https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/8b756df42085e7d7eec93ede4a183df2.pdf c9789bb529e472964c4f15101e7ee352 PDF Text Text > t # Approveo/ with respect to substance and form: Village^Attorney X[C\'*\'5 Dated: Approvedytoy the Zoning Bo Chairman or^kcfeing Chal Dated: Filed with Village Clerk c ex. - Clerk or Deputy Clerk Dated: 3/^/*f3 -/?// Date of Meeting f£3 �REGULAR MEETING DRAFT NORTH TARRYTOWN, N.Y. 3/25/93 February 17, 1993 A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of North Tarrytown was held on Wednesday, February 17, 1993 in the Village Hall, North Tarrytown, New York. PRESENT: George Fitzpatrick Frank Paolantonio Costas Boumis Mary Galgano ABSENT: John Morabito Michael Masias Juan Pujadas Mr. Fitzpatrick called the meeting to order at 8:15 P.M. The clerk read the public notice to hear and application by Laurentino Rodrigues for variances conversion of the existing building at 35 Clinton 16, Block 8, Lot 23A on the tax assessment map of North Tarrytown) from a one-family residence to a residence. consider an to permit the Street (Section the Village of two-family The applicant will be required to obtain the following variances: (1) the premises contain only 2,640 square feet (the premises should contain at least 4,000 square feet). (2) the front yard set-back is only seven (7) feet (a minimum set-back of 20 feet is required). (3) one side yard has at least five least fifteen side-yard set-back is eight (8) feet and the other no set-back (there must be a minimum side yard of (5) feet and the combined side yards must be at (15) feet). (4) the driveway is only eight (8) feet wide (the driveway\ must be at least ten (10) feet wide). / (5) there is only one parking space (there must be a parking space for each unit plus one-half space for each bedroom). (6) ^j^^j ^^m lot coverage (a maximum of 35% coverage is permitted) ^||? Mr. Rodrigues presented plans of the proposed conversion^KB: and stated that he purchased the property in 1989 as a twc^famiiy residence. The property is assessed for the purposes as^a two73? family residence. ^rS x �^ • ^ 4 Mr. Paolantonio stated that Mr. Rodrigues had filed an application for a variance to permit the use of 35 Clinton Street as a two-family residence, but withdrew the application in August, 1989 and obtained a variance to use the premises as a one-family residence on the following conditions: » (1) all work on the second floor apartment be removed, which includes the kitchen. (2) all electric and gas service meters to the second apartment be removed to the satisfaction of the Building Inspector. Mr. Boumis stated that he felt that too many variances were required* Mrs. Galgano stated that she felt that the area was too crowded and that the applicant would be encroaching on the lot next door. Mr. Fitzpatrick stated that part of the parking area would be on the adjoining lot, and that the house on the adjoining lot encroaches on this property. There being no further comments, Mr. Boumis moved, seconded by Mr. Paolantonio, that the Public Hearing be closed. Carried unanimously. After further discussion , Mr.-Paolantonio moved, seconded by Mr. Boumis, that the matter was an unlisted type action under SEQRA and would have an adverse impact on the environment due to problems with parking, loss of the remaining open space on the lot and the increase in population in an already densely populated neighborhood. Carried unanimously. The Board then made the following determination with respect to the application: ( Section 7-712-b of the Village Law provides that in making its determination on an application for an area variance, the Zoning Board of Appeals shall take into consideration the benefit to the applicant if the variance is granted, as weighed against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community by such a grant. In making such a determination, the Board shall also consider: (1) whether an ,?; . undesirable change will be produced in the character of the ;^ ^>?i neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance; (2) whether the benefitV|?| sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance; (3)li|£: whether the requested area variance is substantial ; (4) whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and (5) whether the alleged difficulty was self/.•••*"-•': x • fZ^T ^^m^m^^^m^^^^^ �» v»> * created. Clinton Street is a very crowded neighborhood with a number of multiple family residences. There are already very serious problems with respect to the parking of cars. The site plan submitted by the applicant demonstrates that the site has very limited parking. In fact, part of the proposed parking area encroaches upon the adjoining property. There could be four cars used by the residents of the house, if the premises were to be converted to a two-family residence. It would be extremely difficult to park four cars on the site with the proposed on-site parking. It is very likely that on-street parking would be used. It is further noted that the proposed parking area shown on the site plan completely takes up the small existing open yard. The area variances requested are numerous and substantial. Six area variances are required. Some of those variances are substantial. For example, the lot is significantly undersized (containing only approximately 2/3 of the required square footage) . The side lot set-backs are almost non-existent. There is only a minimal front yard. While not specifically required for an area variance, it is worth noting that the applicant did not offer any justification for converting the residence to a two-family residence other than the desire to earn more rental income. The applicant did not demonstrate any economic hardship. Accordingly, the Zoning Board of Appeals concludes that the application for the various area variances should be denied. The granting of the variances would have an adverse impact on this densely populated neighborhood; the impact on parking is particularly serious; the requested variances are numerous and substantial; the granting of the variances would have a detrimental impact on the nearby properties; and the applicant , has not made any showing that he needs the variances other than a desire to generate more rental income. Mr. Paolantonio moved, seconded by Mr. Boumis, to deny the application. Carried unanimously. Mr. Fitzpatrick stated that there would be no meeting in March due to the holiday, but tentatively set March 23rd if a meeting was requested. ^ -\ There being no further business to come before the meeting ^|; f Mr. Boumis moved, seconded by Mrs. Galgano, that the same be duly ; adjourned. Carried unanimously. iSfJlS -. - ^l?»i2?tiK - - Respectfully submitted^^T Irene Amato Acting Clerk " r't-SeJ : 1^ � 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-1993 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_1993-02-17 Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1993 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1993 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