https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/20185c5335397c8a352faf131913b086.pdf f6771c9951e80dcb164318541e87edcf PDF Text Text The Zoning Board Business Meeting of April 17, 1986 Present: John Arcate, Chairman Frank Paolantonio Martin Ruane Robert Ponzini, Counsel James Margotta, Building Inspector Absent: Edward Swaby The minutes of the meeting of March 13th, 1986 were accepted by a motion made by Mr. Martin Ruane and seconded by Mr. Frank Paolantonio. The first topic of discussion was the disposition of the Rickles' application which was postponed from March 13th in order that a survey of the Rickles property could be made and presented to the Board. Mr. John Hughes presented a copy of the survey of the Rickles1 property to all members of the Board. A discussion followed about lot #12 which is 5.6 feet short of the necessary footage to satisfy the rear yard requirement of the Code. Mr. Hughes also presented to each member of the Board copies of minutes of the Board of Trustees meeting dated October 2, 1967, and copies of Zoning Board meetings dated April 25, 1968, August 21, 1975, August 9, 1977, August 9, 1979. Mr. Hughes stated that these minutes concerned instances similar to the Rickles' application in that the lots under consideration were made non-conforming by the 1967 amendment to the Code. Variances on these lots were granted in every "nstance. w Mr. Phillip Blecker, speaking as a representative of the Sleepy Hollow Taxpayers Association, questioned if the residents could be assured that if this variance is approved, a house built on this property would not be overburdening. Mr. Margotta responded that any house must be built in accordance with Code restrictions even if the lot is under-sized. Mr. v Blecker wished to know if there is any portion of the property that could be added to lot #13 to make it conforming? He was informed that: as shown on the survey presented lot #12 is inadequate as to rear yard and\,no adjustments to bounds could be made to satisfy the insufficient width of lot #13. It was, however, pointed out by Mr. Hughes that some lots in the same vicinity are smaller than lot #13 and have been improved. Mr. Blecker said that the Sleepy Hollow Taxpayers* Association^would go along with the majority of the neighbors who are against granting this application. Mr. Ruane pointed out that the residents in tKis areajpay a premium for their property and do not want to see it become too congested. He said he did not see how the Board could grant this variance. Mr. Arcate advised the Board that they must consider past precedents^ if they are applicable to present circumstances. As Mr. Hughes pointed out, the prior practice of the Board has been to grant such variances. The only" difference in this case is that the applicant is also the owner of the djacent property. Mr. Arcate said that the Board needs to decide on a clear basis to grant or deny the variance. To deny the variance because the rear yard of �-2lot #12 if short less than 61 may be significant enough. Whether there is a question of denial or approval, we require a substantial reason. Mr. Ceconi said that the owner of the property should have known the restrictions of the Code regarding this property when it was purchased. He stated that it is his understanding that the intent of the Village was to upgrade this area when they amended the Code in 1967. Mr. Ceconi also said that he thinks the Board would be differential between residents if it granted this variance after having denied other requests for variances which he thinks are similar to this application. Mr. Ruane made a motion which was seconded by Mr. Ceconi to deny this application. In consideration of the motion to deny the application for the variance the Board reviewed the presentations made at the hearing on March 13th 1936, the minutes of that hearing and the presentations made to the Board at todays meeting. This review was summarized by the Board as follows: 1) The applicant purchased the property several years after the 1967 change in lot width and area requirement. 2) The applicant owns and controls adjacent property (lot #12) which, without the use of land from lot #13 is noh-conforming in regard to the rear yard requirement of 25 feet. The applicant has not made a;demonstration of hardship if the application is not granted. The Board concluded that these factors are circumstantial to this applicant and not typical of the past decisions of the Board cited in the hearing and at todays meeting, that the going requirements were in existence at time of purchase and to presume that a variance would be granted was at the purchasers sole risk. Further, the dependence of the adjacent lot (lot #12), under the same ownership, for rear yard would in effect create two non-conforming lots if the variance were to be granted. Further, based upon these and other presentations at the hearing the Board finds no basis to satisfy the Code provisions of paragraph 62-40C. Finally, the Board concluded that to grant the variance would?not be in keeping with the purposes of the Code as defined in paragraph 62-2. Following the motion the chairman called for the vote of the Board. It was unanimous to approve the motion to deny the request for variance. Mr. Hughes asked for a certified copy of the minutes of this business meeting. The April 17, 1986 business meeting The next discussion was in regard to Mr. ^fcittached, side-yard garage. As shown on ^ s i d e yard of 5'4". The Board recognizes the neighborhood with side yards of less f: . . continued with new business. Albanese's request to buildfari' the site plan, this will leave a that there are otHer houses in than the Code requirement of lO'. . :: �-3There was not any negative opinions presented about this request from the neighbors. Mr. Ceconi said he thinks the Board should grant Mr. Albanese's request; the use is consistent with the prevailing use in the area, it is in keeping with the Code provisions of paragraphs 62-AOC and 62-2 and will not be a detriment to traffic. Mr. Ruane made a motion to grant this variance and Mr. Ceconi seconded it; all the Board voted in favor. The next discussion was on Mr. Serina's request for permission to construct parking for more than two vehicles in an R-5 district. Mr. Ponzini pointed out that parking is allowed in the Code only as an accessory use for residential property. Mr. Paolantonio pointed out that there is a building on this property now and asked Mr. Serina what it was used for. Mr. Serina informed him that the building was used for storage arid that he has owned this property for two years and has been parking automobiles there. Mr. Arcate stated that the Code does permit off-street parking in an R-5 district, if it is related to a conforming use and asked if any member of the Board could see a basis for approval of this request. Mr. Ruane said it should not be used for dead storage; he then made a motion, seconded by Mr. Paolantonio, to deny Mr. Serina's request. The discussion of this application and the circumstances presented at the hearing reveal: 1) at the time Mr. Serina purchased the property its use as a junk yard was a prevailing non-conformity. 2) Mr. Serina upon purchase and since (a period in excess of 12 months) discontinued the non-conformity use. 3) The effect of granting this application would create a new nonconforming use. That is the parking of automobiles solely as off-street parking and/or storage without any related residential use. The Board concluded that none of these circumstances or anything else presented at the hearing satisfied the Code requirements of paragraph 62-40C or met the purpose of Code as defined in paragraph 62-2. Therefore, the property should be used as it is zoned namely, residential zone R-5 and the Board voted unanimously to deny the application and not grant the variance. Mr. Arcate distributed copies of a notice from the Westchester County Planning Board, who must review all requests that come before the Village Zoning Board, that are within 500 feet of a State or County road or a Village boundary. Further, if the Board wishes to decide such matters in a manner different than the County, it will require a vote of four members (majority plus one) . Mr. Arcate told the Board that in view of the County requirement arid as a matter of convenience he proposes that the Zoning Board recommendl to the Board of Trustees that they appoint another member to the Zoning Board to act as an alternate. The Board agreed that this be proposed to the �-4Trustees. Mr. Frank Paolantoriio and Mr. Aldo Ceconi have been reappointed to the Zoning Board by the Mayor and Mr. Arcate extended to them his , congratulations. Mr. Arcate acknowledged Mr. Martin Ruane's letter of resignation and thanked him for his many years of dedicated:service to the Zoning Board. Mr. Ruane made a motion"to adjourn the meeting at 10 p.m: , Mr. Ceconi seconded the motion; all voted in favor. Respectfully submitted, Marie Timmings Acting Clerk �Zoning Board Hearings of April 17, 1986 Present: • John Arcate, Chairman Frank Paolantonio Martin Ruane Aldo Ceconi Robert Ponzini, Counsel James Margotta, Building Inspector Absent: Edward Swaby Mr. John Arcate called the hearing to order at 8:10 p.m. and the Clerk read the hearing notice for Mr. Victor Albanese's application. Mr. Arcate advised those in attendance to state their names and addresses before they spoke to the Board and he explained the order of business for the evening. Mr. Victor Albanese, 62 Devries Avenue, spoke to the Board regarding his application for a variance to build an attached, one-car garage on the east side of his house. Mr. Albanese explained that although there is room for a garage on the back of his house (south side), it will enhance the appearance of the house if it is on the east side. He also presented pictures of his house, a site plan prepared by Turnquist Architects as well as evidence that notices were sent to the surrounding residents regarding his request for a variance. Mr. Robert Powers, 26 Devries Avenue, spoke in favor of Mr. Albanese's application and said that he thought the addition of a garage on the side ^ ^ o f the house would enhance the property. Mr. Paolantonio questioned if there is a garage on the Albanese property now and he was advised that there is not. The chairman asked if anyone else present wished to address the Board. No one responded. Mr. Paolantonio made a motion to close the hearing. It was seconded by Martin Ruane; the Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. The second hearing was in reference to Mr. Stephen Serina's application for a variance. The Clerk read the public notice and a letter received from Arthur Martone, 26 Cedar Street, stating his opposition to the granting of the variance applied for by Mr. Serina. - Mr. Serina addressed the Board and explained that there is adequate space in the front of his property for three or four cars. However, he, stated that since the area is zoned residential, there is a parking'limitation. He presented evidence that notices were sent to the surrounding residents regarding this application. | t | I |; Mr. Margotta asked Mr. Serina how he plans to use this property. He also inquired as to the status of unlicensed and disabled cars parked in this lot. Mr. Serina said that he bought this property so he would have ^storage space for cars. Mr. Margotta also inquired of Mr. Serina his plans ^R;o clean up the rubbish on this property. fe:|g-- - - - Mr. Serina advised the Board that the lot was a junk yard when he �-2- • bought it; he cleaned it up so he could use it for parking. He stated that the cars parked there can be put into working order within a day. When further questioned, Mr. Serina stated that he would not be repairing cars on this property. He said he wants to build a retaining wall and eventually a two or three family house. He has 6,300' of property on Cedar Street. Mr. Arcate-asked*Mr. Serina what the building presently on the property is being used.for. Mr. Serina said{the building is being used as a storage garage. Mr. Arcate also told him that if the property has not been used as a junk yard for twelve months, it cannot in accordance with the code, be operated as a junk yard again. Mr. Arcate said that there must be a distinction made between overnight parking and a principle purpose of storage of cars. Margaret Kantowitz, 18 Cedar Street said there has been a junk yard on the property for 40 years. She said that she is trying to upgrade her property and would like the junk removed because it draws rats into the neighborhood and into her house. Annie Lucas, 32 Cedar Street, said the area looks terrible; there is plenty of junk there that should be cleaned up. .Katherine Krolicki, 16 Cedar Street, wanted to know what kind of , business Mr. Serina is running. If he is running a commercial taxi business, she is concerned about the volume of traffic through Cedar Street which already is burdened with General Motors employee traffic. ^fc Barbara Young, Cedar Street, recently purchased a house on Cedar Street ^^because it is residential and she wishes it to remain that way. She asked if the property in question is us eld for parking unlicensed, undriveable cars will it be considered "commercial"? Mr. Ruane asked Mr. Serina if two parking spaces would be sufficient and Mr. Serina said he needed three or four. The chairman asked if anyone would like to address the Board. responded. No one A motion was made and seconded by Mr. Ruane and Mr. Ceconi, respectively, to close the hearing; the Board voted in favor. Respectfully submitted, Marie Tiiamifigs 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-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_1986-04-17 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