https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/ba08b284e603e789b9d8da44e60b3fed.pdf d85dfbb1595766a9e1972964dcb7962d PDF Text Text m Approved with respect to substance and form: lXlage Attorneyy Vi: Dated: V - /]?' f£> y Approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals '//la+J' tfkc4z**&*X6 yJlf/96 Chairman or Acting Chairman Dated: Filed with Deputy Clerk Clerk or Deputy Clerk Dated: ^Ufa* MmTW*- J*Ff?> fJ^^^-hl^0 .. - --- -. \-< r j s-^s-i:^~i£ & . - ; «*.-: - -.:. ^C*A*L2 ,«^-v^»a*^i^^^ii«fi4^^^---u,-.te^-^i^^s^ii'=.«^»s«i^jsfeaa4^aiy �PUBLIC HEARING February 21, 1990 A regular meeting of the Zoning Board was held on February 21, 1990 at 8:00PM in Village Hall, North Tarrytown, New York. Present: Also present: Absent: Jerome Fine John Cappello Ray Dool Frank Paolantonio, Acting Chairman John Hughes, Village Attorney Jim Margbtta, Bldg. Inspector James Karr Steven Maceyak Vincent Buannano IN THE MATTER OF MAMIE BOYD. 58 HUDSON STREET, NORTH TARRYTOWN. N. Y. The clerk received the appropriate proof of notices. The clerk read aloud the Public Notice to hear and consider an appeal from a decision of the Building inspector in denying a building permit for an addition to the property located at 58 Hudson St., known and designated on Village Tax Assessment Map as Section 16, Block 3, Lots 1A & IB. Section 62-10 B (1) Use. Prohibited uses in industrial districts. Within an industrial district, no building shall be constructed, converted or altered for the following types of uses: Any residential use, including hotels, motels and rooming houses. PUBLIC HEARING Julius Twine, Architect, presented plans of the proposed addition to the property. Previously, there was a two car garage on the first floor level that burned down last year. Under the plans submitted to the board, the first floor level will now be a bedroom and bath. Secondly, the plans provide for an exit to the outside on the first floor level. Mr. Steven Serina, a resident whose property abutts Mrs. Boyd, is in favor of the addition citing it would improve the area. He also knows the applicant who is in bad health, and cannot maneuver on stairs. Comments were made regarding Hudson Street being zoned for industrial use, and when private homeowners in the area want to make improvements on their properties, they must go before the Zoning Board. Chairman Paolantonio noted that the Board was 11 �aware of the hardship in that area and it would be up to the Board of Trustees to change zoning requirements for that area of the village. Ms. Boyd's foster daughter, Linda, addressed the board and asked that the variance be granted on behalf of the physical hardships and ill health of her foster mother. A motion to close the public hearing was made by John Cappello and seconded by Ray Dool. Motion carried. BUSINESS MEETING: Chairman Paolantonio felt the Board should grant the variance because of health hardship suffered by the applicant. John Cappello made a motion to grant the variance pursuant to Section 62-02 of the Zoning Code and on the grounds that the applicant had demonstrated "hardship" by virtue of a significant investment in the property. The applicant had also clearly demonstrated the unusual or unique nature of the circumstances surrounding her property. The property is in a residential area, although it is zoned industrial. Finally, the addition as proposed is in conformity with prevailing residential uses in the neighborhood. Motion was seconded by Ray Dool. Motion carried unanimously. 12 �IN THE MATTER OF PATRICIA DAMIN, 1_4 DELL STREET, NORTH TARRYTOWN, NEW YORK The clerk read aloud the public notice to hear and consider an appeal of a decision of the Building Inspector in revoking a building permit for an addition to the residence at 14 Dell Street, North Tarrytown, New York. The property is known on the Village Tax Assessment Map as Section 17, Block 1, Lot 11. The property is located in the R-4 District. Section 62-8B, Schedule of Regulations of the Zoning requires the following: (1) lot size of 4,000 sq. ft. while the actual size of the lot is 2,750 sq. ft.; (2) the lot coverage requirement is 35%, while the coverage, with the proposed addition, is 30%; (3) the front yard requirement is 20'-0, while the front yard is 11.99 feet (the existing house is situated 11.99 feet from the front property line); (4) the side yard: one side requirement is 3 feet, both sides 12 feet, while the proposed side yard on one side .16 and on the other side is 8 feet 11 inches; (5) the rear yard requirement is 25'-0 while the proposed rear yard is 3'-l". PUBLIC HEARING The clerk received the appropriate proofs of service of notices from Mr. Crompton Spain, Esq. attorney for Ms. Damin. The Board noted, initially, that this matter had come before the Board on October 18, 1989. In that meeting, Mrs. Damin had applied for and been granted a rear yard variance only. A copy of the minutes of the October 16, 1989 meeting, where the application for a rear yard variance was granted, is attached hereto. After the October 16, 1989 meeting, Ms. Damin and the Building Inspector, Mr. James Margotta, had several discussions. They decided that it may be preferable to build the addition on the side of the existing residence. The architect for Ms. Damin, who is Studio Rai, P.C. of Ossining, New York, prepared building plans for the addition on the side. Mr. Margotta approved these plans and issued a building permit forthwith. At the time of the issuance of this building permit, neither Mr. Margotta nor Mrs. Damin realized that several area variances were required, due to the placement of the addition as well as to the nonconforming and irregular shape of the lot. �With the building permit, Ms. Damin engaged a contractor and proceeded with construction. As of this date, the work is over 25% complete. A foundation has been constructed and the addition has been framed out. In January, 1990, Mr. Margotta realized that he had erred in issuing a building permit for this addition. Mr. Margotta ordered all construction work in progress stopped, revoked the Building Permit and instructed Ms. Damin to appear before the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Spain, attorney for the applicant, urged the Board to grant these variances, as they are area variances only. In addition, he argued that his client has undergone a financial hardship by virtue of having the construction stopped in progress. The purpose of the addition remains the same: to provide a bedroom and bath for Ms. Damin*s invalid mother. Mr. Spain urged the Board to grant the variances stating that the proposed addition is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. Mr. William Patten, of 12 Dell Street, North Tarrytown, New York, who is the next door neighbor of Ms. Damin, addressed the Board. He spoke about a problem that he had with the Building Inspector several years ago when he wanted to build a fence on his property. Mr. Patten also questioned why the addition was so close to his property and whether the Damins could build a second story to the addition, thereby blocking light and air from his house. Ms. Maureen Patten, also of 12 Dell Street, who lives next to the Damin property, questioned whether Ms. Damin's mother was indeed ill, since she seemed to run a baby sitting service in her home. Mr. Thomas Papp, who is the contractor, spoke in favor of Ms. Damin*s application. There being no further public comment on the application, Mr. John Cappello moved to close the public hearing, this motion was seconded by Mr. Ray Dool and was carried by a unanimous vote. BUSINESS MEETING The Board first noted the difficulty of rendering a decision on a matter where the construction was already in progress, where a denial of the variance would inflict severe financial hardship on the applicant, and where the purpose of the construction was to provide housing for Ms. Damin's invalid mother. This decision was made more difficult because of the nonconforming and irregular nature of the lot and the nonconforming position and extremely small size of the house. The Board also noted its sensitivity to the concerns of Mr. William Patten and his daughter, Maureen Patten. Although �their testimony at the hearing was extremely confusing, their concerns seemed legitimate. The Board agreed that this matter was to be decided as if it came before the Board (3e novo. The Board would be guided by the criteria set forth in the Zoning Code. The Village Attorney reminded the Board that the application requested "area" variances and that the proper standards to consider were whether the applicant had demonstrated practical difficulties in terms of compliance with the Zoning Code; whether the variance, if granted, will be the minimum variance required and whether the variance was in keeping with the neighborhood and conformed to the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. The Board then addressed each variance separately: 1. 2. 3. 4. Lot size - 4,000 square feet was required, 2,750 square feet were provided. The Board agreed that this was a nonconforming lot, not dissimilar to many other residential lots in the area. The applicant could do nothing to alleviate this situation as improved residential properties, owned by other individuals, were situated on both sides of her property. Front yard - the existing house is situated 11.99 from the property line. The proposed addition would not affect this yard. Rear Yard - the existing house was already situated 15 feet from the rear yard of the property. There is no possibility that the 25 feet requirement could be met by the applicant. Side Yard - whereas the Zoning Code requires a minimum of 3 feet on one side with a minimum total on both sides of 12 feet, this property is situated in such a way so that on one side, the existing building is only .16 feet from the side yard. If the proposed addition is approved, it will be set back 8 feet 11 inches on the other side. The Board noted that the principal complaint of Mr. William Patten was that the addition, if allowed to be constructed, would be too close to his sideyard. The Board further noted the following: - If the addition is allowed, it will be situated 8 feet 11 inches from the sideyard. - The Zoning Code requires a minimum of 3 feet on one side. - It appears that Mr. Patten's residence is situated a distance of less than 3 feet from Ms. Damin's property. �In conclusion, the Board noted that the front yard variance was due solely to the placement of the existing house. As to the sideyard, the existing house was situated .16 feet from one sideyard. With the new addition, the other sideyard would be 8 feet 11 inches. The Board found that 8 feet 11 inches was an acceptable distance where the Zoning Code permitted 3 feet. As to the rear yard, the existing house was nonconforming in that it was only 15 feet from the rear yard. The addition would exacerbate this nonconformity as it would be located only 3.1 feet from the rear property line. The Board noted that Ms. Damin had previously received a rear yard variance, and that the size and shape of the lot were such that no addition could be built on the property without further violating the rear yard setback requirement. The Board concluded that M s . Damin had demonstrated practical difficulties and that the variances were the minimum required on the following grounds: (1) The small size and irregular shape of the lot in question; (2) The non-conforming nature of the lot; (3) The very small size of the existing house; (4) The nonconforming location of the house on the property; (5) The need of the Damin's for expanded space for Ms. Damin 1 s mother's medical problems. The Board notes the existence of a note from a physician; (6) The fact that the construction was already in progress; (7) The fact that the addition could not be feasibly located on any other area of the property. Mr. Jerome Fine moved to grant all variances requested by the application on one condition: that the addition be limited to one story only. The reason for this condition is that Mr. Patten, the neighboring resident, expressed a concern that if the addition were two stories, light and air to their home would be reduced. Mr. Fine noted that if the applicant wished to add a second story to this addition, they must apply to the Board for a further variance. Mr. John Cappello seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Francesca L®renz // Recording Secretary ^ � 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-1990 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_1990-02-21 Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1990 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1990 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