https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/d37e418f38475bd86549de24c18093f6.pdf 17b56cd2f54de08291ac59c8aee952ae PDF Text Text 4 '.oninp, Bo i r e of •!orth ?arrv-ov?.n, A u r u s t 2" ,~ 1379 Appfills i f D e c i a l b^< 3 h e l d on th*1 'ibrv^ 'ri '.rs . O t t o K r a i ] . : it t h e r e o u e s t .n Q c c o r c s r . c ? *;ith ';'ne n e a r i n n v;es ne_a OPH of their '.jnuer Section 7-712 or the Vill^.re Lav; to the Board of Zoninji Aore = l3 of -<orth Tarry tov*n, New York, for a reviev: of the action of v ictor R. ?aq;e, building Inspector, ^vi-iit v.'ho issued a building D^rni fo1 : h e c o n s t r u c t i o n of a o n e - f a m i l y h o u s e on t h - p r r n i s e s a t Ho. 17 KAr-lock " ' r i v e , l i o r t h ' T a r r y t o w n , iJev; York. •John A r e a t a , Ch = i r n a n James Marriott a Aldo C e c o n i A11 y . R o b e r t Fc n 7,1 p. i , • r e p r e s e n t i n g ]\<orth Tarrytown Victor R. Page, 31dj?. Insp. Chairman A r e a t a c a l l e d t h e r - e e t i n r t o o r d e r a t 8:15 F..>. F^FSE-IT: .GU, U Lake vie'.; Ave. : -GOerr # Board of Appeals, it he filed. •.:•'.- ...-.«> He Drotested tonight's hearing due to lack of notice. r e a s o n ^. T r-.v rroT-.-s' r a r e h a d c:~cJy.~d "O u .1 c !TJ e xne near?_nEi! rrior t o t h e Aueust Sth neetinr ~. r a n t e 'i. .e r J . a n n i n n o: Zoning afteruhich he suhnitted said letter and a3ked that ei^nT crrer.tir.r aloud to the _ r ~ Eoara n = d nc~ been a v a r i a n c e i?ouid o c c u r a t t h e Au.r:, 3t: edvisecvor - , o = v> -. tnis n o s >i>-le r.CT, a l o n g >-?itn a corrvent That the Board had "disregarded evidence of defective notice". 3. He claimed that Chairnan Arcate had authorized the issuance of a building D e m i t bv the u Building Inspector. Due to the issu .ance or a Building pernit, an2r chance to: , . •**. £ i * 0*^~t _ resc_ve t.aeir dirrerances * Sis*- ^ ^ i ^ ^ chained tne rvu2_j.Gir.tr Derr.it ".'as issu—c -&&-^.&&aa&£»&-^Vd&*^^ in accordance r.*itn ~htt �•t'<-*-*f:—* -2- orders improperly given "to the Building Inspector by the Chairman ^of the Zoning Board of Appeals. • 6. In spite of the Notice of Appeal, Mr. Friou claimed .Chairman Arcate asked Mr. Page to disregard said notice stating the variance and permit at the Aug. 9th hearing. Mr. Friou said Chairman Arcate dealt soley with the issue of a variance at that meeting. 7. He claimed the builder continued action on the plot when it was improper. - 8. He protested actions thus-far taken by taken by the Zoning Board, and said these actions were prejudicial towards others in the neighborhood. He then asked the Board to disqualify itself from this matter until a new board is created. (a) Chairman Arcate did not respond to Mr. Friou at this time as this portion of the hearing is for statements from the public, # Gregory Doherty, 115 Kelbourne Ave., serving as attorney for Mr.£Mrs. Otto Kralj, addressed the Board. Code was not honored. He stated^Section 7-7]2 of the Building He noted that the building on the lot at 17 Hemlock Drive continued in spite of the notice pursuant to Sec. 7-712. His main questions and concerns for his clients are issues of drainage and the siting of the building. Mr. Kralj said he had a land plan from R. Sigvard Johnson** Carchitect of the proposed house at 17 Hemlock Drive). Mr. Kralj said the land plan on said;lot showed no indication of any drainage plans. Mr. Kralj stated he had contacted the American Institute of Architects to find out what constitutes proper drainage. Due to lack of time, he was unable to get the information needed to present to the Board tonight. Mr. Kralj said he was not sure as to how the drainage might cause problems on his property, and thus wants a « definite land plan showing the drainage points. Board member James Margotta then asked Mr. Kralj what information.was I.:- obtained from the American Institute of Architects. �-3Mr. Falasca (builder of intended house at 17 Hemlock Drive) claims the ^ l a n d map does show drainage points and thus where water would flow. He commented on past leaking at the Kralj!s residence. - Mr. Kralj assured all that there is no leakage in his house any longer, and that he had solved his previous drainage problems. Copies of an updated plan of the lot were made and passed around to all Board members and to those.attending the hearing so that they might have a better understanding of the discussion. A copy was also submitted for the records, ^^ Mr. Friou stated he did not accept the plan as being valid. Mr. Falasca said it was the plan submitted to Mr. Page, and that he would have it notarized as soon as possible if such be the need. Mr. Doherty noted that such plan was attached to the letter written by Mr.Johnson on Aug. 2 7th to the Sleepy Hollow Manor Taxpayers, Inc. ^m Mr. Zelig then asked why there was such concern re the drainage. He said the Kralj's lot appears to be especially low, and that surely they have had drainage problems prior to this time. Mr. Kralj again said he needs plans showing how water will drain off from Mr. Z-elig's proposed house. Mr. Kralj said he had asked for such plans back in July, and again at the Aug. 9th hearing. i Mr. Margotta asked if the people have the right to "pick-^his plan ar-art" (Mr. Zelig's- plan) . Village Attorney Robert Ponzini replied that since the 3uilding Inspector had reviewed and approved the plan, sufficient evidence to the contrary must be provided to the Board to allow them to reverse his determination. Building Inspector Page went into great detail explaining how water will drain off Mr. Zelig's lot out into the street *nd not onto the -Kraljws' f r P *^t ' lot. He said he felt tonight's hearing was not needed, that it. is an issue between neighbors, and not one of the Board's need to act unon. �I I !l|-HH> -4- Chairman Arcate asked Mr. Page how much higher lot 7 (Mr. Zelig's) is than lot 6 (Mr. Kralj's). It was mentioned that lot 8 (Mr. Spaulding's) is higher than all other lots in the immediate area. Mr. Doherty asked that both land plans for lot 7 should be submitted for the record, as all attending tonight's hearing only have the revised version. The first plan was dated August 10th, 19 79. The revised plan shows August (no date), 1979, which is the plan both the Building Inspector and Board members have. Mr. Doherty asked for a clarification as to which is the right plan. C*". Chairman Arcate answered, saying the proper and correct plan is on a sheet of 8 1/2" by 11" paper, titled Zelig Property, August (no date), 1979, attached to a two page letter, dated August 27th, 1979* to S.H.M.T. Inc. Mr. Friou asked if Mr, Page had seen the letter and plan prior to tonights hearing, to which Mr. Page replied in the affirmative. • Mr. Friou then asked which plan Mr. Page had had prior to the revised plan, to which Mr. Page replied, "the one dated August 10th". Mr. Margotta stated*he had no objection to the drainage plans as indicated on the submitted plan. He added that he felt it might even;improve the drainage situation. Mr. Ceconi"addressed Mr. Kralj, asking if -there was anv objection oh his part to the updated plan. Mr. Doherty replied for Mr. Kralj, saying he would like to have additional time to discuss and go over the new plan with hin. Mr. Kralj said the initial plan showed hemlocks on the lot. plan says "hemlock screening as proposed". The updated Mr. Kralj wished to know how the henlocks are planned to be planted, how many hemlocks would there be, and of m W?/ ^ y - " ft~ - what height would the hemlocks be? Mr. Zelig reDlied there would be sufficient serpeninc t>rovided bv the - - . . - . - • - - . - - - - • - " . . — • _ hemlocks for the Kralj property to have substantial privacy. Tif^T-^%*^«~>i*8«^Si^ - . . . . . . . . . . �V||--jk!-_ m i Steven Salman, 3 Lakeview Ave. said the Sleepy Hollow Manor Taxpayers, ^ I n c . is concerned over the lot's plan for the location of the driveway on the property at 17 Hemlock D P . He said as the driveway will be on a blind curve, that the location could be very dangerous to the neighborhood. Mr. Page replied, quoting from Mr. Johnson's letter to the Sleepy Hollow Manor Taxpayers Inc. He quoted (see letter) "As to the site line from the driveway easterly; it is obsilcured by plantings on village property which may or may not have been planted by the previous owner of 6. Sleepy Hollow Manor might request the village to remove the obstruction". Chariman Arcate asked if Mr. Page can r?ccomend property owners to remove such circumstances, when needed9 as mentioned in Mr. Johnson's letter. Mr. Page replied affirmatively. Mr. Salman asked that if the plan is l~ft as is for the driveway, would that not be dangerous? J^B Mr. Hoy Nicholas, IB Hemlock Drive, commented on how people tend to race thru that section of Hemlock Drive, and that the driveway location on that plan, if -allowed, would add to the aforementioned' problem. Chairman ^ca.te asked if the subjectof the \ and others could be considered concurrentlv. \ ' . • driveway raised by Mr. Salman It was agreed i+ could. " ' --.Board member Mr. Ceconi spoke, advising th~ people at the 1 hearing that I • the zoning Bacrd of Appeals was limited to the provisions of tfie Zoning Ordinance, and that the Zoning Board could thus not satisfy all desires expressed at thahearing. The Zoning Board cannot preserve this property as - a'vacant lot, and the only way they could control what was done with the lot would be to have purchased the lot themselves. I Mr. Dohertv reSDonded bv reminding all Dresent that thev are not contesting the issuing of the variance, nor are they trying to question whethei $ the^construction can take Dlace-it can, and will. Ke asked that the build- .4. mzbf tr-e house comply with the building codes and have proper drainage. ie^S ,---.* -.>4- --"" '--'- ^- J =-*~*--r~^ ^,~ •:%£-„ *t*i.,s,^&J5^^1^4^^$S^ �W -6- ** ' - Mr. Margotta then addressed those at the hearing,;asking what did the people expect of the Zoning Board? Zoning Board?" And how can everyone "try to steer the He stated that this hearing was a repeat of the August 9th hearing and at thet date the granting of a variance had been acted upon. Mr. Kralj reminded all present that he had requested the land plans back in July, and that it was not until tonight's hearing that he had obtaineda. plan indicating the drainage sites. Mr. Doherty asked that the Board give his client, Mr. Kralj, time to assess the new land plans. ing he objected to the plans on behalf of his client. As of this even- If after looking over the new plans, and no objection is found, the issue will be dropped. Chairman Arcate asked .Mr. Page at what time in the building schedule were the drainage matters taken care of? Mr. Page, along with Mr. Zelig and his builder, Mr. Falasca, replied that this was done late in the building schedule of the house. Chairman Arcate advised Mr. Kralj that it would be helpful in considering his appeal if he could be mort specific. Chairman Arcate asked him what did he want, how much time would be needed, and for want purpose or to what end? Chairman Arcate asked if Mr. Kralj or Mr. Doherty could state their desired renedy, And will they have evidence to present to the Board? Mr. Kralj said he wants an engineer to have sufficient time to apnraise the land in question. Mr. Doherty further defined their need as one week, in which to obtain expert advice, to examine and assess the plans as to the adequacy of the heretofore mentioned drainage plan. If need b£, they could then seek any possible.changes in the plan. Mr. Falasca replied he had nothing against Mr. Doherty's request, but asked that he might continue building, as the drainage is towards the very end of the entire construction. 9 Chairman Arcate then offered to Mr. Doherty and Mr. Kralj -an opportur.iry for two weeks (rather than the one we^k requested) to consult with experts, until they conduct their appraisal of the drainage plan, as well �-7as any new thoughts on the driveway in said period. Chairman Arcate said that the Board could ask Mr. Page to-not grant Certificate of Occupancy for two weeks while the aforementioned appraisal takes place. Mr. Page agreed, saying he was always open to helpful suggest- ions, but reminded all that the plans he approved are in full accord with the Building Code. Chairman Arcate asked if anyone else wished to address the Zoning Board. No ooe indicated a desire to address the Zoning Board, and Chairman Arcate asked for a motion to close the hearing. A motion was made by Mr. Cecconi, and it was seconded by Mr. Margotta. Chairman Arcate stated that before action on the motion to close the hearing, he would like to make a statement responding to the charges made by Mr. Friou at the start of the hearing. Chairman A.rcate stated that these charges were unwarrented, unnecessary, -anc? untrue. The members of the Zoning Board of Appeals, individually and ^Blollectively, were not prejudiced or biased, and were not, before, during or1 since the August 9th hearing and they are not now. no. factual basis for his charge and there is none. Mr. Friou has presented The auestion at the August 9th hearing was solely the determination as to whether a one family house could be built on the lot. question. This hearing properly addressed this It received proper notice, both public and to adjoining property owners (see minutes of Aut. 9th hearing) and those who attended by viture of their preparedness with written statements gave evidence of this. Further, the hearing was conudcted in a. free and open manner. wishing to speak were recognized. All those The time allowed was unlimited and all matters presented by anyone were heard, including subjects which were be2/onc the score of the Zoning Ordinance and therefore beyond the power of the ZBA. '•-g^.t. or. ti-ri= were the nenbers of the Board argumentative or partisan nor was I;up ther sir- - claim's or charges to that effect at the August 9th hearing. �f | jj f FfV jfc I i v -*.-* •-'-••^Thfe hearing* toM^hVbias^bieen- h§ia4rt r&Bjk>TiBe = tO=%-he^^%^ ^^s stated in the begining of the hearing. The appellant agreed to this schedule and stated that no other notice was required. THE ZBA in being responsive and desirous of being helpful to all of the parties arranged for the hearing. Nevertheless it is the opinion of the ZBA that this hear- ing is duplicative of the August 9th hearing and in fact this hearing was not required and/or needed. Further,it is clear that the ZBA has no power to vary the Building Code, Chairman Arcate stated that the ZBA held the hearing in the hope that it would be useful to the parties in working out amicable agreements. He expressed the view that to the extent that the aforementioned drainage plan was available it was new information. Mr. Page indicated that this plan shows topographical lines which he requested. It was given to him early today before the hearing was scheduled and it is attached to a letter to leepy Hollow Manor Taxpayers Inc., dated today, with the understanding of the Zoning Board taht it was to.be discussed at a meeting between'SHM7 Inc. and Mr. Zelig that they had arranged. Hopefully, ths information will be helpful to Mr. Doherty and Mr. Kral3. Clearly, Mr. Friou's unsupported charges are counterpurposeful. Mr. Dbhe-rty expressed the view that the hearing had been both needed and helpful, and that he and his client would use the time unti^L September 18th, at the next meeting of the Zoning Board will hold (hearing for ohter purposes). '^. Friou stated that one person at the August 9th hearing had expressed dissatisfaction to him as to the way the hearing had been conducted. Chariman Arcate asked if he (Mr. Friou) was representing said person tonirht, to which Mr.Friou replied nICoM. _ T.„^_. Chairman Arcate then asked if M~. Friou was "iust presenting an anhonvnous ||v opinion. ifr Mr. Friou replied in the affirmative. Charimsn Arcate asked Mr. Friou if he had any applicaton or appeal ~ •-:'-^x~^ti-cJKidtr»i A^t»A:-*iifcij± iO^M^A^&miS^MmMiiizV^-M^^^^^^S^mej^&i �before the Zoning Board for the purpose of tonight's hearing, to which Ir. Friou replied "No". Mr. Page addressed Mrs. Ashley, President tf the Sleepy Hollow Manor Taxpayers Inc.. He asked for full cooperation from them, and to please return the plans to him within 10 days, Mrs. Ashley suggested that land owners consult Sleepy Hollow .Manor Taxpayers Inc. in the future, so that both sides can work toghther. There being no parties expressing a desire to be heard, the Zoning Board of ADPeals acted uDon the motion to adjourn. The motion was Dassed urA anircouslv, and the hearing closed at 9:50 P.M. Pespectfully yours, Linda-T. Fukuchi �W l S E H A R T , F R I O U 8C K O C H BAR BUILDING 3 6 WEST 4 4 « STREET N E W YORK,NEW YORK 10036 TELEPHONE (212) 7 3 0 - 0 0 4 4 August 28, 1979 Board of Zoning Appeals Village of North Tarrytown 28 Beekman Avenue Tarrytown, New York Re: Variance and Building Permit at 17 Hemlock Drive, North Tarrytown Gentlemen: I reside within 100 feet of the above premises. I was informed at 1:00 P.M. this afternoon that there would be a hearing tonight on appeal from a building permit issued by the village building inspector permitting the construction of a one-family-house on the undersized lot at 17 Hemlock Drive. I hereby protest the holding of the hearing by this Board. My reasons for the protest include, without limitation, the following: 1. This Board has amply demonstrated that it is hopelessly prejudiced in favor of granting of the variance and the building permit without due process. At the hearing on August 9, 1979, which was limited to the question of variance,one-or more board members specifically and positively announced in advance of hearing any evidence that the variance would be granted. That statement of position by Mr. Margotta was acquiesced in by the other members of the Board. 2. The Board at the August 9fhearing disregarded evidence of defective notice and there was no evidence in the record that notice or advertising had been completed in accordance with law. Furthermore there was no indication that the Planning Board had been advised of the application for the variance. 3. At"the hearing oh August 9, 1979 it was made very clear by the'Building Inspector that he had received no application for a building permit and he had not acted for or against a building permit and the Board made it clear �Board of Zoning Appeals - 2 - August 28, 1979 that it was not acting on the building permit. There were no plans available at the August 9 meeting. Nevertheless I am informed that at some time later, and before the minutes were available to the public, the Chairman of the Board ordered the Building Inspector to issue the permit. That action was improper and not within the jurisdiction of the Chairman of the Board of the Zoning Appeals. 4. In giving that order to the Building Inspector, the Chairman of the Board of Zoning Appeals knowingly preempted the possibility of amicable discussions between the builder and the neighbors for resolution of differences. The builder had agreed to have such a meeting but by his action in ordering the permit to be issued, the Chairman of the Board prevented the meeting from taking place. 5. After the Building Inspector had issued a permit in accordance with the orders improperly given to him by the Chairman of the Board of Zoning Appeals, a Notice of Appeal to the Board was served and filed pursuant to Village Law §7-712. The Notice of Appeal also notified the recipients that the automatic stays under that section of the law were applicable. 6. Notwithstanding the existence of a valid Notice of Appeal and the notification of the operation of the stays, the Chairman of the Board of Zoning Appeals, I am informed, then improperly instructed the Building Inspector to disregard the Notice of Appeal because the original hearing on August 9, 1979 had covered both the variance and the building permit. But the Chairman knew that the August 9 meeting only dealt with the variance. 7. Because of the improper interference by the Chairman of the Board of Zoning Appeals in the legal process, the builder continued to construct the home at 17 Hemlock Drive. In view of the prejudicial action of the Chairman of the Board of Zoning Appeals and the knowledge of the builder and owner that such actions were improper, the continued construction of the home by the builder can not be considered to build equities in his behalf, but on the contrary are further evidence, of his bad faith in dealing with the other taxpayers' concerrf^ith this matter in that the builder had promised to meet with neighbors but used that promise only to divert and delay them. 8. The actions to date of the Board of Zoning Appeals have been prejudicial to the existing interests of other taxpayers in the neighborhood and have unreasonably and arbitrarily • "-»..-a: a. isjrts. i--Si i-^w:««K-v&tSv>*S«^.-i^L«-3t-_^_~Jj-i^sa/r.^¥*^ �Board of Zoning Appeals - 3 - August 28, 1979 favored the interests of the owner and of the builder. Those actions of the Board include the secret interference by the Chairman (and possibly others) with orderly due process required by law to the detriment of myself and the other neighbors involved. The actions of the Board of Zoning Appeals in this matter have created an appearance of impropriety on its part. In these circumstances I protest the right and power of this Board to act further on this matter and I ask that the Board disqualify itself and adjourn this proceeding until a proper Board of Zoning Appeals can be constituted. It is not the function of this Board to serve only the interests of builders who wish to obtain variance. The neighboring property owners have rights on which this Board has trampled• Respectfully yours, Robert E. Friou REF:ag �f -,* n-2n -\ W Lo. •- r i -^-— ^ ^j .* / / • / i . <r m August 27, 1979 MEMO - Sleepy Hollow Manor Association FROM - R. Sigvard Johnson for Zelig I understand that a meeting of the 2BA has been called for this evening without prior notice or advertising. I had thought that by answering the full list of questions forwarded to me, in behalf of Mr. ZeHg, that that would be sufficient for communication in good faith. Everyone should be reminded of 62-12. 62-12 Area: B - Nonconforming lots - In any single family detached dwelling nonconforming lot, provided the yards ... shall comply with the for the district R-district only a may be erected on a front, side and rear normal requirements As to location - I have designed hundreds of houses for 30 years and feel quite equipped to site houses well. If the owner of lot 6 will note the set back line of S-2 (10 feet) could have been used quite legally. Lot 6 should be pleased with a set back of over ^0 feet rather than the permitted 10 feet to obviate a garage facing his terrace. The house was sited closer to lot 8, which is located at the minimum set back. As to the removal of trees impairing privacy; removed trees were toward the center of the lot rather than lot line trees which might impair ('privacy.11 One of the large trees removed was in a dangerous condition, and the hemlocks showed evidence of needle damage. Be that as it may, no amount of juggling would have saved those trees. Would that all of the virgin trees of the entire Manor area had been preserved. As it is, there remains over a dozen large oaks, a large hemlock and some dogwoods. As to the narrow dimension of the house facing the street rather than the large one, it would appear to me, that aside from relative impropriety of this question that much of Sleepy Hollow Manor might have been improved by this method of making larger the spaces between houses, witness the house being erected next to A9 Hemlock, for which approval must have been given. As to the site line from the driveway easterly; it ts obscured by plantings on village property which may or may not have been planted by the previous owner of 6. Sleepy Hollow Manor might request the village to remove the obstruction. t L ^^&-s-^^|a^ftS&^v--r« ^^;^^*^-,-:-^^^^r&l^^^*^^^^^^fc^^^|^^-% ^^^~^^^M^^^s^^^0^^^fi^^^f �«. « - ^ i , . # * -2* As to drainage; a heavy rain Saturday last did not show any evidence of drainage from lot 7 to lot 6. Drainage from lot 8 onto lot 7 was not analyzed. A rain water leader with an opened end discharging on 7 has been noted and should be removed. A swale will be placed at the easterly side of 7 to ensure no drainage from black top will reach lot 6. It is to be noted herein that lot 6 has a history of basement water problems. The soil is, with the exception of top soil, almost pure river bottom sand with no plastic fines. A dry well will be installed to intercept roof water. As to"screeningn to protect lot 6's terrace, Mr. Zelig has already noted a willingness to plant fast growing hemlocks at the easterly side of his property (or another species due to the danger of needle disease in hemlocks.) One would surmise that now that the 1501 side yard has been reduced to some 75 feet, that lot 6 might also contemplate further protection for itself as well as for lot 7» 62 - 3F2 (as amended 7~8~7*0 might be investigated as a k foot high fence in advance of the legal set back. As far as the location of the garage door is concerned, it may be of interest that some enlighteried communities bar front entrances to garages. (Kings Point.) I trust that this answers the specicivity requested by your telephoned list. Respectful ly, R. Sigvard Johnson c-ZSA Zel ig Falasca • 5&^ , s,-=s<: < * r t J>. ,-il».-/t-*.j*i ~s..: rf&'*^SS&rfS3BMiiit^*V.5SS'ii5£ ^*ifea^2i^^3B^6*£5fifesia&fel!^S£S �% £ „ STMLD\HS°. //pf* i'»c/^ nfMLOOC Cc /if c A v"{5 OKI YE AW ^ �m\ BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS VILLAGE OF NORTH TARRYTOWN COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER, STATE OF NEW YORK In the Matter of The Application of OTTO KRALJ and ALEXANDRA KRALJ, Petitioners, For a Determination Pursuant to Section 7-712 of the Village Law of the State of New York -againstVICTOR R. PAGE, as Building Inspector, on the Issuance of a Building Permit on the Application of VICTOR 7.F.LTG, NOTICE OF APPEAL Respondents. SIRS: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Otto Krajl and Alexandra Kralj, persons aggrieved, hereby appeal under Section 7-712 of the Village Law to the Board of Zoning Appeals of North Tarrytown, New York, for a review of the determination of Victor R, Page, Building Inspector, an adainistrative official of the Village of North Tarrytown, to issue a building permit for the construction of a one-family house on the premises at No. 17 Hemlock Drive, North Tarrytown, New York; and PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that this appeal. stays all it proceedings in furtherance of the action under the issuance of such building permit, pursuant to the provisions of Section 7-712 of the Village Law. ^iteis^.^^M^^^^ g. �\ The Board of Zoning Appeals is requested to fix a reasonable time for the hearing of this appeal and to give due notice thereof to the parties hereto and to decide the same within sixty-two days after the final hearing. Yours, etc., GORY H. DOHERTY Attorney for Petitioners,Otto Kralj and Alexandra Kralj Office and Post_ Off ice Address 115 Kelburne Avenue North Tarrytown, New York 10591 Telephone: 631 1436 TO: Board of Zoning Appeals 28 Beekman Avenue North Tarrytown, NT 10591 Victor R. Page Building Inspector 23 Beekman Avenue North Tarrytown, NX 10591 Victor Zelig 34 Miller Avenue North Tarrytown, NY 10591 AUG 20 1979 ^^^^^SSA^^^Mfy^S^^SiiSi^Md^k~^^-J^I^SSMAi^f^S^M^^kSS^^^^^&^ �$ ^ )-? S3 W g >* o & a* p* < C3 £5 M £5 O «SJ o g o EH co X! +5 o U -p O W J2S Q> SB «H O 0) bO OS H H > <H O u Q> •P •P o {>» +> o o - Pi eti m Pi (V u Q> o *l-f O EH * -p E-t^a CO.-p Pi •« CO 0) XJ -p Ha '^isrsssps- *-<—***• <Hm OJ«4 oS •HP &• i • +>s t . ft <4'<cJ( «H bfc> Pi a •a o ««x> -a P O O r-fOJ H 'jl^^p* 3i ti 1' ©P*O I tod© -p ojpeud • CO O to u o P< to « O •H •P •H +> a) « •H WOffp © IX, (fl O *r!05 t»0 << - t f O af-Oih-M O - UJ g o ~vO o 5Q i- o) > H •p *> §Zu O r-J z o 0) a> © -^5 t£P«S H o •p •p UMOpC-4 H • > i i » 4 * - 9 « U r - a ^ ^ 5 S - g-^SmPlj^e-Kc 5ssj^rf^iKS^"- l ^ S ! , * ^ S i - ' en in >- p w ^ EHCft-td&3 od EH •P • -SSL 33 O^ ^ co Q> . *-^3L*-^*-" iB*TfflS*^W3 i-^S^l^-^^1'=*'J i&w»"'j*ie - ~-" ! ' - v 8 s '" i ^ = " ' P ^ r - ' - i=-V*--^**S-=' vf^r^ � 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-1979 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_1979-08-27 Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1979 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1979 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