https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/8912aa35e1d90aed5f51ef6443e70d59.pdf e5fa577e944aff433fb7aa10544b4bec PDF Text Text Appro1 respect to substance and form: Village Attorney Dated: W/tf/?3 Approved b^ the Zoning Board Chairman Dated: Filed with Village Clerk C-terk—er Deputy Clerk Dated: F / / ? / ^ / a/ D a t e £>£ M e e t i n g 17 23 ' �REGULAR MEETING NORTH TARRYTOWN, N.Y. JULY 21st, 1993 A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of North Tarrytown was held on Wednesday,.JJuiy 21st, 1993 in the Village Hall, North Tarrytown, New York. PRESENT: George Fitzpatrick, Chairman Rhonda Mauhs Frank Paolontonio John Morabito Michael Masias Juan Pujadas Mary Galgano ALSO PRESENT: Donal Walsh, Attorney James Margotta, Building Inspector Chairman Fitzpatrick called the meeting to order at 8:10 P.M. 1. George DoPico, 30 Evergreen Way-Overhang at front entrance. Clerk read the notice to hear and consider an appeal by George DoPico from a deciaion of the Building Inspector which denied a building permit for an overhang at the front entrance at 30 Evergreen Way on the following grounds: Schedule of Regulations, Part I, requires thirty (30') foot front yard; the overhang as designed provides for a front yard of 26.7 feet. Mr. DoPico presented Affidavit of Service to Clerk. Mr. DoPico stated that in building the house and preserving a tree it was necessary to have the overhang at the front entrance slightly extend over the required front yard requirements. This overhang was recommended by the Architectural Review Board. He stated they have complied with the wishes of the A.R.B. and the Sleepy Hollow Manor Improvement Association and requests that the Board grant their variance for the overhang. Mr. Walsh stated that the house was in agreement with the Zoning requirements but the ARB advised him to add the overhang. Discussion followed regarding the issuance of a building permit^if Mr. DoPico had refused to add the overhang. Mr. Margotta stated he would have refused to issue a permit. Mr. Fitzpatrick asked if there was anyone present who would like to address the Board. �Mr. Paoloritonio moved, seconded by Mr. Morabito that the Public Hearing be closed. Carried. After a discussion, Mr. Paolontonio moved, seconded by. Mr. Morabito that the proposed action is a Type II action under SEQRA and will have minimal adverse effect on the environment. Carried. Mr. Paoloritonio moved, seconded by Mr. Morabito that based on the findings of the Architectural Review Board requesting the erection of the overhang, the variance be granted as requested. Carried. 2. John Maurer, 23 Amos Street-Roof over porch stoop. Clerk read the public notice to hear and consider an appeal by John Maurer from a decision of the Building Inspector which denied a building permit for construction of a roof over a porch stoop on the following grounds: The construction plans for 23 Amos Street require a roof over the front stoop. The setback requirements are 20 feet. With the roof over the porch, the setback will be 14 feet. This is a violation of the setback requirements of the R-3 Zone. Chairman Fitzpatrick asked if there was anyone present who would like to address the Board on the matter. Mrs. John Maurer stated that Mr. Pateman had sent out the notices, but at present she does not have the affidavit of service. Discussion followed and the Chairman stated that the neighbors present had received their notices and the Public Hearing would be held, subject to the return of cards signed by the neighbors. Mr. Walsh stated he represented the Maurer's prior to being appointed Village Attorney and he would not participate in the Hearing. Mrs. Maurer stated that the Architectural Review Board recommended the construction of the roof over the stoop so the house would not be a look alike house. She stated the porch has been constructed and did not require a variance, but permission for the roof depends on the approval of the Zoning Board since a variance is necessary. Daniel Goin, the purchaser of 19 Amos Street stated he does not live in the house at the present time, but would like to state he was in favor of granting the variance. Mrs. Lucille Ceconi, Amos Street stated the residents of the area were critical of the Zoning Board and Architectural Review Board for mandating alterations that required variances which she believed allowed builders to reap profits and allowing �-3two identical houses to be built next to each•other. (Copy of statement^in official minutes). Mr. Gabriel P. Hayes stated he had written a letter and he had no objection to the granting of the variance. (Copy of letter in official minutes). Elizabeth Goin residing at 19 Amos Street stated she felt the roof over the porch would enhance the property and stated she had no objection to the granting of the variance. There being no further comments Mr. Morabito moved, seconded by Mr. Paolontonio that the public hearing be closed. Carried. After a discussion, Mr. Morabito moved, seconded by Mr. Paolontonio that the proposed action is a Type II action under SEQRA and will have minimal adverse effect on the environment. Carried. Mr. Morabito moved, seconded by Mrs. Galgano that based on the findings of the Architectural Review Board requesting the erection of a roof over the stoop, the variance is granted as requested. Carried. 3. Marcello Viscogliosi, 176-178 North Washington StreetSub-division of premises. The Clerk read the notice to hear and consider an application by Marcello Viscogliosi for variances to permit the sub-division of premises at 176-178 North Washington Street (Section 16, Block 15, Lot 6A on the tax assessment map of the Village of North Tarrytown). The applicant will be required to obtain the following variances: (1) For the premises known as 178 North Washington Street: (a) the lot has a front yard setback of only 0.5 feet (a front yard setback of at least 20 feet.is required); (b) one side yard has a setback of only 0.03 feet and the combined side yard setbacks are only 5.3 feet (one side yard must have a setback of at least 5 feet; and the two side yards must have combined setbacks of at least 15 feet); (c) the lot has a rear yard setback of onty 0.6 feet (a rear yard setback of at least 25 feet is required); (d) the lot contains only 3,083 square feet (the minimum lot size required is 6,500 square feet); and (e) the buildings on the lot cover 30.68% of the lot (a maximum coverage of 30% is permitted). �-4(2) For the premises known as 176 North Washington Street: (a) the lot has a rear yard setback of only 10.0 feet (a rear yard setback of at least 25 feet is required); (b) one side yard has a setback of only 3.2 feet and the combined side yard setbacks are only 8.2 feet (one side yard must have a setback of at least 5.0 feet and the two side yards must have combined setbacks of at least 15 feet); and (c) the lot contains only 2,725 square feet (the minimum lot size is 4,000 square feet). Mr. Hughes, Attorney for the applicant, presented Affidavit of Service to the Clerk. Mr. Hughes stated there would be no change in the use of the property, both are established residences, one a one-family dwelling and the other a four-family dwelling, both legal. He stated he had distributed a memo of law for the Board to review. He stated the buildings have been there many years and similiar requests have been granted in other villages. Mr. Paolontonio stated that the property at present is non-conforming and will be non-conforming if the variances are granted. Mr. Walsh stated he had presented a memo to the Board regarding the property and the need for "necessary" sub-division. The Board cannot legally deny the sub-division, as two buildings on one lot was permitted many years ago, but are no longer permitted by the Code. (Copy of memo in official minutes). Mrs. Galgano questioned the proposed property lines for each house. Mr. Pujadas questioned the access to each house as shown on the proposed plan. Mr. Hughes stated they will be appearing before the Planning Board for their recommendations as to property lines, and said there will be no change in use and no new construction. Discussion followed regarding easements to be granted, common driveway, chain link fence now separating tzhe two chouses and proposed lot lines. Mr. Fitzpatrick asked if there was anyone present who would like to address the Board. Mrs. Mary Petcof/ owner of property at the corner of College Avenue and Washington Street, which adjoins the said �property, stated she was against the sub-division as the lot sizes are too small. Mr. Marcello Viscogliosi stated he owns the property with his sisters and there will be no impact on the neighbors. He stated that the proposed lines are suggested lines and he will confer with the Building Inspector .for the best placement of the lot lines before meeting with the Planning Board. Mr. Morabito moved, seconded by Mrs. Mauhs that the proposed action is a Type II action under SEQRA and will have minimal adverse effect on the environment. Carried. Mr. Morabito moved, seconded by Mrs. Galgano that the sub-division be granted and suggested that the property line begin on Washington Street to the northwest corner of tlje house and cut across the lot according to the plan as submitted, and that a permanent easement be granted to the new lot owner. Chairman Fitzpatrick polled the Board as follows: Mrs. Mauhs Yes Y s Mr. Morabito -^ Dr. Masias No Mr. Paolontonio Abstain Mr. Pujadas Abstain Mrs. Galgano Yes Mr. Fitzpatrick Yes Chairman Fitzpatrick declared the motion carried. 4. Emma Serina, 9 Lawrence Avenue-Construction 2-story Building. Mr. Robert Barstow, Architect for the project presented Affidavit of Service to the Clerk. The Clerk read the notice to hear and consider an appeal from a decision of the Building Inspector which denied a building permit for construction of a two-story mixed use building at 9 Lawrence Avenue on the following twelve (12) grounds: 1. Parking spaces 1 and 2 are undersized. Sec. 62-4 requires a parking space to be 9^-0 wide and twenty (20) feet deep. The , spaces are 9'-0 wide and 1&'-0 feetr deepb-/" \ 2. There are no handicap spaces shown. Section 4.1.1 (5a) and the ADA requires one handicap parking space. 3. Section 62-14.B(2) R-District. The required off-street parking space for more than two (2) vehicles may not be located in a required front yard. �-6••I 4. Section 62-22A states that for commercial use, "Entrance and exist driveways shall be not less than fifteen (15*-0) feet nor more than twenty-five feet (25'-0) in width. The plan shows the entrance driveway to be forty-three feet (43'-0) wide. 5. Section 62-022.B states entrance and exist driveways shall be located not less than fifteen (15) feet from a side or lot line. The entrance driveway does not meet this requirement and should be located not closer than 15 feet from the line. 6. Section 62.4.C, "No access drive or driveway in any R-District shall be used to drive access to uses other than those permitted in such R-Districts. The uses of this building will be other than as provided in the District. 7. Section 62.14.D requires a fence or hedge as provided in Sec. 62-9C. No fence or hedge is provided. 8. Schedule of Regulations, Part I, requires a minimum of 4,000 square feet; however actual lot size is 2207 square feet according to the plans. 9. The front yard requires a 25'-0 setback. The actual is lS'-O. 10. One side yard setback is required to be 10 feet. as showsn is .1 feet. The actual 11. The rear yard setback is required to be 25 feet. as shown is 2.5 feet. The actual 12. Use is shown to be both residential and commercial. residential use is permitted in this zone. Only a The premises are known as (Section 15 Block 13 Lot 16A on the tax assessment records of the Village of North Tarrytown. Mr. Barstow stated that the property has been a garage for the last 40-50 years. It was a Sheet Metal Shop, a Carpentry Shop and a garage for storage. The Serina's would like to take advantage of the lot, by tearing down the unsightly garage and replacing it with a two story building, with an office on the first floor and an apartment on the second floor. He stated that the Clark Associates have reviewed the project and there is no adverse effect.on the environment. They respectfully request that the necessary variances be granted. Mr. Fitzpatrick asked if there was anyone present who would like to address the Board. Mrs. Kay Caetano, 27 Lawrence Avenue and owner-of property at 40 and 43 Lawrence Avenue stated the area was zoned residential and the lot now contains four and five taxis and a limb, which sometime park over the sidewalk. She stated it would not be an improvement to Lawrence Avenue and she was against the granting of the variances. .v^A*iAiS«^-*S**»a*&! ss**^*-****-'- ilafa^ia&as*^^" 3 �-7Mr. Steve Serina, Lawrence Avenue stated that the removal of the old garage and the construction of the new building would enhance the area. The present garage is visible to Beekman Avenue and is unsightly. He stated that the property has been owned by his wife's family for many years. Mrs. Galgano stated that the proposed construction would be on the property line and questioned if the zoning would permit this in a residential zone. Mr. Barstow stated that the building was so situated in order to use the rear of the property for additional parking. Mrs. Galgano stated that if the building was postioned differently there would be ample space to provide shubbery and landscaping and it would not look like a parking lot. Discussion.followed on-.the various variances required to allow the building to be constructed adjacent to the Serina property. Mrs. Galgano stated that the present garage looks terrible and it is unappealing to the residents of Lawrence Avenue. She also stated that the present plan is unacceptable to her and would like to see something more creative. There being no further comments Mr. Morabito moved, seconded by Mr. Paolontonio to close the public hearing. Carried. Mr. Fitzpatrick stated the Board should review the plans Mr. Rodriguez has for the adjoining property on the corner. Mr. Serina stated that they want to upgrade the area. Sometime agq they removed an unsightly garage next to the apartment house adjacent to the property in question. This was done to provide additional parking for the property. The property was for many years zoned commercial and sometime ago it was rezoned residential. Discussion followed regarding parking of taxis in the area and the revising of the plans. Mrs. Serina stated she did riot know that Mr. Rodriguez was going to build his building to the property line and would consider revising the plans. Mr. Morabito stated he was concerned that the parking of so many taxis would interfere with the firehouse which is nearby. Mr. Paolontonio stated that the residents of the area were against making the area commercial and allowing a taxi business in the area. ^^<*&3t&&i&£i£z<e.A �-8Discussion followed and the Serinas . stated they would like to withdraw their application. ., Mr. Walsh stated they would be going before the Planning Board and the Planning Board would recommend some changes. 5. Arlindo Ruivo, 151 No. Washington Street-Three Family Residence. Mr. John Hughes, Attorney presented Affidavit of Service to the Clerk. Clerk read the Public Notice to hear and consider an appeal by Arlindo Ruivo of Lawrence Avenue, North Tarrytown, New York from a decision of the Building Inspector in denying an application for a building permit to subdivide the premises located at the corner of North Washington Street and Bepeyster Street (known as 151 North Washington Street) and to construct a three (3) family residence adjacent and immediately to the north of the existing residence. This proposal will violate Section 62-8(b) of the Zoning Code in that the existing improvement will be set back 20 feet from the rear property line where the Zoning Code requires 25 feet set back. Mr. Hughes stated that Mr. Ruivo had renovated the residence now existing on the large parcel and was interested in subdividing and constructing a three family residence. He would provide twelve off-street parking spaces and the~propGsed construction would meet all requirements of the Zoning Code. He previousl submitted a dozen letters from area residents who did not object to the construction of the building. The new plans were substantially modified from those previously submitted. Mr. Walsh stated that Mr. Ruivo was allowed to construct a three family residence and can meet the requirements of the various codes. Mr. Sam Viera, Architect for Mr. Ruivo outlined the project and stated it would be in keeping with the area. Changes have been made in the plans in order to meet the needs of the neighborhood. He also stated that six parking spaces would be provided for the existing residence, where now there are none. Mr. Armando DeBiase, neighbor directly across the street from the proposed project stated the construction would be an improvement to the area and the plans as changed are acceptable. Mr. Viera stated that the Planning Board had made several suggestions regarding the parking and the planting of shrubs and trees and their requests have been taken into consideration in the new plans as submitted to the Board. �-9There being no further comments, Mrs.Mauhs moved, seconded by Mr, Morabito that the public hearing be closed. Carried. Mr. Morabito moved, seconded by Mr. Paolontonio that the proposed action is a Type II action under SEQRA and will have minimal adverse impact on the environment. Carried. Mr. Morabito moved, seconded by Mr. Paoloiitonio that the sub-division be granted as requested in the application. Carried. 6. Dominick Gagliardi, 203 No. Washington Street-Car Detailing Business-Continued. Mr. Hughes reported on the status of the problem. He stated that Mr. Michael Gagliardi has been unemployed for sometime and was trying to earn some money in order to support his family. He has filed a long form environmental study with the Board. During the past month Michael has only waxed and detailed five cars at a rate of $80.00 per car. It is not a booming business and Michael expects to go back to carpentry as soon as the economy picks up. He realizes it is a residential area but doing one car at a time shouldn't bother anyone. His immediate neighbors do not object and Mr. Hughes felt that Michael should be allowed to continue this small enterpirse. Mr. Peter Rayson, across the street from the site stated a huge sign had been put up advertising his business in a residential zone. The sign has since been taken down but he still objects to business in a resdential zone. Mr. Armando Volpacchio, Cedar Street stated his sister's family lives across the street from the garage and they are very upset and feel threatened by the situation. Mr. Armando DeBiase owner of two parcels across from the garage objects to the use of the property as business in a residential area. There being no further comments Mr. Morabito moved, seconded by Dr. Masias to close the Public Hearing. Carried. Discussion followed regarding a letter Mr. Royson sent to Mayor Treacy regarding comments about the Zoning Board and the garage operated by Mr. Gagliari. Mr. Fitzpatrick stated that automotive use is restricted to the Route 9 corridor. He stated you can't use a garage in a residential area to do automotive work. Mr. Gagliardi stated he would only be waxing and compounding cars and cleaning the insides of them and felt this would not be detrimental to the neighborhood. Mr. Walsh stated he had given his opinion in a �-10memo to the Board dated July 21st, 1993. (Copy in official minutes). Mrs. Galgano moved, seconded by Mrs. Mauhs that the proposed action is a Type II action under SEQRA and will have an adverse impact on the environment based on the material heard and submitted to the Board. Mr. Fitzpatrick polled the Board as follows: "-:.-• Mrs . Mauhs Mr. Morabito '?..?. Mr. Paolontonio Dr. Masias Mr. Puj adas Mrs . Galgano Mr. Fitzpatrick yes no no no yes yes yes Mr. Fitzpatrick declared the motion carried. After a discussion, Mr. Morabito moved, seconded by Mr. Paolontonio that the the car detailing be approved for the period of one year, that the number of cars to be waxed, interior cleaned and detailed be limited to one car at a time, up to five cars per day, and that Mr. Gagliardi return to the Board for an extension at the end of one year Mr. Fitzpatrick polled the Board as follows: Mrs. Mauhs No Mr. Morabito Yes Mr. Paolontonio Yes Dr. Masias Yes Mr. Puj adas No Mrs. Galgano No Mr. Mr. Fitzpatrick Fitzpatrick declaredNo the motion not carried MINUTES Mr. Pujadas moved, seconded by Mrs. Galgano that the minutes of the meeting held on June 16th, 1993 be accepted as submitted with minor changes. Carried. EXECUTIVE SESSION Discussion followed regarding the status of the San Juan property on Hudson Street and the Building Inspector was directed to send a letter asking Mr. San Juan to come to the next meeting "so that a decision could be rendered.. There being no further business to come before the meeting, Mrs. Galgano moved, seconded by Dr. Masias that the same be duly adjourned. Carried. tspectfully -submitted le Amato, Acting Clerk �I want this in the record verbatim - added to the minutes. First and foremost this is not a disagreement among neighbors. We have gotten to know our new neighbors and enjoy their company. . -Our fight and why we are here tonight is with the Village which has made mistake after mistake and has compounded the problems of our neighborhood. The record shows that we have opposed the carve up of the land into small size lots now causing added problems. We welcome the fact that Mr. Mauer's porch will enhance his house by making it different from the rest of his neighbors. We are critical of the Architectual Review Board for not being insistent on this matter with the builder to begin with. We are angry at the Planning Board for meeting minimal standards of lot size which now warrant a variance. The problem is the Village. The Village has created additional problems but enabled the builder to reap the profits off of the buyers and the neighborhood and the Village. Again we do not oppose Mr. Mauer beautifying his new home. We welcome his family into the neighborhood but we register for the record our anger at the Village for having everyone go through this tedious, time consuming and expensive process. The Village had the duty to enforce zoning regulations and failed to by allowing 2 identical * houses to be built next to each other. Now you have the duty to enforce the zoning regulations and the zoning regulations prohibit the building of this porch. read by Lucille D. Ceconi � 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_1993-07-21 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