https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/0d1e59fe40d430119adebbc9400125c9.pdf 90bb52122f03a1f97d19e334a5ab4090 PDF Text Text Chairman, John Arcate, recessed the Meeting at 8:35 p.m. as there were no other matters for public hearing and that a business meeting would be held to handle old business before the Board. All present were welcomed to stay. BUSINESS MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS VILLAGE OF NORTH TARRYTOWN HELD MAY 7, 1987 PRESENT: John Arcate, Chairman Aldo Ceconi, Member Raymond Dool, Member Frank Paolantonio, Member Jerry Sturgill, Member Steve Maceyak, Alternate Member John J. Hughes, Jr. Village Attorney Thomas Homan, Village Administrator James Margotta, Building Inspector The Chairman opened the business meeting at 8:45 p.m. and introduced new Board Member, Jerry Sturgill of 35 Palmer Avenue, North Tarrytown, and Alternate Member, Steve Maceyak of 22 Anderson Avenue, North Tarrytown. The Chairman reported to the Board that a letter was sent to Mr. Edward Swaby who had retired after serving twenty years on the Board and a motion was made to include the letter as an attachment to this meeting. Upon motion of Mr. Ceconi, seconded by Mr. Dool and unanimously carried, it was RESOLVED: That the letter commending Mr. Edward Swaby for twenty years of service on the Board be made part of the Minutes of this Meeting. VOTE - AYES - ALL CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES: The Chairman reported that the Minutes of the April 9, 1987 Meeting were not yet available and the Board would have to postpone acceptance of those Minutes. SOUSA APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE - CONTINUATION: A Public Hearing was held on March 12, 1987 and if possible the Board should come to a decision tonight. The Chairman stated that it was his understanding that there was a legal question concerning the rear and side yards of corner lots �raised by the Application for a Variance on a fence on the Sousa property in Philips Manor. A Hearing was held on March 12, 1987; the conclusion of that Hearing was that the Board requested a legal determination. The Chairman stated he was not present at that meeting and his understanding was that there was a question of what zoning regulations applied to a fence on the side yard of a corner property. A letter has now been received from Mr. Hughes giving the Board an opinion. Chairman Arcate said the first question is whether the fence, in part or all, occupies the rear or side yard or front yard. Counsel advised that Mr. Albanese had given Mr. Hughes a memo detailing a history of the fence as well as Sousa's application. Mr. Hughes took a look at the property. The Code is clear that the side yard and rear yard requirement is five feet and the front yard requirement is three feet. The three feet requirement applies forward of the structure. Mr. Arcate stated that the front yard on the Albanese house was easy to determine; the vacant property from the house to the front line of his lot. The issue is what is the front yard of a corner lot. This house is somewhat slanted on the lot. The fence starts in the rear corner of the house and it extends perpendicular to the side street and out to the property line on Devries and follows that property line east to the Northeast corner. If the Board decides to allow a five foot fence, then one property owner, Albanese, according to the Zoning Code, could only build a three foot fence and the other property owner, Sousa, on the other side of the property line, could build a five foot fence. Beyond this, the fence in part now exceeds five feet so the Board has necessary action to take. The extent of the action is to (1) reduce the fence to five feet or (2) if it is so determined, reduce it to three feet or (3) allow it to stay as it is presently constructed. "jhe Code, with respect to corner lots, requires a front yard setback and a sideyard setback of 30 feet in the R-2 Zone. Each street (Devries or Bellwood) has a 30 feet required setback. (Section 62-13, Paragraph E ) . This would prohibit constructing anything in a front yard other than a three foot fence, as provided by the Amendment. If the Sousa house were being considered as a plot plan today and the applicant proposed to face the house on Bellwood there would be a front yard requirement of 30 feet on Bellwood Avenue, but since the lot is a corner lot, the side yard of the proposed house (on Devries Avenue) would have to have a sideyard setback requirement from the property line on the Devries Avenue side which is at least equal to the front yard requirement of any other house on Devries Avenue whose front yard is on Devries (i.e. 30 feet). �Paragraph 62-13E or F concerning accessory use has a similar requirement. A fence is not an accessory use but this also indicates the intent of the Code. The Board further discussed the matter of three feet opposed to five feet. The Code is not explicit as to corner lots; it imposes a height requirement but with respect to corner lots, the purpose of the Code is to maintain a visual effect. The purpose and policy of the Zoning Code, as it applies to corner lots, is to protect the visual effect. Chairman John Arcate then proposed to amend the motion by Aldo Ceconi. He pointed out that the fence did not adhere to requirement of the Code in Section 62-13(F). He further stated that the Board, in considering corner lots, has decided that there are other analogous statements in the Code pertaining to corner properties which convince the Board that the side yard of a corner house has the same requirements of as front yards. Therefore, the height of fences on sideyards of corner lots will be restricted to the same height requirements as fences on front yards. The Board would then make it clear to the Building Inspector what to approve and not approve. Counsel: "On the building permit, was Sousa permitted a height, specifically, for the fence?" James Margotta: "Yes, absolutely." Chairman Arcate stated the Board could rule either way and this would be no reflection on the Building Inspector. Mr. Raymond Dool moved that since the side yard of a corner house must have the same setback requirements as the front yard; on corner lots, the height of a fence on the sideyard be restricted to the same height which applies to a fence constructed on a front yard. Motion made by Raymond Dool seconded by Frank Paolontonio - Four in favor of motion as Amended, one against as amended. Aldo Ceconi: "He can move that fence to the back of the house and keep it as a five foot fence." John Arcate: "The code is not explicit in regard to fences on corner lots and we are relying on the explicit portion of the Code, in regard to side yard requirements of corner houses matching front yard requirements.. We interpret the Code in a similar manner to fences so that, on corner lots, the height restriction of a fence located on the side yard must be bound by the same height restrictions as fences located on the front yards (3 feet)." Mr. Hughes: "May I say something just on this issue of a �building permit already being granted with a five foot fence. I think you said, Mr. Chairman, the usual process is an appeal in a situation where a Building permit has been denied, possibly as a result of a misinterpretation of the Code by the Building Inspector. It is clear, in this case, the permit was granted. We are asserting jurisdiction in this case, however, because the actual building permit was violated in that the permit called for a five foot fence and the fence now exceeds five feet. We must also, in asserting jurisdiction in this matter, render an interpretation of the Code. The applicant came before us and gives us jurisdiction to decide the issue of the height of the fence." John Arcate: granted." "Yes. He did not comply with the permit as Counsel: "We certainly have jurisdiction to decide to grant or deny the variance applied for. In so doing, we must also render an interpretation of the Code." John Arcate: "The Building Inspector issued a Permit for five feet. Upon inspection of the fence, he found this fence in violation of this permit; therefore, the applicant violated the permit. Instead of accommodating the Building Inspector which is an option he has - I am not saying he should have -and complied with the five foot requirement, the property owner elected instead to come before the board for a variance. The Board may reject this request for a variance, supporting the action of the Building Inspector. In so doing, the Board is also interpreting the Code to require maximum height of three feet on the side yard of a corner lot." Jerry Sturgill: "The point is that if the permit was granted for. five feet it seems to me the power of this Board in this proceeding, is confined to reducing the Sousa fence to five feet." John Arcate: "We are not driven by the action of the Building Inspector. We are driven by the Code; in our interpretation of the Code. The Board has had similar actions in the past where we have a stop work order, after a permit was granted." James Margotta: "If the Board didn't have that power, the Building Inspector could permit anybody to do almost anything - you would be powerless to then correct this situation." John Arcate: "To be sure that we have a vote on record, can I ask for a vote on the motion as previously made by Mr. Frank Paolantonio.n 1 - Oppose �APPLICATION OF MANGIERI Counsel for the Board reported a letter had been received from Westchester County Planning Department Re: the Mangieri application. After being reviewed under section 239, the Westchester County Planning Department found the matter to be a subject for determination by local authorities with the following comments: the off-street parking and the lot size in terms of the proposed density should be closely evaluated. Mr. Hughes informed the Board that Chairman John Arcate posed the question whether a vote of majority, plus one, is required in order to deviate from these recommendations. A review of Section 277.61 of the County Administrative Code, a review of the County Executive Order and discussion with Mr. John Kantor of the County Planning Department indicates this is a matter of local determination; there is no countywide or inter-municipal implications here - the County is not asserting jurisdiction here or issuing negative recommendations. What they are doing in regards to parking spaces is saying take a look at the parking configuration for your own benefit, and take a look at the density for your own benefit, but they are not involved in the decisions. The Chairman asked the Board to recall that they contingently granted the request for Variance; the contingent being that the County could possibly have required the majority vote plus one and in as much as the County has not imposed the requirement on us, the contingency is satisfied and, therefore, there is nothing to act upon. The Chairman asked as a matter of interest how does the plot plan as now approved compared with the county's suggestions. Mr. Walsh, representing Mr. Mangieri, addressed the board stating there are minor variations between the plot plan and County planning code, but those minor variations obviously have absolutely nothing to do with our local code. We will obviously be including some of the county's recommendations in our opening mitigating comments in our long form environmental submission being prepared now for the Planning Board. We do not anticipate any problems but we do feel that the County has given some valid points which we will be balancing against the plans of the developer in our Planning Board submissions. We expect to have that before the Planning Board in the next four to six weeks. We thank the Board for your attention in this matter tonight. The Chairman told the Board he believes they will all get a copy of the notice from Mr. Hughes on Environment Assessment Form Part I ("EAFn) and did not plan to discuss it but just to take note of it. Mr. Hughes informed the Board that when we have significant developments in the Village the EAF will have to filed by the Applicant with Mr. George Lackowitz, �Consulting Engineer for the Village. Mr. Walsh, attorney for Mr. Mangieri, asked about the conclusion of the matter. The Chairman advised him that the contingent granting of the Variance at the Board's last meeting has been satisfied. The contingency was granted unless the County had a disagreement in which the Board would require another vote. Variance was granted on a vote of three to two; three is now valid. Mr. Walsh thanked the Chairman and asked to have the Minutes forwarded to him. LETTER OF 4/30 FROM PLANNING BOARD RE: BRANA/SOLARI The Chairman went on to the matter of April 30th letter from the Planning Board Re: Brana/Solari. Counsel brought to the Board's attention that the Village was served with Notice of Petition in connection with this matter and formal litigation is now underway. He advised the Board to employ the Public Officers Law and later that evening consider entering into an Executive Session. HALES APPLICATION William Mollar, attorney representing Applicant, Thomas Hales, appeared before the Board concerning the hearing insufficiency this evening. He requested the Board to schedule another Hearing. < Upon motion of Mr. Paolantonio, seconded by Raymond Dool and unanimously carried, it was RESOLVED: That the Zoning Board of Appeals reschedule a Public Hearing upon Petition of Thomas E. Hales, to be held on May 28th, 1987 at 28 Beekman Avenue, North Tarrytown, NY. VOTE - AYES - ALL GUERIN APPLICATION The Board discussed the Hearing held earlier in the evening upon the Application of John Guerin for a Variance on his bicycle shed. It was voted that the Board had not heard any negative remarks on the shed. The requests in keeping with the purpose of the Code and Paragraph 62-2. The Board approved granting the Permit for a bicycle shed to be kept "As Is". All were in favor. � 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-1987 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_1987-05-07 Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1987 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1987 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