https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/2c4035e7b0057bad79e3f75cb1ff3eca.pdf 0349b02d452eb996b913eebed4fbac12 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING -APPROVED March 16, 2005 The meeting was called to order by Robert Anello, Chairman at 8:10 pm. The Chair noted that a quorum was present. Present: Robert Anello, Chairman Eliot Martone Wes Trunko James Galgano Linda Moiron Absent : Gordon Swartz Peter Koffler Also Present: Sean McCarthy (Village Architect/Village of Sleepy Hollow) Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Agenda: 1) Federle/Schrader 2) Molina 3) Pichardo 4) Lomato 5) Minutes 39 Evergreen Way 15 College Avenue 36 Hudson Street 14 Anderson Avenue Announcements: None. 1) Federle/SchraderThis is an application for variances to construct a new front entry porch addition to the existing single-family residence where the proposed construction creates the following non-compliances: Front Yard Minimum front yard = 30.0-feet Existing front yard = 20.6-feet Proposed front yard = 24.0-feet The Chair asked if the returns were received. Sean McCarthy responded yes. The public notice was read aloud. �Mary Scott is the project architect and is representing this application on behalf of the owners. Mary Scott described the existing layout. She spoke about the proposed changes, which included the addition of a mudroom. She stated that the building footprint is not changing. The Chair stated that the changes are on the Lakeview Ave side. Mary Scott responded yes. The Chair asked what increases the non-conformity. Mary Scott responded the sloped roof. The Chair asked if there were any SHMA issues. Mary Scott responded that the owners would be presenting the plans to the SHMA. Mary Scott stated that the changes are not out-of-character with the neighborhood. The Chair opened the public hearing. Since there were no public comments, James Galgano made a motion to close the public hearing. Eliot Martone seconded. It was unanimous (5-0) The Chair asked if ARB approval was needed. The Chair stated that the proposed variance is the minimum variance allowed. He also stated that the proposed project is in character with the neighborhood and that it is not a self-created hardship. James Galgano made a motion to approve the variance as submitted. Wes Trunko seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). 2) Molina – This is an application for variances to construct an addition and expansion of an existing accessory structure where the proposed construction creates the following noncompliances: Side Yard Minimum one-side yard = 5.0-feet Existing front yard = 0.7-feet Coverage Existing accessory building coverage = 35% Maximum accessory building coverage = 30% APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, March 16, 2005 2 �The Chair asked if the returns were received. Sean McCarthy responded no. There was an open discussion on whether or not proof-of-mailings were submitted to the Village. Proof of mailings was verified but the return receipts were not verified. The public notice was read aloud. The Chair stated that the Board was in receipt of the following: 1) Application dated 02/15/05 2) Building plans Robert Barstow is the project architect and is representing the owners. Robert Barstow described the proposed project. He stated that the existing garage attic would be expanded to accommodate other uses. The Chair inquired about the proposed uses. Robert Barstow responded that the use would range from an office to a playroom. The Chair stated that the use should be defined. It was determined that the return receipts were not located and the public hearing could not move forward. Armando Gallala (40 Depeyster Street) stated that he received a notice. This application was temporarily adjourned so that the mailings could be located. The applicant re-appeared later in the meeting with two return-receipts that were received today. The Board determined that proof of sufficient mailings was presented. Robert Barstow stated that dormers would be added to the garage so that the attic of the garage could be used for a recreational use. Sean McCarthy stated that the Village Code does not state that an accessory structure could be used as a recreational use. The Chair stated that a use variance is required to change the use of the accessory structure. Sean McCarthy stated that the application indicates that the accessory use would be used for storage. The Chair explained the differences between an area variance and a use variance. Robert Barstow stated that the applicant would change the proposed use of the garage attic and use the expanded space for additional storage. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, March 16, 2005 3 �The Chair asked if there are any other 2-story garages in the neighborhood. Robert Barstow stated that data was not available but there are several other residences in the area that have 2-story garages. He stated that the structure would not visually affect the neighborhood. The Chair asked if the Board had any questions. Wes Trunko asked what the need for additional storage was. Robert Barstow responded that the garage attic does not accommodate a person standing up in the space. The owners would like the ability to maximize the storage space. The center beam would be raised by 1-foot and the addition of dormers would allow the extra space that the owners require. The Chair asked about the height of the existing structure. Robert Barstow responded 11-feet. There was an open discussion on the height of the proposed structure. It was agreed that the height would be 15-feet at the peak but the center beam would be raised. Wes Trunko stated that this is a lot of work needed to accommodate the need to stand-up in a storage space. Eliot Martone asked if the space would be converted to an apartment. Robert Barstow responded no. Eliot Martone asked if the applicant would allow the Board to place restrictions on the approval to limit the use for storage only. Leon Molina responded no. The Chair opened the public hearing. Armando Gallala (40 Depeyster Street) stated that the applicant remodeled the existing structure and did a great job. He stated that the Board should look favorably on the application. Since there was no further public comments, Linda Moiron made a motion to close the public hearing. Eliot Martone seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). The Chair stated that the applicant has told the Board that although the application stated that the proposed use would be for storage, the applicant has indicated that the proposed space would be used for a recreational use. The Chair stated that the proposed use would require a use variance and not an area variance. He further stated that the applicant would not accept restrictions placed on the approval to restrict the use of the proposed space. Robert Barstow asked if the application is denied could another application be submitted. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, March 16, 2005 4 �The Chair stated that the applicant could return with a substantially new variance at the next meeting. The Chair made a motion to deny the application. Linda Moiron seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). 3) Pichardo – This is an application for variances to construct a two-story addition to the residence where the proposed construction creates the following non-compliances: Lot area Minimum lot area = 4000-sq. ft. Existing lot area = 2351-sq ft. Lot Width Minimum lot width = 40.0-feet Existing lot width = 25.0-feet Floor area ratio (FAR) Maximum FAR = 0.62 Existing FAR = 0.50 Front Yard Minimum front yard = 20.0-feet Existing front yard = 3.0-feet One Side Yard Minimum one side yard = 3.0-feet Existing one side yard = 1.0-feet Combined Side Yards Minimum combined side yards = 12.0-feet Existing combined side yards = 7.0-feet Lot Coverage Maximum lot coverage = 35% Existing lot coverage = 27% Proposed lot coverage = 42% Floor Area Regulations Maximum floor area ratio = 0.62 Proposed floor area ratio = 0.79 APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, March 16, 2005 5 �Parking Spaces Required – two parking spaces. Proposed – none. The Chair asked if the returns were received. Sean McCarthy responded yes. The public notice was read aloud. The Chair stated that the Board was in receipt of the following: 1) Application dated 01/01/05 2) Building plans dated 12/28/04 The Chair questioned the FAR in the public notice. Jon Turnquist is the project architect and is representing this application along with the owner, Rosetta Pichardo. Jon Turnquist stated that the proposal would add onto an existing non-conforming residence. He stated that the proposed addition meets the requirements for setbacks. He stated that the owners have a lease for three leased parking spaces in the parking lot across the street. He stated that there is an existing common driveway that would allow one parking space. He stated that four parking spaces are currently provided. He stated that the owner’s children are teenagers and the family required additional room. He described the proposed interior additions that include additional bedrooms and a family room. There was an open discussion on whether the proposal was a two-story addition or a three-story addition. It was decided that the public needs to be re-noticed since the cellar is going to be used as an occupied space (family room). The Chair stated that the applicant needs to provide reasons to justify the requested variances. This item was dismissed so that the public could be properly noticed. 4) Lomanto This is an application for variances to construct an extension to the second floor of an existing single-family residence where the proposed construction creates the following non-compliances: Floor area ratio (FAR) Maximum FAR = 0.48 APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, March 16, 2005 6 �Existing FAR = 0.56 Front Yard Minimum front yard = 20.0-feet Existing front yard = 6.9-feet Building Coverage Maximum building coverage = 35% Existing building coverage = 45% Accessory structure side yard setback Minimum accessory structure side yard = 3.0-feet Existing accessory structure side yard = 0.8-feet Accessory Structure Coverage Maximum accessory structure coverage = 30% Existing accessory structure coverage = 77% Front Yard Setback Required front yard setback =20.0-feet Proposed front yard setback = 15.0-feet Floor area ratio (FAR) Maximum FAR = 0.48 (2035 sq ft) Proposed FAR = 0.63 (2694 sq ft) The Chair asked if the returns were received. Sean McCarthy responded yes. The public notice was read aloud. Sam Vieira is the project architect and is representing this application on behalf of the owner, Maria Lomanto. The Chair stated that the Board has received the following: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Application dated 2/11/05 Plans dated 2/16/05 Zoning compliance form Letter addresses to the Board from Sam Vieira Short EAF APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, March 16, 2005 7 �Sam Vieira stated that the project would allow the addition of a third bedroom and the reconfiguration of another bedroom to comply with NYS Building Codes. He stated that the addition would not extend past the existing front yard footprint. The Chair asked if the lot was undersized. Sam Vieira responded no. Sam Vieira stated that the existing large garage places the addition over the maximum FAR. Maria Lomanto stated that the original owners used the large garage as a workshop. Currently, it is used as storage. She stated that the garage is 770sf. Sam Vieira stated that the building footprint is not changing. He also stated that the proposed structure is below the maximum allowable height requirement under the Village Code. The Chair opened the public hearing. Since there were no public comments, Eliot Martone made a motion to close the public hearing. James Galgano seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). James Galgano stated that he lived across from this house for 30 years and he knows the house well. He stated that he has no objections. The Chair stated that the proposed project is in character with the neighborhood and that it is not a self-created hardship. He also stated that the variance is the minimum variance allowed since there is no other way to accomplish without increase the building footprint. Wes Trunko stated that he knows the area well and the proposed changes are in character with the neighborhood. Wes Trunko made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Eliot Martone seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). 5) Minutes – The minutes for February 2005 were reviewed. Eliot Martone made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Linda Moiron seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). Adjourned at 9:37 p.m. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, March 16, 2005 8 � 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-2005 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_2005-03-16 Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2005 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2005 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