https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/7a31e6dd9f164dea9ac0aa1fde15c150.pdf 3ed9e7fc63801c28082b176fb05f662d PDF Text Text \ I ' "• • Approved with respect to substance and form Village Attorrfey Dated: \-^•^'d?l Approved by the zoning Board of Appeals lairman or' Acting Chairman 'Dated: \^x\-°ix Filed with Deputy Clerk ^^ Clerk or*Deputy Clerk M Dated: il Q^sh/ \)JL(^J^ '(» ™° Date of Meeting * �# A Meeting of the Zoning Board was held on Tuesday, December 11, 1990 at 7:00 PM in Village Hall, North Tarrytown, New York. Members Present: Also Present: Jerome Fine, Chairman Vincent Bubnanno John Cappello Costas Boumis Frank Paolantonio James Karr John Morabito James Margotta, Building Inspector John J. Hughes, Village Attorney Chairman Jerome Fine called the meeting to order at 7:10 PM. IN THE MATTER OF AKIN, 2 8 EVERGREEN WAY, NORTH TARRYTOWN, NEW YORK. Jerome Fine, Chairman, mentioned that there are additional documents to be considered. One document is a list of the remaining lots in the R-2A Zone that are not yet developed. This is relevant to the Board's consideration of the character of the area. An additional map known as the "3rd alternate" was distributed by the applicant. The Board referred to this map in reaching its decision. In determining this matter, the Board made the following notations: Lot 2 is the improved lot shown on the 3rd alternate map as Tax Lot 2. Proposed Lot 1 is the unimproved lot requiring the area variance (consisting of Tax Lot 1 and; a part of Tax Lot 9). Proposed Lot 8 is the unimproved lot which conforms to the all area requirements (this proposed lot is shown on the map as consisting primarily of Tax Lot 9 and a portion of Tax Lot 8 ) . |i; ?B»-i«?>—fZ%£'^,-c~ &?i-irt£ r f t ^ r f i ^ J ' i ^ I ^ S a i B C s S ^ ^ �At this time during the meeting, the Board discussed the requirements for granting an area variance. The Board referred the minutes of a 1967 meeting of the Board of Trustees wherein Mr. Akin was led to believe that his lots would be exempt from the Zoning Amendment. Mr. Buonanno mentioned that he was in favor of granting the variance. It was clearly the intent of the Board of Trustees that the zoning amendment not apply to pre-existing subdivided lots. In addition, Mr. Buonanno referred to the fact that several variances have been granted since 1967. Mr. Paolantonio was also in favor of granting the application. He bases his decision upon a reading of the minutes of 1967. Mr. Cappello agreed that the application should be approved, based upon the minutes of the 1967 amendment to the Zoning Law. Mr. Boumis also agreed with the interpretation of minutes of 1967. Mr. Karr stated that he was in favor of granting of the variance and thought that it was intended to build on the lot someday. Mr. Morabito v/ill vote in favor if certain conditions are imposed. Mr. Hughes discussed with the Board the requirements for an area variance and the Board reviewed them in the following manner: 1. Whether the variance would detrimentally alter the character of the area or effect a substantial change in the character of the area. On this question, the Board noted the following: A. A survey of the improved lots in the R-2A zoning district showed 201 lots. Of these 201 lots, 69 lots contain less than the required minimum area of 15,000 sq.ft. Effectively 34% of the lots in Sleepy Hollow Manor (which comprises the R-2A zone) are substandard. B. Sleepy Hollow Manor, which comprises the R-2A Zone, is a mature, well established subdivision. It consists of single family residences, built primarily from the early 1930's through the early 1960's. Based on a count of the Building Inspector and Village Assessor, approximately 18 unimproved but 2 �subdivided building lots are remaining. A survey by the Building Inspector reveals that many of these lots cannot.be developed due to irregular shapes, topographical conditions(i.e. slope,etc.) presence of rock, etc. In addition, some of the remaining lots have been split in half by the contiguous owners. There is one large undeveloped and subdivided parcel, which contains several acres. The Board noted that all previous application for variances from the area requirements of the R-2A Zone in Sleepy Hollow Manor, save one, have been granted in the past. As to proposed Lot 1, which is at issue here, the proposed lot area contains approximately 13,569 sq.ft, and is therefore approximately 9% short of the required area. The Board does not consider this to be substantial deviation from the requirements of the Zoning Code. The Board noted that there exist several non-conformihg developed lots in the immediate vicinity of this proposed lot. The proposed lot and the residence to be situated thereon will meet all other requirements for the zoning district. The Board notes that the typical residences in the area contain 2000-4,000 square feet. The proposed lot will accommodate a house with approximatley 2,700 sq.ft.,. which will be in keeping with the general character of homes in the area. The Board also takes note of the comments of many neighbors who are concerned that the development of this lot will negatively affect the area and the value of their homes. No specific facts are offered as to how this negative effect will occur. The Board regrets the loss of green space. The Board does not agree that the development of the proposed lot will detrimentally alter the character of the neighborhood. The Board notes that several of the neighbors who object to the development of this lot own residences situated on 3 �non-conforming lots, with areas less than the area required by the ordinance and in some cases, less than that in the contained in the proposed lot. Whether the magnitude of the variance is substantial in relation to the requirement. The proposed lot contains 13,569 sq. ft. and is, therefore, 9% short of the required area for a building lot. The Board determines that, owing to the existing character of the area, where several homes are situated on lots containing less than 15,000 sq.ft. and in many cases, less area than the proposed lot, the variance requested is not substantial in comparison to the requirement. Additionally, the Board notes that the only variance requested is one of area. There are no other variances requested or required in connection with the development of this proposed lot. Whether there is an effect of an increase in population on governmental services. Lot 8 (as shown on the site plan), which meets all requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, and Lot 1 are the only lots proposed to be developed. Since there are only two single family houses proposed to be built on these lots, and only one lot require a variance, there will be an extremely small increase in demand for governmental services. As this subdivision is mature and all governmental services(i.e. fire, police, sanitation, sewer, water) are already provided,the additional demand for governmental services generated by this development will be inconsequential. Whether the proposed lots meet all other requirements of the Zoning Code. The;Board finds , in examining the site plan that suitable size homes, containing approximately 2,750 sq.ft and 3,000 sq.ft. can be built on the lots without any additional variances. The only variance required is one for area in connection with Lot No. 1. �Whether the practical difficulty complained of can be avoided by means other than "a variance. The Board finds that since there is no other property available, there is no alternative to the variance if the Board determines to grant the applicant the relief he seeks. Whether the interests of justice are served by granting this application. The Board has considered the effect of the 1967 Amendment to the zoning code increasi'rig~ the area requirements of the R-2 A District from 10,000 to 15,000 sq. ft. With respect to Lot 1, the legal effect of this amendment was to render it unusable as a separate building lot. ( Under the Village Law, lots made non-coriformirig by a change in the area requirements must be developed within three (3) years of the date of enactment of the amendment. Clearly this was not done.) The Board is also mindful of the minutes of a meeting of the Board of Trustees, dated October 29, 1967 and December 18, 19 67 when the amendment was passed. A copy of the minutes of the 19 67 meeting are attached hereto. The Board of Trustees in 1967 represented to Mr. Akin, among others, that their lots would not be affected by the amendment,t even though their lots are clearly within the zoning district where the zoning requirements for a building lot were changed from 10,000 to 15;000 sq. ft. Apparently, in 1967, one large property owner intended to develop his property and the amendment was passed in reaction to this intention. The 1967 Board of Trustees were misguided into believing that they could increase the requirements of the zoning district without affecting all owners of property within the district. ^.^..^Si^SSfc^^ jj^^ii^^^^^^mii^^^^^^is^^s^^^^g^i^^^^^^^^^i^^^ �There is no question that Mr. Akin and others relied on this representation and acquiesced in the enactment of this amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. The Board also notes that, since the enactment of the amendment, all applications to build on lots made substandard by the amendment, have been referred to the Zoning Board for relief and all applications, save one, have been granted. In the case of the one denial, the Board denied the application on the grounds the unimproved lot could not be developed without violating yard requirements of the Zoning Code. In this application, as in the previous cases where variances were granted, a residence of a suitable size can be constructed without violating any yard requirements. Only the area requirement of the Zoning Code cannot be met. For these reasons, the Board determines that it is in the overall interest of justice that the variance be granted. Whether the Board is granting this variance, acts in a legislative capacity. The 1967 amendment, increasing the area requirements from 10,000 to 15,000 sq.ft., is a clear example of the difficulties of rezoning a mature, well developed area. In 19 67, this area was well established. There has been relatively little new development in the area since 1967. The purpose of the Zoning Board is to grant relief from the strict application of the Zoning "Code where circumstances warrant and legally sufficient reasons exist. Each application must be decided on a case by case basis. �# 8. Whether the applicant has demonstrated economic hardship. The Board is mindful of court decisions in connection with the requirement of demonstrating economic hardship in an application for an area variance. In Conley v. Town:of Brobkhaven, 4 0 N.Y. 2d. 3 09, the Court of Appeals held that financial hardship is one factor that may be considered but, by itself, it is hot determinative. A change of area may be granted on the ground of practical difficulties alone, without considering whether or not there is unnecessary hardship. People ex re. Helvetia Realty Co. v. Leo 231 N.Y. 619. In the absence of a statutory provision to the contrary, special hardship need not be established as a condition to granting an area variance. 359 West 34th St. v. Board of State arid Appeals of the City of N.Y. 279 App. Div. 1032, affd. 305 N.Y. 878. The applicant here purchased the property known as Lot No. 1 in 1941. An approximate purchase price of $500.00 in 1941 has been derived by reference to deed stamps. The neighbors argue, in opposition to the application, that the applicant, in seeking the variance, simply wants to derive more profit from the property. The Board is aware that increased profit to the applicant is not a basis to support the granting of an area variance. The applicant relies on the case of Fulling v. Palumbo. 21 N.Y. 2d 30, where the Court of Appeals held that once the applicant has established economic injury, the zoning standard can be justified only by showing that the public health, safety and welfare will be served by upholding the application of the standard. In this case, the Board finds that the applicant-'--has not demonstrated an actual "dollars arid cents" economic injury. That does not mean that the variance must be denied. It simply means that the municipality does not now have the burden to demonstrate some legitimate purpose by enforcing the area standard. �The Board has examined an appraisal by John P. Streb and Sons. The appraisal states, that if the subject lot cannot be built upon, it has value only as a side yard to the adjacent lot, with an increased tax burden to the land owner. In addition, the result of denial of this variance application would be one building lot with approximately 28,500 sq.ft.,(combining Lots 1 and 8) , an area far greater than almost all of the other existing lots in the area. The Board finds that to create only one building lot containing over 28,500 sq.ft. would not be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. To render Lot 1 unbuildable arid as a sideyard to Lot 8 is not viable since Lot 8 can already be built upon without any area or yard variances whatsoever. The Board concludes that Lot 1, as shown on the site plan, has no viable use as a sideyard and cannot yield any reasonable return to the owner without the variance. In making this finding, the Board follows the Conley case, cited supra, and views the economic injury to the applicant as only one factor in determining whether to grant the area variance. 9. Whether the premises is unique in nature or that there are special circumstances or conditions which apply which do not generally apply to the land or buildings in the neighborhood. The Board finds that the lot in question, is unique in that it constitutes one of the last viable building lots existing in Sleepy Hollow Manor. A review of the R-2A Zoning District shows very few building lots remaining and even fewer which possess the characteristics of this lot with less than 15,000 sq. ft. but containing sufficient area that a house of suitable size and dimension can be built without violating any yard requirements. 8 �At this point the concept of "merger" and "single and separate ownership" was discussed and Mr. Hughes asked the Board to delay final decision on this matter until he researched the matter. A motion was made by Mr. Paolantonio- to table the application until the next meeting for the purpose of determination of the concept of "merger" and other related concerns. The motion seconded by Jerome Fine and motion was carried by a unanimous vote. There being no further business the meeting ended at 8:35. Respectfully submitted, Christine A. Yurkovic Recording Secretary 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-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_1990-12-11 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