https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/ed51b0572993fc035a4b416f1498afa9.pdf 1b219328a0e3a2e148fe921b95fddd6a PDF Text Text JT-" BUSINESS MEETING - July 2, 1987 • PRESENT: John Arcate, Chairman Aldo Ceconi S. J. Sturgill Frank Paolontonio Raymond Dool ALSO PRESENT: James T. Margotta, Building Inspector John J. Hughes, Jr., Village Attorney The minutes of the meeting of June 11, 1987 were approved as read. APPLICATION OF THOMAS E. HALES Mr. William Null, Esq. appeared for the applicant and indicated that he received written materials from the office of Arthur Litt, Esq. which pertained to the economic feasibility of the project for / with eleven (11) units rather than eighteen (18) units. Mr. Null asked for a one week adjournment in order to present a study prepared by the firm of Durkin Bros. and Dodge Cost Systems and for the applicant to consider possible changes in his plan. Mr. Sturgill observed that the requirement for a public hearing had been satisfied, that Mr. Hales had been given an adequate opportunity to submit economic data and that the hearing process had to end at some point. Mr. Arcate indicated that the issue of economic hardship to the applicant is not the only issue in determining whether to grant or deny a variance. A more significant issue is minimum deviation and divergence from the requirements of the Code - as to side yard, rear yard and density. Mr. Litt, appearing on behalf of neighboring residents, objected to any adjournment. According to Mr. Litt, his clients could not match the developer in terms of spending money on economic feasibility studies. Mr. Litt indicated that the applicant had an adequate opportunity to make his case with respect to economic hardship. The proposal, according to Mr. Litt, did not meet the intent of the Zoning Code or its specific requirements. ff Mr. Arcate stated that the hearing was completed on June 11, 1987. At that time, it was agreed without dispute that Mr. Litt's request to comment on Mr. Hales economic study would be submitted by June 29, 1987. Mr. Litt met that date. The Board would hear any comments now, as proposed on June 11, but will not entertain a series of rebuttals and rejoinders. Mr. Null responded that he was not prepared with comments now and needed more time. Mr. Arcate then asked Mr. Null what the Board could expect from his -^*^wl^A*^-i.^.^^ �reference to potential changes in the applicant's plan. If the Board had a basis for reasonable expectations that the applicant would propose substantial changes, the Board would be inclined to grant more time. Mr. Null replied that he has not had sufficient time to pursue such potential changes with the applicant. The Board then addressed the Code requirement (Section 62-47) which imposes a six month requirement before the applicant could reapply for the same or a substantially same proposal. If, however, the second application was substantially different, there would be no six month restriction. The conclusion from this discussion was that whether the Board granted an extension of time to allow Mr. Null to present a substantially different proposal or denied the variance now and allow the applicant to reapply with a substantially changed proposal, the end result would be the same. Mr. Sturgill commented that the cost to the neighbors would be less if they did not have to retain representation for the hearing that would result from a second application and proposed that the Board granted the requested delay. Mr. Null did not comment. Mr. Ceconi indicated that the proposal would be more compelling if the applicant addressed himself to minimizing the deviation from the requirements of the Zoning Code. Mr. Paolantonio, seconded by Mr. Dool, moved to deny the variances requested on the following grounds. The variances sought with respect to density, side yards and rear yards were extreme. On the issue of economic hardship, the burden of proof is on the applicant to demonstrate hardship. The materials submitted by the applicant were not convincing to the Board. Furthermore, even if the applicant had carried his burden of proof, the Zoning Board must consider the issue of minimum deviation of the Code. The proposal presented to the Board represented extreme deviations from the Zoning Code with respect to density, side yard and rear yards. Mr. Arcate then noted that the Board should act with respect to the applicant's proposal for development as a Planned Residence Development rather than a multiple dwelling. As part of this motion, the Board should rule whether Planned Residence Developments should be permitted on such a lot. It was concluded that this lot did not satisfy the requirement of 100 foot frontage or 20% density as specified in the Code for Planned Residential Development. Further, as displayed by the memo from Mr. Hughes, the prorata density allowed is �the same under both criteria. Motion carried by vote of three to two. In favor Dool, Paolontonio, Ceconi. Against - Arcate, Sturgill. Matter of John A. Arcate Mr. Sturgill observed that the proposed construction's compliance with code requirements was not is issue. The only reason this application was before the Board was because the size of the lot did hot conform to code requirements enacted in 1968, after construction of the houses which apparently compelled the Building Inspector to deny the building permit. After a brief discussion of the problems of nonconforming lots, a motion was made by Mr. Sturgill, seconded by Mr. Paolontonio, to grant the variance. Motion carried unanimously. Matter of Gioella j_ Rezza The Board recognized that the present variance was granted over 30 years ago and at a time when a different Code was enforced. Therefore, it was important to restate and clarify what is granted. The Board also noted that special circumstances documented in the Board's file of the 1956 action, made it necessary for Greene County to relocate from an urban renewal site in the Village. In order to remain in the Village a variance was sought and granted. The consequences of this variance, as shown by the record, has not resulted in a single complaint. After a brief discussion of the application, a motion was made by Mr. Paolontionio, seconded by Mr. Dool, that the variance applied for be granted and the 1956 variance, which was previously granted, be interpreted as follows: (1). That the condition found in the 1956 variance, (i.e. that it was granted to Greene County Importing Corp. only) was invalid as a matter of law. Any conditions imposed by the Zoning Board will relate to the use or occupancy of the land and not to the identity of the owner; (2) . That the condition;.found in the 1956 variance that there not be a "factory" on the premises is interpreted to mean that although there may be an exclusive retail use on the premises, pursuant to the Code, manufacturing use engaged in on the premises (preparation and purchasing of pasta and pasta-related products) must coexist with the retail use. »» , -'"™ Mi J*< l «^-T»£3«KlgSfefete&5i^>BrfS^^ �Motion carried unanimously. Next meeting scheduled for July 23, 1987. Being no further business the meeting adjourned. �July 2, 1987 PRESENT: John Arcate, Chairman Aldo Ceconi S. J. Sturgill Frank Paolontonio Raymond Dool ALSO PRESENT: James Margotta, Building Inspector John J. Hughes, Jr., Village Attorney Minutes of July 2, 1987 meeting of Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of North Tarrytown. Matter of John A. Arcate The Public Notice of the meeting was read by Mr. John Hughes, Village Counsel, acting as secretary to the Board. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Zoning Board of Appeals will hold a Public Hearing on July 2, 1987 in the Municipal Building, 28 Beekman Avenue, North Tarrytown, New York, at 8:00 p.m. to consider the application of JOHN A. ARCATE appealing the denial of a building permit by the Building Inspector for the premises located at 10 Hemlock Drive, North Tarrytown, New York. The applicant is requesting a building permit to permit the construction of an open deck on the premises. Section 62, subsection 8, paragraph B of the Zoning Ordinance of the Village of North Tarrytown requires lots which are situated within the R-2A District to contain 15,000 square feet, with a minimum width of 100 feet. The premises in question is non-conforming in that it contains 14,400 square feet and the width of the lot is 96.98 feet. Mr. Arcate addressed the Board and indicated that he wished to construct a deck extending from his house. The proposed construction will not violate any requirement of the Zoning Code. A variance is required only because his lot is non-conforming with respect to area (600 feet short of required 15000 feet) and width (short less than 4 feet). Mr. Arcate reviewed the history of the R-2A District, enacted in 1968 designed to control new development within Sleepy Hollow Manor. Mr. Sturgill been with respect explained that in where there was a for were granted. asked what the past policy of the Board has to similar applications. Mr. Arcate all cases that he could recall but one, rear yard problem, the variances applied �No other parties addressed the Board. hearing. Close of Hearing. Motion to close Matter of Application of Thomas Gioella and Christopher Rezza The Secretary to the Board read the Notice of Hearing: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Zoning Board of Appeals will hold a Public Hearing on July 2, 1987 in the Municipal Building, 28 Beekman Avenue, North Tarrytown, New York at 8:00 p.m. to consider the application of Christopher Rezza and Thomas Gioella to continue to use the premises located at No. 44 Beekman Avenue, North Tarrytown, New York to manufacture the package pasta, sausage and other food products. The premises in questions is located within the C-2 Zone, which does not permit manufacturing uses. Mr. Richard Deely, counsel to applicants, addressed the Board and explained that his clients were in the process of purchasing Greene County Importing Corp. ("Greene County") and the premises in which it is situated, located at 44 Beekman Avenue, North Tarrytown, New York. Mr. Deely explained that Green County currently manufactured pasta and meat products for sale of the premises and did so by virtue of a variance granted in 1956. Mr. Deely explained that the purpose of applying for the variance now was to clarify the 1956 variance as it related to the present use of the premises and the planned continued use by the applicants. Mr. Margotta asked whether the applicants intended to expand the business. Mr. Deely responded that they did not. They will continue the same business without change; same machines and same floor space used. Mr. Ceconi asked whether the leased lot across Beekman Avenue would be rented by the applicants to provide parking. Mr. Deely explained that the property is nonconforming,in that it does not provide on-site parking, but that the applicants had arranged to rent four (4) off street spaces behind the adjacent building. Mr. Hughes commented that the lot across the street has been rented by the Village for public parking. No other parties addressed the Board. passed - Hearing closed. Motion to close Respectfully submitted, IE, |f»r-. % . » .Hughes, Jr.* Attorney ^ ^ ^ ^ '" '*& - # -2fe-; -^•^*^-^>:.^iw?.*-^^^ . � 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_1987-07-02 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