https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/a1dc7b21c122c64c2ade225a5c96c3fa.pdf c7d533c7c0aaa58e0a62979ab0212c44 PDF Text Text August 19, 1994 To Whom it May Concern, I am Sylvester Williams and live at 107 Cortlandt Street, N. Tarrytown, NY 10591 I was born and raised in North Tarrytown, NY. I testify that the house on 83 Depeyster Street, N. Tarrytown has always been a three family house. Very Truly Yours, < £^&3 Sylvester Williams ELSIE MOTEN Notary Public, State of New York No. 60-4513329 Qualified in Westchester County Commission Expires October 31,19?5" < r V - •/1irrr~ ,t: ""fe,ii * ^ f c i t M f l ^ 4 ^ i r a ^ ^ �Approved with respect to substance and form: ViKLage Att Attorne Dated: «iU,^|. Approved by the Zoning Boafcd Dated: Filed with Village Clerk Q..-C Dated : Deputy Clerk 7/?a/f y m31 Date of Meeting �A regular meeting of the Zoning Board was held on August 17, 1994 at 8:00 PM in Village Hall , 28 Beekman Avenue, North Tarrytown,. New York 10591 Members Present: Also Present: Absent: Robert Anello, Acting Chairman Rhonda Mauhs Gary McLean John Cappello John Morabito Frank Occhipinti James Margotta, Building Inspector Janet Gandolfo, Esq. Frank Paolantonio IN THE MATTER OF PETRY, WEBBER AVENUE, NORTH TARRYTOWN, NEW YORK 10591 Mrs. Petry submitted proof of receipts to the Building Inspector. Mrs. Petry also submitted plans of the porch to the Zoning Board. These plans consist of a overhang porch above the front door which is 3-6 inches wide. The side yard variance calls for a 54' front on Amos Street and a 55' in the back. There will be a 50 ft. modular home on the site. Houses between North Street and Amos Street are similar in lot size. At this point during the meeting a petition was submitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals in support of the application. It was mentioned that there was an overhead porch of 6ft. at 23 Amos Street. Mr. Glen Weeks of 174 Webber Avenue read Chapter 62-20 of the Zoning Code - Chapter 62 Section 58 is in regard to giving variances for a hardship. Mr. Weeks submitted a petition to the Zoning Board (Petition attached in official minutes) Mr. Weeks stated that there will be a devaluation in his property if the house is 18ft. compared to a 45 ft. sideback arid 3 stories high. Mr. Anello stated that if the variance is not granted that house will'be closer to the Weeks' home. '/ Ms. Lucille Ceconi stated that no one on Amos Street or North Street is opposed to this application. 9 inches is not a large variance. Mrs. Weeks stated that a precedent will be set if this variance is granted. This would be a concern. Variances are granted for hardships only, other than self-imposed. Mrs. Ceconi stated that variances were granted to many of the houses that were built in the area. �Mr. Caetano stated that good citizens wish to see the Board approve this application. Ms. Pat Kringas of 149 Webber Avenue stated that it's difficult and it's a struggle to stay within the variance but applicants should stay within the Zoning (guidelines. It is the Boards duty to be fair and explore the guidelines. Mr. Cappello made a motion to close the public hearing, seconded by Mr. Occhipinti. Motion carried unanimously. DISCUSSION: Mr. Occhipinti stated that if the house was moved back it would take away from the other houses. Mr. McLean stated that the application would call for a 15ft. combination and would rather see it on the center of the property. It was mentioned that the intent was to have 7' on each side. Mr. Margotta stated that Mr. Weaks' proposal is to have 5' on one side and 9' on the other. There was no objection to the front yard. Mr. Occhipinti made a motion pursuant to SEQRA to declare this a Type II action which will have no material adverse impact on the environment, seconded by Mr. Morabito. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Occhipinti made a motion to approve the application, seconded by Mrs. Mauhs. Motion carried unanimously. IN THE MATTER OF THE A & S MACHINE SHOP, NORTH TARRYTOWN, NEW YORK 10591 Mr. Cappello made a motion to postpone the application for one month, seconded by Mr. Morabito. Motion carried unanimously. IN THE MATTER OF LARRY REGAN 52 COLLEGE AVENUE, NORTH TARRYTOWN, NEW YORK 10591 ', Mr. Hughes, Esq. who is representing Mr. Regan submitted three financial statements which is included in a memorandum dated August 5, 1994 and submitted was also the commitment letter from CPC and the contract of sale. The issue to focus on is the economics of the project. Mr. Regan would like to buy the property and rehabilitate it. The current owner's economic situation is that he has no rental income and large obligations between mortgages and accrued interested on tax liens. This property is going to be foreclosed very shortly. �Mr. Anello stated that the third analysis shows a 9 family residence. Mr. Hughes stated that based upon more equity into the project and less debt. THe project is viable with lower rents. The equity comes from sale of low-income tax credits. There are programs available through the federal government. The present credits can be sold in year one. He feels it's not appropriate for the project because you must rent to low income families less than 50% of median income and he would rather keep it at market value. With nine families there would be four bedroom apartments for larger families. They are looking for the single, professional people. Mr. Regan stated that he did not want to do a low income project but to do a market rate project. Mr. Regan prepared the financial statement because it was requested. They want to devolop a project of one to two bedroom units, not for large families. There was a fire in 1992. The insurance company is in litigation. This is why the property has not been rebuilt. The lav/suit is now -in federal court and it will be be approximately 18 month before discussion. This is a long term situation. An appraisal at this point was submitted to the Board. This building has been in existence for a long time and only has been out of existence for a short period of time. The neighborhood has not changed much. The only change was the Zoning which changed in 1987 regarding the parking requirement. Mr. Hughes believes that he has sufficient evidence. According to the Zoning Code if there has been a fire you have more than one year to restore the use. Mr. Caetano of 43 Lawrence Avenue stated that being there was a fire and the project is being held up because of the insurance company, this application should be granted and it will not cause a conflict. Mr. Checchi, of 51 College Avenue stated that he has been living in the Village for over 50 years and there isn't enough parking spaces now and parking can be built in back of the building because the creek has been diverted. Mr. Peter Cullen of 42 College Avenue stated that he has a fourfamily home and only three parking spaces. Four people have to park on the street. M. Reinhart of College Avenue asked the Zoning Board for the ultimate scenarios. There should be a comprise between the parking spaces. .-j-_cs4=:$fs-J «*-&s* »*i^^^i£fcfci^^ �Mr. Checchi stated that the creek was. piped in at 143 Washington Street and it was diverted. Mr. Turnquist stated that Mr. Vieira had the stream piped under the condos. Mr. Margotta stated that this may of happened prior to all regulations of the DEC and EAC. Mr. Morabito mad a motion to close the public hearing, seconded by Mrs. Mauhs. Motion carried unanimously. DISCUSSION; Mr. Morabito stated that years ago there was no environmental concern. The number of parking spaces prior to the fire was 10-12 spaces. This application would increase the number of parking spaces. Mr. Anello stated that in final consideration, this will benefit the applicants and would also benefit the community. Mr. Anello made a motion pursuant to SEQRA to declare this a Type II action which will have no material adverse impact on the environment, seconded by Mr. Occhipinti. Motion carried. Mr. Anello made a motion to approve the plans as submitted, seconded by Mr. Occhipinti. Motion carried 5-1 with Mr. Cappello voting no. IN THE MATTER OF RODRIQUES, 180 VALLEY STREET, NORTH TARRYTOWN, NEW YORK 10591 Mr. Cappello made a motion to extend the approval for six months, seconded by Mr. Morabito. Motion carried unanimously. IN THE MATTER OF OMAR RIVERO, NORTH TARRYTOWN, NEW YORK 10591 Mr. Robert Barstow who is representing the Riveros stated that they are not living in the house now. Mr. Barstow stated that he is requesting an area variance to allow one addition to the rear of £he house which would provide two additional bedrooms,.to the one existing. This is a one story house. Most of the neighborhood is a two story structure. Because of Mr. Rivero's disability he is unable to reside at the structure. He also said there is not enough room. This would help make the dwelling more accessible and efficient. The lot size is 4,000 sq.ft. The lot coverage is now 33% and the proposed increase would be 37.5%. The front yard setback would remain the same. �RESOLUTION Adopted at the August 17, 1994 meeting of the Village of North Tarrytown Zoning Board of Appeals RESOLUTION: Application for Permission to construct an addition to premises located at 15 Elm Street, North Tarrytown, NY Applicant: OmarRivero Location: 15 Elm Street, North Tarrytown, NY WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of North Tarrytown has reviewed an application for a ruling from the denial of a Building Permit for the construction of an addition at premises located at 15 Elm Street, North Tarrytown, New York in that the same would be in violation of Schedule of Regulations of the Zoning Code, Part I, the premises are also known as Section 15, Lot 6, Block 14. WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Zoning Board of Appeals on August 17, 1994 at which time all interested persons and parties present were heard, and relevant documentation and testimony were presented to and considered by the Zoning Board; and WHEREAS, as part of its review, the Zoning Board has reviewed documents, statements and plans, including the following: 1. Plans submitted for the construction of the addition at the premises; 2. Application submitted by Omar Rivero. 3. A short form Environmental Assessment Form (EAF). WHEREAS, the Zoning Board has determined that all of the conditions with regard to the zoning requirements are pre-existing and the plight of the applicant is due to unique circumstances beyond the control of the applicant affecting the subject property and not to general conditions in the neighborhood; WHEREAS, the use to be authorized by the variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood and is in reasonable harmony with the intent of the zoning law; and I WHEREAS, the requested variance will not have an adverse aesthetic, environmental or ecological impact on the property or on surrounding areas, otehrwise be injurious to the neighborhood or determinental to the public welfare; $ ^riatvJfc-o U>- -""• . ^ ^ K ^ ^ - ^ ^ » a ^ i ^ ^ �NOW, THEREFORE; BE IT RESOLVED, that-the Zoning Board of Appeals designates itself as Lead Agency under SEQRA and declares this to be a Type II action and issues a Negative Declaration; and be it FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Zoning Board of Appeals the requested variance to the applicant and further directs the Building Inspector to issue a building permit for the construction of same. Dated: September 21, 1994 Janet Gandolfo, Attorney �RESOLUTION Adopted at the August 17, 1994 meeting of the Village of North Tarrytown Zoning Board of Appeals RESOLUTION: Application for Permission to use premises for the installation of electrical wiring for lights, sirens and radios on fire and police motor vehicles at premises located at 80 Chestnut Street, North Tarrytown Applicant: Dominick Pulsoni , Location: 80 Chestnut Street, North Tarrytown, NY WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of North Tarrytown has reviewed an application for a ruling from the denial of a Building Permit for the use of premises for the installation of electrical wiring for lights, sirens and radios on fire and police motor vehicles at 80 Chestnut Street, North Tarrytown, New York in that the same would be in violation of Schedule of Regulations of the Zoning Code, Part II, the premises are also known as Section 16, Lot 11, Block 9.1. WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Zoning Board of Appeals on August 17, 1994 at which time all interested persons and parties present were heard, and relevant documentation and testimony were presented to and considered by the Zoning Board; and WHEREAS, as part of its review, the Zoning Board has reviewed documents, statements and plans, including the following: 1. Application submitted by Dominick Pulsoni. 2. A short form Environmental Assessment Form (EAF). WHEREAS, the Zoning Board has determined that all of the conditions with regard to the zoning requirements are pre-existing and the plight of the applicant is due to unique circumstances beyond the control of the applicant affecting the subject property and not to general conditions in the neighborhood; z _? f f I _ WHEREAS, the use to be authorized by the variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood and is in reasonable harmony with the intent of the zoning law; and 1 i | |^^ l^P - - - - - . . . . . . . WHEREAS, the requested variance will not have an adverse aesthetic, environmental or ecological impact on the property or on surrounding areas, otehrwise be injurious to the neighborhood or determinental to the public welfare; I i -»-5^r«^S:slfeft-*^aOiS^^Wii*lrSiefei»,ai«i®^^ �WHEREAS, the Zoning Board determined that the premises in question had been used for the recited purpose for many years with no detriment to the neighborhood; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Zoning Board of Appeals designates itself as Lead Agency under SEQRA and declares this to be a Type II action and issues a Negative Declaration; and be it FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Zoning Board of Appeals the requested variance to the applicant and further directs the Building Inspector to issue a building permit for the construction of same, provided that the applicant use the premises only for that use for which the variance was granted. �t RESOLUTION Adopted at the August 17, 1994 meeting of the Village of North Tarrytown Zoning Board of Appeals RESOLUTION: Application for the construction of a single-family residence in the R-3 District wherein the two side yards together would total 14' instead of the required 15' and wherein the front yard setback would be 17' instead of the required 20'. Applicant: John and Maureen Petry Location: Webber Avenue, North Tarrytown, NY Premises are known as Section 17, Block 7, Lot 20. WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of North Tarrytown has reviewed an application for a ruling from the denial of a Building Permit for the construction of a single-family residence in the R-3 District on Webber Avenue, North Tarrytown, New York in that the same would be in violation of Schedule of Regulations of the Zoning Code, Part I. WHEREAS, a public hearing was commenced on July 20, 1994 by the Zoning Board of Appeals. However, at that time, it was determined that the required public notices had not been served on all parties as required by the Code of the Village of North Tarrytown. Thereafter, a public hearing was again scheduled for August 17, 1994 at which time all interested persons and parties present were heard, and relevant documentation and testimony were presented to and considered by the Zoning Board; and WHEREAS, as part of its review, the Zoning Board has reviewed documents, statements and plans, including the following: 1. Application submitted by John and Maureen Petry. 2. A short form Environmental Assessment Form (EAF). 3. Survey certified by John J. Muldoon, Licensed Surveyor. WHEREAS, the Zoning Board made the following findings of fact: a) The front yard variance was requested to create a covered front porch. The land in question slopes downward and moving the structure further back would create an economic hardship because of the need for extensivefillin order to complete the construction. �b) Several of the other homes on the street were built before the existing zoning code and are all much closer than the minimum 20* front yard setback. c) The applicants have chosen a manufactured house and the dimensions are 40' x 27'. The structure would only need a variance of 1' to meet the sideyard minimum. d) The only complaint from the neighborhood was the objection from the property owners to the north of the subject premises. These property owners were concerned about the blocking of light on their houes as a result of the new structure. It was determined by the Zoning Board that the applicants could actually move the structure closer to the property line of these neighbors if they desired. And, by keeping the new structure closer to Amos Avenue, the light to these property owners is less impeded than if the applicants chose to place the structure to meet the front yard minimum requirements. e) The subject premises are currently nonconforming because of a garage which is situated directly on the property line. The applicants intend to remove this nonconforming structure and the new structure will be in compliance with the Code more than the existing structure. f) The Zoning Board determined that similar applications for setback requirements had been granted in this neighborhood within the last two years. g) The applicant presented proof to the Zoning Board that to order a smaller prefab house would be extremely costly and involve an entire new design. WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has commented that he has no objections to the granting of the requested variances; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board has determined that all of the conditions with regard to the zoning requirements are pre-existing and the plight of the applicant is due to unique circumstances beyond the control of the applicant affecting the subject property and not to general conditions in the neighborhood; WHEREAS, the use to be authorized by the variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood and is in reasonable harmony with the intent of the zoning law; and WHEREAS, the requested variance will not have an adverse aesthetic, environmental or ecological impact on the property or on surrounding areas, otehrwise be injurious to the neighborhood or determinental to the public welfare; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Zoning Board of Appeals designates itself as Lead Agency under SEQRA and declares this to be a Type II action and issues a Negative Declaration; and be it '^^^iS^^^^AJki^£»-i^^tiiWi^Aj^'^asJi^M^ia^^^1t^^^i �NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, thaMhe Zoning Board of Appeals designates itself as Lead Agency under SEQRA and declares this to be a Type II action and issues a Negative Declaration; and be it FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Zoning Board of Appeals the requested variance to the applicant and further directs the Building Inspector to issue a building permit for the construction of same. Dated: September 21, 1994 met Gandolfo, Mtorney -? ^ » ^ " - r ' . * - . « ^ - t « - A « ^ ^ < J 3 - - . . ! i ^ ^ �RESOLUTION Adopted at the August 17, 1994 meeting of the Village of North Tarrytown Zoning Board of Appeals RESOLUTION: Application for the renovation of a 17 unit apartment house Applicant: Regan Development Corp. Location: 52 College Avenue, North Tarrytown, NY Premises are known as Section 16, Block 17, Lot 9. WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of North Tarrytown has reviewed an application for a ruling from the denial of a Building Permit for the renovation of a 17 unit apartment building in that the same would be in violation of Schedule of Regulations of the Zoning Code, Part I. WHEREAS, a public hearing was commenced on July 20, 1994 by the Zoning Board of Appeals and adjourned to August 17, 1994. The Zoning Board of Appeals directed the applicant to provide proof documenting financial hardship to support his application for the variances. Thereafter, the public hearing was adjourned to August 17, 1994 at which time all interested persons and parties present were heard, and relevant documentation and testimony were presented to and considered by the Zoning Board; and WHEREAS, as part of its review, the Zoning Board has reviewed documents, statements and plans, including the following: 1. Application submitted by 52 College Avenue Corp. 2. A short form Environmental Assessment Form (EAF). 3. A letter from Regan Development Corp. dated June 13, 1994 enclosing the contract of sale for the purchase of the premises. 4. A letter from John J. Hughes, Esq. dated August 8, 1994 enclosing a Memorandum of Law re: Section 7-712 (b) of the Village Law; Financial Evaluations for the use of the premises for 17 residential units at fair market value, 9 residential units at fair market value and 9 residential units at low income rental rates; a letter dated August 5, 1994 from Environmental, Inc.; and a letter dated March 9, 1994 from the Community Preservation Corporation. WHEREAS, the Zoning Board made the following findings of fact: �The premises in question consisted of a residential apartment building containing 17 units of housing. On February 27, 1992, a fire destroyed a large section of the premises, rendering the building totally uninhabitable. In its investigation of the fire, the police department of the Village of North Tarrytown found evidence of a possible arson. At this time, the insurer of the premises refuses to pay any claim associated with the fire. The matter of the claim against the insurer is now in litigation. On February 28, 1994, the owner of the premises, Powell Blakeslee, entered into a contract of sale with 26 Orchard Street Corp., a domestic corporation wholly owned by Regan Development Corp., the applicant in this variance proceeding. Neither the current owner nor the applicant can realize a reasonable return from the premises. The current owner of the premises has suffered a total loss of all revenue which has been occasioned by the fire which occurred on February 27, 1992. There has been no rental income since that date. There have been ongoing costs attributable to mortgage expenses, real property taxes, insurance and property maintenance. At this time, the real estate taxes owed by the owner of the property are approximately $63,000. The Town of Mount Pleasant intends to foreclose on the tax liens for the premises. In addition, the holders of the Notes and Mortgages on the property will soon foreclose their interests. The financial documentation which were submitted by the applicant show that if the variances were granted, the project would yield a net profit of $11,627.84. The applicant also demonstrated that if 9 units were granted the project would experience a net loss of $13,072.16. The applicant also showed that if 9 low income rental units were constructed the result would be a net profit of $7,765.96. WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has commented that he has no objections to the granting of the requested variances; and WHEREAS, for the above reasons, the Zoning Board has determined that all of the conditions with regard to the zoning requirements are pre-existing and the plight of the applicant is due to unique circumstances beyond the control of the applicant affecting the subject property and not to general conditions in the neighborhood; WHEREAS, the use to be authorized by the variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood and is in reasonable harmony with the intent of the zoning law; and WHEREAS, the requested variance will not have an adverse aesthetic, environmental or ecological impact on the property or on surrounding areas, otherwise be injurious to the neighborhood or detrimental to the public welfare; WHEREAS, the unnecessary hardship claimed as a ground for the variance has not been created by the applicant by reason of the fact that the hardship arose as a result of a fire at the premises; �NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that, the Zoning Board of Appeals designates itself as Lead Agency under SEQRA and declares this to be a Type II action and issues a Negative Declaration; and be it FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Zoning Board of Appeals the requested variances to the applicants and further directs the Building Inspector to issue a building permit for the construction of same. � 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-1994 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_1994-08-17 Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1994 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1994 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