https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/a37e3c7f7599a2874e0ff148748531a3.pdf 1fcbd46bb0d983c31c2b43f4ca20292c PDF Text Text Zoning Board Hearing of March 13, 1986 Jfe Present: ^B John Arcate, Chairman Frank Paolantonio Martin Ruane Robert Ponzini, Counsel James Margotta, Building Inspector Absent: Edward Swaby Aldo Ceconi The Zoning Board hearing of March 13, was held to consider an appeal by Merle L. Rickles of the denial by the Building Inspector of her application for a single family home to be constructed on the easterly side of Evergreen Way. Mr. Arcate informed those residents present that the Board had met to hear their comments after which there would be a business meeting and possibly a decision made regarding the application in question. The Clerk then read the hearing notice. Mr. John Hughes, attorney representing Merle Rickles, presented evidence that notice had been sent to all those residents within 200 feet of the property in question. Mr. Hughes informed the Board that the purpose of the request for an application was to build a single family home on the property listed as Section 11, Block 1M, Lot 13 on the Village Tax Assessment map. ^^ Mr. Hughes explained that the Building permit was denied based on ^Requirements of Village Code 62-8B which stipulates that lot size must be 15,000 square feet and 100 ft. in width; the lot in question is 12,632 sq. ft. and 80.35 ft. Mr. Hughes pointed out that this was one of the original lots in Sleepy Hollow Manor at the time of subdivision. He presented a copy of a deed dated 1967 which was passed from the previous property owner to the Rickles. Mr. Hughes reminded the Board that in 1967 the Zoning Code was amended and it increased the requirement of lot size from 10,000 sq. ft. to 15,000 sq. ft. and the width from 75 ft. to 100 ft. He pointed out that this lot was conforming in 1967 and was thereafter nonconforming when the Zoning Code was amended. Mr. Hughes submitted copies of minutes of the Board of Trustees meeting when the Code change was approved. He quoted from the minutes indicating that the Trustees were aware that there were quite a few lots which did not fit into the need code requirements and that the purpose of the change was to regulate new subdivisions. Mr. Hughes pointed out that the applicant is seeking to make an improvement. to her property and, if she is not allowed to do so, will suffer a hardship; a house on this property would not be a detriment to the neighborhood. • Several area residents then spoke out strongly against any approval of this application. Dr. Jacquelin McNaughton, 7 Pokahoe Drive, pointed out that the location of this property was incorrectly stated in the notice; it is actually on the westerly side of Evergreen Way. Mr. Hughes acknowledged that the designation of the location of this property was indeed incorrect, however, the section, block number, and lot number were correct. (The proper location of the lot was established; it is off Hemlock Drive, toward the South, on the westerly side of Evergreen Way) . �-2Mr. Gary Malunis, 25 Hemlock Drive spoke strongly against granting this application and felt that there was no hardship in this case. He pointed out that there are very few houses like the Rickle' house in this area and that to put another house on the property would diminish the value of the Rickles house. He felt that the Rickles house requires the amount of property that surrounds it at present. • Grace VanBergh, 24 Evergreen Way, Alice Moran, 26 Evergreen Way, and one other resident from Evergreen Way voiced agreement with Mr. Malunis's statement. George Hawes, 29 Hemlock Drive is also very concerned that if a house is built on the lot in question, it will be grossly out of proportion. He pointed out that if there is hardship involved here, the Rickles house could probably be sold for approximately $400,000 to $500,000.and the extra lot for approximately $200,000. He questioned if the Board was 'hearing' the comments being made by the residents. In response to a question from Mr. Walder, Mr. Hughes informed him that the intention is to build a house on the lot and if they are allowed to do so, the structure would have to meet all zoning requirements. The variance to be considered at this time is solely lot width and square footage. Mr. Mark Rogers, 26 Hemlock Drive stated that the spaciousness of Sleepy Hollow Manor is most desirable and to build a house on this lot would lower the standards of the area. ^P Mr. Walder expressed the view that when the Rickles purchased this property they knew that this particular lot was too small to build on and emphasized once again how strongly he opposed granting this application. Mr. Hughes then advised him that when the Rickles purchased the property it was with the understanding that there were three lots and this particular one was nonconforming. Mr. Arcate informed Mr. Walder and the others present of the history of this situation and a similar nonconformity applies to many lots in the area. After more discussion regarding this application and the condition of the property, Mr. Ponzini asked whether or not the Sleepy Hollow Taxpayers Association had been informed of this application. Mr. Arcate said that Mr. Leonard Hyman, a director of SHTA INC., told him that he had only heard of this situation recently. He also mentioned the fact that the hearing had been advertised in the newspapers so that all interested parties could be aware of it. A question asked as to what could be done legally by the neighbors if this application was^granted. Mr. Ponzini advised that an appeal could be made on various grounds to the State Supreme Court and if the application is not approved, the Rickles can appeal or could come back after six months for another application. ^P Mr. Hughes pointed out that there are many lots of similar size to the one in question in this area and Mr. Hughes said that is why the Zoning Code was changed in 1967. Ninety-five percent of the property at �that time exceeded the previous lot size requirements and, therefore, the prior Zoning Code was not representative of the development. Mr. Arcate informed the audience that before the hearing closed, if anyone knew of a substantial reason why this lot is different from any other, nonconforming lot they should inform the Board. Mr. Walder reiterated that there is a strong feeling against granting this application by many residents and he felt it would be wrong to grant a variance just because variances had been granted in the past. The hearing closed at 9:20 on a motion made and seconded by Martin Ruane and Frank Paolantonio, respectively. Respectively submitted, Marie Timmings Acting clerk �Zoning Board Hearing of March 13, 1986 Present: John Arcate, Chairman Frank Paolantonio Martin Ruane Robert Ponzini, Counsel James Margotta, Building Inspector Absent: Edward Swaby Aldo Ceconi ^ 9 The Zoning Board Business Meeting of March 13, 1986. The minutes of the meeting of February 13 were unanimously accepted on a motion made by Frank Paolantonio and seconded by Martin Ruane. Based on the Hearing this evening regarding the Rickles' application, Frank Paolantonio spoke first and said that he felt the decision of the Building Inspector should be upheld and the application denied based on the fact that the lot does not meet the code requirements. • A survey of the property was requested by the Board, however, Mr. Hughes advised that there is no survey available. There was a discussion regarding the rear yard footage, and a clarification of how the existing house was situated on the lot, and the possibility of taking part of the property from the improved lot and adding it to the lot in question. It was also pointed out by Mr. Margotta that the .Village map is not intended to show accurate measurements but only identifies property. The property owner must have a survey done; even the deed does not locate a structure. Mr. Ruane suggested that the question be tabled until accurate measurements are obtained and until the Board knows just how the lots might affect each other. Since application was filed on February 6, the Board has until April 6 to make their decision. The applicant must supply the Board with the necessary data as soon as possible so a decision can be made. Mr. Hughes agreed to a postponement until April 17th. Mr.. Ruane made a motion to adjourn the business meeting and to postpone any decision on this application until April 17th so pertinent information can be received and reviewed. Motion was seconded by Mr. Paolantonio and passed. There was then a short discussion regarding the applications to be reviewed at the Board's next meeting. Board members will inspect the properties involved before the meeting; (V. Albanese, Devries Avenue and Serina, Cedar Street). Mr. Ponzini advised the Board that there is a provision at this time (in Village law) that enables the Zoning Board to have an alternate who can fill in when a member is absent. Mr. Arcate stated that he would wish an alternate to be present at every meeting so if the need arose for the alternate to fill in for a member, he would be cognizant of current topics. ^^ Mr. Ponzini also informed the Board that in the future all applications flptbr variances, subdivisions, site plans must be forwarded to the County. ^H^lanning Board; they have thirty days to render a decision. If they oppose �-2an application and the Zoning Board of Appeals wishes to approve it, the Zoning Board of Appeals must vote a majority plus one. If the County Board wishes to approve and the Zoning Board of Appeals wishes to reject it, the Zoning Board of Appeals must also vote a majority plus one and advise the County of the reasons for overriding their decision. The County must review any application filed after April 1. Mr. Ponzini will send a memo to the Board regarding the above. Business meeting adjourned at 10:00 P.M. Respectively submitted, Marie Timmings Acting clerk �UJestehester County ANDREW P. O'ROURKE County Executive DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING March 14, 1985 PETER Q. ESCHWEILER, AICP Commissioner JOSEPH R. POTENZA, AICP Deputy Commissioner Filomena Fallacaro, Clerk Village of North Tarrytown 28 Beekman Avenue North Tarrytown, N.Y. 10591 Ref. File. No.'s NTN 86-01, 86-02 Dear Ms. Fallacaro: Thank you for the notice of the April 12, 1986 public hearing concerning the following actions: NTN 86-01 Ref. File No.: Action: Side yard variance - garage addition Location: Devries Avenue (local road) Municipal Tax Map: Section 14, Block 29, Lot 2 NTN 86-02 Ref. File No.: Action: front yard variance - parking Location: Cedar Street (local road) Municipal Tax Map: Section 16, Block 8, Lot 5 These matters were referred to the Westchester County Planning Board, and will be the subject of a public hearing to be held by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Our preliminary review of these matters indicates the Westchester County Planning Board has no jursidiction over these proposals, pursuant to the wording of Section 277.61 of the Westchester County Administrative Code. 432 County Office Building • 148 Marine Avenue, While Plains, N.Y. 10601 • 914 285-4404 u J *-:> -.- *•:&-• ^ws ifr.--a;«=^-i.ss-«-.-i. • �Thank you for calling these matters to our attention. If you wish, we will be happy to review any of these matters and give you our professional opinion on their merits. Unless we hear from you to that effect, however, we will take no further action. Peter Q. Eschweiler Commissioner PQE/vyn � 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-1986 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_1986-03-13 Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1986 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1986 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