https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/b2b1f281c62aaeafa26e1cfcd9b59293.pdf 5f5a2577921516ffb831e9d9b81e3cdc PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING -APPROVED May 18, 2005 The meeting was called to order by Robert Anello, Chairman at 8:11 pm. The Chair noted that a quorum was present. Present: Robert Anello, Chairman Eliot Martone James Galgano Linda Moiron Gordon Swartz Absent : Wes Trunko Peter Koffler Also Present: Sean McCarthy (Village Architect/Village of Sleepy Hollow) Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Agenda: 1) Pichardo 2) Sleepy Hollow Designs 3) Cummings 4) Perillo 5) Annual Election of Chairman 6) Approval of minutes for April 2005 meeting 36 Hudson Street 34-36 Clinton Street 537 Bellwood Avenue 41 Hudson Terrace Announcements: None. 1) Pichardo – This is a continuation from previous meetings. Jon Turnquist is the project architect and is representing this application along with the owner, Rosetta Pichardo. The Board reviewed the minutes from the previous meeting. The Chair stated that no new plans were submitted to the Board. Jon Turnquist summarized the proposed changes. He stated that the proposed addition to the upstairs apartment would be eliminated. He stated that 7-feet would be removed from the proposed first floor addition and the circular staircase would be eliminated as well. �The Chair asked about the parking set-up. Jon Turnquist stated that the proposed parking layout would remain the same The Chair asked about the number of extra bedrooms. Jon Turnquist responded one additional bedroom would be added on the first floor to accommodate the family’s needs. The Chair stated that revised plans need to be submitted to the Board so that all of the changes could be reviewed. He stated that the public does not have to be re-noticed. The Chair asked what is dictating the length of the extension. Jon Turnquist responded that the extension is 19-feet. He stated that an additional 2-foot closet, a 12-foot master bedroom, and an additional 5-foot bathroom are proposed. Linda Moiron made a motion to adjourn the application to the next meeting until proper drawings could be submitted to the Board. Eliot Martone seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). 2) Sleepy Hollow Designs This is an application to construct a new five-family dwelling requiring the following variances: Lot area Minimum lot area = 8,000-sq. ft. Existing lot area = 3,740-sq ft. Front Yard Minimum front yard = 10.0-feet Proposed front yard = 0.0-feet Rear Yard Minimum rear yard set back= 25.0-feet Proposed rear yard set back= 4.0-feet The public notice was read aloud. The Chair stated that the Board was in receipt of the following: 1) Letter from Sleepy Hollow Designs dated 03/29/05 2) Planning Board memo dated 03/17/05 3) Application dated 03/21/05 4) Short EAF 5) Revised building plans dated 03/18/05 APPROVED- Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, May 18, 2005 2 �Robert Barstow is the project architect and is representing this application along with his attorney, Richard Blancato. The Chair asked if the returns were received. Sean McCarthy responded yes. The Chair reviewed the Sleepy Hollow Designs memo. Sean McCarthy summarized the previous Zoning Board recommendation on this application. The Chair asked if the front yard setback takes into account the other adjacent properties. Sean McCarthy responded yes. Eliot Martone asked if the proposed parking and screening extend to the property line. Robert Barstow responded that the bulk of the building is setback. Sean McCarthy stated that part of the building is set on the property line. The Chair stated that the Planning Board memo expresses many concerns about the application including density, maneuverability of parking, front, and rear yard setbacks. The Planning Board memo further requests that the Zoning Board not grant the requested variances as submitted. Richard Blancato summarized the previous Zoning Board recommendation. He stated that a positive recommendation was given for a larger structure with more substantial variances. He submitted a memo that listed other properties that have smaller lot areas, greater densities and less front and rear yards. The Chair asked who prepared the memo. Richard Blancato responded that the list was prepared by Robert Barstow based on information received from the Village Assessor’s office. The Chair asked if the Village Architect has reviewed this data. Sean McCarthy responded no. The Chair asked if any of the listed structures are new construction. Richard Blancato responded that all of the structures are existing structures. Richard Blancato stated that none of the buildings in the area have on-site parking. He stated that the Planning Board has expresses concerns about the parking. He stated that the Planning Board had questioned the accessibility of one particular parking space and that the parking spot has been removed. The Chair asked if the Planning Board has received the revised drawings. Robert Barstow responded that the revised parking plan was presented to the Planning Board. There was an open discussion on the drawings that the Planning Board based their 03/17/05 memo. The Chair noted that the reasons for the variance are not part of the application. APPROVED- Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, May 18, 2005 3 �Robert Barstow referred to the Sleepy Hollow Designs memo. The Chair noted that the date on the application and the date on the memo do not match. Robert Barstow responded that in conversation with the Village Architect, it was agreed that a letter would be attached to support the application. There was an open discussion on the attached memo and the sequence of events that followed the original submission of the application and supporting documentation. Richard Blancato asked the Board if any written comments have been provided to the Village from the Village consultants regarding this proposed structure. Sean McCarthy summarized the Planning and Zoning Board applications. He stated that the applicant has revised the plans and the Planning Board consultants have not reviewed the revised drawings. The Chair asked if the Planning Board consultants have issued written recommendations. Sean McCarthy responded yes. He stated that the applicant has received several memos from the Planning Board’s consultants over the entire Planning Board application process. The Chair reviewed the Planning Board memo regarding the parking lot layout. Richard Blancato stated that a traffic report from a traffic consultant could be provided to support the parking configuration. Sean McCarthy responded that with the 6-unit dwelling proposed nine parking spaces. He stated that even though the parking space in question has been removed, there still appears to be some concerns about the compact spaces and the ability to access some of the parking spaces. Robert Barstow stated that the parking spaces are 10-feet wide. The Chair stated that the parking spaces on the plans indicate eight and 9-feet wide spaces. Robert Barstow stated that the compact spaces are larger than the Village requirements. Richard Blancato stated that this would be the only building in the area that would have on-site parking. The Chair asked why the property needs to contain so many units. Richard Blancato responded that the need to create on-site parking is causing the need for additional units. He stated that if the structure would be built on grade, the number of units would be reduced. Richard Blancato stated that this structure would blend into the neighborhood. The Chair stated that the applicant needs to show that this structure would not be a detriment to the neighborhood. The Chair asked how large of a structure could be built that would comply with the Village Code regarding lot coverage. Sean McCarthy responded that two units could be built without a variance. He also stated that the area permits commercial development. The Chair stated that the applicant needs to address why more than two units need to be built. APPROVED- Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, May 18, 2005 4 �Richard Blancato responded that cost of building the structure along with the on-site parking requires additional units in order to make the project financially feasible. The Chair stated that the application does not address why more than a two-family should be built. Richard Blancato requested that the Zoning Board’s original recommendation for a 6-family structure should be added to the record. Richard Blancato showed photos of other properties in the neighborhood that contain more dense sites. Robert Barstow listed other properties that have had large lot area variances approved. They included 185 Valley Street (1994 approval) and 183 Valley Street (1987 approval). The Chair asked if there are any examples in the last 10 years. Robert Barstow responded that he could research further. Eliot Martone stated that parking is not before the Zoning Board. He requested that the Board focus on the requested variances. The Chair stated that this property has been granted variances in the past. He requested that the variance be reviewed and added to the record. Robert Barstow stated that the existing building was a 6-unit structure with no parking before it burned down. The Chair opened the public hearing. Since there were no public comments, Linda Moiron made a motion to close the public hearing. Eliot Martone seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). Linda Moiron asked about the change to the front yard setback during the Planning Board review. Robert Barstow stated that to optimize the parking and to conform to the rest of the neighborhood, the structure was moved forward. The Chair asked about the parking in the front yard. Sean McCarthy responded that in a C-2 zone, parking in the front yard is allowed. Sean McCarthy stated that the Planning Board has stated that a 3-unit structure would be an acceptable plan for the Planning Board to approve based on the density of the area. The Chair stated that the applicant must address the need to build a 5-family structure. Richard Blancato stated that the Planning Board’s recommendation that the Zoning Board be unanimous in their vote to approve this application should be reviewed by the Village attorney. He stated that this stipulation would violate NYS law. APPROVED- Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, May 18, 2005 5 �Eliot Martone made a motion to adjourn this item to the next meeting. Linda Moiron seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). 3) Cummings This is an application for variances to construct a new entry addition, front addition, rear porch addition, dining room addition, and garage addition to the existing single-family residence requiring the following variances: Building Coverage Maximum building coverage = 20% Existing building coverage = 14.27% Proposed building coverage = 21.47% Front Yard Required front yard = 30.0-feet Existing front yard = 30.4-feet Proposed front yard = 12.0-feet Rear Yard Required rear yard set back= 25.0-feet Existing rear yard set back = 12.1-feet Proposed rear yard set back= 13.75-feet Article IV, Section 62-7.B – Adding to and altering an existing non-conforming building. The Chair asked if the returns were received. Sean McCarthy responded yes. The Chair stated that the Board was in receipt of the following: 1) Application for building permit dated 04/15/05 2) Zoning compliance form 3) Short EAF 4) building plans dated 04/14/05 5) Application for variance dated 04/15/05 Padriac Steinschneider is the project architect and is representing this application on behalf of the owners. Padriac Steinschneider spoke about relocating the existing driveway from Bellwood Avenue to Farrington Avenue. He also spoke about the new entry foyer, which would be approximately 88 square feet. He spoke about a new entrance porch would add 451 square feet and encroach about 18-feet into the front yard. He reviewed the proposed additions and the associated variances that are required based on the proposed new work. APPROVED- Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, May 18, 2005 6 �The Chair asked if the front porch would be enclosed. Padriac Steinschneider responded no. Padriac Steinschneider stated that most of the lots in the neighborhood are rectangular. He stated that this parcel is unusually shaped. He stated that if the house was build closer to Farrington Avenue, it might better fit onto the lot. The Chair asked if there is any proposed interior construction. Padriac Steinschneider responded only the enclosed porch. He stated that the dining room addition, etc are being kept within the zoning parameters. The Chair asked if Architectural Review Board approval is also needed. Padriac Steinschneider responded yes. Padriac Steinschneider stated that there are no adverse impacts to the neighborhood. He stated that the appearance of the existing house would be improved. He submitted photos of several other houses in the area. He stated that many houses have front yard setbacks of 30-35 feet from the house to the curb. He stated that the proposed structure would have a similar setback. He also submitted photos of several houses that have similar porches. Gordon Swartz asked if any trees would be removed. Padriac Steinschneider responded that no trees would be removed. He stated that the property would be re-landscaped. Gordon Swartz asked how far out the house would be projected. Padriac Steinschneider responded that the porch would project out about 18-feet. Gordon Swartz stated that the houses in the area are very similar to the existing house. He stated that Bellwood Avenue is the main road in Phillipse Manor. He stated that he is concerned with the projection of the porch onto Bellwood Avenue. Eliot Martone stated that he feels that the proposed porch would blend in with the surrounding properties. The Chair asked if what would be changed if the front yard projection were reduced. Padriac Steinschneider stated that the dining room addition would need to be reduced. He stated that the needs of the family would be compromised but it could be worked around. The Chair asked if the Board had any other questions. There was none. The Chair opened the public hearing. Jim Nazemetz (134 Hunter Avenue) stated that Bellwood Avenue has a wide setback. He stated that the Board should consider the precedent that would be set by allowing this structure to encroach into the front yard. He stated that the proposed structure is too large for the site. APPROVED- Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, May 18, 2005 7 �The Chair asked if the projection into the front yard was the primary concern. Jim Nazemetz stated that the roofline would still be seen from Bellwood Avenue. He stated that the lot is a corner lot and has two front yards. The Chair asked what changes could be proposed to change the character of the house. Jim Nazemetz stated that he would make interior changes to try and not requires zoning variances. Eliot Martone responded that the lot is non-conforming and would need to appear before the Board for any changes to the structure. Jim Nazemetz stated that he is concerned with the massing in the front yard. Sean McCarthy stated that the existing structure conforms to the zoning code. The Chair asked if the proposed front yard structure could be reduced. Padriac Steinschneider responded that the proposed 7’-6” structure is the minimum that would meet the family’s needs. He stated that the front entrance porch could be reduced from 18-feet to 15-feet. Chris Cummings stated that his family wants to have a place to sit in the front since his family spends so much time in the front yard. Since there were no further public comments, Eliot Martone made a motion to close the public hearing. Linda Moiron seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). Jim Galgano stated that he does not have a problem with the proposed addition. Eliot Martone stated that this project is a good project. He is not opposed to the front yard projection. Linda Moiron stated that it would be more in character with the neighborhood than the current structure. Gordon Swartz stated that he is concerned with the massing in the front yard and the impact to Bellwood Avenue. He stated that he is having a hard time visualizing the total impact. Padriac Steinschneider stated that the house is primarily a one-story structure. Gordon Swartz asked if shrubbery would be added. Padriac Steinschneider responded that a combination of different landscaping would be used for screening. The trees would be 12-25-feet in height and would allow sunlight and privacy screening. The Chair stated that if the front porch were pushed back 3-feet, the site line issues would be resolved. Padriac Steinschneider responded that the plans would still work with a 3-feet reduction in the front yard. APPROVED- Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, May 18, 2005 8 �The Chair made a motion to approve the plans as submitted with the front yard setback revised to 15-feet and that the front yard porch remain as an unenclosed structure. Linda Moiron seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). 4) Perillo This is an application for variances to convert a two-family residence to a three-family residence where the proposed creates the following non-compliances: Floor Area Ratio Required floor-area-ratio = 0.45 Existing floor-area-ratio = 0.52 Proposed floor-area-ratio = 0.46 Front Yard Required front yard = 20.0-feet Existing front yard = 10.46-feet Proposed front yard = 10.46-feet Off-street parking Minimum driveway width= 10.0-feet Existing driveway width = 8.55-feet Proposed driveway width= 8.55-feet Article IV, Section 62.7A – R-4 zoning district permits one and two family residences. Three family residence is proposed. The Chair asked if the returns were received. Sean McCarthy responded yes. The Chair stated that the Board was in receipt of the following: 1) Letter from Joseph Perillo dated 04/15/05 2) Application dated 04/15/05 3) Short EAF 4) Zoning compliance form 5) Letter to Sean McCarthy dated 04/11/05 from applicant 6) Building permit dated 04/15/05 7) Memo to Joseph Perillo dated 04/11/05 8) Site plans dated 04/10/05 9) Survey 10) Letter from Joseph Perillo 11) Letter from Lena Scralla 12) Letter Scarfi dated 04/10/05 13) Breakeven analysis APPROVED- Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, May 18, 2005 9 �14) Tax assessment Joseph Perillo is the owner and is representing this application along with Dan Zuchi. Joseph Perillo stated that when the property was purchased, it was purchased with the understanding that it was a 3-family dwelling. The Chair asked when was the property purchased. Joseph Perillo responded October 2004. The Chair noted a letter dated October 2004 from the Building Department indicating that the property is a 2-family residence. The Chair also noted a letter from neighbor Ed Mahoney indicating that the basement apartment is an illegal apartment. Joseph Perillo stated that a building permit was taken out to make the building comply with NYS building codes. He stated that the three proposed variances do not include changing or altering the existing structure. He stated that the building interiors are submitted to show the final layout of the property. He stated that the third floor apartment is the unit in question. He stated that the third floor apartment has been used as a rental unit dating back to 1966. He stated that an apartment is not being created. Joseph Perillo stated that back in 1964, the owners made renovations to separate the apartment and create a two-family building. He submitted an affidavit from previous tenants that indicate they occupied the apartment. The Chair asked if the applicant could prove if the apartment was legal. Joseph Perillo responded no. The Chair asked if the closing documents indicate that a 2-family residence was purchased. Joseph Perillo responded yes. He stated that the Town tax rolls indicate a 2-family residence as well. Joseph Perillo stated that the breakeven analysis only works with a 3-family structure. He stated that the property was purchased from his father-in-law on the open market and the property was sold as a 3-family dwelling. The Chair asked about the proposed rent of $1800 for a three-bedroom duplex. Joseph Perillo responded that the proposed rent is based on current apartment ads and consulting with local real estate agents. The Chair asked about the purchase price Dan Zuchi responded $600,000. The Chair asked if a bank mortgage and assessment was done. Joseph Perillo responded that the information was not available. He stated that the agreed upon number was based on a previous assessment. APPROVED- Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, May 18, 2005 10 �The Chair stated that it is not uncommon to have a multi-family rental property operate at a loss. Joseph Perillo stated that the tax map of the neighborhood shows that the property is not out-ofcharacter with the neighborhood. He stated that 28% are legal 3-families. He stated that 42% are 2-families and the rest are 1-family structures. The Chair stated that the zoning analysis crosses into other zones. The Chair stated that on either side is a 2-family. The house across the street is a 4-family but is on a double lot. The Chair stated that the zoning regulations indicate that the must prove that the hardship is not self-created and the change would not be out-of-character with the neighborhood. The Chair noted that the six houses on the same side of the street are primarily one and two family houses. Across the street, with one exception, the houses are one and 2-family houses. Sean McCarthy provided several past building permits and other documents indicating that the previous owners knew that the property was a 2-family house. The Chair read the documents aloud. He stated that there other documents presented that indicate that the house is knowingly a 2-family structure. The Chair opened the public hearing. Robert Kiley (39 Hudson Terrace) stated that the applicants driveway is shared with his house. He stated that he has many cars in the driveway already and this would make matters worse. Ed Mahoney (45 Hudson Terrace) stated that the neighborhood is primarily a one and 2-family neighborhood. He stated that he opposes absentee landlords. He stated that there are other nonconforming houses in the area without building permits. He stated that there are only four Certificate of Occupancies out of the ten houses in the area. He stated that the area is too dense. Since there were no further public comments, Eliot Martone made a motion to close the public hearing. Linda Moiron seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). Joseph Perillo stated that parking spaces would be created by removing the garage and making a parking area for 6-cars. Eliot Martone stated that parking for six cars is not in keeping in character with the neighborhood. Jim Galgano asked how the illegal unit was discovered. Sean McCarthy stated that in February 2005, an electrician was stopped from installing four electric meters. Jim Galgano asked if the Town records indicate 3-family. Sean McCarthy stated that the Village records indicate that the property was only modified to a 2-family dwelling. APPROVED- Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, May 18, 2005 11 �Eliot Martone stated that he is not willing to vote in favor of this application based on the information presented. The Chair stated that the information presented does not support a use variance. He stated that the fair market value of the property has not been established. He stated that the breakeven analysis is not verified. He stated that a hardship has not been proven. He stated that the neighborhood is primarily 1 and 2-family houses. He stated that the hardship is self-created since the seller and the purchaser are related. He stated that he recommends that the request for a variance be denied. The Chair stated that he would deny the variance based on the overwhelming evidence. Linda Moiron made a motion to deny the variance. Jim Galgano seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). 5) Election of Chairman Eliot Martone made a motion to re-elect Robert Anello as Chairman. Linda Moiron seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). 6) Minutes – The minutes for April 2005 were reviewed. The Chair made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Eliot Martone seconded. It was unanimous (5-0) Adjourned at 11:00 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, APPROVED- Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, May 18, 2005 12 � 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_2005-05-18 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