https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/27447bee34475dfb69f242b1d080f8a2.pdf f4a0d5a6dede71b26271051b15d51b89 PDF Text Text >. f ,~, Approved with respect to substance and form: ^L Villagrf Attorney Dated:(j7l|^ U ^ Cfja^/rina tted: +i\\q\l Filed with Village Clerk •-Glexk-or r- or^Deputy Deputy Clerk Dated Date of Meeting ) f-Tsi-»-' jSiLji it-t.v.i'av- j j t f u 5«.S*i«ii&V.se»*S-;.: �REGULAR MEETING NORTH TARRYTOWN, NEW YORK June 21,1995 A regular meeting of the North Tarry town Zoning Board of Appeals was held on June 21,1995 at 8:00 p.m. at the Village Hall, 28 Beekman Avenue, North Tarrytown, New York. PRESENT: Robert Anello, Chairman John Morabito Gary McLean Angelo LoMascolo Frank Occhipinti ABSENT: Rhonda Mauhs William Taylor ALSO PRESENT: Janet Gandolfo, Attorney James Margotta, Building Inspector Chairman Anello called the meeting to order at 8:10 p.m. 1. E. MARTONE, 18 Farrington Avenue - AN ADDITION and ALTERATIONS TO PREMISES Chairman Anello read the Notice of Public Hearing to hear and consider an appeal by Elliot Martone from a decision of the Building Inspector which denied a building permit for construction of an addition and alterations to premises located at 18 Farrington Avenue. The applicant is requesting the following variances: 1) The Schedule of Regulations, Part I of the Village Code requires that the minimum lot size in an R-2 District be 10,000 square feet. The actual lot size is 9,071.57 square feet. 2) The Schedule of Regulations, Part I of the Village Code requires the minimum lot width be 75 feet. The actual lot width of the lot is 60.56 feet. 3) The Schedule of Regulations, Part I of the Village Code requires that the side yards total 25 feet, with both sides being a minimum of 10 feet The total of both side yards is 19*6' with one side being only 8*6". The premises are known as Section 14, Block 8, Lot ID on the tax assessment map of the Village of North Tarrytown. Chairman Anello asked if anyone was present for the applicant �Mr. Elliot Martone came forward and explained that his home predated the zoning laws of the Village of North Tarrytown. He wanted to rebuild the existing garage. The garage that exists now is 9'9' and the new one will be 12'. Chairman Anello asked if the side yard was affected only by the garage. Mr. Martone answered yes, only the garage portion. Chairman Anello asked if the other two aspects of the variance were pre-existing. Mr. Martone answered yes. He stated that anything they do in the house would need a variance because everything predates the zoning laws. When Chairman Anello asked him if he had anything else to say, he stated that they were really looking forward to getting the variance. They purchased the house in 1986 and it's been their hope to make it look better for themselves and for their neighborhood. Chairman Anello stated that he would have to go before the Architectural Review Board. Mr. Martone answered that he was scheduled to go next week. Chairman Anello asked if there was anyone in the public who wanted to comment. Ms. Diane Boersma stated that most of the houses in the neighborhood didn't comply with the zoning laws. Ms. Patricia Sohn stated that she approved the variance because it will be a big improvment to the house. Mr. John Morabito moved to close the Public Hearing. Mr. Gary McLean seconded. Carried unanimously. Public Hearing closed. Mr. Frank Occhipinti moved to declare this a Type H Action which will have no material adverse impact on the environment Mr. Angelo LoMascolo seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Chairman Anello stated that certainly there was no indication that there will be any undesirable change in the neighborhood. The applicant has indicated he can't obtain the benefit he seeks without wiping out the garage. Can't do any changes to his house without getting the variances. He didn't think the benefit he seeks could -2- �be obtained by other feasible means. He didn't believe it will have any adverse effect on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood and certainly it wasn't a self-created hardship. He thinks all the issues of an area variance have been met. Mr. Gary McLean moved to grant the applicant the variance. Mr. John Morabito seconded. Motion to grant the variance carried unanimously. 2. MR. & MRS. MONACO, 53 Fremont Road - CONSTRUCTION OF A SIX (6) FOOT FENCE Chairman Anello read the Notice of Public Hearing to hear and consider an appeal by Mr. and Mrs. John Monaco from a decision of the Building Inspector which denied a building permit for the construction of a six (6) foot fence at premises located at 53 Fremont Road. The applicant is requesting a variance from the Village code which prohibits the erection offences and walls in excess of three (3) feet in the front yard of any residential district. The premises are known as Section 11, Block IE, Lot 1 on the tax assessment map of the Village of North Tarrytown. Chairman Anello asked if anyone was present for the applicant. Mr. John Monaco came forward and stated first of all that the fence was originally going to be a 5' fence and not 6'. He said that his side yard was considered to be a front yard. The main reason for the fence was to secure the area for his children. The fence was 3 to 4 feet from the curb. Chairman Anello asked if he was seeking a variance for a 6' fence. Mr. Monaco stated that he wanted a variance. He was willing to cut the fence to 5' for approval. He went on to explain to the Board his reasons as to why he needed the fence to be 5*. He wanted to keep his children safe. Chairman Anello asked if anyone in the public had any comments. Ms. Barbara Fina, a member of the Architectural Review Board, said that she was a little confused because Mr. Monaco was on the ARB agenda for 3 months, had an application prior to the fence going up and somehow, he never showed up. Chairman Anello asked Mr. Margotta if the ARB generally considered matters if they required variances. Mr. Margotta answered that at the time he didn't know how high the fence was. -3- �Mr. Monaco commented that the reason why he didn't show up at the scheduled meeting of the Architectural Review Board was because at that time they decided not to go ahead with the fence. Ms. Fina stated that she didn't approve offences over 3 feet. Chairman Anello asked how it fit with the neighborhood. Ms. Fina answed that she didn't think it fitted in with the neighborhood. Mr. Richard Weiss stated that theSleepy Hollow Manor Board voted to approve the fence only after they were told that the Monacos had all the Village approvals. Ms. Lisa Norich stated that she had looked at the fence at Mr. Monaco's home. The fence is not unappealing to look at. She didn't think anyone else was going to ask for a fence. Mr. Sulo said that he thought Mr. Monaco was entitled to have his privacy in his house. Ms. Doris Pellet said she was on the Board of the Sleepy Hollow Improvement Association. She said Mr. Monaco's contractors assured her that he had gotten approval from Mr. Margotta. Mr. Richard Weiss, President of the Sleepy Hollow Manor Association, spoke against the height of the fence. He commented that a 5' front fence is subject to approval from the Sleepy Hollow Manor Association. Mr. George Hritz stated that he was the former president of the Sleepy Hollow Manor Assoc, and that he was present representing same. He commented that there were three issues before ZBA to consider. The aesthethics issue; the process issue and the practical issue. Aesthethics - He said that he thought there was room for some disagreement but the Architectural Review Board should resolve this issue. Process - There are rules in the neighborhood to be followed and Mr. Monaco didn't follow them. Practicality - The application should be deferred while he goes before the Architectural Review Board. Greg Biel, the contractor for Mr. Monaco stated that he never said they had a Village permit Ms. Pellet directed him to Mr. White. Mr. Vile stated that Ms. Pellet had commented that the Manor was no place for children. �Mr. Monaco passed a letter to the Board written to him from the Sleepy Hollow Manor Association Board approving the fence. He stated that he had no problem reducing the fence and was open to suggestions. Mr. Angelo LoMascolo asked that at what point did he become aware that the yard in question was considered a front yard. Mr. Monaco answered 3 to 4 weeks after the Manor Assoc, approval. Mr. Margotta explained a little history of the application. He said that last year Mr. Monaco was supposed to be before the Architectural Review Board for the fence. Mr. Monaco submitted an application. Mr. Monaco was put on the agenda. While Mr. Monaco was on the agenda the ARB should have received information as to the location, type offence and height. The ARB received that. Mr. Monaco was put on the agenda three separate times. Finally Mr. Margotta went to Mr. Monaco's house to see what was going on and to ask why he wasn't showing up. He never received any information. Discussion between Mr. Margotta and Mr. Monaco. Ms. Gandolfo was asked how many approvals Mr. Monaco would need from the Village. Ms. Gandolfo stated that he needed approvals from the ZBA and the ARB. Mr. LoMascolo asked where the interpretation comes from that this was in fact a front yard. Ms. Gandolfo stated that it was in the zoning code. Discussion continued on the fence. Mr. Occhipinti move to close the Public Hearing. Mr. McLean seconded. Carried unanimously. Public Hearing closed. Chairman Anello commented that the ZBA had three options regarding this application. They could decide it, they could defer it and decide it in the next meeting after the ARB has had an opportunity to view it, or they could deny i t If they deny the variance, Mr. Manaco couldn't re-apply for six months. Discussion on what option to take by Board members followed. Mr. Margotta suggested that they send him a letter to cut the fence height down. Ms. Gandolfo commented tc Jimmy that he could schedule him with the Architectural Review Board without having a public hearing on i t -5'U4v^-~>^i^i^s%s^ �Mr. LoMascolo moved to adjourn the application to the next meeting. Mr. McLean seconded. Carried unanimously. 3. LAWRENCE D. LENIHAN, 457 Bellwood Avenue - CONSTRUCTION OF A FENCE Chairman Anello read the Notice of Public Hearing to hear and consider an appeal by Lawrence D. Lenihan from a decision of the Building Inspector which denied a building permit for the construction of a fence at premises located at 457 Bellwood Avenue. The applicant is requesting a variance from the Village code which prohibits the erection offences and walls in excess of three (3) feet in the front yard of any residential district. The premises are known as Section 14, Block 23, Lot ID, 5A on the tax assessment map of the Village of North Tarrytown. Chairman Anello asked Mr. Lenihan wanted to address the Board on his behalf. Mr. Lenihan came forward and stated that they moved into the house in May. They're doing a lot of work to the house. There was a big concern about theold fence because it was in a dangerous condition. The pickets were coming out. He started to rebuild the fence but Mr. Margotta told him he needed variance.He submitted letters from Mr. & Mrs. Grala and Mr. David Perlmutter in which they state that they are in favor of the new fence. They stated that the old one was an eyesore and dangerous and the new one is attractive and well built. The applicant stated that he didn't know it was against the code. Most of the fence is actually below 3 feet. Its only 4 feet in some areas. He passed out pictures of the old fence and the new fence. Chairman Anello read the letters from David Perlmutter and the Gralas. Chairman Anello asked if anyone in the public had any comments. Mr. Martone stated that it was an improvement of the premises. He commented that there had been no complaints and only good comments and that it was a job well done. Mr. Occhipinti moved to close the Public Hearing. Mr. McLean seconded. Carried unanimously. Public Hearing closed. Mr. Occhipinti commented that Mr. Lenihan worked hard. He said that he was all for it. He made a motion to grant the variance. -bi,4.JKf«!* i^sik^^i^&^Sit^^^&Ms^^^tk^i&s^i&^g^ �Mr. LoMascolo said that he would like to distinguish this case from the previous fence case. To him this was not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. It was no change at all or certainly an improvement. The change was not going to have an impact. For all of those reasons, and because it was not self-created problem and it was a replacement of a fence, he believed the application should be granted. Mr. McLean seconded the motion to grant the variance. Mr. Occhipinti moved that the Zoning Board of Appeals be declare Lead Agency in this matter and this be declare a Type n SEQA Action which will have no material adverse impact on the environment. Mr. McLean seconded. Carried unanimously. Motion to grant the variance carried unanimously. 4. ANTONIO RODRIGUES, 358 No. Broadway - PHILPSE PLAZA Chairman Anello read the Notice of Public hearing to hear and consider an appeal by Antonio Rodrigues from a decision of the Building Inspector which denied a building permit for the construction of an office and retail building at premises located at 358 No. Broadway, referred to as Philipse Plaza. The applicant is requesting several variances, as follows: 1) The Schedule of Regulations, Part II requires a 20 foot rear yard in addition to a 5 foot buffer area between a business district and a residential area as required by Section 62.9C(2). The applicant's plan provides for a 15 foot rear yard. 2) The Section 62-14E of the Code requires 57 parking spaces for the proposed project (25 spaces for the retail uses and 24 spaces for the office uses). The applicant's plan provides for a total of 44 spaces. 3) Section 62-14F of the Code requires that 2 loading spaces be provided. The applicant's plan provides for 1 loading space. 4) Section 62-14C requires that an access drive shall not exceed 25 feet The applicant's plan proposes an access drive of 27 feet The premises are known as Section 17, Block 21, Lots 15 & 37 on the tax assessment map of the Village of North Tarrytown. Chairman Anello asked if there was anyone present for Mr. Antonio Rodriguez. Mr. John Hughes and Louis Contadino came forward. Mr. Contadino, referring to the site drawings, explained the project to the Board. It is a 12,000 sq. ft building. The ground floor will have 5,000 sq. ft in retail, the second floor about 7,000 sq. ft. �of flat office space. He showed the model of the project. He said that because the driveway was 25 ft. and the State requires 30 ft. they were in the process of negotiating with the State. He said they wanted to keep "Uncle Jerry's" in operation for as long as possible. Antonio's Carpentry would stay intact. Referring to the side drawings, he went on to answer all questions put to him by the Board relating to the project. Mr. Hughes stated that they had about 80% of the parking requirement. The problem was that it was not economically feasible to make the building any smaller. The parking requirements will not be a problem because of the nature of the building. Chairman Anello read a letter received from Helen Stafford, Donna Stafford-Landi and Anthony Landi in which they expressed their concern that the project will be an improvement for the area. However, the concerns which they addressed were reasonable and needed to be addressed to avoid future problems for the developer and the town. Mr. LoMascolo asked how high the retaining wall will need to be in order to hold back the hillside north of the property. Mr. Contadino answered about 12 feet. Ms. Gandolfo stated that they will need a variance for the retaining wall. Mr. Margotta stated that he didn't see where they will need a variance. Mr. Hughes said that they didn't want a buffer. They didn't have any room for it. AH we have is 5 ft. Discussion on the buffer followed. Chairman Anello asked if anyone in the public had any comments. Ms. Gloria Estafanos stated that they were concern, because their house was on top directly behind it. Had a very little wall there. She was concern about the excavation. Chairman Anello asked if the excavation was going to be done with blasting. Mr. Contadino answered that it was going to be conducted in several steps and very little blasting. The retaining wall was going to built with concrete blocks - 4 ft wide. Mr. Margotta stated that in addition to their engineer designing the retaining wall, the Village is going to employ an engineer to review it �Question arosed as to the correct address of the project. Mr. Margotta said that a retaining wall and a wall are two different things. You can fill a block wall between your property and your neighbor's property or a decorative wall or a garden wall. That's why its a wall. A retaining wall is a structure as in use. It's holding the dirt back. It's completely different from a wall. Ms. Gandolfo stated that the retaining walls in some areas control the slopes and they are building on different slopes. So therefore, variances will be required. Richard Sweet questioned the address of the project. He stated that his home happens to overlook the area. He asked the Board to address the concerns of the people. Mr. Martone said that he was in favor of re-developing the area but the concerns of the neighbors should be addressed prior to granting any variances. Mr. Morabito moved to close the Public Hearing. Mr. Occhipinti seconded. Carried unanimously. Public Hearing closed. Chairman Anello gave a summary of what was said. Discussion on the parking followed. Chairman Anello expressed his concern on the buffer in the front and buffer in the back. Mr. Hughes asked the Board to give him some guidance on the retaining wall. Mr. Margotta said that the retaining wall should be 25 ft. back from the property line. Mr. LoMascolo read the following definitions : A structure is any combination of materials forming any construction, the use of which requires location on the ground or attachment to something having location on the ground, and including, among other things, display stands, fences and walls, gasoline pumps, gates and gate posts, mobile dwellings, outdoor bins, pergolas, platforms, pools, porches, reviewing stands, sales stands, signs, stadiums, stagings, standpipes, tanks of any kind, tents, towers of any kind, including radio and television towers and antennas, and trellises. A setback is defined as the distance from the front line of the structure to the street line structure. The side yard is the yard situated between the side lines of a building. �Side yard is defined by building. Set back is defined by structure. Mr. Hughes said he would leave his application on file but will re-notice pursuant to tonight's discussion. Application to be continued. At this point, Mr. Occhipinti removed himself from the Board because his application would be considered next. 5. FRANK OCCHIPINTI, 20 Hudson Street - THIRD DWELLING UNIT Chairman Anello read the Notice of Public Hearing to hear and consider an appeal by Frank Occhipinti from a decision of the Building Inspector which denied a building permit for the construction of a third dwelling unit at premises located at 20 Hudson Street. The district is zoned for manufacturing. In addition, the Village Code, Section 62-14 requires five off-street parking spaces at the premises and the applicant is proposing two off-street parking spaces. The premises are known as Section 16, Block 3, Lot 23A on the tax assessment map of the Village of North Tarrytown. Mr. Occhipinti stated that he had a home on 20 Hudson Street. It was a 2 family residence in a manufacturing zone. Everything on the street was residential use except for a building which was a mechanic shop. The house is a 2 family home and he was going for a variance for 3. Because it was a manufacturing district, he couldn't use it for residential use unless he applied for a variance. Ms. Gandolfo stated that anything Mr. Occhipinti wanted to do on the property would need a variance. Mr. Occhipinti stated that he was applying for two variances. One for the third family residence and one for the parking. Right now, nobody had parking. There is a municipal lot on the street which the Village rents to residents of the area. Morabito asked where the third family was going to be. Mr. Occhipinti answered the basement Chairman Anello asked if there was an issue of income of the building. Mr. Occhipinti answered yes. Right now, he was collecting $825 for one unit and $850 for the other unit for a total of $1,675.00. His monthly mortgage payment is for $1,809.00. -10- �Mr. Morabito asked how many rooms to the third apartment. Mr. Occhipinti answered 3. Mr. Morabito asked how much rent the applicant would get for this 3rd apartment. Mr. Occhipinti answered $600.00. Chairman Anello asked if anyone in the public had any comments. David Star stated that his property was next to Mr. Occhipinti and that Mr. Occhipinti's letter was misleading on the parking spaces. He said that Mr. Occhipinti didn't have any parking available. The parking in the neighborhood was congested. It was pointed out that Mr. Star had terminated his public lease with Mr. Occhipinti subcuent to the public notice and therefore there was no intent to deceive the Board. Mr. Hyland said that he was representing the owner next door to Mr. Occhipinti. Mr. Ortiz had three parking spaces. As for the parking lot, it was full. No vacancy in the parking lot. The street was already congested. He also stated that the applicant was given a variance a few years back from a one-family to a two-family. Chairman Anello commented that variances can be granted continuously. Mr. Morabito commented that he was concerned if the apartment was safe for someone to get out. He asked if there was a door for people to get in and a door or window for people to leave. Ed Rivera stated he was concerned about the parking. There was no longer any parking spaces available. The street was very congested. Discussion on parking followed. Mr. Morabito moved to close the Public Hearing. Mr. McLean seconded. Carried unanimously. Public Hearing closed. Mr. Morabito asked if the apartment was ready now. Mr. Occhipinti answered that it didn't have a kitchen. Discussion followed on the safety of the existing door, the location of the door and if it could be put elsewhere. -11- �Mr. Morabito stated that he was going to check the house out on the following day to make sure that the door was safe. Chairman Anello stated that they could vote on the application subject to the condition that there was adequate ingress and egress from that door. Mr. McLean moved to declare this a Type II Action which will have no adverse impact on the environment. Mr. Morabito seconded. Carried unanimously. Mr. McLean moved to grant the application on the condition that there are adequete ingress and egress from the side door. Mr. Morabito seconded. Carried unanimously. Approval of the May 17,1995 minutes was postpone to next meeting. There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted „ CARMEN G. MARIANO Recording Secretary -12- �// 400 North Broadway North Tarrytown, NY *"' N ' ''^^-^VMT. 10591 June 15, 1995 CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Village of North Tarrytown Zoning Board of Appeals 28 Beekman Avenue North Tarrytown, NY 10591 Attn: ADMi!Mi£k:,,C Linda David Village Clerk Re: PHILIPSE PLAZA Section 17, Block 21 Lots 15 & 37 Dear Ms. David • We are in receipt of the legal notice with regard to the above referenced matter. Unfortunatley, a family graduation will not enable us to attend the public hearing of WEDNESDAY, JUNE 21, 1995 to address our.concerns with regard to the PHILIPSE PLAZA project. As owners and residents immediately adjacent to the proposed structure, we would appreciate the reading of this letter on our behalf at the une 21, 1995 meeting, and a written response as to the decisions that may be ade that evening. Listed below are the concerns which need to be brought to the attention of the developer and the building inspector: LOCATION OF THE ACCESS DRIVE "' Access into and out of the plaza should not be directly onto Old Broadway due to the heavy flow of traffice that currently exists. Old Broadway is a narrow, poorly paved street that affords parking on both sides.with traffic flowing in both directions. There are cars currently flowing through the street to obtain access to the BP Gas Station and the Antique store. In addition, the street is often used for parking by residents of Pocantico Street and visitors of the Philipsburg Manor Restoration.when their parking lot fills to capacity. To allow access into the proposed plaza through Old Broadway would impose a.severe hazard condition to town residents and visitors. The access should be made at the traffic light on Route 9 at the intersection where Uncle Jerry's Deli now exists. 5-FOOT BUFFER AREA Since the development of the area from a used car dealer where vehicle activity was minimal into a piazaJ"for retail.''and office use where customer's and of worker's cars will constantly be pulling in and out and trucks may be making deliveries, we would like a treed buffer between our property and the plaza to block our view and insure nrivacv from vehicles and pedestrians, f �^ r PHfLIPSE PLAZA Page 2 400 North Broadway North Tarrytown, NY _ 10591 LIGHTING Lighting for the parking! lot ".should1 be ".'designed so that it does not face the residence at 400 North Broadway and if feasible it should be turned on and off at-reasonable hours. Amber lighting should also be considered to reduce the glare. GARBAGE COMPACTORS At a previ ous meetirigon thi s'. topi c, i t was stated that the Garbage Compactors must be enclosed in such a way. so as not to create an eye-sore for the!people accessing the restoration accross the street. We should'have the same consideration for the neighbors 1ivi ng next door on a daily basi s and locate the Garbage faci1ities away from our residence. We also ask that the placement of the Garbage Compactors allow easy access for pickup while being inconspicuous to the public, perhaps behind the building. RETAINING WALL Areview of the Plan showed that the grade of the Plaza development would be drastically changed thus makirigJ t necessary to have!a retaini ng wall between our property arid the developer's parkingf1bt. When questioned about 'the designjthe developer;had no PIans avai1able for review. As residents adjacentto the"parking lot of the proposed Plaza, I feel we are entitled to be consulted on the design of the retaining wall;and laridscaning to afford bur privacy and continue/our well being as homeowners and.to insure the soundness of our investment. In closing, we would like to let it be knowntthat^we are not in any way opposed to the development. Wefeel"that it will be ani iniprovement for the area, however, the concerns addressed herewith are. reasonable:and need to be addressed .at this time to avoid future problems for the developer and the town once the Plaza project is complete. Sincerely, �jyL- %»•£, JC1?!/.' S6>/&6-6>0<95 D A V I D M. P E R L M U T T E R ANDREW S. HALPERN T E L E P H O N E (212) F A C S I M I L E (212) 986-4900 986-0397 DIRECT DIAL (212) 9 8 6 - W A D E T. B L A C K M O N June 21, 1995 Zoning Board Village of North Tarrytown N. Tarrytown, NY 10591 Gentlemen: Linda and I have resided at 470 Bellwood Avenue for over 20 years. During that period of time the fence at 457 Bellwood became more and more in need of replacement. We were overjoyed to see the work that Larry and Marion Lenahan have done to repair the fence. The fence is in the identical place that the old fence was, but it is a remarkable improvement. Whereas the old fence was falling apart and was an eye sore, the new fence, built painstakingly piece by piece by Larry, is a welcome addition to the neighborhood. The property looks far better than it looked during those few moments when there was no fence at all. Your granting of his application7 J would not only be appropriate but welcomed. Thank you for your court. ion. David M. P e r l m u t t e r DMP: l a m i^^i^^i^ji^,&£ss:aM.i^i^Uss^^^^M^^^^i^^sS^^^^m^^^S^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ �June 21, 1995 Larry and Marion Lenihan 457 Bellwood Ave No. Tarrytown, New York 10591 Re: Construction of Fence Dear Larry and Marion: As you know, we are your direct neighbors to the west of your property and taxpayers of the Village of North Tarrytown. We are writing this letter in support of your appeal to maintain the fence around your property. The previous owners had neglected the property and the old fence was an eyesore and in such disrepair that it seemed to be what lawyers call an "attractive hazard/nuisance" to children playing in the area. The fence you have constructed is attractive (in the positive sense), well built, and it fits in well with the buildings and landscape of the neighborhood. We find it difficult to believe that anyone would object to an improvement that not only benefits the quality of your property but obviously improves the value of the entire neighborhood. We strongly urge the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of North Tarrytown to permit you to maintain the fence. 125 Merlin Ave No. Tarrytown, N.Y. 10591 �U*«*M LEGAL NOTICE VILLAGE OF NORTH TARRYTOWN PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of North Tarrytown will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, June 21, 1995 at 8:00 P.M. in the Municipal Building, 28 Beekman Avenue, North Tarrytown to hear and consider an appeal by Antonio Rodrigues from a decision of the Building Inspector which denied a building permit for the construction of an office and retail building at premises located at 358 N. Broadway, referred to as Philipse Plaza. The applicant is requesting several variances, as follows: 1) The Schedule of Regulations, Part II requires a 20 for* car yard in addition to a 5 foot buffer area between a business district and a residential area as required by Section 62-9C(2). The applicant's plan provides for a 15 foot rear yard. 2) Section 62-14E of the Code requires 57 parking spaces for the proposed project (25 spaces for the retail uses and 24 spaces for the office uses). The applicant's plan provides for a total of 44 spaces. 3) Section 62-14F of the Code requires that 2 loading spaces be provided. The applicant's plant provides for 1 loading space. 4) Section 62-14C requires that an access drive shall not exceed 25 feet. The applicant's plan proposes an access drive of 27 feet. The premises are known as Section 17, Block 21, Lots 15 & 37 on the tax assessment map of the Village of North Tarrytown. All taxpayers, residents and interested parties are entitled to attend and be heard at the aforesaid hearing. By Order of the Zoning Board of Appeals Linda David, Village Clerk Dated: May 19, 1995 A -^>:~^^wl«=i»,T£»Sr«-.;;^_i^-iiL*^ �A Legal Notice Village of North Tarrytown PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of North Tarrytown will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, June 21, 1995 at 8:00 P.M. in the Municipal Building, 28 Bedkman Avenue, North Tarrytown, N.Y. to hear and consider an appeal by Frank Occhipinti from a decision of the Building Inspector which denied a building permit for the construction of a third dwelling unit at premises located at 20 Hudson Street: The district is zoned for mahufacturing. In addition, the Village Code, Section 62-14 requires five off-street parking spaces at the premises and the applicant is proposing two off-street parking spaces. The premises are known as Section 16, Block 3, Lot 23A on the tax assessment map of the Village of North Tarrytown. All taxpayers, interested parties and residents are invited to attend and be heard. «, By Order of the Zoning Board, of Appeals Linda David, Village Clerk May 30, 1995 �VTLLAGK OF NORTH TARRYTOWN PUBLIC NOTICE PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of North Tanytown will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, June 21, 1995 at 8:00 P.M. in . the Municipal Building, 28 Becfcman Avenue, North Tarrytown to hear and consider an appeal by Elliot Martonefroma decision of the Building Inspector which denied a building permit for construction of an addition and alterations to premises located at 18 Harrington Avenue. The applicant is requesting the following variances: 1) The Schedule of Regulations, Part I of the Village Code requires that the minimum lot sire in art R-2 District be 10,000 square feet. The actual lot size is 9,071.57 square feet; 2) The Schedule of Regulations, Part I of the Village Code requires, the minimum lot width be 75 feet. The actual lot width of the lot is 60.56; 3) The Schedule of Regulations, Part I of the Village Code requires that the side yards total 25 feet, with both sides being a minimum of 10 feet. The total of both side yards is 1916" with one side being only 8' 6" Th« premises are known it Section 14, Bloclc 8, Lot ID on the tax assessment map of the Village of North Tarrytown. AH taxpayers, residents and interested parties are entitled to attend and be heard at the aforesaid hearing. By Order of the Zoning Board of Appeals Linda David, Village Clerk Dated: May 2 4 , \ 1995 �UiGAL NOTICE VILLAGE OF NORTH TARRYTOWN PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of North Tarrytown will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, June 21, 1995 at 8:00 P.M. ir the Municipal Building, 28 Beckman Avenue, North Tarrytown to hear and consider an appeal by Mr. and Mrs. John Monaco from a decision of the Building Inspector which denied a building permit for the construction of a six (6) foot fence at premises located at 53 Fremont Road. The applicant is requesting a variance from the Village code which prohibits the erection offences and walls in excess of three (3) feet in thefrontyard of any residential district. The premises are known as Section 11, Block IE, Lot 1 on the tax assessment map of the Village of i^orth Tarrytown All taxpayers, residents and interested parties are entitled to attend and be heard at the aforesaid hearing. By Order of the Zoning Board of Appeals Linda David, Village Clerk Dated: May 12, 1995 • / r-—_- ,:- .'-«, • V»S^<*-l»iiJ(^Vffc|s5* ii) | 1 tJJ ft j atrt: ; �LEGAL NOTICE VILLAGE OF NORTH TARRYTOWN PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of North Tarrytown will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, June 21, 1995 at 8:00 P.M. in the Municipal Building, 28 Beekman Avenue, North Tarrytown to hear and consider an appeal by Lawrence D. Lcnihan from a decision of the Building Inspector which denied a building permit for the construction of a fence at premises located at 457 Bellwood Avenue. The applicant is requesting a variance from the Village code which prohibits the erection offences and walls in excess of three (3) feet in the front yard of any residential district. The premises are known as Section 14, Block 23, Lot ID; 5A on the tax assessment map of the Village of North Tarrytown. All taxpayers, residents and interested parties arc entitled to attend and be heard at the aforesaid hearing. By Order of the Zoning Board of Appeals Linda David, Village Clerk Dated:.May 12. 1995 � 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-1995 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_1995-06-21 Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1995 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1995 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