion to approve the requested variance based on the following criteria: 1. The requested variance will not create an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood or be a detriment to the nearby properties as the additional 1 foot of 3 (ZBA 2/16/2022) �fencing will not be seen from the road behind the existing shrubbery and if the fence was installed back 15 feet, it would be less pleasing to the neighboring property owners. 2. The requested variance is not substantial as it is only 1 foot more than what is permitted as per the Zoning Code and that most of the issues expressed in opposition are for a fence in general regardless of the height. 3. The benefit sought by the applicant could be achieved by other methods. 4. The requested variance will not cause adverse effects to the environmental condition of the neighborhood. 5. Although the requested variance is a self-created hardship, the property is a corner lot and that is not self-created. Motion was made to approve the requested variance for the 4 foot high fencing with the condition that the shrubbery will remain and be maintained in perpetuity to conceal the fencing along Kingsland Road. Moved: Lis Seconded: Tripp Craig Lis, Acting Chairman- yes Sandra Tripp - yes Thomas Chang -yes Margaret Rubick - yes Gorete Crowe- yes Vote 5-0 APPROVED 2. Lighthouse Landing Communities, LLC, Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development, Legend Drive, Phase III, Block O/P, Proposed townhome development, Height variancePublic Hearing Chairman Lis read the public and listed the documents submitted with the application. Chairman Lis 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 Lis invited the applicant to present the application. Anne Klein is an associate with DelBello Donnellen Weingarten Wise and Wiederkehr, LLC representing the applicant and stated that the public notice sums up the application. Ms. Klein stated similar variances have been granted for buildings within the 300-foot wide reduced height zone and that the current application meets the 5 standards of approval. Chairman Lis requested that the applicant confirm that the additional height will be setback from the edge of the buildings. 4 (ZBA 2/16/2022) �Andrew Tung is an associate of DTS Provident Design Engineering, LLP representing the applicant. Mr. Tung stated that the fourth floor will not be visible from the street. Mr. Tung presented drawings and summarized the proposed application for the requested variance. Chairman Lis asked Sean McCarthy if the Planning Board application has been approved. Sean McCarthy stated that the applicants are seeking Site Plan approval from the Planning Board and pending the decision of the Zoning Board, they will back before the Planning Board at the February 17, 2022 meeting. Chairman Lis solicited comments from the Board. Sandra Tripp asked if there were changes made since the presentation from last month. Mr. Tung stated that no changes have been made to the application since the presentation at last month’s meeting. Sean McCarthy questioned if the the applicant has determined how far the upper floor will be set back from the face of the building. Mr. Tung stated that the distance will vary depending on the homeowner’s selections but the upper floor will be set back at least 7 feet from the face of the building. Sean McCarthy questioned if there will be roof top amenity structures, pergolas, or overhangs in the setback space. Mr. Tung stated that there may be instances where a roof top structure will be constructed at the fourth level. Mr. Tung presented photographs of the building completed in Block-E where a roof top pergola was constructed and stated that the 5-7 feet setback from the face of the building was maintained. Motion was made to open the public hearing. Moved: Lis Seconded: Tripp Vote 5-0 Chairman Lis solicited comments from the public. There were no comments from the public. Motion was made to close the public hearing. Moved: Lis Seconded: Rubick Vote 5-0 Chairman Lis stated that he appreciates the detailed presentation given at the January 19, 2022 meeting stated and that the application meets the criteria to approve the requested variance. 5 (ZBA 2/16/2022) �Motion was made to approve the requested variance for increased building heights. Moved: Lis Seconded: Rubick Craig Lis, Acting Chairman- yes Sandra Tripp - yes Thomas Chang -yes Margaret Rubick - yes Gorete Crowe- yes Vote 5-0 APPROVED 3. Sean and Mara Kennedy, 138 Harwood Avenue, Proposed two-story addition- Public hearing Chairman Lis read the public notice and listed the documents submitted with the application. Chairman Lis 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 Lis invited the applicant to present the application. Frank Tancredi is the architect representing the applicants. Mr. Tancredi stated that the application proposes to demolish the existing single-story family room addition and to construct a two-story addition and a new single story family room addition that includes the expansion of the kitchen that will allow the walls to align with the existing house. The proposed new twostory addition on the back of the house will be a guest suite on the first floor and a master bedroom on the second floor. Mr. Tancredi stated that the neighbors have submitted a letter in support of proposed addition. (See Exhibit #2) Chairman Lis asked Sean McCarthy to confirm that the requested variance is for a pre-existing condition of the property. Sean McCarthy stated that the variance required is for a pre-existing non-conforming condition of the property and that the proposed application meets the requirements for the floor area ratio and increased building coverage. Chairman Lis solicited comments from the Board. There were no comments from the Board. Motion was made to open the public hearing. Moved: Lis Seconded: Tripp Vote 5-0 Chairman Church solicited comments from the public. There were no public comments. 6 (ZBA 2/16/2022) �Motion was made to close the public hearing. Moved: Lis Seconded: Crowe Vote 5-0 Motion was made by Chairman Lis to approve the requested variances for the side yard setback based on the following criteria: 1. Granting of the variances will not cause an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood or be a detriment to the nearby properties as the proposed addition will affect the rear of the property and the neighboring property owner has expressed their support of the application. 2. Granting of the area variances is the feasible and minimal method to achieve the benefits sought by the applicants where the conditions of the property are existing nonconforming. 3. The requested variances are not substantial due to the existing non-conformity of the side yard and the proposed application meets the requirements for floor area and building coverage. 4. The requested variances will not produce an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood. 5. The requested variances are not self-created as the side yard is existing non-conforming. A motion was made to grant the area variances for the side yard setback. Moved: Lis Seconded: Rubick Craig Lis, Acting Chairman- yes Sandra Tripp - yes Thomas Chang -yes Margaret Rubick - yes Gorete Crowe- yes Vote 5-0 APPROVED 4. Alan and Lauren Perlman, 16 Pokahoe Drive, Proposed additions and alterations- Public hearing Chairman Lis read the public notice and listed the documents submitted with the application. Chairman Lis asked Sean McCarthy if all of the mailing receipts have been received. Sean McCarthy stated that all of the mailing receipts have been received. Amanda Linhart is the architect representing the applicant. Ms. Linhart presented photographs and stated that the existing house faces West and the front of the house faces towards the river. 7 (ZBA 2/16/2022) �The portion of the application that requires a variance is the area where they are proposing to construct a covered front porch in the front yard setback. Ms. Linhart shared the construction drawings and stated that the proposed porch will be 9 feet deep and constructed with composite decking. Due to the pitch of the roof, they may need to construct the porch roof in metal instead of shingles. The porch columns will be white paint Azek material. New front stairs and railings will be constructed leading to the front porch. The front porch will be set down two steps from the front landing. Ms. Linhart submitted four written letters of support from the neighboring property owners. (See attached Exhibit #s 3-6). Chairman Lis asked Amanda Linhart to confirm that any additions in the front yard setback would require a variance because the front yard is already existing non-conforming and if the owners are trying to keep it as small as possible. Ms. Linhart stated that the existing house is 29.7 feet from the front yard setback where 30.0 feet is required by Code and that they are requesting a variance for the front yard setback to be 20.70 feet. Ms. Linhart stated that the houses along Pokahoe Drive do not align in a row where you would notice if a house is jutting out past another. Chairman Lis solicited comments from the Board. There were no questions from the Board. Motion was made to open the public hearing. Moved: Lis Seconded: Tripp Vote 5-0 Chairman Lis solicited comments from the public. There were no comments from the public. Motion was made to open the close hearing. Moved: Lis Seconded: Tripp Vote 5-0 Motion was made by Chairman Lis to approve the requested variances for the front yard setback based on the following criteria: 1. Granting of the variances will not cause an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood or be a detriment to the nearby properties as it will be an improvement to the house and the neighboring property owners have expressed their support of the application. 2. Granting of the area variances is the feasible and minimal method to achieve the benefits sought by the applicants where the conditions of the property are existing nonconforming. 8 (ZBA 2/16/2022) �3. The requested variances are not substantial due to the existing non-conformity of the front yard and request to construct a porch that is 9 feet in depth. 4. The requested variances will not produce an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood. 5. The requested variances are self-created but it is not the only factor that the Board considers when granting a variance when the front yard is existing non-conforming. A motion was made to grant the area variances for the front yard setback. Moved: Lis Seconded: Crowe Craig Lis, Acting Chairman- yes Sandra Tripp - yes Thomas Chang -yes Margaret Rubick - yes Gorete Crowe- yes Vote 5-0 APPROVED 5. Hudson Pines, LLC, 180 Bedford Road, Intepretation/Appeal, Proposed recreation complex- Public hearing Chairman Lis read the public notice and listed the documents submitted with the application. Joshua Subin stated that he received a letter today from the applicants’ attorney that addresses issues regarding the appeal in connection to a letter that questions if a variance runs with the land or whether certain code provisions would apply. Mr. Subin stated that if he is to address the attorney’s letter, he would have to brief the Board and it would need to be done at a later date. Mr. Subin suggested that the applicant should move forward with presenting the five factors for at this meeting and depending on how the Board comes out on the vote, it may be moot for him to draft a response memo. If there are legal issues, the Board can address them at an adjourned public hearing. Kimberly Martelli is the architect representing the applicant. Ms. Martelli provided a summary of the previous variance approvals granted by the Zoning Board in 2019 and 2020 in which the existing Carriage House structure was proposed to be lifted. In between the variance approvals and the filing of the Building Permits, the structural engineer and the construction team determined that the ability to lift the Carriage House structure was hazardous to the construction entities and the sub-contractors. Revised construction drawings were filed to specify that new construction was required. The intention is to construct the structure in same location. Although the proposed structure sits within the front yard setbacks, the site is ideal in relation to the planting and level areas above it and that it will be centered between the main house and the other accessory structures on the property. They are requesting that the Board grant the same variances from the previous approvals. Ms. Martelli presented the construction drawings and 9 (ZBA 2/16/2022) �existing site photographs and described the conditions of the site and the location as they relate to the proposed structure. Chairman Lis requested that Ms. Martelli confirm that the difference from the previous application is that they were originally going to keep the Carriage House. Ms. Martelli stated that they previously proposed to lift the structure and build a foundation underneath it. The new structure is proposed to consist of identical foundations and construction. Mr. Subin stated that when a prior variance is granted, a rational explanation must be provided in order to deviate from the variance proving that the application will reach different results on the same facts. Ms. Martelli stated that the main reason for the requested variances outside of the setbacks is to keep the structure at the lowest elevation where the height of the accessory structure will have minimal visibility from the road. Chairman Lis solicited comments from the Board. Sandra Tripp requested that Ms. Martelli present the five factors for granting the variances from the original application. Ms. Martelli read the five factors as documented in the application as follows: 1. No undesirable change will be produced in the neighborhood or be a detriment to nearby communities as the proposed alterations and addition shall remain well screened from neighboring lots. It is a very large lot and the most visibility is from Bedford Road. The existing structure was non-conforming with respect to the front yard setback and height and any new construction or alterations to that footprint would require a variance. 2. The goal of achieving clearance structure head room for recreational activities as an accessory to the primary residence is met by the proposed construction of the Carriage House while maintaining the original character of the building. 3. The requested variances are substantial but are proportional to the scale of the property and the existing site structures. 4. The requested variances will not have adverse effect or impact of the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood as stormwater run-off and increased building coverage shall be routed into the existing stormwater conveyance system. 5. The requested variances are self-created in effort to improve the accessory buildings and functionality of the site for its new homeowners. Margaret Rubick asked Sean McCarthy if a building is existing non-conforming and it is torn down, is it permitted to be rebuilt. Sean McCarthy stated that if an existing non-conforming structure is torn down, it is permitted to be rebuilt. 10 (ZBA 2/16/2022) �Gorete Crowe asked Sean McCarthy why a Stop Work Order was issued for tearing down the building. Sean McCarthy stated that a Building Permit was not issued to tear down the building. A Building Permit was issued to lift the building. Ms. Martelli stated that although revised construction drawings were filed to specify new construction, the Building Permit was issued specifically to reference the municipal board approvals for the lifting of the structure. It was not her intention to not file for Building Permit that specified the demolition and reconstruction of the structure or to deviate from the approvals. Gorete Crowe asked when it was discovered that a permit was not issued. Sean McCarthy stated that a Building Permit was issued in accordance with the variance and Site Plan approval to lift and add to the building and it was discovered when they were informed that the building was demolished. Ms. Martelli stated that the Stop Work Order brought it to their attention that they needed to file revised Building Permits to demolish the structure. Motion was made to open the public hearing for the requested variances. Moved: Church Seconded: Rubick Vote 5-0 Chairman Lis solicited comments from the public. There were no public comments. Motion was made to close the public hearing for the requested variances. Moved: Church Seconded: Crowe Vote 5-0 Motion was made by Chairman Lis to approve the requested variances based on the following criteria: 1. Granting of the variances will not cause an undesirable change to the character to the character of the neighborhood or be a detriment to the nearby properties as the application proposes to build a structure similar to the existing structure that was previously approved for additions and alterations. 2. Granting of the area variances is the feasible and minimal method to achieve the benefits sought by the applicants because the previous approvals for lifting the structure were deemed not safe for construction teams. 3. The requested variances are not substantial due to the size of the lot. 11 (ZBA 2/16/2022) �4. The requested variances will not produce an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood as the stormwater run-off can be handled by the existing systems. 5. The requested variances is self-created but it is not the only factor that the Board considers when granting area variances. A motion was made to grant the area variances. Moved: Lis Seconded: Rubick Craig Lis, Acting Chairman- yes Sandra Tripp - yes Thomas Chang -yes Margaret Rubick - yes Gorete Crowe- yes Vote 5-0 APPROVED 6. Approval of minutes- December 15, 2021, January 19, 2022 Motion was made to approve the December 15, 2021 minutes. Moved: Lis Seconded: Rubick Vote 5-0 Motion was made to approve the January 19, 2022 minutes. Moved: Lis Seconded: Rubick Vote 5-0 Motion was made to adjourn the meeting at 8:33 pm. Moved: Church Seconded: Rubick Vote 5-0 Respectfully Submitted, Pamela Kroll Secretary to the Zoning Board of Appeals 12 (ZBA 2/16/2022) �ARTHUR C. McKINLEY 1 8 KINGSLAND ROAD SLEEPY HOLLOW, NY 1 0591 KINLEY@GMAIL.COM (646) 483-5250 February 14, 2022 Chairman Timothy Church C/O Village of Sleepy Hollow Dept of Architecture, Land Use Dev, Buildings and Building Compliance 28 Beekman Ave Sleepy Hollow, NY I 0591 smccarthy@villageofsleepyhollow.org Exhibit #1 RECEIVED FEB 1 5 2022 BUILDING DEPT, OLLOW VILLAGE Of SLEEPY H RE: Feb 16 Zoning Board of Appeals Hearing Fencing Variance comments for Richard and Elizabeth Pacheco 9 Hemlock Drive Fencing Variance to Article VII 450-40. F Dear Chairman Church and Zoning Board of Appeals Members: I understand there will be another hearing on the Pacheco Fence Variance. I wrote to you before the last meeting (letter attached) and am writing again to underscore several points. Myself and a number of neighbors are opposed to granting this variance. I. We are against variances except in extreme cases ... as they create precedents that severely weaken our village zoning. 2. We are opposed to this zoning variance as it could open the floodgates to a variety of long and high fences that are positioned too near to the roadways and property lines with regard to existing norms and desires of neighborhood. 3. We are opposed because this project fails to meet the 5 POINT TEST for granting zoning variances. a. It creates an UNDESIRABLE CHANGE for the neighborhood (and sets a dangerous precedent). b. The stated reason for a fence (to fence a dog) can be ACHIEVED BY OTHER METHODS c. The requested area variance is NOT ESSENTIAL. d. The proposed variance will have an ADVERSE EFFECT AND IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND PHYSICAL NEIGHBORHOOD. e. Any difficulties caused by this process are entirely SELF CREATED BY THE APPLICANT in seeking such a long and high fence that is too close to the street on a corner lot. None of the neighbor's concerns have been addressed in the resubmission of this fence variance application. No survey has been performed. The various maps and drawings are vague and confusing. The various exhibits seem to contradict themselves and still seem to show the fence continuing to the roadway. There are no exact measurements of the setback. The ground has not been staked or markedjin any way. The construction of the fence will necessitate eliminating a number of existing trees and shrubs. This impacts both Kingsland Road frontage and the neighboring property that will bear the burden of providing plant screening between the properties. Finally there are no reasons given as to the need for such tall and expansive fencing is needed or why a fence, if built, cannot be positioned as per existing zoning regulations and conforming to neighborhood norms. Sincerely, Arthur McKinley cc: Sean McCarthy - Village of Sleepy Hollow - Building Department Pamela Kroll - Secretary, Planning Board of Appeals Maria Goete Crowe - Planning Board of Appeals Margaret Rubick - Planning Board of Appeals Craig Lis - Planning Board of Appeals Sandra Tripp - Planning Board of Appeals Thomas Chang - Planning Board of Appeals Sleepy Hollow Manor Association Board John Dennison, Esq. Attorney at Law �Exhibit #2 FEB 1 4 2022 14 February 2022 w To the Zoning Board of Sleepy Hollow, We live at 126 Harwood Ave, immediately next door to 138 Harwood Avenue, a property for which an application has been made to this Board to construct an addition. T he proposed addition will border immediately on our western property line. We have reviewed the drawings for the addition on the Board's website, and have no objection to its going forward. We have another engagement on the 16th of February, the evening of the Zoning Board meeting, but wish to express our support for the project. We have supported a previous addition by another owner on the same portion of the property, and see no harm in its extension. Sincerely, � I. \� �t(� David and Lois Hinman 126 Harwood Ave Sleepy Hollow NY 10591 914-631-7120 david.hinman@gmail.com lois.hinman@gmail.com �Exhibit #3 February 13, 2022 My name is I live at RECEIVED .:fw1_!j Cw /(}__1 NJ )<!,Afi u£ {}. 511:2:.r?';j Jf II� FEB J 6 20?2 BUILDING Ot:1' 1 • HOLLOW ¥ILi.AGE OF SLEEPY I reviewed the plans by Alan and Lauren Perlman at 16 Pokahoe and I have no objection to their project. Sign� --> �>:;__ �Exhibit #4 February 13, 2022 RECEIVED My name is I live at I� 1-Jl,slu...- CV1.d l'Yki !&ct.av vno.n FEB Peik..a.nee tW'we. , .).� ttili..,""U) t9e-v'dA o..d.d.J-u..,.:vi Mel to Qµ.ri, Df2-� tu<' wuJ w/\Cl \QCLS,S.ll.Vs.� lVI 6 2022 BUILDING DEPT. VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW' " I reviewed the plans by Alan and Lauren Perlman at 16 Pokahoe and I have no objection to their project. � �o.so.d l cd l lo � W-Lj� ill �.s. � �Exhibit #5 February 13, 2022 My name is J)M I live at f g 72-u fj(FY2.TON e Fb�H08' .c::f21 -f- 77<-IC,{.4 Y:::ENf\/ EY ve- I reviewed the plans by Alan and Lauren Perlman at 16 Pokahoe and I have no objection to their project. ' RECEIVED FEB 1 6 2022 BUILDING DEPT. VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLL01 �Exhibit #6 February 13, 2022 RECEIVED t/> Lt, ¼fti_ W/h,� /f &trelt?C.. � FEB l 6 2022 My name is I live at I BUILDING DEPT. VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW I reviewed the plans by Alan and Lauren Perlman at 16 Pokahoe and I have no objection to their project. Signed ( SZJQ/ffi <k,-" j � 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-2022 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_2022-02-16_Approved ZBA Minutes Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2022 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2022 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/60ddfa3be5b9e7a6ceb9fc65d8bd15e4.pdf 92283a62c9ba15b3c7c5afd219dc0017 PDF Text Text RESOLUTION Adopted at the January 19, 2022 Meeting of the Village of Sleepy Hollow Zoning Board of Appeals RESOLUTION: Area Variances PROPOSED: Fencing and detached storage shed LOCATION: 21 Kingsland Road DESIGNATION: Section 110.11, Block 1, Lot 62 Z O N I N G DISTRICT: R-2A WHEREAS, on June 14, 2021 an application was submitted by Jeffrey and Morgan Moriarty (the "Applicants") to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "ZBA") requesting area variances to install fencing and a detached storage shed (the "Application") pursuant to the Article XII of the Zoning Code of the Village of Sleepy Hollow; and W H E R E A S , 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 in the front yard is 3 feet and the proposed front yard fence height is 5 feet; and W H E R E A S , the Applicants are seeking a variance from Article VII, Section 450-40.E.(2) of the Zoning Code, Supplementary regulations, Coverage and open space, Location or accessory uses in residential districts, where the required minimum side yard set-back is 5.00 feet, and the proposed shed side yard set-back is 3.00 feet; and WHEREAS, the Applicants are seeking a variance from Article VII, Section 450-40.E.(2) of the Zoning Code, Supplementary regulations, Coverage and open space, Location or accessory uses in residential districts, where the required minimum distance of a structure from the principle building is 10.00 feet, and the proposed shed distance is 5.00 feet from the principle building; and W H E R E A S , the ZBA held a duly noticed public hearing on December 15, 2021 to hear and consider the application; and W H E R E A S , the ZBA reviewed the following documents: 1. Determination letter prepared by the Building Department, dated September 23, 2021 2. Zoning Board of Appeals application signed by Morgan Moriarty, dated October 13, 2021 3. Zoning Compliance Form 4. Short Environmental Assessment Form Part-1 Project information, signed by Morgan Moriarty, 5. dated October 13, 2021 Property deed dated October 29, 2018 6. Survey of Property prepared by Stephen F. Hippe, L.S., dated October 16, 2018 Page 1 of 5 �7. Property survey copies indicating proposed fencing and shed locations 8. 9. Proposed fencing selection specification sheet Photographs of existing conditions including front of home, existing retaining wall, and proposed shed location 10. Proposed shed specification sheet 11. Letter of support received from the owner of 2 Lakeview in support of 5.00 foot fence, dated November 14, 2021 WHEREAS, testimony was received from Morgan Moriarty as the "Applicants" stating that they are requesting a variance to install a 5 foot high fence around the perimeter of the their property, following the path of the existing retaining wall, to create a closed-in-area that will contain their dog and be safer for their daughter. The proposed fencing that will face Kingsland Road and will be 23 feet back from the property line. The proposed portion of fencing along Kingsland Road, and a 25 foot section along the side yard that borders 3 Lakeview Drive, requires a variance to install fencing above 3 feet in height. Mrs. Moriarty stated that they are seeking a variance to install to install an 8' x 10 'detached storage shed for lawn equipment, 3.00 feet from the property line and 5.00 from the main building where tall landscaping buffers exist and will remain between the shed location and the backyard of the neighboring property; and WHEREAS, Chairman Church stated that they had no issues with the variance request for the shed and suggested that the applicant request an adjournment to the January 19, 2022 meeting and submit additional information or changes to the application for the fencing as the ZBA cannot support the request to grant a variance for a 5 foot height fence; and WHEREAS, on January 18, 2022 the applicants submitted a revised application for the proposed fencing; and WHEREAS, the ZBA held a continued public hearing on January 19, 2022 to hear and consider the revised application; and WHEREAS, the ZBA reviewed the following documents: 1. Letter prepared by the applicants requesting changes to the application received January 18, 2. 2022 Revised property surveys indicating the proposed fencing heights received January 18, 2022 WHEREAS, testimony was received from Morgan Moriarty as the "Applicants" stating that they propose to comply with the 3 foot maximum fence height regulations along the 20 foot length on Lakeview Avenue and are requesting a variance to install 4 foot high fence at the 15 foot length portion on Kingsland Road, within the 30.00 foot setback, where it requires a variance and; WHEREAS, testimony was received from Sean McCarthy, the Building Inspector, stating that the area inside the 30.00 foot setback on Kingsland Road requires a variance to install a 4 foot height fence; the 20 foot length of 3 foot high fencing proposed along Lakeview Avenue that extends into the Village Right-of-Way will require approval and a licensing agreement from the Board of Trustees, and the shed Page 2 of 5 �will be required to meet the New York State Residential Code for fire safety regulations required for the shed material and; WHEREAS, the ZBA closed the public hearing on January 19, 2022; 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 for the proposed detached storage shed: 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 shed location and material is appropriate for the property and no objections have been received from the neighboring property owner. 2. Granting of the area variances is the feasible way to achieve the benefits sought by the applicant to have a detached storage shed near their existing garage and the property owner will comply with the code required fire safety regulations to install a shed at a 5.00 foot distance from the principle building and 3.00 feet from the property line. 3. The requested variances are substantial but no objections have been received from the public or neighboring property owners. 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 a self-created hardship but is not the only factor that the Board considers when granting an area variance. Page 3 of 5 �BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, in weighing the benefit sought by the Applicants against the potential detriment to the health, safety, and general welfare of the neighborhood, the ZBA hereby grants approval for the proposed detached storage shed; 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 proposed fencing will be transparent and will not obstruct views from the public roadways. 2. Granting of the area variance is the feasible way to achieve the benefits sought by the applicant and they were amendable to revising the application to better comply with the Zoning Code regulations. 3. The requested variance is substantial but no objections have been received from the public or neighboring properties. 4. Granting of the requested variance will not have a permanent adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood. 5. Although the required variance is a self-created hardship, it is not the only factor that the Board considers when granting an area variance. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, in weighing the benefit sought to the Applicants against the potential detriment to health, safety, and general welfare of the neighborhood, the ZBA is hereby grants approval for the proposed 4 foot high fencing with the following condition: 1. The proposed fencing along Lakeview Avenue that extends into the Village right-of-way will require approval and a licensing agreement from the Board of Trustees before a Building Permit is issued. 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 Applicant has not obtained the required Building Permit for construction in accordance with the approved plans. Page 4 of 5 �ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOA L/' =t V z cz Z_ Date Timothy Church, Chairman ' I f aJU A I undersigned SaagsSsE -—•—•Sir iuty Clerk Page 5 of 5 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2022 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_2022-01-19_21 Kingsland Road Approved Resolution Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2022 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2022 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/1a39ebf145b1f18f091f173e4c54f6fe.pdf 6df60cfdbe344abdc24aeab4a8de5ea2 PDF Text Text RESOLUTION Adopted at the January 19, 2022 Meeting of the Village of Sleepy Hollow Zoning Board of Appeals RESOLUTION: Area Variances PROPOSED: One-story addition and alterations LOCATION: 145 Hunter Avenue DESIGNATION: Section 110.19, Block 1, Lot 18 ZONING DISTRICT: R-2 WHEREAS, on December 13, 2021 an application was submitted by John & Kristine Mancuso (the "Applicants") to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "ZBA") requesting area variances to construct a one-story addition and alterations (the "Application") pursuant to the Article XII of the Zoning Code of the Village of Sleepy Hollow; and WHEREAS, the Applicants are seeking a variance from Article VI, Section 450-34.B. of the Zoning Code, Applicability of regulations, adding to and altering an existing non-conforming building, where the minimum required lot width is 75.00 feet and the existing lot with is 70.00 feet; and WHEREAS, the Applicants are seeking a variance from Article VII, Section 450-35 of the Zoning Code, Schedule of regulations, where the required minimum front yard set-back is 30.00 feet, the existing front yard set-back is 31.10 feet, and the proposed front yard set-back is 25.10 feet; and WHEREAS, the ZBA has reviewed the following documents: 1. Determination letter prepared by the Building Department, dated December 13, 2021 2. Zoning Board of Appeals application signed by John Mancusso, dated December 13, 2021 3. Zoning Compliance Form prepared by Mark C. Behr, architect, dated December 8, 2021 4. Short Environmental Assessment Form Part-1 Project information, signed by Mark C. Behr, dated December 1, 2021 5. Property deed dated August 1, 2017 and Westchester County Recording recorded August 23, 2017 6. Topographic May prepared by Gabriel E. Senor, P.C. dated March 3, 2021 7. Drawings prepared by Mark C. Behr dated December 8, 2021 as follows: 8. a. TS-Existing & Proposed Site Plans b. A-l-Existing & Proposed Plan & Front Elevation Letter in support of the application received from the owners of 140 Hunter Avenue, dated January 14, 2022 Page 1 of 3 �WHEREAS, the ZBA held a duly noticed public hearing on January 19, 2022 to hear and consider the application; and WHEREAS, testimony was received from John Mancuso stating that they are seeking a variance into their front yard setback to construct a one-story addition to convert an existing powder room to a full bathroom and to expand and create a covered entrance where the existing front entrance faces the road and is exposed to the elements and; WHEREAS, testimony was received from Kristine Mancuso stating that she has spoken with several of the neighboring property owners and they did not have any objections to the application and will submit a letter of support from the neighbor for the public record and; WHEREAS, testimony was received from Sean McCarthy, the Building Inspector, stating that several of the properties on Hunter Avenue are existing non-conforming with the Zoning Code and several property owners have been granted variances for required setbacks 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 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 variance will not create an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or be a detriment to the nearby properties 2. Granting of the area variance for a minor encroachment into the front yard is not substantial, is in keeping of the character of other home on Hunter Avenue, and will be aesthetically pleasing with the existing house. The existing non-conforming lot width will not be affected by the requested variance. Page 2 of 3 �3. The requested variance is minor in relation to the benefit sought by the applicant. 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 not the only factor that the Board considers when granting an area variance. 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 Applicant has not obtained the required Building Permit for construction in accordance with the approved plans. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Date 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-2022 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_2022-01-19_145 Hunter Avenue Approved Resolution Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2022 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2022 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/8334624b89cf123d707e89e0e47b6a41.pdf bcc6d606686a4554b5c5f2b69aea00a7 PDF Text Text Village of Sleepy Hollow Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting January 19, 2022 Chairman Timothy Church called the meeting to order at 7:05 pm. Present: Timothy Church, Chairman Sandra Tripp Thomas Chang Craig Lis Also Present: Sean McCarthy, Village Architect Pamela Kroll, Secretary to the Zoning Board Absent: Margaret Rubick Gorete Crowe 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- Continued public hearing 3) Lighthouse Landing Communities, LLC, Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development, Legend Drive, Phase III, Block O/P, Proposed townhome development- Height variancePresentation 4) John and Kristine Mancuso, 145 Hunter Avenue, Proposed one-story addition and alterations- Public hearing 5) Richard and Elizabeth Pacheco, 9 Hemlock Drive, Proposed fencing- public hearing 6) Approval of minutes - December 15, 2021 1. Michael Gelb and Deborah Domanski, 120 Gorey Brook Road, Determination/AppealContinued Public hearing Chairman Church stated that the applicant submitted a letter stating that the appeal has been settled and requested to withdraw the application. 2. Jeffrey and Morgan Moriarty, 21 Kingsland Road, Proposed fencing and detached storage shed - Continued public hearing Chairman Church stated that the applicant has submitted a letter, revised plans, and photographs. Chairman Church invited the applicant to present the proposed changes to the application. 1 (ZBA 1/19/2022) �Morgan Moriarty and John Moriarty are the owners of 21 Kingsland Road and Mrs. Moriarty presented on their behalf. Mrs. Moriarty presented an example of the proposed shed and stated that the door with the transom will face Kingsland Road. Mrs. Moriarty presented a copy of the property survey and stated that they propose to install the shed near the existing garage and have it located 5-feet from the main house and 3-feet from the property line that adjoins the neighboring property's back yard. Tall shrubs and bushes will provide a buffer from the proposed shed location and the neighbor's property line. Chairman Church asked Sean McCarthy to confirm if there are additional fire safety regulations required when you have a structure 5-feet from the house. Sean McCarthy stated that Chairman Church is correct and that the Building Department would require that the shed meet additional fire safety regulations. Mrs. Moriarty presented an example of the proposed fencing material and stated that it would be a black wrought iron transparent style. Mrs. Moriarty presented a survey and stated that they have revised their application to propose installing a 3- foot high fence along Lakeview Avenue and a 4-foot high fence on the portion of Kingsland Road, at the bottom of the hill, where it requires a variance. Chairman Church questioned if the proposed fencing will be touching the house to the north section line requires a variance. Sean McCarthy stated that the house is on a corner lot and requires that the primary front yard on Kingsland Road have a setback of 30-feet from the property line and the secondary front yard on Lakeview Avenue requires a setback of 15-feet because it is half the distance of the primary front yard. The areas inside the 30-foot setback on Kingsland Road and the areas inside the 15-foot setback on Lakeview Avenue require a variance for fencing to be over 3 feet in height. Mrs. Moriarty stated that they are seeking a variance to install 4-foot high fencing at the 15-foot length of fencing that is within the 30-foot setback on Kingsland Road and 3-foot high fencing at a 20-foot length on the Lakeview Avenue side. Sean McCarthy stated that the proposed section of 3-foot high fencing that extends into the Village right-of-way will require approval and a licensing agreement from the Board of Trustees. Chairman Church solicited comments from the Board. Sandra Tripp requested that Mrs. Moriarty provide more details on the shed. Mrs. Moriarty stated that the proposed shed will be 8-feet by 10-feet and installed 3-feet from the property line and 5-feet from the main building. Craig Lis asked Mrs. Moriarty to confirm that the landscape buffer will remain between her property line and the neighboring property. 2 (ZBA 1/19/2022) �Mrs. Moriarty stated that they plan on keeping and maintaining the landscaping between the two properties. Motion was made to open the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Chang Vote 4-0 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 4-0 Chairman Church made a motion to approve the requested variance for the proposed shed based on the following criteria: 1. The proposed shed location and material is appropriate for the property and will not create an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood and the adjacent property owner has not submitted an objection. 2. The property owner will comply with code required fire safety regulations required to install the shed at a 5-foot distance from the principle building and 3-feet from the neighboring property line. 3. Although the requested variance is a self-created hardship it is not the only factor that the Board considers when granting an area variance. Motion was made to approve the requested variance for the proposed shed. Moved: Church Seconded: Tripp Timothy Church, Chairman- yes Sandra Tripp - yes Thomas Chang -yes Craig Lis - yes Vote 4-0 APPROVED Chairman Church stated that the Board appreciates the owner revising the application for the proposed fencing and stated that the application originally proposed to install 5-foot high fencing in the areas along Lakeview Avenue and Kingsland Road where only a 3-foot high fence was permitted. Chairman Church stated that the Board has been consistent with this application and prior applications to state that elevated fence heights along roads are not favored. The applicant has agreed to comply with the 3-foot high regulations along Lakeview Avenue pending a license agreement from the Board of Trustees for the area in the right-of-way. 3 (ZBA 1/19/2022) �Chairman Church made a motion to approve the requested variance for the proposed 4-foot high fencing based on the following criteria: 1. The proposed fencing material will be transparent from both sides of the fence and will not cause a detriment to the character to the neighborhood. 2. Although a 1-foot increase can be considered substantial, the applicant's desire to have the fence uniform from the corner of the house to Lakeview Avenue will be more aesthetically pleasing than a fence that graduates in height. 3. Although the requested variance is a self-created hardship it is not the only factor that the Board considers when granting an area variance. Motion was made to approve the request variances for the proposed 4-foot high fencing. Moved: Church Seconded: Lis Timothy Church, Chairman- yes Sandra Tripp - yes Thomas Chang -yes Craig Lis - yes Vote 4-0 APPROVED 4. Lighthouse Landing Communities, LLC, Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development, Legend Drive, Phase III, Block O/P, Proposed townhome development, Height variancePresentation Chairman Church stated that the proposed application relates to the buildings that are proposed on the east side of West Parcel, that run adjacent to the rail lines, and are not close to the river. The applicant is proposing a variance for increased building heights of 48 feet where the maximum permitted height is 42 feet. Chairman Church invited the applicant to present the application. Anne Klein is an associate with DelBello Donnellan Weingarten Wise and Wiederkehr, LLC representing the applicant. Ms. Klein stated that the buildings that they are seeking an area variance in the area within the 300-foot wide reduced height zone west and parallel of the railroad. The East Parcel is being developed by the Sleepy Hollow Local Development Corp. and since they are prohibiting residential use on the parcel, the 42 foot height restriction planning rational should no longer exist in that area. The other buildings are permitted to be built to up to 65 feet in height but they are proposing to build all of the buildings at a 48 foot height. Ms. Klein stated that the benefits sought be the applicant outweigh any detriment to public health, safety, and welfare The proposed application is consistent with the Design Guidelines for the Riverfront District and is also consistent with buildings that have been built in the area. Andrew Tung is an associate of DTS Provident Design Engineering, LLP representing the applicant. Mr. Tung provided a summary of the Planning Board approvals and where similar 4 (ZBA 1/19/2022) �variances were previously granted. Mr. Tung presented photographs and described the recent activity on the site related to the Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development. Mr. Tung presented an illustration and cross section to demonstrate where the restricted height zone is located in relation to the East Parcel and where there is no longer residential uses proposed. Mr. Tung presented a rendering and stated that the selected builder proposes to set back the fourth story of the townhome buildings so that it will be perceived as three stories as you walk along Legend Drive. Chairman Church requested that Andrew Tung confirm that the rendering shows the buildings that were previously granted variances for a height of 48 feet in Block O/P and the proposed buildings of which they are seeking a similar variance for. Andrew Tung confirmed that the cross sections demonstrate what Chairman Church described. Mr. Tung presented photographs and described the views as seen from the other 4-story buildings previously approved and constructed. Chairman Church asked if the proposed buildings will be on both sides of the street and if all of the buildings will have the fourth floor setback. Andrew Tung stated that the proposed buildings will only be on the left side of the street and will all have the fourth story set back. Chairman Church asked Mr. Tung to highlight the specific area on the illustration where the applicant is requesting the variances and what is proposed for the buildings in the 65 foot height zone. Mr. Tung stated that the proposed variances are for the Block O/P townhomes facing on Legend Drive at the north end of the site. Mr. Tung stated that they propose that most of the buildings in the Block will have 4 stories and that some may be slightly higher than 48 feet. Chairman Church solicited comments from the Board. Sandra Tripp asked Mr. Tung how area N is planned for development and if it will remain open space. Mr. Tung stated that they are working on plans to combine Block N with Block O/P to contain a club house and an amenity building for the Block O/P residents as well as some on-grade parking. Chairman Church questioned the applicant's next steps. Mr. Tung stated that they have been working with the Planning Board on the site plan application and they were advised that the Zoning Board needed to refer the matter to the Planning Board for their comments. Mr. Tung requested that upon receiving a memo from the Planning Board that the Zoning Board schedule a public hearing for the requested variance. 5 (ZBA 1/19/2022) �Chairman Church solicited comments from Sean McCarthy. Sean McCarthy stated that he is confident that the Planning Board will move at tomorrow's meeting for the Zoning Board to send the application to a public hearing. If the Zoning Board is ready, the public hearing can be set tonight for the February 16, 2022 meeting. A motion was made to schedule a public hearing for the February 16, 2022 meeting pending referral from the Planning Board at the January 20, 2022 meeting. Moved: Church Seconded: Lis Vote 4-0 5. John and Kristine Mancuso, 145 Hunter Avenue, Proposed one-story addition and alterations- 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. Kristine and John Mancuso are the owners of 145 Hunter Avenue. John Mancuso stated that they are seeking a variance into their front yard setback. Mr. Mancuso stated that their application proposes to construct a one-story addition to create a full bathroom, a covered entrance, and to convert the existing unfinished garage into a family room and laundry room. Chairman Church stated that the front yard variance is required to expand the entrance and convert and existing powder room to a full bathroom. Craig Lis asked the Mancuso's to confirm if the front entrance faces the road or the side yard. The Mancuso's stated that the front entrance faces the road. Chairman Church questioned how the proposed addition compares to the other homes on the block in terms of going into the front yard setback. Kristine Mancuso stated that she can't speak specifically to other homes but thinks that most of them are within the range of the 30-32 foot setback. Sean McCarthy stated that Hunter Avenue was the last street in the Manor to be developed and as a result, a lot of the homes and properties on the street are existing non-conforming. Several of the property owners have been before the Zoning Board for expanded setbacks for construction. Chairman Church questioned if the variances were generally granted for the existing nonconformities of the property setbacks. 6 (ZBA 1/19/2022) �Sean McCarthy stated that variances have been granted for expanded setbacks on both sides of the street. Kristine Mancuso stated that have spoken to several of the neighbors and they did not have objections to their application. They also have a letter of support from their neighbors that she will submit for the record. (See Exhibit #1) Motion was made to open the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Chang Vote 4-0 Chairman Church solicited comments from the Board. There were no public comments. Motion was made to close the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Lis Vote 4-0 Motion was made by Chairman Church to approve the requested variance for the front yard setback and the existing non-conforming lot width based on the following criteria: 1. Granting of the variances will not create an undesirable change or be a detriment to the character of the neighborhood. 2. The requested variance for a minor encroachment into the front yard setback is not substantial, is keeping with the other homes on Hunter Avenue that are existing nonconforming, and will be aesthetically pleasing with the existing house. The existing nonconformity of the lot width will not be effected by the requested front yard area variance. 3. The requested variance is minor in relation to the benefit sought by the applicant to achieve their goals for improvements and cannot be achieved by a more feasible method. 4. The requested variances will not produce an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood. 5. Although the requested variances are self-created, it is not the only factor the Board considers when granting an area variance. A motion was made to grant the area variances for the existing lot width and the proposed front yard setback. Moved: Church Seconded: Chang Timothy Church, Chairman- yes Sandra Tripp - yes Thomas Chang -yes 7 (ZBA 1/19/2022) �Craig Lis - yes Vote 4-0 APPROVED 6. Richard and Elizabeth Pacheco, 9 Hemlock Drive, Proposed 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. Chairman Church invited the applicant to present the application. Richard Pacheco is the owner of 9 Hemlock Drive and stated that they propose to install a 4-foot high fence located in the 15-foot setback from Kingsland Road to be consistent with the 4-foot fencing along the perimeter of the back half of his property. Since his property is a corner lot, a variance is required. Sean McCarthy stated that Mr. Pacheco is correct and that the variance is required for the area on the Kingsland Road side of the property because it is the secondary front yard of the corner lot where a maximum height of 3-feet is permitted. Sandra Tripp requested that Mr. Pacheco confirm where the proposed fencing will require a variance. Mr. Pacheco presented the survey and stated that the front of the house is on Hemlock Drive and the side of the house is on Kingsland Road. The proposed fence along Kingsland Road and 15feet going down to the house from Kingsland requires a variance. Mr. Pacheco stated that he proposes to install a black aluminum fence that you can see through from either side of the fence. Mr. Pacheco stated that the owners of 17 Hemlock Drive have the same fence. Mr. Pacheco presented a view from Kingsland Road to his property and stated that there is existing shrubbery that is 12-feet or higher and that the fence is proposed to go in front of it so it will not obstruct views at the corner of the road. Chairman Church asked Mr. Pacheco for the distance of the proposed fence from the curb of the road. Mr. Pacheco stated that the fence is proposed to be 24-inches from the curb and there are several other corner lots in the neighborhood that have fences that are 12-inches or less from the curb. Sean McCarthy stated that fencing is required to be installed on the property and that the distance from the curb pavement cannot be used to determine the location. The dimensions on the survey must be used to determine where the offsets to the property line are located. 8 (ZBA 1/19/2022) �Mr. Pacheco stated that he intends to have the property staked by a surveyor to use as a guide for where the fencing can be installed and asked Sean McCarthy to confirm that the fencing can be installed up to but not on the property line. Sean McCarthy stated that Mr. Pacheco is correct and that fencing can be installed up to but not on the property line. Chairman Church asked Mr. Pacheco to provide the reasons why he is requesting a variance for a 4-foot high fence. Mr. Pacheco stated that a 4-foot fence would provide more protection from children, dogs, or other predators jumping over the fence. The proposed fencing material does not come in 3-foot standard sizes and it would be more cost prohibitive for him to order custom fencing. In order to install 3-foot fencing he would have to use a less attractive fence. Chairman Church suggested that Mr. Pacheco consider installing 3-foot high fence and taller shrubs to protect kids or dogs jumping over the fence. Mr. Pacheco stated that they have considered the taller shrubbery but the dogs could get through the shrubbery and snow can damage the shrubbery. They have also considered the invisible dog fencing but it will not stop anything from coming into the property. Chairman Church stated that the question is whether the goal of containing the yard may be accomplished by installing the 3-foot high fence with 2 to 3-foot wide shrubs that grow to 6-feet in height. Mr. Pacheco stated that he already has shrubbery that is 12-feet high and that dogs can get through the shrubbery and would be able to jump the fence. Chairman Church stated that the restrictions to limit the fence height to 3-feet where it will border roads has improved the aesthetics and safety issues in the Village of Sleepy Hollow. The Board needs to have a compelling reason to grant a variance for a 4-foot fence along Kingsland Road. Mr. Pacheco stated that prior to this application he did not pay attention to the fences in the surrounding neighborhood. Since he has completed the mailing of the public notice to 22 properties, he has realized that over half of them have fences, all but one of them are over 4-feet in height, and there are four corner lots that have 4-foot or higher fences. Mr. Pacheco stated that he wouldn't be an outlaw that would be messing with the aesthetics of the neighborhood. He respects that the Manor has the open feel and that is why he was choosing the fence material he presented. If the variance is not granted, a less attractive fence in the 3.0 feet height may be installed. 9 (ZBA 1/19/2022) �Craig Lis suggested that if Mr. Pacheco brought the fence in 23-feet from Kingsland Road and the corner of the house, he would not require a variance and he would be permitted to make it any size he wanted. Mr. Pacheco stated that this option would cut a quarter of his yard and he would prefer to maximize the contained space and would probably install a 3-foot fence if the variance request is denied. Mr. Pacheco asked Craig Lis if the concern is having a fence along Kingsland Road. Craig Lis stated that the Boards job is to uphold the rules that they are given and they need to have a compelling reason to make exceptions to the rules. Mr. Lis stated that he is providing options that would not require him to come before the Board. Chairman Church asked Mr. Pacheco if there is a portion of the area where he is requesting a variance where he would agree to use a 3-foot fence to minimize the impact on the neighborhood. Mr. Pacheco stated that he would consider cutting the fence diagonally and installing a 3-foot fence with shrubbery at the north corner of Kingsland where it borders the McKinley property, and is not surrounded by shrubs to minimize the visual impact. Chairman Church stated that the application does not have to be resolved tonight. There are only four members of the Board present where there are usually seven. Four votes in favor of the application are required to obtain the variance. If one member of the Board doesn't agree with the approval of a variance, applicants must wait six months before coming back before the Board with the same application. Applicants may return to the Board with a materially different application before six months. Chairman Church suggested that Mr. Pacheco consider different options for an amendment to the application and postpone the vote until the next meeting. Craig Lis stated that a vote at tonight's meeting would need to be unanimous. If the vote is tabled to the next meeting, when there are more members present, the vote would only require the majority vote of four members. Motion was made to open the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Lis Vote 4-0 Chairman Church solicited comments from the public. Harry Eagens lives at 17 Kingsland Road and stated that the owners of 9 Hemlock have made great improvements to the outside of their property. Mr. Eagens stated that there are no fences on Kingsland Road and suggested that the owner install the fencing 8-feet to the east and to be inside the shrubbery to hide the fencing along Kingsland Road. Daphne McKinley is the daughter of Arthur McKinley, the owner of 18 Kingsland Road, and stated that he submitted a letter to the Board and requested that the five points be reviewed 10 (ZBA 1/19/2022) �before the next hearing. Ms. McKinley stated that her family is not in favor of the proposed black iron fence that would be visible from the road and their property line. Chairman Church stated that the Board has received the letter submitted by Arthur McKinley. (See Exhibit #2) There were no other public comments. Motion was made to adjourn the public hearing the February 16, 2022 meeting. Moved: Church Seconded: Lis Vote 4-0 7. Approve of minutes- December 15, 2021 Motion was made to adjourn the table the minutes to the February 16, 2022 meeting. Moved: Church Seconded: Lis Vote 4-0 Motion was made to adjourn the meeting at 8:15 pm. Moved: Church Seconded: Tripp Vote 4-0 Respectfully Submitted, PcUouiAv A'L&M Pamela Kroll Secretary to the Zoning Board of Appeals 11 (ZBA 1/19/2022) �Exhibit #1 Dear Zoning Board of Appeals: BUILDING DEPT. VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW The Mancuso family is seeking an area variance for the front of their home. Currently, there is no entryway, which makes it difficult to walk into the door with their family of four. The scope of the project is to construct a single-story addition in the front of the house. This addition would create an entry closet, a covered entry porch, and expand the half bath to a full bath. We believe the Mancuso's project would be a valuable addition to the neighborhood and therefore support it wholeheartedly. Sincerely, Daniel & Zivile De Roo 140 Hunter Ave �ARTHUR C . MCKINLEY 1 8 KINGSLAND ROAD SLEEPY HOLLOW, N Y 1 0 5 9 1 KINLEY@GMAIL.COM (646) 4 8 3 - 5 2 5 0 EX FFLMT #2 January 18, 2022 Chairman Timothy Church C/O Village of Sleepy Hollow Dept of Architecture, Land Use Dev, Buildings and Building Compliance 28 Beekman Ave Sleepy Hollow, NY 10591 smccarthy@villageofsleepyhollow.org RE: Jan 19 Zoning Board of Appeals Hearing comments for Richard and Elizabeth Pacheco 9 Hemlock Drive Fencing Variance to Article VII 450-40. F Dear Chairman Church and Zoning Board of Appeals Members: I am Arthur McKinley, a longtime resident of Sleepy Hollow, former President of Sleepy Hollow Manor Association and the owner of the home at 18 Kingsland Road just north of, and adjacent to, the Pacheco's property at 9 Hemlock. I and my family are opposed to my neighbors planned fence and any variance that would allow a taller and longer fencing not in keeping with the openness of the Manors. BACKGROUND: The Pacheco's are new to the neighborhood and have undertaken major interior and exterior alterations to their Hemlock/Kingland Rd corner property over the past 9 months .. .with associated noise and contractor traffic. The previous owner had also done extensive work to the house adding a second story to the garage, raising the roof line and getting a zoning variance to build a large deck in the rear. THIS LARGE DECK IS NOT SHOWN ON THEIR 2010 SURVEY MAP. This house is already outsized for its small corner lot. The Pacheco's have now purchased a large dog and applied for a variance that will permit a higher than permitted 4+ foot high fence enclosing the entire rear and sides of their property. This includes over 100 feet of fence directly on my unmarked property line and 75 feet fencing running directly along Kingsland Road. 5 POINT TEST FOR ZONING VARIANCES: We believe a fence covering the entire back, side and corner yards of 9 Hemlock (including a long 75 foot frontage directly on Kingsland Road) does not pass the 5 point test contained in Sleepy Hollow Code Section 450-80,(C)(2)(b). 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 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 benefit sought by the applicant CAN BE ACHIEVED BY SOME ANOTHER METHOD, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance; The requested area variance is NOT ESSENTIAL; The proposed variance will have an ADVERSE EFFECT OR IMPACT on the physical or environmental considerations in the neighborhood or district; and. The alleged DIFFICULTY (if any) was self created. CONSEQUENSES OF ZONING VARIANCES: As is well understood, zoning ordinances and zoning enforcement is put in place to provide conformity and standards that enhance a neighborhoods quality of life and property values. What is the purpose of zoning if variances are routinely granted? If this variance is allowed then a dangerous precedent is set and zoning rules become quickly unenforceable. The flood gates are open to future applications where anyone can point to 9 Hemlock as a reason to get a similar variance to construct their own oversized fencing. FENCES IN THE MANOR: Fences particularly large iron fences are not a part of Sleepy Hollow Manor. Such large high fences are unsightly, unconforming, unneighborly and fortunately almost nonexistent. Sleepy Hollow Manor neighborhood and the surrounding Riverfront Development District are areas where most properties have plant buffers that have grown up along property lines. My 3 daughters ... who grew up in the neighborhood . walked easily from backyard to backyard to visit their friends in the Manor without having to walk or be driven on the roads. The few fences that are in the neighborhood are mostly decorative picket fences under 3 foot high and conforming to code. �ACTUAL FENCE HEIGHT: The application asks for a zoning variance from 3 foot maximum permitted fence height to a 4 foot maximum. HOWEVER, according to the application exhibits, the proposed fence will be constructed from aluminum segments that are already 48 inches high and will be elevated further by foundation footings and posts. So we are talking 4.5 feet. When you consider slopes in the land you end up with fencing over 5 feet in spots. Add the fact that the fence is to be positioned on top of an existing 1-2 foot retaining wall along the property line the actual barrier can be close to 6-7 feet off the nearby ground. SURVEY MARKINGS: I am told by Mr. Pacheco that our Village zoning permits him to construct a fence directly on my property line and intends to place the fence on or near this line (or where he believes it to be). Where exactly is this line? The application contains paper map of a 2010 survey but THE PROPERTY LINE HAS NO PHYSICAL SURVEY MARKINGS OR STAKES. The property line needs to be measured and marked by a surveyor before any variance is even discussed. FENCE SETBACK: As I am not cooperating to have a fence structure on my property line, any fence should not be allowed directly on or near the line but setback on the Pacheco side to allow for construction and maintenance without disruption to my land and to the old growth border stones, trees and shrubs. Currently the property line apparently follows an ancient low stone wall which (because it is all or partially owned by me) should not be disturbed. Similarly, I would not like to see mature border plants including mature Oak trees, Evergreens, Laurel, Dogwood and Rhododendron (mostly rooted on my side of the line) be endangered by construction of footings that this large fence would require. Finally, as a rule of thumb any fencing of any size or style should be positioned with the attractive side facing out from the property on which it is placed. Additionally, the application's drawing show the fence running along a large portion of Kingsland Road. In my understanding, there is a community easement at least 5 feet back from this Kingsland Road where construction should be prohibited. FENCE SAFETY CONCERNS: Mr. Pacheco has mentioned his fear of wild animals like coyotes as a possible justification for needing a extra high fence. I would suggest that a fence of this size and extent creates its own dangers. Deer passing through the area could be trapped, injured or killed by such fencing. Residents will also be endangered, if people on either side of such a fence have to flee an emergency (fire, home invasion, etc.) and need to cross from one property to another they would be dangerously penned in by such a high and long barrier. REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES EXIST: There are a number of alternatives to the proposed fence variance. If the purpose is to contain a dog, the applicants could create a much more affordable and esthetic wireless "invisible pet fence" that will train his animal to stay on his property. as most residents in the Manor ... including us ... have done. If the Pacheco's desires a dog run then a high fence or a fence so close to the property line is not required. If the purpose is protection from wild animals they could bring their dog inside at night, avoid walking anywhere in the town, or perhaps move away from this dangerous area entirely. If they are determined to construct a fence, they should conform to Village zoning and our neighborhood's traditional look, feel and customs. Thank you for enforcing our zoning codes and for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Arthur McKinley cc: Sean McCarthy - Village of Sleepy Hollow - Building Department Pamela Kroll - Secretary, Planning Board of Appeals Maria Goete Crowe - Planning Board of Appeals Margaret Rubick - Planning Board of Appeals Craig Lis - Planning Board of Appeals Sandra Tripp - Planning Board of Appeals Thomas Chang - Planning Board of Appeals Sleepy Hollow Manor Association Board John Dennison, Esq. Attorney at Law � 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-2022 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_2022-01-19_Approved-ZBA-Minutes Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2022 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2022 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