https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/d320271681c6869b6220533f571485d5.pdf c67dc194ec4e6e4e4a246486923d8f40 PDF Text Text \ .oning Board North Tarrytown, N.Y July 18, 1985 Present: % John Arcate, Chairman Edward Swaby Frank Paolantonio Aldo Ceconi Robert Peirce, Attorney James Margotta, Building Inspector Absent: Martin Ruane The Zoning Board of Appeals of North Tarrytown held a public hearing on July 18, 1985, to consider the application for a variance regarding the property owned by Olive Degina, 282 North Washington Street. Chairman Arcate called the hearing to order at 8:00 P.M. and asked the Clerk to read the first public notice to all present for the Board to consider. Mr. Arthur A. Litt, Attorney for Contract Vendee, Leonard Losier and Olive Degina, owner, explained the reasons for their request for a variance to permit the use of a building at 282 North Washington Street as a five-dwelling residence. The property in question belonged to the Foley family years ago and the rear building (proposed five-dwelling residence) was the dairy. Mr. Litt stated that there is sufficient square footage of property to legally allow six dwelling units and applicant is only proposing five units. He also stated that there will be sufficient space for parking and the applicant wishes to be granted a variance to put this building to legal.use. The building in question is not the principle structure and is a noh-conforming structure built before 1964. Mr. Litt quoted from the Village Code (62.23) and stated that according to the ordinance, applicant should be allowed to use this building as he wishes: The building will not be extended in any way and there will be no change in the building. Mr. Margotta called attention to his memo to,Mr.:Losier (copy attached) setting forth reasons (Code 62.7C) for'refusing * application for a variance; Mr. Margotta also distributed copies of the survey of property to members of the Board. Mr. Litt stated further that he felt the,key word is, 'hereafter', this should only apply to a new building, not one that has been on the property for years. Mr. Litt asked the Board to make a ruling that the building is nonconforming and that applicant be allowed to use his property for dwelling units. He stated that the building is unique and can only be used for dwelling units. Mr. Michael Frascati, 250 Kelbourne Avenue, representing Mr4>. J. Beni of 290 North Washington Street, stated ;that7this area has previously beeii'zoned for 'moderate density' and, if the Board grants this variance and issues a . building permit, the long-range affects of this decision*could be devastating to the Village of North Tarrytown. It could He a precedent-setting decisioh° and, therefore, a 'moderate density' area would become a 'high density' area �-2which would create parking and traffic problems. Village Code 62. 7C states, "... only one principle residential building and its accessory buildings shall hereafter be erected on any one lot". He argued that only a prime residence can be altered, not an additional building on property. There were many objections to granting this variance heard from residents of the area: Mr. D. Caetano agreed wholeheartedly with Mr. Frascati as did Mr. J. DiFelice, who stated that to put five dwelling units in the building in question would create what he called, "alley houses". Mr. C. Occhipinti said that the bulding in question overhangs his property which creates a drainage problem and the building is too close to the property line. Mr. Sean Tracy also objected to the Board granting a variance because he agreed that it would cause the area to become one of 'high density' and he is concerned that the amount of traffie, parking problems, and number of people would become unbearable. Mr. James McStay, 33 Lawrence Avenue, said his property is directly behind subject property and he feels that with dwelling units in this building there would be an invasion of his privacy. Mr. Litt advised the residents that he appreciated their statements and suggested that the Board of Trustees change the zoning regulations. Mr. S. Labruzzo, 300 North Washington Street questioned whether or not every house on North Washington Street could be made into a six-family dwelling. Mr. Margotta advised that New York State Code on multi-family dwellings allows 3 to 4 families in one house in this zone. Mr. Litt also advised that the Zoning Ordinance allows an owner to have three dwelling units in a lot of 5,000 sq. ft. The lot in question has 10,000 sq. ft. and therefore he stated that it should be possible to have six dwelling units there. Mr. Swaby requested the Attorney's opinion on this situation arid asked if a non-conforming building can be put to use again. He was advised that it can be if it is not in use for twelve consecutive months. Mr. Peirce said that the structure was non-conforming before 1964, useage was nonconforming in 1964, and the proposed use will not be non-conforming. Mr. DiFelice reminded the Board that the owner was turned down years ago when a request was made for a variance. Mr. Arcate advised that the differences of interpretation are drawn from Code 62.7C. Mr. Litt said, 1) that section does not apply, i.e., "hereafter erected", 2) regardless of Ordinance, Mr. Litt stated that he made a case for a variance from that Ordinance. On a question from Mr. Ceconi, he was informed by Mr. Litt that Mrs. Degina has owned this property for 21 years. Mr. Litt also stated that if there are anyiproblems,that*can be taken care of in regarding to construction, the owner would be happy to do the alterations. Mr. Caetano questioned whether there is. sufficient space for fire apparatus entering and exiting the property. Hearing closed at 8:55 P.M. • �-3BUSINESS MEETING % Mr.Swaby made a motion1that a decision be made tonight after the Board conducts their business meeting; motion seconded by Mr. Ceconi. Mr. Arcate said the Board should consider 62.7B also. Mr. Litt argued that sectiori(62-7C),?whichprohibits the existence of more than one principal residential building on any one lot, was not controlling for purposes;of considering this application since, it was not the intention of the applicant to "hereafter" erect a building; as set forth in sub-division B of that same section. However, a careful review of the entire sub-division B reveals that it further provided, to wit: ... (nor shall any) building or portion of a building be used ... unless in conformity with all regulations herein specified. (emphasis added) Accordingly, since the applicant does intend to modify the use of the accessory structure to that of a second principal residence, he ..is now governedby the provisions(of 62-7B. Furthermore, since the intended use is not in conformity with 62-7C.the application must be denied. It is noted that there was a failure of proof by the applicant with respect to any allegation of hardship or practical difficulties with the property and its structures as they presently exist. • Mr. Swaby does not feel a variance should'be given and Mr. Ceconi agreed. After the Board's discussion, Mr. Ceconi.made a motion to deny the request for a variance which was seconded by Mr: Paolantoriio. Oh the question: Is the Board satisfied that the"application would be inconsistent with 62.7B and C; Code 62.2A should be considered. Mr. Arcate polled the Board and their vote was 4-0 not to grant variance based on Code 62.7B, 62.2, and 62.40C. Mr. Arc ate * added that the Zoning Board;should draw the a ttention of the Planning Board to - North Washing tori'.-' Street (as to whether the R5 zoning 1 is appropriate and suggest to them that u^-zoning might be in order to maintain the present character of this portion of North Tarrytown. Respectfully submitted, Marie Timmings Acting Clerk �Zoning Board meeting of July 18, 1985 Present: % John Arcate, Chairman Edward Swaby Frank Paolantonio Aldo Ceconi Robert Peirce, Attorney James Margotta, Building Inspector Ab s en t: Mar t in Ruane The Zoning Board met at 9:10 p.m. to consider the application for variance by the Tarrytown Realty Corp. and Jandrea Realty Corp. Mrs. K. Lingardo, Pine Close, representing the Webber Park Assoc, was the first to speak. Mrs. Lingardo read a statement (attached), signed by herself as President of the Association and by Grace Buonanno, Vice President; she also presented several pages of signatures on a petition in strong opposition to the granting of any change in the present variance or allowing further expansion of car dealerships in the Webber Park area. In response to several questions from Mrs . Lingardo, Mr. John Pappalardo, Attorney representing Mr. George Kahn, explained the meaning of "contract vendee" and further explained that Tarrytown Realty Corp. is no longer involved and application should be amended to read George Kahn, owner. Mrs. Lingardo was also informed that the Jandrea Realty Corp. is a registered corporation in the State of New York. Several concerns of Webber Park residents were,voiced by Mrs. Lingardo: Where will employees of Tappan Motors park,,during work hours? 'k What parking is allocated to the Animal Hospital? Why does Tappan Motors want this property? Has an environmental study been made? Mr. Arcate stated that the only questions to be considered is whether or not the owner may proceed with the proposed 10 foot front yard and the type of use for which he is applying. Mr. Pappalardo made a statement to the Board regarding the proposed use of this property by George Kahn and will present to the Board a report on environmental impact. Application for variance is being made for a single variance which stems from his client's wish to build a new building which would be in violation to the set-back requirements. Applicant also wishes clarification on two issues: Does a service/repair station fall into the category of a .. gas station and could it be construed to be an auto sales (62.20) place which would be affected by the 300' limitation? 0 The building on property .presently will be torn down. Applicant is requesting a variance of the 20' set-back; all other requirements will be met. A 10' set-back would allow parking in the rear and space for auto repair and would also bring building in line with others on the block. There were several questions directed to Mr. Pappalardo regarding .. <^>*-,^-;rA;>jvArv<y. »5T^««- ^iii^^AaEfeiKaftss^iasaSaifeSSfi^S T,>J �-2whether or not the property would be used as a service center, if gasoline would be sold, if this would be a sales place. He informed the Board that there will be no gasoline sold on the property. % Mrs. Lirigardo further stated that the Webber Park Association is concerned about additional traffic through the Park and the added noise and fumes. She also asked if the Zoning Board has the power to withdraw a decision on a variance if terms and conditions are found to be untrue. Mr. Arcate informed her that parties must bring an appeal before the Board. Mr. Patrick Munroe, 63 New Broadway, urged the Board to do what it can to deny variance and keep proposed use of this property from coming into being. Mr. Munroe pointed out that he had walked the area between 7 and 8 p.m. and found 238 cars parked along Rt. 9 with the potential of 337 cars. He urged the Board to block this variance. Mrs. H. Napolitano, 122 Van Tassel Avenue, spoke of the lack of sidewalks on Gordon Avenue, her concern about cars parked on the sidewalk on the west side of New Broadway, and the fact that the auto dealer conducts business in the street thus causing traffic and pedestrian hazards. Mr. Frank Hrotko, Gordon Avenue, advised the Board that he feels the present Tappan Motors repair shop is a "dump" and that the new site will look the same in a few months. He also stressed the fact that there is insufficient parking space now on Gordon Avenue. Mr. Richard Green, 65 New Broadway, wanted to know how many parking spaces would be available at this site. He was told there would be 32 spaces outside and 16 spaces indoors; (only 25 spaces are required). He said that residents are concerned about where employees will park. Eileen Meade, 38 Gordon Avenue, expressed her concern over the lack of sufficient parking space on Gordon Avenue arid the danger of additional demand on available space as well as possible test driving on Gordon and nearby streets. Mrs. Beatrice Taxter, Holland Avenue, wished to know what kind of protection she would have for her property. Mr. Pappalardo assured her that there would be plantings at the rear of the property and the hill would be untouched. He explained that there was no plan for construction on the hill and only the installation of a fence. Mrs. Gerry Green, 65 New Broadway, wished to know if there would be any new employees hired by Tappan Motors and whether their employees would be requested to park in a specific place. Mr. Kahn informed her that he could not require his employees to park in a special space and could not guarantee that they would not park on Village roads. He stated that no new employees will be hired for the new facility. Mr. Pappalardo said that employees will park off the streets if variance is granted; this offered as a condition. Mr. C. Caposella, 100 Rice Avenue, expressed His concern for the children in the neighborhood with heavy traffic on narrow roads. $ Mr. Mario DiFelice, Gory Brook Road, advised that there have been 'riji#* -?-£•-£?» £?- --5*r : ^^--i^^l^^i^^i^KsE-^ii^^ �many meetings with Tappan Motors and at no time was there ever a resolution regarding parking. He stated that apporximately 33 cars park on New Broadway every day and there is no guarantee where employees will park. Mr. E. Fiorella, 48 Gordon Avenue, pointed out the fact that there is only one-side-of-the-street parking on Gordon Ave. now and sometimes cars park illegally on the other side and the curve of the road makes for poor visibility. He questioned if Mr. Kahh plans to develop the property next to Mr. E. Buonanno. Mr. John Malandrino, 104 Gordon Avenue, voiced his opinion that no offices should be allowed on the third floor of the proposed building. Mr. E. Solari,47 New Broadway, stated that>there has been nothing but trouble from Tappah Motors because they show no concern about pedestrians or vehicular traffic and are a constant obstruction to both. Mr. & Mrs. V. Buonanno, Van Tassel Avenue, expressed their lack of trust in George Kahn and pointed out that they feel he has created unsafe conditions on our streets. Mr. Buonanno stated that he feels the Board cannot review this application unto itself; there are associated impactstwo repair shops back to back and we should look into the traffic pattern that will be created and find out how these proposed facilities will be used and where his employees will park. Mr. Frank Rey, Holland Avenue, pointed out that he felt no one in attendance at this hearing was in favor of granting this variance. Hearing closed at 10:30. BUSINESS MEETING Mr. Arcate set forth some questions to be considered: Applicant suggests the building would be used for repair/service center, therefore, 62.19 and 62.20 are of interest. Would repair/ service center be solely for the preparation of cars that were used or new cars being prepared for sale? How will we see the difference? Mr. Kahn advises that the purpose of this new property is only to service customers cars not to prepare new cars. Mr. Swaby noted that while a 20 foot setback would meet the Code, there will be five fewer parking spaces in rear. Mr. Kahn stated that the office space will also be used for bookkeeping and will contain computers for his business. He advised Mr. Swaby that there will not be any body work done in the building. Mr. Ceconi suggested that we should stay with the 20' setback because he feels Route 9 will be widened in the future; Mr. Swaby agreed. Mr. Paolantonio made a motion to deny application for variance^with 10' �-4setback; Mr. Swaby seconded the motion. % Mr. Arc ate stated that the granting of the variance is on the condition that the building will not be used for preparation of cars for sale, either new or used; as Code requirements, 62.19 and 62.20 would apply. Also, the variance requires that the proposed building not qualify as gas/service station in that no gasoline or other automobile fuel may be stored or dispensed from this property. All Board members present voted in favor of denying the variance for the 10' setback and the conditions pertaining to Code sections 62.19 and 62.20. It appears that beyond collateral issues raised by the applicant, requiring it to conform with the present setback of 20 feet will present neither hardship nor practical difficulties with the intended use. Since no proof was offered to establish hardship or practical difficulties, in the absence of any compelling reason to permit a 10 foot setback, the, application is denied. However, it is clear from a reading of sections 62-19 and 62.20, that under a strict construction of those provisions contained therein, the business contemplated by the applicant is.governed by neither section. The board decides that the applicant's business is neither that of a gasoline service station or a business engaged in the sale of new or used automobiles. Meeting adjourned at 11:30 P.M. Respectfully, submitted, Marie Timmings Acting clerk �« n ~ > " -o a> pH ^ H «-< »-• 0} < u « (X. p^ r-i < P § « § »-} c i?5P „ « aH-c a. 2 *>• «Qw •o 00 P 4-» a> *w 01 O S 2 c I V 5 < 5 2.W ~*P? o •J y c g r I fi S i ^ o b ~ < w *- H C 5 M q} o O U &» *• —• 8. « E.-SC V 4IH o v O •C O w & * J CO 'o B 5 *-" •u CO .C 05 H-« (0 ^ c a 5 t> W) • <U r-i •H r-l CD OS , C C_> f*,<M M I - i ^ M • «} O 4J 0) O OSSggSS ««M O O P . O U < M Of e x o• • • 06U5 *• • O i 0 j <U*tt Oj CMr-IM-l O C - 90S O . * «H "O I-i •H o *J w c*n o _ .. c JZ <» *» . —— *» «-T O in *> MS W h. Xi <y 2 p c E. a *5 H§ ° s y v ej o 5 u 4J 0) (0 m c o o u a H 0 Of > 06 *o H £ O Xi « §*-5 W ' * 4/ O £j P, 5 . 5 C"S Q.= '2 "C JS " « 8*5 o •c « ° 5 * « «o 5 - » ft) & XiO H U 8. a. >* — -*= £ *• * -k ?r 4J "0 1 o» \*J CI .c W 4J I O •s a o w w > « « SP C « O *H to •H My ? B§i*s Ml CL. u I 1 i I >• z oo i-»m c £ ON 03M-I 0| 0) CMfeOi-)S5 8 ^fe-. i:^S&&-»M&M^&£^&S^^^^^^^&^^^^^A �UJ tu cr 2E UJ __» h - U i - J LU lO ~J l-X < < O UI to z be x Z o •-4 o o < z -J Q UJ < O to cr z cr UJ o to o -J •-« > o o z o < z UJ 3 o z -» z o c_> o to z •-» CC K z - i co o to UJ cr t<o cr < X CD to 3£ •-* 3c < CL tO 3 tocc »~i J UJ O C T X X Z < 0 < oa o o io cc a: o -J oz •-. l - » - ~ * x z cc •-• < u, I— cc UJ UJ tcr CC 10 UI J D U J h-to o cr I— ui c c x z CCUJI-** O </) UI U I UJ o UJ o < UJ < hl-K ui <c 21 •-« z cr ui z z o o . UJ O > • > co u to -oo xo o zz <cc cu a. cc a: \n *o * >- > UJ o UJ ^ I} o o o H * 4 H H H J. N N N N N N « n n n i , i n n i « ) * ' » - * UJ e> *— < i— 0. z 111 o s: Z D »—t cr O Io o UJ cc ic cr UJ -J o 2 »-t UJ £ U. o h- < z o >- K l - *% z a. 13 O w o *• cc UJ X < ui (9 H < (/> 0 . tu X «/> O »* H £ </>lUJ ^ Ml I- UI O < £ IZ Itf £ 3 K I- k. O {.' o o kt < 3 V) £ j ft E * UI ac < hi O 5 5 c: 3 m CC < o z o K o u o z u z ill Gt w u. w ac 8 c o UI ac , n -_iKT '#*Tfi"« \^^^^mt^M,w^i%^md;ta^m^M^ '***&& ^~^a^%5is^*^^J^^^ �igfc-fp-* APPENDIX B i* SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM / INSTRUCTIONS: (a) In order to answer the questions in this short £AF is is assumed that the preparer will use currently available information concerning the project and the likely impacts of the action. It is not expected that additional studies, research or other investigations will be undertaken. (b) If any question has been answered Yes the project nay be significant and a completed Environmental Assessment Form is necessary. (c) If all questions have been answered No it is likely that this project is not significant. (d) Environmental Assessment 1. 2. Will project r e s u l t in a large physical change to the project s i t e or ohysically a l t a r more than 10 acres of land? *. Will there be a major change t o any unique or unusual land form found on the s i t e ? • • • • • Will project a l t e r or have a large effect on an existing body of water? • • • • • • • • • • U» Will project have a p o t e n t i a l l y l a r g e impact on groundwater quality? . » • • • • . . . . . . 5. Will project s i g n i f i c a n t l y effect drainage flow on adjacent s i t e s ? . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. Will project affect any threatened or endangered plant or animal species? • • • • • • • • • • • Yes X No y______ Yes _____ No 3. Will project r e s u l t in a major adverse effect on a i r quality? . . 6*. Will project have a major effect on visual character of the community or 'scenic views or v i s t a s known to be important t o the community? • • • ___ ^ ea X _ _ - . No «__ *es Yes X No A jjo X ______ Yes _____ No 7« 9« 10. -~ 11. 12. 13« ..-_;-'i£ ^ ^ . . 14. 'M'lfimESESsSP^'-'^'-C ' ~£f^^S^'?^'r r \ ^ ' ^ *-^'"•;"'*^li*^&£i~^'^r - •: ^-^ " ' " 15 • Will project adversely impact any s i t e or s t r u c t ure of h i s t o r i c , p r e - h i s t o r i c , or paleontological importance or any s i t e designated as a c r i t i c a l environmental area by a l o c a l agency? • • • Will project have a major effect on existing or future recreational o p p o r t u n i t i e s ? • • • Will project r e s u l t in major t r a f f i c problems or cause a major effect t o e x i s t i n g t r a n s p o r t a t i o n ' systems? • • ' • • • • • • • • • • Will project r e g u l a r l y cause objectionable odors, noise, glare, v i b r a t i o n , or e l e c t r i c a l disturbs ance as a r e s u l t of the project*s operation? • Will project have any impact on public health or safety? • • • Will project affect the existing community by directly causing a growth in permanent population of -ore than 5 percent over a one-year period or have a tea.jor negative e f f e c t on the character 0 *" t h c community or neighborhood?. • I s theDepJblifl^ontrovJ^rly c/mce#ning the p r o j e c t ? »ARER'S Sl&LkVti&drulAJ^ TING: . / / George H. yagn ____ Yes X No - Yes X No ____ Yes v No _—» * e s ^ H° - Y ____ Yes A ' ___ * n0 Y es No X ____ Yes Mo .. . Yes X Yes x /.:- ?, *Mo Mo TITLE: A t t o r n e y DATE: December 1 1 , 1985 j.~" r ^K^fei#Ss& *^m � 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-1985 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_1985-07-18 Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1985 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1985 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