https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/9753e3ffa86003cf6be7e91efcce745e.pdf 07c4e8c4ea1b0e6792a8931157b5fdf2 PDF Text Text MINUTES OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS VILLAGE OF NORTH TARRYTOWN, NEW YORK July 23, 1987 Present: Aldo Ceconi, Acting Chairman James Margotta, Building Inspector John J. Hughes, Jr., Village Attorney Arthur Brady, Counsel S. J. Sturgill Frank Paolontonio Paul Phillips Raymond Dool The public meeting was called to order at 8:12 p.m. by Mr. Ceconi. Matter of Joaquim Taviera As Mr. Taviera was unable to attend the meeting, this order of business was postponed to the next meeting. Matter of David Mallik The Public Notice was read by the acting secretary of the Board. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to Section 62-44 of the Code of the Village of North Tarrytown, a hearing will be held by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of North Tarrytown in the Village Hall, 28 Beekman Avenue, North Tarrytown, New York, on July 23, 1987 at 8:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as petitioner may be heard on an application submitted by David Mallik, 138 Harwood Avenue, North Tarrytown, New York appealing the decision of the Building Inspector and requesting a variance from the requirements of Section 62-8B of the Zoning Ordinance of the Village of North Tarrytown which requires a 25 foot rear yard setback for those properties located within the R-2 Zone. Mr. Richard McCall, contractor for the proposed garage, spoke on behalf of Mr. Mallik. He stated that the proposed garage. was to be built on the foundation of a previous garage and was to be the same size as the previous structure. He further stated that it was practically difficult, if not impossible, to locate this garage anywhere else on the property. Mr. Charles Luberger of 160 Harwood Avenue, then spoke, saying that he had no objection to the garage if it was to be built the same size as the previous one. �I Mr. Margotta then inquired as to why no electrical wiring had been planned for the garage. He believed that it was wiser to include electricity in the original walls rather than add wiring to the existing structure later. Mr. Margotta suggested adding a light over the garage, as well as two grounded outlets. Mr. McCall agreed to make these changes in the plans. There being no further public comments, Mr. Dool then moved to close the hearing. The motion was seconded by Mr. Sturgill and passed unanimously. Matter of Stephen Maceyak The Public Notice was read by the acting secretary to the Board. • NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to Section 62-44 of the Code of the Village of North Tarrytown, a hearing will be held by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of North Tarrytown in the Village Hall, 28 Beekman Avenue, North Tarrytown, New York on July 23, 1987 at 8:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as Petitioner may be heard, on an application submitted by Stephen Maceyak, 22 Anderson Avenue, North Tarrytown, New York appealing the February 10, 1987 decision of the Building Inspector denying a building permit for failure to comply with the requirements of section 62, subsection 25, paragraph A of the Zoning Ordinance of the Village of North Tarrytown which prohibits a restaurant use within the Manufacturing District. The applicant seeks to expand the restaurant currently located at 266 Beekman Avenue, North Tarrytown, New York. Mr. Ronald Turnquist, the architect for the proposed addition, then presented a scale model to the board and described the project. He explained that the addition would be a modern one, in keeping with the style of the doorway to the nearby General Motors building, rather than with the traditional buildings on the opposite side of the railroad tracks. Mr. Maceyak then explained that he planned to meet the required number of parking spaces by leasing a parking lot owned by General Motors, located 250 feet from his business. Mr. Steven Serena, operator of a tax business adjacent to the restaurant, then expressed opposition to the expansion. He feared that Mr. Maceyak's restaurant patrons would further damage his vehicles as they had in the past. He also omplained of littering on the property and other isturbances which he claimed were a result of patrons of the restaurant. Mr. Maceayk responded by stating that while in -2- �the past, he had hired a disk jockey and had dancing on the premises, which was possible because of the movable tables inside, that recently he had ceased to do this, and planned to operate only a restaurant in the future. Mr. Paolontohio then raised the question of whether the seating capacity of one hundred seventy-five (175) implied that this was the maximum number of occupants of the restaurant. Mr. Maceyak stated that the number of standees was not an issue, as the zoning was based on the number of seats. Ms. Gwendolyn Carter of 175 Hudson Street then voiced here approval of the project. However, she had several complaints about the current operation of the restaurant which she believed would worsen if the proposed addition was approved. She claimed that the restaurant had attracted a number of rodents to the immediate area, that the driveways of her house and several others in the area were often blocked by the vehicles of Mr. Maceyak*s patrons, that litter left by those patrons on neighboring lawns often had to be cleaned up by herself and her neighbors, and that she feared that the restaurant would therefore depreciate the value of her home should she decide to sell it. Ms. Carter explained that she had had to call the police on numerous occasions to deal with the situation, but that they often arrived too late to apprehend anyone. Mr. Serena concurred on this point. Mr. Maceyak stated he had. an exterminator brought in weekly who found no problem with the rodents. He also stated that some of the litter could not be attributed to his establishment since he did not serve alcohol in cans. He claimed that in his three years of operation, the police had never notified him of these complaints. Mr. Serena, then inquired about the feasibility of valet parking in the General Motors lot, as Mr. Maceyak had described. The board agreed that the idea was indeed workable. Mr. Turnquist explained that the addition as planned might enhance the property values of the neighboring region. He explained that their intention was to change the character of the establishment for the better. Mr. Maceayak explained that he did already have a lease for another nearby parking lot on River Street, although he still did not have a lease for the General Motors lot. He was urged by the board to obtain the latter. -3- ,-L£ -"-L i- rU\~-_ -I'li^d?-* =£>- �Mr. Ceconi, in closing, then explained that since the area in questions was zoned for commercial property rather than residential, that homeowners there would continue to encounter problems trying to prevent the establishment of commercial businesses there. There being no further public comments, Mr. Dool then moved to close the public hearing. The motion was seconded by Mr. Sturgill and passed unanimously. Matter of Rodrigues Enterprises - Valley Street Project The public notice was read by the acting Secretary to the Board. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to Section 62-44 of the Code of the Village of North Tarrytown, a hearing will be held by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of North Tarrytown in the Village Hall, 2 8 Beekman Avenue, North Tarrytown, New York on July 23, 1987 at 8:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as Petitioner may be heard, on an application submitted by Rodrigues Enterprises, 56 Clinton Street, North Tarrytown, New York appealing the March 11, 1988 decision of the Building Inspector and requesting a variance from the requirements of Section 62, subsection 8, paragraph B of the Zoning Ordinance of the Village of North Tarrytown which requires for any building located within the C-2 district the following: (1) a rear yard of 20 feet. The applicant proposes a building with an 8 foot rear yard; (2) a front yard of 20 feet. The applicant proposes a building with a 5 foot front yard; (3) side yards of a total of 15 feet with a minimum side yard of 5 feet. The applicant provides a total of 12 feet on the sideyards and 3 feet on one side and (4) a minimum area of 18,500 square feet for twelve (12) dwelling units. The premises in question contains 13,000 square feet. Mr. Herbert Posner, attorney for Mr. Rodrigues, stated that the proposed Multi-Function Building would improve the appearance of the area and remove a gas station which the residents believe detracts from the appearance of the neighborhood. Mr. Posner further explained that the property is unique and that strict application of the Zoning Code would not permit any new building on the property. The building proposed would conform to and enhance the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Ron Turnquist, the architect for the project, then described the layout of the proposal. Mr. Joseph Emma of 62 Depeyster Street complained of the necessity of notifying the police to remove vehicles belonging to patrons of the nearby stores, which often block -4- �residents' driveways. He feared that the new proposal, allowing for more businesses as well as apartments with no plans for parking, would worsen this situation. He also noted the lack of a traffic signal on the street, making turning a problem and allowing many vehicles to speed down Depeyster Street. These complaints were supported by other residents of the street. Mr. Joseph Arrout suggested that the number of dwellings be reduced from twelve to eight or nine, to lessen the problem of parking. Mr. Posner stated that the number of spaces required for the building (35) had been allotted. Mrs. Clair Lang of 49 Depeyster Street spoke against the construction of such a tall building at this location. Her husband also disagreed with the proposal, claiming that the building would be unsightly; that traffic already travels too fast on the street, preventing pedestrians from crossing. Mrs. Lang claimed the traffic passed too close to her driveway already. Mrs. Eleanor Russo of 45 Depeyster Street noted that many families in the area own three of more vehicles, and lack any private parking area for them, and that the proposed development would only make the problem worse. Mr. Posner explained that the building would rise only fortyfour (44) feet above Valley Street, and would therefore not block the view or detract from the appearance of the street. Mr. Michael Malone agreed that the idea was a good one, but that the area was too crowded already. He suggested allotting the first floor of the building just for parking, and the second floor for stores or apartments. Mr. Turnquist explained that only the residential side of the building would be viewed from the street. He also dismissed Mr. Malone's idea as implausible due to convenience for elderly and/or handicapped patrons of the stores, or residents of the apartments. Mr. Arthur Brady, acting counsel, proposed that the number of dwellings be reduced to ten, since this would be in keeping with the zoning code for the amount of square feet in question. Mr. Turnquist explained that the present design was more economical in terms of waterproofing the roof, etc. Mr. Ceconi noted that only thirty-two (32) parking spaces were in fact allowed for in the design, because the other three (3) would be public parking, while thirty-five (35) private spaces are required by the Code. Mr. Turnquist noted in response that the zoning is currently based on the number of apartments where a more accurate method would be to base it on the number of bedrooms in the complex. -5• VWta «:•* trite* j.-^ai3,a:iii»'-JfeiBS&aSiifca; �Mr. Rodrigues, the contractor, then explained that the project was a rather costly endeavor, and that they would not have planned it as such without reason to believe it would result in a profit. He explained that the site is unique. A smaller building with less density is not economically justifiable. Second Matter of Rodrigues Enterprises Clinton Street Project Mr. Turnquist, Architect for the project, explained that Mr. Rodrigues previously obtained a variance from the Board as to density and parking. Subsequently, a survey was obtained which showed that the property in question, located at 56 Clinton Street, North Tarrytown, New York, was approximately 4400 square feet in area rather than 53004square feet, as previously represented to the Zoning Board when the variance was obtained. Discussion ensued regarding the previously granted variances. Mr. Brady, Counsel, explained that since applicant was also required to obtain a variance for the necessary subdivision of the property at 56 Clinton Street, that the present hearing was also for a variance to allow two buildings on the same lot. A separate motion to close this hearing was made by Mr. Dool, seconded by Mr. Phillips, and passed unanimously. The public meeting was adjourned at 10:41 p.m. -6- �EXECUTIVE SESSION 1. Minutes of Previous Meeting Mr. Sturgill then made a motion to approve the minutes of the meeting of July 2, 1987. It was seconded by Mr. Dool and passed unanimously. 2. Matter of David Mallik Mr. Sturgill reviewed the practical difficulties inherent in locating a garage anywhere else on the subject property. He further noted that a garage had existed previously on the same foundation. Mr. Sturgill moved to approve the variance sought by the applicant. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dool and passed unanimously. 3. Matter of Stephen Maceyak Mr. Sturgill then reviewed the Maceyak case by indicating that he himself has viewed the establishment in question and its surroundings, and believes the restaurant venture to be a better use of the property than any manufacturing use. Mr. Sturgill mentioned that the applicable section of the zoning code could be interpreted to state that the owner of the restaurant must also own or lease the corresponding parking area. Mr. Margotta stated that the need for a variance arose from the fact that the proposal was for a restaurant to be build in a region zoned for manufacturing only. Mr. Sturgill then moved to grant the variance to permit this proposed restaurant expansion wi thin the Manufacturing Zone with the condition that there would be sufficient parking provided at a distance of 250 feet from the restaurant. Mr. Paolontonio seconded, and this resolution was passed unanimously. 4. Matter of Rodrigues Enterprises - Clinton Street Property Mr. Sturgill reviewed the Rodrigues application by reminding the board that only two parking spaces were in question. Mr. Paolontonio stated that the variance, if approved, would allow much more density than the Code permitted, and that not enough parking spaces would be provided. Mr. Dool moved to deny the variance sought for by Rodrigues Enterprises. This motion was seconded by Mr. Paolontonio. Motion carried four votes to one. Mr. Sturgill voted against the motion. -7ic-fc -••i»eJi'ii"jr,^i4£6jSl �Mr. Sturgill then moved to rescind the former vote and grant the variance for four (4) dwelling units rather than five, since this proposal would be closer to compliance with the zoning code in terms of density and parking. This motion was seconded by Mr. Dool. Mr. Sturgill and Mr. Dool voted in favor, and Mr. Phillips, Mr. Paolontonio, and Mr. Ceconi against. Motion fails by a 3 to 2 vote. Since this variance for four dwellings was also struck down, Mr. Margotta reminded the board that the applicant could return only with a plan for three dwellings, or a complete revision. 4. Matter of Rodrigues Enterprises -^ Valley Street On the issue of the Rodrigues property located at Valley street, North Tarrytown, New York, Mr. Sturgill noted that if the property were zoned for manufacturing, the only variance that would be needed would be for the rear yard. Since the proposal was for a hybrid use (part commercial, part residential), it fell into this category. Mr. Margotta noted that the traffic estimates voiced by the residents were somewhat exaggerated, as was the speeding. Several board members concurred. Mr. Sturgill moved to grant the variances requested;.to wit, variances from the requirements of 62-8B of the Zoning Code as they apply to (1). Rear Yard Setback - whereas 20 feet is required, an 8 foot rear yard setback will be permitted; (2). Front Yard Setback - whereas 20 feet is required, a 5 foot front yard setback will be permitted; (3). Side Yard Setbacks - whereas a total of 15 feet will be required with a minimum of 5 feet on one side. The applicant will be permitted 12 feet on the sideyards and 3 feet on one side; (4). Density - whereas the Code requires a minimum area of 18,500 square feet, for 12 dwelling units, 13,000 square feet will be permitted: (5). Parking - whereas the Code requires 35 on site parking spaces for this project, 32 will be permitted. Mr. Sturgill reviewed the entire Project, indicating that the applicant had shown that the shape of the lot was unique, that there were practical difficulties involved in the construction of any new building, that the building proposed conformed to the character of the neighborhood (Valley Street - Commercial; Depeyster Street - Residential). This matter �was then referred to the Planning Board for review of the site plan. Mr. Sturgill's motion was seconded by Mr. Dool. carried unanimously. Motion Mr. Sturgill then motioned to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Paolontionio seconded. Motion carried unanimously. The executive session was adjourned at 11:48 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, R. Thomas Homan Village Administrator/Clerk Village of North Tarrytown -9- � 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_1987-07-23 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