https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/d876bf47a692b2cc5c9231a7785e865e.pdf dd6143f15716c9ac6210bef1941cc03b PDF Text Text At an adjourned meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of North Tarrytown, N. Y. held at the Corporation Rooms in said Village on the 26th day of January, 1932. Present: Gerald B. Gould, Chairman William C. Schmidt John K. Mullon David Page, Jr. John J. Lofaro, Secretary John J. Sinnott, Corporation Counsel Mr. Gould called the meeting to order at 7:35 P.M. He stated that this was an adjourned meeting called for the purpose of hearing Mr. Sinnott1s views on the question regarding the enforcement of the Zoning violation existing on premises known as "Red Gables." Mr. Gould then called upon Mr. Sinnott. Mr. Sinnott stated that nothing was done toy him as counsel in the way of bringing a law suit to restrain the owners from using the premises as an apartment house. He said that he was directed toy the Board of Trustees not to toring such a suit. Mr. Sinnott stated that he thought the litigation for the purposes of obtaining equitable relief would toe an expensive proceeding and needed the sanction of the Board of Trustees "before such expenses were incurred. He said that the Board of Trustees felt that inasmuch as the changes or alterations were on the interior of the building, no one suffered any damage. Mr. Sinnott said that Mayor Gross told him that he (Mayor Gross) had a conference with one Mr. Williams of the law firm of Crandall, Grant and Williams, attorneys for the owners of "Red Gables" and that the said Mr. Williams told Mayor Gross that the owners were about to dispose of the said property to a purchaser v/ho would convert the building to a one-fiamily residence; that shortly after and following the Mayors statement to him, Mr. Sinnott wrote to the attorneys of the owners of said premises concerning the said conference and the same was confirm- �, ". : ! i it: tl- I i �ed by s. Mr. Grant of the above mentioned firm who, in addition to Mr. Williams* remark, said that the owners had no intention of continuing the use of the building as an apartment house although they had a right to do so and dispose of the said building to their best advantage. Mr. Sinnott said that he Mad more than one discussion with the Board of Trustees on this same subject and felt that since he is employed by the Board of Trustees, and under their direction, he must comply with their orders. He said that since the matter was referred to him, no communications were ever submitted to him by the Board of Trustees. He further said that a few days after this Board referred to him the matter of the violation, he took it up with the Board of Trustees and that his recollection in the matter was that the Board of Trustees passed a resolution directing him not to do anything regarding same. Mr. Gould pointed out to Mr. Sinnott that his- report disclosed a very peculiar situation, which in practical effect seemed to be quite contrary to the intention of the law. The Board of Appeals differs from all other village departments, in that it is the only one which, under the law, does not serve at the pleasure of the Board of Trustees. Furthermore, its decisions are definitely only reviewable by the Supreme Court. These facts, in conjunction with the definitemention in the law of the right of any village officer to bring certiorari proceedings for the review of the decisions of the Board of Appeals makes it perfectly clear the intention of the law is that the decisions of this Board shall be absolutely free from interference of a political nature. The law also provides that it shall be enforced by the Building Inspector, or by the Board of Appeals, or, as a last resort, by the Board of Trustees, and that the members of the Board of Appeals felt that a definite duty was. placed upon them by the law, and that this responsibility would not be relieved by assuming that the Board of Trustees had the exclusive power to enforce the provisions of the ordinance. Mr. Gould pointed out that the situation described by Mr. Sinnott was quite contrary to the understanding of the members of the Board of Appeals as to the powers and duties of the various officers involved. His explanation indicated that the Board of Trustees, none of whom had attended the public hearing in the case, of "Red Gables" had twice definitely instructed him as Village Counsel, not to bring any action in this case and that their decision was apparently based at least �r • !. < list I i»M » 3 �upon a partial review, supposedly of the merits of the case, with which noasof the Board of Trustees were familiar. The Board of Appeals had assumed that the proper procedure was to turn over matters requiring legal action to the Village Counsel as the only legal counsel provided for under the law, on the assumption that he would take such steps as were needed to enforce the decisions of this Board, but the situation had taken quite a different turn, for the practical effect of the decision of the Board of Trustees in instructing him not to take action in this case was equivalent to assuming the power of review and reversal of the actions of the Board of Appeals. Mr. Gould therefore requested Mr. Sinnott to carefully consider the question of proper procedure for the enforcement of the Zoning Law, not only in the case of "Red Gables", but for all future cases, to confer with the Board of Trustees for the purpose of agreeing upon a proper method of procedure which would lead to adequate enforcement of the law without friction or misunderstanding between the two Boards, and to report back to the Board of Appeals at an early date. Thereafter an informal discussion by the members of the Board ensued, after which Mr. Sinnott promised this Board that he would take up the question with the Board of Trustees and report to this Board at his earliest convenience. On motion of Mr. Schmidt and duly seconded, the meeting was adjourned at 8:30 P. M. �i A* �Extract of Minutes of BOARD OP TRUSTEES Executive Session - Sept. 25, 1931. Corporation Counsel Sinnott stated that he had "been directed by the Zoning Board of Appeals to proceed immediately .with injunction proceedings to restrain the use of "Red Gables" as an apartment house. Mr. Sinnott stated that the case would have to go to the Supreme Court and would result in an expensive lawsuit. Mr. Sinnott stated that all the Zoning Board of Appeals could do was to render an opinion. He stated that the Board of Trustees was the body which should act if any action was to be taken. Moved by Carney and seconded by Mahoney that this matter be left in Counsels hands. �^'V i •:> �V ft V > ^ • A* * * .vv * "* i •* ' t „ " '- < - ' S M C ' " *, . w - - j -J - &',« V C'*''v * �$&iX t ai- <vz&m$m &m$M $j$Jtao$ erf%t l o g u i d e s ? ^Xd^^on a8X*?||®<x ©iff ?*4t#tt#6¥ ,$jAJto»f9 %&bmM£fg no MeiC ©cf XXIw *Xa#f$A l o * :ocf tfase aalqoQ MJJOO , a bXA1©£ ctJblxrrxloa , 0 m&iXXXW noXXxrM , 3 nrioli tjonnta .L rrrfoL � 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-1932 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_1932-01-26 Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1932 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1932 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