https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/4c2ab8997af2e6dcac92dd86e5464fe5.pdf 8e9ec8e9706cf950da99655c7dc0921c PDF Text Text ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF NORTH TARRYTOWN, N.Y. Present: June 11,1987 John Arcate, Chairman Aldo Ceconi John Dool Frank Paolontonio Jerry Sturgill John Hughes, Counsel James Margotta, Building Inspector Absent: George Lackowitz, Building Inspector Mr. John Arcate, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 8:13 p.m. He opened by explaining that the matters under consideration had been previously presented at the meeting of May 28, 1987, and were being re-presented in identical order due to technical difficulties at the former meeting. The first hearing of the night was in regard to the application submitted by Thomas E. Hales, Merlin Avenue, appealing the March 18, 1987 decision of the Building Inspector. Mr. Thomas R. Beirne of Cuddy & Fedder, 90 Maple Avenue, White Plains, New York, addressed the Board on behalf of Mr. Hales. Mr. Beirne introduced Leonard Sieverding, the architect of the proposal, who briefly explained the preference of terming the project as a "Planned Residence Development Group" rather than a "multiple dwelling" due to zoning allowances conferred to the former. He then described the proposal itself, emphasizing the fact that the scheme maintained the character of the surrounding structures in its expression as three separate structures rather than one large building. Mr/ Sieverding pointed out that the scheme also contains the required number of parking spaces. Mr. Beirne then explained the need to obtain the following variances as directed by the Planning Board of North Tarrytown: (1) a variance at the front of the premises only, reducing the required minimum width of the property from one hundred feet to seventy feet, (2) a variance increasing maximum lot coverage from twenty (20%) percent to thirty-six (36%) percent, (3) a variance reducing the minimum side yard in the rear of the premises from five feet on one side and fifteen feet on both sides to five feet on one side and ten feet on both sides, (4) a variance reducing the minimum rear yard from twenty-five feet to six feet, and (5) an interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance pursuant to Section 62-40.A. that a Planned Residence Development Group of one acre or less has a maximum density of twenty-nine units, where Petitioner proposes eighteen units, or, in the alternative, a variance pursuant to Section 62-40.Cs. increasing density from eleven units to eighteen units. Mr. Beirne stated the variance concerning lot coverage was requested so that the project may conform to the character of the neighborhood. The variance on the rear yard requirement was requested on the basis that a design purpose would not be fulfilled in observance of the code; ample room would be left for screening. The variance on the width requirement was requested due to the irregular shape of the land; it was asked that the Board interpret the zoning ordinance so that the width of said lot is measured so that it is congruent to the ordinance, or that the variance be �rewarded as requested as the proposed construction does not conflict with the development of the neighborhood. As parking for the proposal is on-site, a variance for parking is not requested. Mr. Beirne stated that because the project is a "Planned Residence Development Group" and not a "multiple dwelling," the applicant is not subject to the density calculations of the multi-family category. He submitted to Mr. Arcate a memorandum of law toward that end. Mr. Ceconi then questioned Mr. Beirne as to whether the required propert owners had been notified of the hearing.. Mr. Arcate stated that he received an affadavit concerning service of notice and Mr. Beirne asserted that proof of notice of all property owners within the designated radius had been submitted. Mr. Arthur Litt, Attorney of Law, 54 Main Street, Tarrytown, New York, then addressed the Board on behalf of the residents of the neighborhood adjacent to the site. He first submitted to Mr. Arcate a petition against the construction of the proposal. Mr. Litt then contested that the said variances are not slight, that the model presented by Mr. Sieverding was illusory, that the path of motor and emergency vehicles is not clearly defined, that the height of the proposal compounded with its location atop a six foot knoll caused it to "loom" over adjacent private properties thereby violating privacy, and that the existing traffic and parking problem would be exacerbated by the proposal. Mr. Litt submitted six photographs in support of the argument concerning violation of privacy. He added that as per Section 62-40.C.l. of the Zoning Ordinacnes, variances could be granted only in light of "special circumstances or conditions" applying to the land or building and related "practical difficulties." He argued that Mr. Beirne did not demonstrate fulfillment of these circumstances. Mr. Litt continued thataccording to Section 62-40.D. of the Zoning Ordinances a variance may be granted only if topographical conditions are such that application of the provisions of the ordinances would deprive the applicant of reasonable use of the land. Mr. Litt distinguished between "reasonable" and "profitable" use of the land, offering the testimony of another contractor that eleven units could be built profitably on said lot. He submitted text to Mr. Arcate in support of this statement. Mr. Litt also declared that the proposal is detrimental to the public good and impairs the intent and purposes of the Zoning Ordinances, thereby violating Sections 62-1 and 62.2 of the ordinances. He closed by stating that the proposal would damage the property values of surrounding homes. Mr. Beirne rebutted by repeating the absolution of the Planned Residence Development Group from density calculations pertaining to multiple-family dwellings, as cited in the memorandum of law. He also stated that the proposal maintains th existing character of the neighborhood, that the height of the project is within given zoning ordinances, and that the project complies with parking restrictions. Mr. Beirne cited the case of Wachsberger vs. Michalis in reference to the criteria defining "practical difficulty;" he stressed that the most notable concern of the case was maintenance of the character of the community,and that Mr. Hales' proposal complies as such. Mr. Beirne submitted an economic feasibility analysis upon the invitation of Mr. Arcate; Mr. Hales briefly explained the study and the source of its estimates. Mr. Jery Sturgill then questioned the method and facility with which motorsand emergency vehicles would enter the property. Mr. Sieverding stated that entrance would be made through a ramp down and that the structure could be raised to allow �twelve feet of clearance for emergency vehicles; he added that a fire hydrant and sprinkler system are included in the design. Mr. Litt then restated his contention that the residents1 concern was not with the height of the building itself, but with its proximity to the property line. He also briefly responded to the economic analysis submitted to the Board by Mr. Beirne by offering again the testimony of a contractor that the lot could be builtf upon profitably and within the Zoning Ordinances. He closed by stating that other cases have superseded the case of Wachsberger vs. Michalis. The Board then invited the residents of the community to address the Board. Mr. Sean Treacy, Mr. Nivaldo Cuevas, Mr. Albert Martin, Nr. Gerard Barry, Mr. Carlos Custodio, Mr. Carmelo Camilliere, and Mr. Richard Graff spoke against the proposal; Mr. Bob Corpenter spoke in favor of the project. Mr. Sturgill motioned to adjuourn the first hearing; Mr. John Dool seconded the motion. The first hearing was closed at 9:29 p.m. The second hearing was opened at 9:40 p.m. by Mr. Arcate. The hearing was in regard to an application submitted by Manuel A. Martin, 24 Haynes Avenue, Dobbs Ferry, New York appealing the March 18, 1987 decision of the Building Inspector to refuse a certificate of occupancy for a two-family dwelling at 65 Howard Street, North Tarrytown, New York. Mr. John Pappalardo of Grossback & Boycoff, 8 Northlawn Avenue, Elmsford, New York, addressed the Board on behalf of Mr. Martin. Mr. Pappalardo stated that although the said property fell eight hundred feet short of the required minimum lot size for a two-family residence, he requested that a variance be granted as the property could adequately accommodate two families (two entrances, two baths, two heating systems, two hot water systems, and ample parking). He claimed the house would not be an inconvenience for neighbors if registered as a two-family dwelling as all other homes on Howard Street are multiple family dwellings. The house is seventy-five years old and has been commonly recognized and formerly used as a two-family residence; the town of Mr. Pleasant has had it registered as such since 1967. Also, Mr. Martin purchased the home as a two-family residence. Mr. Aldo Ceconi questioned whether notice had been properly served; Mr. Pappalardo stated that notice had been sent through registered certified mail to all residents as required, and all but two receipts had been returned. Affadavits of service were submitted for the absent receipts. Mr. James Gottman, 70 Howard Street, addressed the Board in favour of"awarding the registration of said residence as a two-family dwelling. Mr. Sturgill asked if the contract under which Mr. Martin purchased the residence had any representation of zoning; Mr. Pappalardo stated there was no representation of the residence as a two-family dwelling. Mr. Frank Paolantonio motioned to adjourn the second hearing; Mr. Ceconi seconded the motion. The second hearing was closed at 9:47 p.m. The third hearing of the night was opened at 9:48 p.m. by Mr. Arcate. The final hearing was in regard to the application of Kempton E. Webb, 252 Hunter Avenue, appealing the April 23, 1987 decision of the Building Inspector to deny a building permit for construction of a two car garage. Mr. Webb stated that he had served proper notification to property owners by registered certified mail; seventeen of the nineteen receipts had been returned, and were submitted to Mr. Arcate. �Mr. Webb explained his interest in obtaining storage for his two cars, yard equipment, and various other accessories. He asked that a rear yard variance of the premises only, permitting the construction of a two (2) car garage within ten (10) feet of the property line where twenty-five (25) feet is required be granted for aesthetic purposes; he did not wish that his garage loom over his property and believed that the proposed location of the structure would be the ideal maximum distance for all concerned. Mr. Webb also requested a variance permitting the height of garage to be eighteen (18) feet where the maximum permitted accessory use is fifteen (15) feet so that a loft area over be used as storage. He also stated that his present garage tical, and inadequate. said two (2) car height of an the garage could was unsafe, imprac- Upon questioning by Mr. Arcate, Mr. Webb stated the garage would be slightly offset from the driveway. He submitted copies of plans to the Board, adding that the proposed location of the garage was the only possible and most practical site. Mr. Sturgill asked the location of the current garage; Mr. Webb claimed it was as denoted on the plan, and lacked adequate turning space for his cars. Mr. James Margotta asked if calculations concerning maximum coverage had been tabulated; Mr. Webb replied that the new garage would occupy 19.4% of the total lot area. The Petitioner desired construction of a gambrel roof both in accordance with the architecture of surrounding structures and so that a loft would be created. Mr. Arcate pointed out that Mr. Webb's home had a pitched roof. Mr. Webb submitted photographs of the current situation as well as similar neighboring garages to the Board. Mr. Webb also briefly explored the option of excavating below grade to obtain storage space. Mr. Frank Ceccarelli,;240 Hunter Avenue, spoke against Mr. Webb's proposed construction, complaining that the height variance would interfere with his view. He submitted his own proposal and related photographs to the Board. Mr. Frank Redican, 238 Hunter Avenue, registered a similar complaint concerning the height variance. He also submitted to the Board a copy of a letter written by him to Mr. and Mrs. Webb stating his opinion; it is included in the record of the hearing. Mr. Redican, however, was mistaken in the maximum permitted height of an accessory use, citing twelve (12) feet rather than fifteen (15) feet; Mr. Margotta corrected him on this issue. Mr. Webb submitted to the Board his calculations of the area of the roofed-in spaces, as well as photographs of similar structures in the area. There being no further comments, Mr. Paolantonio motioned to adjourn the final hearing. Mr. Dool seconded the motion. The meeting was closed at 10:10 p.m. �ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF NORTH TARRYTOWN, N.Y. Present: June 11, 1987 John Arcate, Chairman Aldo Ceconi John Dool Frank Paolantonio Jerry Sturgill John Hughes, Counsel James Margotta, Building Inspector Absent: George Lackowitz, Building Inspector The business meeting of June 11, 1987 was called to order by Mr. Arcate at 10:29 p.m. The first order of business was the approval of the minutes of the meeting of May 28, 1987. Mr. Sturgill motioned that they be accepted as written; Mr. Ceconi seconded the motion. The minutes were accepted by a unanimous vote. Mr. Arcate stated that there was no other old business. He opened the new business by proposing that the orders of business be arranged according to the degree of ease with which they be resolved. The first order of business proposed was the application of Manuel A. Martin appealing the March 18, 1987 decision of the Building Inspector to refuse a certificate of occupancy for a two-family residence at 65 Howard Street, North Tarrytown, New York. Mr. Margotta began by stressing the conventionality of the case, confirming the existence of a number of other houses being used as two-family dwellings without the minimum lot size of four thousand square feet. He favored granting the variance, especially in light of the fact that the residence in question complied with other regulations in most respects and that the Petitioner did not create the problem himself. Mr. Paolantonio then questioned why the town of Mt. Pleasant had the residence registered as a two-family dwelling while the village of North Tarrytwon had it registered as a single-family dwelling. Mr. Margotta stated this was not an unusual occurrence due to the different judgements of various assessors. Mr. Ceconi suggested that the town of Mt. Pleasant and the village of North Tarrytwon meet at some later date and compare respective evaluations of residences. Upon Mr. Margotta's recommendation of sending a letter, Counsel Hughes volunteered to correspond with the Board of Trustees of the Town of Mt. Pleasant. Mr. Arcate cautioned Counsel Hughes in his use of diction in the letter. Mr. Paolantonio motioned that ^because the building in question was constructed as a two-family dwelling, the neighborhood enjoys other such houses, and the application meets the requirements of Section 62-40.C. and the purposes of the Zoning Ordinances as stated in Section 62-2, it be accepted and registered as a two-family residence, thereby overriding the previous ruling of the Building Inspector. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dool. The motion was passed by a unanimous vote. The next order of business was the application of Kempton E. Webb concerning the construction of a two-car garage. Mr. Arcate recalled that the Board had heard a similar case at the meeting of April 7, 1987. He stated that the Board had granted a variance concerning the inordinate proximity of the structure to the �property line, but had refused the variance concerning1the proposed height exceeding the maximum permitted height. He therefore assumed the Board would conform to this precedent in the case of Mr. Webb. It was pointed out that the issue of the previous case was not one of aesthetics, but of the sincerity of the request; it was feared that the additional space in the garage would be used to house a second family. Mr. Ceconi clarified that the height variance was denied to negate this threat, not in favor of aesthetics. Mr. Sturgill questioned the justification of the request for the rear yard variance. The Board answered that the proposed site of the garage was the only possible location given the narrowness of the lot. After further discussion it was established that the zoning ordinance dictating a twenty-five foot distance from the property line was impractical in this situation and that the requested variance of the rear yard premises permitting construction within ten feet of the property line was reasonable. The issue of the variance in the height restriction was then discussed. Mr. Sturgill stated that the loss of the superfluous height was not substantial and that other designs could be found to construct the garage within the fiteen foot requirement of the code. He admitted, however that this did not address the concerns voiced by neighbors at the hearing. Mr. Arcate then questioned the reason for the request for additional height. Mr. Margotta stated that the need arose out of the design of the building and the desire for storge space. Mr. Arcate then questioned Mr. Margotta as to whether or not a building permit granting the variance on the rear yard but denying the variance on height was capable of being enforced. Mr. Margotta replied that his concern was to whether the fifteen foot height would be measured from the curb as dictated by the Zoning Ordinances, or from the .-.site; if the maximum permitted height were to be measured from the curb a functional garage would be impossible to construct due to the estimated six foot pitch of the land. Mr. Sturgill confirmed the absurdity of measuring fifteen feet from the curb, stating that it should be measured from the grade. Discussion ensued over where the maximum permitted height should be measured from; Mr. Arcate favored that out of practicality it be measured from the site of construction. Mr. Sturgill stated that if the Board specified a maximum height for Mr. Webb's garage as measured from the grade, it would be setting a precedent for the height of garages. In light of this, because the Zoning Ordinances assumes level grade and establishes a maximum permitted height of fifteen feet, the Board should maintain the maximum permitted height at fifteen feet. Mr. Sturgill therefore moved that the variance concerning the rear yard be granted and that the variance concerning the maximum permitted ^height be'granted up to fifteen feet as measured from the grade at the site of construction pursuant to Section 62-2 of the Zoning Ordinances. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dool. The motion was passed with four votes in favor of the motion and one vote against the motion. The final order of business was the application by Thomas E.fHales appealing the March 18, 1987 decision of the Building Inspector; Mr: Sturgill stated his endorsement of the variance concerning the frontage as Mr. Hales cannot be deemed responsible for the shape of the land. He admitted that the density �issue is more problematic. Discussion ensued over the use and implications of terms "Planned Residence Development Group" and "multiple dwelling" in regard to the density allowances conferred to each. It was resolved that the code requirement allowed eleven or twelve units to the Planned Residence Development Group, not eighteen. Mr. Sturgill then voiced his discomfort over the economic feasibility analysis submitted by Mr. Beirne, stating that the two positions in the case were not fairly represented as the members of the community did not have the opportunity to present their own economic analysis. Mr. Sturgill proposed the matter be suspended thereby giving the opposing counsel an opportunity to respond to the economic study submitted by Mr. Beirne. Counsel Hughes noted that any economic analysis would contain assumptions and future projections, and proposed that because economic considerations were only one aspect of the natter at hand, discussion move forward on the larger issue. Mr. Sturgill again suggested that the Board table the appeal of Mr. Hales until the next meeting, thereby also allowing the Board more time to review newly-submitted material. Mr. Ceconi expressed his desire that the respective attorneys meet and attempt to reconcile differences. Discussion ensued as to the schedule for the upcoming meetings. Mr. Litt had conflicting appointments and was unable to be present for the June 25 meeting; it was finally decided that the hearing of the case of Mr. Hales be moved to the meeting of July 2 and the issues previously scheduled for that meeting be moved to June 25. Mr. Arcate required that the economic study to be submitted by Mr. Litt on behalf of the residents of the community be submitted to the Board by June 29; Mr. Beirne requested he receive the same also by June 29. It was repeated that the hearing requirement was satisfied and that only Board consideration of the case remained. Mr. Arcate announced that Counsel Hughes would report on the Supreme Court ruling concerning reparations for denial of appeals made by property owvers at the next meeting. Mr. Paolantonio motioned to adjourn. Mr. Ceconi seconded the motion, members were in favor. The meeting was adjourned at 11:46 p.m. %v -v ^^--'^^*&&^s^^i^ -j&*&iiQBtiSt3&S££i&£E All � 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_1987-06-11 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