https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/f75cdca24eef8636e5c4239e47d82f8e.pdf 617cdef24492d5746e1b6a73fd7f4cbc PDF Text Text NORTH TARRYTOWN, N.Y. November 13, 1984 ^ ' A meeting was held before the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of North Tarrytown, N.Y. on the above date. Present John Arcate, Chairman Aldo Ceconi Frank Paolantonio Martin Ruane James Margotta, Building Inspector Robert Ponzini, Counsel Chairman Arcate called the meeting to order at 8:15 P.M. The Zoning Board of Appeals of North Tarrytown held a public hearing to consider the request of William Smith Memorials, Inc. of North Tarrytown from a decision of the Building Inspector in denying use of the premises located on the north side of Dell Street and east of North Broadway in violation of Section 62-8B of the Village's Map as Section 17, Block 1, Lot 8. Said property is presently designated as residential. Chairman Arcate explained to all present that a quorum was present, but if they were willing to wait fifteen minutes, another Board member would be present. At 8:35 P.M. the hearing began. Chairman Arcate had the Clerk read the public notice to all present. He then asked if anyone might wish to address the Board. Attorney Inc. owned by a list of all residents had Arthur Litt, representing the William Smith Memorials, Richard*Mihozzi and his brother, presented papers with residents within 200 feet of the company, showing all been advised of tonight's hearing by registered mail. Mr. Litt explained that a variance is not being sought, but to ask the Board to rule that there is a nonconforming use of the rear part of the property that is shown to be residential. The property measures about 175 feet deep, with 100 feet being zoned as commercial, and the remainder is residential. All this property is one lot. Mr. Litt explained how the rear wall of the building, located on the commercial portion, is almost on the line that divides the two zones of the lot, the commercial and the residential portions. At present the rear lot, which is the residential section, is being used by Edward Monks Inc. for storage purposes. Mr. Litt stated that it doesn't matter who uses the lot, as long^as the property continues to be used in substantially the same way as in the past, thus the nonconforming use of the residential area for commercial use continues and should be allowed to continue. Mr. Litt read how the Zoning Ordinance defines "nonconforming use", which* is "a building, structure or use of land existing at the time of enactment of this ordinance, arid which does not conform to the regulations of the district or zone in which it is situated". �-2- • Mr. Litt said the Building Inspector had served an order to remedy violation to his clients, which claimed a business is being operated from a residential area. Mr. Litt gave copies of this form to all Board members. Mr. Litt said there were two mistakes in serving this violation: 1. The residential property has always been used for commercial purposes, dating back to just after the Civil War, long before zoning ordinances existed. Thus, the nonconforming use should be seen as a legal use of the residential portion of the lot. 2. Mr. Monks, who presently is using this residential section of the property, is not operating a business on the property. He rents the space to only keep his trucks there, and to load and unload;stored materials. No money or orders are taken by Mr. Monks at this property, thus the nonconforming use of the property should remain, as over the years this property has so been used for parking and storage. Mr. Litt said the question is, if property has always been to be used for parking and storage, this should not change as long as no significant difference exists in the use of the property. Mr. Litt acknowledged that Mr. Monks has annoyed the neighbors in the past. Mr. Litt said he does not condone this. However, he noted, a nuisance is not a violation of the zoning. Village officials and authorities should handle this part, and get them to cleanup. But, he said, that is very different from abolishing the commercial use of the property, and if the land is not used for commercial business, it is questionable whether there is enough space for residential use. Mr. Litt said the facts are: the present owners of William Smith Memorials, Inc., the Minozzis, bought the business from Mr. Smith in 1973, a business dating back to around 1850. Access to the property was through the backyard. Mr. Litt asked the Board to recognize this as a legal continuation of a nonconforming use. Chairman Areate then asked if anyone else present at the hearing wished to address the Board. Maureen Patten, of 12 Dell Street, asked if an extension had been built on to the original building on the commercial lot. Mr. Smith replied in the affirmative,.that an extra six-feet had been added in September, 1963, so that a crane would fit inside. Ms. Patten complained that Mr. Monks workers make loud noises beginning around 6:00 A.M., six days a week. Mr. William Patten, of 12 Dell Street, spoke, saying his property is directly opposite to the property in question. He noted how when Mr. Smith lived there the property had always been well taken care of. He said the present owners don't take care of the leaves or weeds, and - ;.,*-<T5-"-* -^ijc'Jt ii.t^a'^i^^JrJ^it^f^SAiSiiS^'^isie&A^i^&^Mt^i^^^i^^^^^^ �-3- • that it's a mess. He also noted tar was once burned on the property, which is against the fire code, He said he holds the Minozzis responsible for allowing Mr. Monks to carry on such activities. Mr. Patten said he fears devaluation of his own property due to theappearance of the portion Mr. Monks rents, and because of the loud .noises Mr. Monks makes. Mr. Patten told Board members that the landlord has said he wasn't there to see these happenings, and that he (the landlord) wasn't responsible. Mr. Patten asked if the fire department should not look into such things, and that there is wood lying around and other flammable materials. Chairman Arcate advised Mr. Patten that he in no way condoned such action but that such matters are not within the Zoning Board's jurisdiction. Mr. Patten noted that a large dump truck is there at the property almost daily. Daniel Malone, of 44 Dell Street, told the Board that when Mr. Smith ran his business there was little traffic, somedays he never used his truck at all, compared to now, with several trucks and one dump truck. It was noted that the present lease with Mr. Monks is 18 months old. Prior to then there had been no other tenant. The property has always been used for only one business until 18 months ago. Mr. Minozzi is in the monument business as was Mr. Smith. Now the property is shared by Mr. Minozzi and Mr. Monks. Mr. Monks is a roofing contractor. Mr. Patten explained that when Mr, Smith owned the business the production of monuments took place inside the building and only used the garage and outside for storage, whereas now the rear yard and the garage are used for storage. Mr. Ponzini asked Mr. Smith what kind (s) of vehicle did he use for his business. Mr. Smith said "it was a flatbed with a crane", that was on the property everyday, but not used everyday. Mr. Ponzini then asked him how many vehicles were parked on the property by employees, to which Mr. Smith said two vehicles at the most. Mr. Ponzini asked Mr. Smith if this was the level of operation when he owned the business, to which Mr. Smith replied in the affirmative. Mr. Patten said Mr. Smith put letters on the monuments he sold for 35 years. When the Minozzis bought the business, the work wasn't done at this location. Mr. Ponzini the property for used for parking building, but it asked Mr. Patten-what Mr. Smith used the rear part of when he owned the business. Mr. Patten'said it was and for a small pile of sand on the side of the storage was always clean, and never noisy. Mr. Ponzini asked Mr. Smith what he had stored in the rear yard. Mr. Smith said there was a small sand pile, along with sometimes keeping his truck parked there, as he had to use that part of the yard to gain access to the road. Mr. Ponzini asked what kind of vehicle Mr. "Smith . >avx jvsrik'i v SrsA-=:j-sw.4-„. _'f^-^.ih-!t!Sr«Si/fj&;«^ ! *^'•**,^'^*-:-^'^^Ari<M-iii-ixlMiMM^ia^^^^»^^^^Si �-4had, to which Mr. Smith said he used a 2% ton Chevy truck with a crane. Chairman Arcate asked if deliveries did not come in all at once, which Mr. Smith verified. Mr. Patten noted the sand and gravel was on the southeast side of the property. Mr. William Minozzi said black granite was also stored in the rear when the business was bought by them. He said he feels he and his brother haye done all that is needed to maintain the property. They have painted, made various repairs and put in new concrete where needed. They no longer have a sand or gravel pile. The garage is used for storage. Maureen Patten said there is no backyard to be taken care of any longer, trees and grass are no longer seen, only weeds. Mrs. Mary Patten, of 12 Dell Street, told the Board that she tried to sell her house last year, but was told by a broker they could never sell their house and lot due to the sight across the street (where Mr. Monks presently leases the land), there are ususally three trucks, but at times up to five trucks aire across the street from her house. Trees on the property that is leased have been knocked down. Mrs. Patten spoke, saying the reason we are here is that we shouldn't have to put up with the noise that begins at 6:00 A.M., six days a week, or four hours of tar burning, loud radios or all the trucks. Chairman Arcate said that regardless of what has happened before, and the numerous complaints for actions he does not condone, the question is, can you give the Board facts;that business now takes place on the property that is leased to Edward Monks.? Mr. Ceconi asked Mrs. Patten how long has the business been.going on that has been bothering heir. .Mrs. Patten said only the last 18 months have been a bad time. Otherwise, there were ten good years since the Minozzis came. Mr. Patten said the Edward Monks business has ten to twelve people and three to five trucks on this piece of land. He said this is not at all like when Mr. Smith and one helper used the property. Mr. Smith's truck wasn't in and out on a daily basis. Mr. Smith's backyard was nice and well taken care of, but not anymore. Mr. Ceconi asked if the burning of.the tar was on the police blotter. Mr. Minozzi said tar. burning has not occurred since the complaint was filed. He and his brother, owners of the property, "have it at best shape ever now". Pat Damin, of 14 Dell Street addressed the Board, telling how some of the Monk employees have made rude; comments at her. Her patio faces the property, but she no longer feels comfortable using it due to the lack of privacy with the Monk employees right across the street �during the day. Mr. Minozzi said either he or his brother are there everyday, and it has been very rare that any Monk employees have been at the property except to unload in the late afternoon. Mr. Patten said Mr. Monks has even had a dumpster on the property. Ee feels mice have been caused by this, as never before did the area have a problem with mice. Maureen Patten also said Monk employees have come back on their lunch hour at times. Attorney Litt made some concluding comments. He suggested that the problem is one of nuisance, but not a violation. If the Board does riot rule favorably, this property could never again be used for a commercial business. The neighborsf complaints are for acts he in no way condones. Arid, should the Board decide to rule that residential use is all the lot can be used for, that would still be no guarantee that grass would be cut, or leaves raked. Mr. Litt siad this would not address the problems that the neighbors have. He said the problem seems to center around how business is being carried on - not that there is a business. Chairman: Arcate said Mr.' Litt had characterized Mr. Monks as a contractor, but his business is in roofing, which would explain the tar. Mr. Patten stated that the Minozzi changed the character of the property by who they rented it out to. Mr . Patten said he feels Mr. Monk '^s company has, done wrong,; as have the* Mirio zz is in leas ing the land * to him. Should' Mr . Monks leave, who would come in next if the rear part of the property remains to be allowed for commercial use, or if all the land were commercial? Chairman Arcate said the Board cannot change the zoning, nor can the land be changed. This hearing is for a clarification ruling that the Board is being asked to make. Mr. Ponzini asked Mr. Litt if a new survey had been done, or one he could provide the Board with. M r • Litt saidno recent survey had been done, but he did give the Board a copy of a 1907 survey. Chairman Arcate asked if anyone else wished tp address the Board. If not, the hearing would end "so the Board could hold its business meeting. Chairman Arcate invited all present to stay for the business meeting if they so wished. A motion to end the hearing was made by Mr. Paolantoriio, seconded by Mr. Ruane and was unanimously passed. BUSINESS MEETING Chairman Arcate called the business meeting to order. there were any comments from members of the Board. He asked if �Mr. Paolantoriio said he felt the space in question has been rented to people doing business on a residential portion of the lot. There had never been complaints until Edward Monks, Inc. began to rent the portion they use. This has all changed the character of the property, and he felt the application should be denied. Mr. Ceconi said he felt, it would be of no hardship to the owners that the rear property;remaih*resideritial. As this space is not needed for the operation of their business in monuments, the property's classification should be left as is. Mr. Ceconi then made a motion to leave the present zoning as is. Chairman Arcate explained that the portion that is residential, yet used for commercial business, is a nonconforming use. This raises questions: Does nonconforming use mean that land could be used for a different business than before? The present use of this residential section is not in keeping with the zoning ordinances, or is this a prevailing nonconformity? Mr. Ponzini said part of the property appears commercial and the other part residential. In nonconforming use of residential property for commercial reasons, such non conforming use can cease through improper use. Chairman Arcate asked if the cessation of the use of the residential portion of the lot from the monument business, interrupts the nonconforming use on the residential portion of the lot. He said the zoning ordinances say if nonconforming use is interrupted for,twelve months, such use can no longer resume. Is the use of the land by the Edward Monks business consistent with nonconforming use of property? Mr. Ponzini said the Board has time to come to a decision. It would be advisable, he felt, to get the minutes of tonight's hearing, have a work session, and be able to do some law research. He suggested such a motion be made. Mr. Ruane asked if there was any variance to be denied, to which Chairman Arcate said a variance is not being sought. Tonight's meeting is for a clarification. Mr. Ruane noted that when Edward Monks began renting the property it was to be for use of storage space only. Chairman Arcate said he would like the Board to have a chance to go over the minutes of the request that is before the Board. He said he would entertain a motion to defer, that the^Board adjourn and hold a subsequent meeting at a date in the near future. Mr. Ceconi withdrew his motion and the Board agreed to defer consideration of tonight's hearing. Chairman Arcate asked that; copies of the minutes be sent to Mr. Arthur Litt, Mr. William Patten at 12 Dell Street, and to Mrs. A. Lawski, at 34 Dell Street. �Mr. Ruane made a motion to approve the minutes of the Board's last hearing, which was seconded by Mr. Paolantonio, and unanimously carried. PART II OF BUSINESS MEETING Chairman Areate then addressed the second topic of tonight's business meeting, for a clarification of the Board's last hearing on September 25, 1984. At that time the Board granted a variance to Mr. Achilles Ligeras of 15 Irving Place in North Tarrytown. This variance would allow Mr. Ligeras to park his car on his southerly property line, perpendicular to the street. However, Chairman Arcate said the Board had explained at that time that the Zoning Board had no jurisdiction for moving Village parking spaces to create a curb opening for access to Mr. Ligeras's property. Chairman Arcate told Board members that Mr. John Biros had written a letter to the Board saying he had to deny Mr. Ligeras's request to create a curb opening by moving the location of present parking spaces. Chairman Arcate said there is nothing for the Board to act upon tonight, as the Board has ho power over street parking. Nor can the Board review its decision without an Appeal. Mr. Ruane said he felt the Board cannot add anything further that would alter the situation in any possible way. Mr. Paolantonio said the Board has granted Mr. Ligeras a parking space on the contingency that he get the proper permission from local Village authorities. The Zoning Board went as far as it could go by granting the use of his property for a parking space. Beyond that, it is not in the control of the Board. Mr. Ligeras said that for 10 months he has been trying to get this variance. He said the Building Inspector should give him a building permit to construct the parking area. Chairman Arcate asked what good is a parking space without access to it? The Board has no control oyer giving Mr. Ligeras access. Maybe the curb access should have been/granted before the Zoning Board granted their variance, he noted. Mr. Ligeras asked if Mr. variance. He read his letter will be denied". Mr. Ligeras to go on with his plans\as he he have his decision put into Biros is able to deny the use of the from Mr. Biros, quoting " your request asked why could he not obtain a permit had met all the requirements? Why can't action? Mr. Ligeras made a drawing to show Mr. Biros arid Board members to see his point. He showed; a fire hydrant, and how if five parking spaces were moved over, three feet each, he would be able to have the required width and still be three feet from the hydrant. Mr. Ligeras said Mr. Biros told him the parking spaces at the Van �-8Tassel apartments don't measure 9' x 20', the required size space. So why does everyone make it so hard for him, he asked? Mr. Ligeras said there are three feet of public property next to space 5 that is not used. If all five spaces were moved over three feet each he would meet the required width. Mr. Warner, of Tarrytown addressed the Board. He, as a friend of Mr. Ligeras, spoke on his behalf, asking if there is not something the Village could do to move these parking;spaces over by three feet. Couldn't the laws be bent some, he asked? Chairman Arcate said Mr. Biros finds these five parking spaces one foot short in width each, at present, and that Mr. Biros is concerned about the safety of the use of the street. Mr. Margotta said a curb cut would be needed before a driveway could be paved, and then a building permit would be required, aside from the variance granted. Mr. Ceconi asked Mr. Biros if the Police Chief has anything to do with the laying out of parking spaces. Mr. Biros said the Police enforce, but do not lay out parking spaces, the highway department does. Chairman Arcate said maybe Mr. Ligeras should have had'' to show the Zoning Board evidence that he had.obtained access from the street to his property before the Board^granted the ^variance.He added that r the Zoning Board;has no;authbrity to rule<over the street. Mr. Biros is concerned with the use of ' the street'and * the safety of the s treet. The Board respects Mr. Biros experience and judgment in such matters. Chairman Arcate asked if there was any further business to be taken care of. There being'none, a motion was made to adjourn tonight' s meeting by Mr. Ceconi, seconded by Mr. Paolantonio, and unanimously carried. Respectfully submitted, Linda Fukuchi Acting Clerk � 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-1984 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_1984-11-13 Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1984 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1984 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