https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/2bc64ad3fd6d4151dbc49c8c31f20d60.pdf 76a9ee00dfeb800cd4e836e3e60ffbb3 PDF Text Text dCf^L^^rs^^L^ VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING November 20, 2002 RECEIVED DEC 2 7 MM The meeting was called to order at 8:02 P.M. by Robert Anello, Chairman. VlfelGMii£n©te8R& a quorum was present. Present: Robert Anello, Chairman Sean McCarthy Peter KofBer Eliot Martone Linda Moiron Tom Capossela Absent: James Galgano Also Present: Ed Lammers (Murphy, Stecich & Powell/Village Attorney) Robert Stiloski (Director, Department of Fire & Life Safety) Anthony Del Vecchio (Recording Secretary) Agenda: 1) Bill Carraro 24 Hemlock Drive 2) Loren Fox & John Baran 260 Millard Ave 3) J. Baglieri Trust 35 Elm Street 4) Carlos Rodrigues 19 Hudson Street 5) Daniel Beaton 309 N. Washington Street 6) Interpretation of rear yard setback for accessory uses 7) Minutes of the October 2002 meeting Announcements: There were none. 1) Bill Carraro This is an application for an area variance to construct an open porch. The applicant is requesting a front yard variance from the required 30-foot minimum to a 26 AA footminimum. The Chair asked if the returns were received. Bob Stiloski responded yes. The public notice was read aloud. Bill Klineman is the project architect. He is representing this application along with Bill Carraro. ^/9/o^ �Bill Klineman gave a brief overview of the proposed porch. The Chair asked if the applicant is meeting the front yard setbacks. Ed Lammers stated that the side yard is actually the front yard. Bill Klineman stated that they are equal front yards. The Chair stated that the applicant has difficulty in meeting the requirement of two (2) front yards. Bill Klineman distributed photos of the existing house and the proposed location of the porch. The Chair stated that the Board had received the following: 1) Application. 2) Building plans. The Chair asked if the application has been before the Architectural Review Board. Bill Klineman responded no. The Chair asked about the roof. Bill Klineman responded that it would be a typical shed-type roof. Sean McCarthy asked about the width of the porch. Bill Klineman responded that it would be lO'-wide. The Chair asked why a variance was needed. Bill Klineman responded that an 8'-wide porch would be too tight. He stated that the owner wanted the porch to be on the proposed side rather that the rear side. He also stated that the porch is keeping in character with other houses in the neighborhood. Bill Carraro stated that the house already has a patio in the rear. The Chair opened the public hearing. There was no public comment but Ed Lammers submitted two (2) letters that were sent into the Board. The Chair read the letters aloud for the record. Both letters approved of the proposed work. Eliot Martone made a motion to close the public hearing. Tom Capossela seconded. It was unanimous. (6-0). The Chair stated that the variance is minimal and it is in character with the neighborhood. He stated that a smaller porch would not achieve the same benefit. He also stated that there is no significant impact to the area. Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, November 20,2002 2 �Eliot Martone made a motion to approve this application subject to approval from the Architectural Review Board. Tom Capossela seconded. It was unanimous (6-0). 2) Loren Fox & John Baran This is an application for an area variance to construct a rear addition. The applicant is requesting the following variances: 1) Combined side yard setback of 25 feet is required when only 21.7 feet is available. 2) Minimum rear yard setback of 25 feet is required when only 20.3 feet is available. 3) Maximum lot coverage is 20% when the structure will cover 26.9 % of the lot. The Chair asked if the returns were received. Bob Stiloski responded yes. The public notice was read aloud. Sean McCarthy is the project architect and is representing this application. He stated that this application was previously approved at the March 2001 Zoning Board meeting. He stated that the owners were unable to obtain a building permit due to the inability to secure a contractor within the one-year time frame. The Chair read the minutes from the March 2001 Zoning Board meeting. The Chair asked if Architectural Review Board approval was obtained. Sean McCarthy responded yes. He stated that their approval must be renewed. The Chair opened the public hearing. There was no public comment Eliot Martone made a motion to close the public hearing. Peter Koffler seconded. It was unanimous. (5-0) (McCarthy abstained). Eliot Martone made a motion to approve the application as previously submitted and approved. Linda Moiron seconded. It was unanimous (5-0) (McCarthy abstained). 3) Baglieri Trust This is an application for an area variance to legalize a rear yard addition that would require that the applicant have a lot width of 40 feet when the applicant possesses a lot width of 30 feet. The Chair asked if the returns were received. Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, November 20, 2002 3 �Bob Stiloski responded yes. The public notice was read aloud for the record. The Chair stated that the Board had received the following items: 1) application 2) building plans Penelope Morgan is the attorney representing the Josephine Baglieri Trust along with architect, Jon Turnquist. She gave a history of the trust. She stated that the extension was at least 25 years old. She stated that the need for a variance came up when the potential sale of the house discovered a 1958 survey that did not include the extension. Jon Turnquist spoke about the addition. He stated that the roof on the addition is about 20 years old. He also stated that it is hard to tell the age of the extension but he stated that the extension is substantially old. Sean McCarthy asked if the sheds on the plansTiavet)een removed. Jon Turnquist responded yes. The Chair stated that this is an extension of an existing non-conforming use. Penelope Morgan stated that the bedrooms for the 1st floor are in the rear addition. She stated that without the rear addition, the apartment residents would not have a place to sleep. Peter Koffler asked if the building was always a 2-family structure. Bob Stiloski responded yes. Peter Koffler asked if the property is on the Village tax roll as a 2-family structure. Bob Stiloski responded yes. The Chair asked if the applicant needs a use variance. Penelope Morgan responded no. ~She stated that the property is zoned correctly. The Chair opened the public hearing. Since there was no public comment, Eliot"Martone made a motion to close the public hearing. Peter Koffler seconded. "It was unanimous (6-0). The Chair stated that there is no other way to resolve the applicant's request without a variance. He also stated that the house is not out of character with the neighborhood and it cannot be determined if it is a self-created hardship. Tom Capossela asked if the Building Department has inspected the house. Zoning Board of Appea1s~MeetingrNovenibfcr 20,2002 4 �Bob Stiloski responded yes. Peter Koffler made a motion to approve the variance. Eliot Martone seconded. It was unanimous (6-0). 4) Carlos Rodrtgues This is an application for an area variance to convert a one (1) family residence to a two (2) family residence and to repair the existing garagelocated in the front yard when the zoning code states that garages in the front yard are prohibited. The public notice was read aloud for The record. The Chair asked if the returns were received. Bob Stiloski responded yes. The Chair stated that the Board had received the following items: 1) application 2) zoning data 3) short EAF 4) survey 5) building plans 6) Letter denying the building permit. Jon Turnquist is the project architect. Tie is representing this application along with the owner Carlos Rodrigues. Jon Turnquist spoke about the existing residence and the proposed layout. He stated that the electrical and plumbing systems are very outdated. Tie stated that the applicant is planning to replace the garage roof and exteriors. He showed photos of the neighbor's properties to show the multi-family residences that do nofliave parking on-site. "He stated that adequate parking on-site is available. Peter Koffler aslced if the property is an existing twoX2)Tamily residence. Jon Turnquist responded that it is an existing one (1) family but there is prior evidence of a second apartment. He stated thafMt. Pleasant tax roflslndicate a two (2)TamHy residence but Sleepy Hollow tax rolls list the property as a one (1) family. The Chair asked why was a variance needed. Jon Turnquist responded that the applicant meets the zoning requirements for a two (2) family residence. He stated that to offset The costs of renovating the property, the applicant is requesting a variance. The garage would provide the required parking needed for a two (2) family residence. "He also stated that the property is an eyesore to the neighborhood. Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, November 20, 2002 5 �Eliot Martone asked if the applicant could recover his costs by renting the property out as a one (1) family. Jon Turnquist responded that there is not much cost difference in a one (1) family or two (2) family in terms of the renovation costs. He stated that the repairs are extensive. The Chair asked how the property is currently used. Carlos Rocfrigues responded that the property lias l)een vacant for 10 years. The Chair asked if prior to the vacancy, was the property was used as a one (1) family. Bob Stiloski responded yes. The Chair asked for the percentage of houses in the area that are multi-family. Carlos Ro<^rigues responded that all of the surrounding properties are multi-family. Jon Turnquist stated that the proposed changes would not increase the building footprint. The Chair stated lhat in order to not require a variance, the applicant could Icnock down the structure and move the house back 22 feet. He also stated that the applicant is not asking for a variance for a two"X2)Tariifly residence. The Chair asked if an estimated cost is available. Jon Turnquist responded $ 175,D0O. i The Chair opened the public hearing. Don Catai|oX33"Lawrence7Vve) spoke. Tie stated fhafhelsln favor oTthe proposed . application. He stated that the property is on the tax roll as a two (2) family residence. There was an open discussion on the variances that the applicant was seeking. Since there was no further public comment, Sean McCarthy made a motion to close the public hearing. "Linda Moiron seconded. I t was unanimous"(6-0). Sean McCarthy asked if the applicant would install a new roof and doors on the garage. Jon Turnquist responded yes. Eliot Martone asked if Architectural Review Board approval was required. Jon Turnquist responded yes. There was an open discussion on whether the applicant should tear down the existing structure and start over or to allow the applicant to renovate. Jon Turnquist stated that there is some value in the existing framing and utilities. Zoning Boar^oTAppealsTWeeling^oveniber^Oj^OO^ 6 �Sean McCarthy made a motion to approve the applicant1 s request for a variance subject to Architectural Review Board and Building Department approvals. Linda Moiron seconded. It was approved {5-~l)XCapossela). 5) Daniel Beaton This is a request for an area variance. The applicant is proposing to convert a two (2) family to a six^S) family residence that would require the applicant to have a rear yard of 25 feet when the applicant possesses a rear yard of 14 foot rear yard (or 15 foot depending on the interpretation of the location of the rear yard). The public notice was read aloud. The Chair read the minutes from fhe~September 2002 meeting showing that the application was denied. The Chair stated that the application must be substantially different. Ed Lammers stated that the applicants' position is that the application is substantially different. Jeffrey Shumejda is the attorney representing the applicant Daniel Beaton. He stated that the application Is substantially different. Tie spoke about the proposed changes to the structure and the overall layout. Eliot Martone stated that the application is the same as the application that was recently denied a variance at the September2002 meeting. "He stated that the applicant is using a different method to try and achieve the same variance. The Chair stated that the applicant should show the specific code section that warrants the re-consideration of the application prior to the six (6) month wait period for an applicatiorj to "be re-presented oncelfs cleriied. Jeffrey Shumejda responded code section §62-47. The Chair read code section~§62-47 alouHTor the record. Tie stated that the variance Is the same. He stated that the applicant is requesting different conditions on the same variance. The Chair stated that the application does not meet the criteria for re-consideration. He stated that they are public safety,~health, comfort, welfare arid prosperity.TheThair stated that the applicant should state what has changed in the neighborhood to warrant the reconsideration of the application. Jeffrey Shumejda responded that he disagrees with the Chairman statement. He stated that the proposal meets the criteriaTor re-consideration. Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, November 20,2002 7 �The Chair stated that the applicant must still get the same variance approved. Jeffrey Shumejda stated that the applicant was initially asking for a variance from the rear yard setback from 25 feet to 15 feet. He stated that based on the interpretation of the rear yard, a variance of 16 feet was sought, or the applicant was asking for an interpretation of the Building Inspectors assumption that the west side of the property is the rear yard. The Chair stated that one (1) foot was not substantial enough to qualify for reconsideration under code section~§62-47. Jeffrey Shumejda stated that the interpretation is on the rear private road. He stated that the variance is almost not needed. The Chair stated that the public notice does not reflect that information. The Chair polled the Board to hear their opinion on whether The application Is substantially different. Tom Capossela stated that the application was too similar to the previously denied application and that the applicant should wait six (6) months. Sean McCarthy abstained from commenting. Linda Mojron stated that sheTelt the application was too similar to the previous application. Peter Koffler stated that code section §62-47 exists to prevent the resubmission of substantially similar applications.Tle stated that the application is too similar. Eliot Martone agreed with Peter Koffler. Jeffrey Shumejda stated that fhe~Board is not properly addressing the interpretation issue. The Chair responded that the public notice is incorrect. Peter Koffler made a motion to deny the application without a public hearlngl>ased on code section §62-47. Linda Moiron seconded. It was approved (5-0-1) (McCarthy abstained). The Chair recommended that the applicant speak to the Building Inspector regarding the setback issues. 6) Interpretation of rear yard setback for accessory uses There was an open discussion on the setbacks. Ed Lammers reviewed the rear yard setback requirements of other local municipalities. Zoning BoarcT6TAppealslVreefing,T?ovember20,2002~ "$ �The Chair stated that the Village Planner should look at the setbacks of different neighborhoods. The Chair stated that the Village Trustees should also be aware of the Board's decision to change the Interpretation of rear yard setbacks. 7) Minutes of the October 2002 meetingThe minutes for October 2002 were reviewed. EliotTvIartone made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Linda Moiron seconded. It was unanimous (5-0-1) (Chairman Anello abstained). Eliot Martone made a motion to adjourn. Tom Capossela seconded. It was unanimous (6-0). Adjourned at 9:39 p.m. to next meeting. Respectfully Submitted, Anthony I)el Vecchio Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, November 20, 2002 -S*;.;,rr»«1-*fe:i«s^^ �Public Notice Notice is hereby given, that the Board of Appeals of the Village Of Sleepy Hollow will hold a public hearing on Juan Ordones 23 Andrews Lane Sleepy Hollow, NY 10591 for a variance of the of Sleepy Hollow Ordinance to permit the following: • • • • Off street parking for two (2) cars; Lot width variance of 3 8.9 feet where 40 feet is required; Front yard setback of 2.1 feet where 20 feet is required; Side yard setback of 3.3 feet where 15 feet is required. This being a variance of Article 1 Section 62-40 sub section B & Cforproperty owned by the applicant and located on 23 Andrews lane Sleepy Hollow, NY 10591 designated as Section 15 Block 8 lot 13 on the village map of the Village of Sleepy Hollow in a R-5 Zoning District Said hearing will take place on the 19 day of March 2003 at the Village Hall offices. 28 Beekman Ave. Sleepy Hollow, NY at 8:00 P.M. At the hearing all persons appearing in favor of or in opposition to the above applicant will be heard Attendance at said hearing is not required. Applicant or hisrepresentativewill be present RECEIVED F EB M 2003 WUAGE CLERK vte^r^Ste-sjiJi'^i^ � 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-2002 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_2002-11-20 Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2002 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2002 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