https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/e390de682f62e0b79c301a4e6e749786.pdf 4672438766bbf42fdd218010faecfdc3 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING -APPROVED July 20, 2005 The meeting was called to order by Robert Anello, Chairman at 8:09 pm. The Chair noted that a quorum was present. Present: Robert Anello, Chairman Eliot Martone James Galgano Gordon Swartz Absent : Peter Koffler Linda Moiron Also Present: Sean McCarthy (Village Architect/Village of Sleepy Hollow) Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Agenda: 1) Pichardo 2) Alejandro 3) Checco 4) 300 North Broadway, LLC 5) Minutes for June 2005 36 Hudson Street 15 Hudson Terrace 75 Pocantico Street 300 North Broadway 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. Jon Turnquist summarized the application. He submitted a revised parking plan to the Board. He reviewed the plan and discussed how two cars could be parked in the parking area. He reviewed the revisions to the proposed modifications for the house. The Chair asked the applicant to summarize the variances sought and the overall revised proposal. Jon Turnquist summarized the original application and the current revised application including the parking area. Gordon Swartz asked about the size of the parking spots. �Jon Turnquist responded that the spaces are 14-feet long, which would accommodate a medium-sized car. Sean McCarthy asked about the parking area surface. Jon Turnquist responded that parking pavers are proposed. The Chair asked if the 19-foot addition on the first floor is the only proposed extension towards the rear. Jon Turnquist responded yes. He stated that the second floor extension was previously omitted. The Chair asked if the public had any comments. Since there were no public comments, Eliot Martone made a motion to close the public hearing. James Galgano seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). James Galgano made a motion to approve the application as presented in the revised plans. Eliot Martone seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). 2) Alejandro This is an application for a variance to erect a 48-inch fence in the front yard where a maximum height of 36-inches is permitted and a 72-inch high fence in the rear yard where a maximum height of 60-inches is permitted. The public notice was read aloud. The Chair asked if the returns were received. Sean McCarthy responded yes. Choppi Alejandro is the owner and is representing his application. He stated that his wife runs a daycare in the property and he wants more privacy from the new house being constructed in the rear. The Chair asked if a survey was available. Sean McCarthy submitted a copy of the survey to the Board. The Chair asked why the applicant needs a fence so high. Choppi Alejandro responded that he wants to use vinyl and the only a 4-foot fence available is vinyl. The Chair stated that the fence should be available in wood or another product. Choppi Alejandro responded that the style of fence that he wants is only available in 4foot vinyl. He stated that the fence is a picket fence. The Chair asked Sean McCarthy if there are other manufacturers. Sean McCarthy stated that 4-foot is standard. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, July 20, 2005 2 �Sean McCarthy stated that the applicant is proposing to install the fence beyond the front yard setback so a variance is not required. It was agreed that the front yard variance is not needed. The Chair asked why is a 6-foot fence needed in the rear. Choppi Alejandro responded that he wants to keep the children safe. The Chair asked if the public had any comments. Anthony DelVecchio (22 Bedford Road) stated that he does not have a problem with the fence. He stated that he has a 60-inch high fence in the rear of his property from a variance approved by the Zoning Board 20-years ago. Since there was no further public comments, Eliot Martone made a motion to close the public hearing. Gordon Swartz seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). Eliot Martone stated that the high point of the adjacent rear property might be significantly less based on the slope of the applicant’s property. He also stated that there also is a pre-existing variance from another neighbor. Gordon Swartz stated that it is not a precedent. Gordon Swartz asked about the ages of the children. Choppi Alejandro responded that the ages range from 1 year old to 14 years old. The Chair asked if the day care is a permitted use. Sean McCarthy responded yes. The Chair stated that he does not see a reason to approve the 6-foot high privacy fence. He stated that there is no factual proof that the fence is needed for the childcare. He stated that there have been previous applications that were denied for similar reasons that the applicant has presented. Gordon Swartz asked if a 5-foot fence is available. Choppi Alejandro responded that he has a previous approval from the Architectural Review Board for a 5-foot fence but he was unable to purchase a 5-foot fence. The Chair asked if the fence was purchased already. Choppi Alejandro responded yes. The Chair suggested that the application be adjourned to see if the owner can purchase a 5-foot fence. Choppi Alejandro stated that he needs to install a fence soon. He requested that his application be withdrawn APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, July 20, 2005 3 �Eliot Martone made a motion to accept the applicants request to withdraw the application. Gordon Swartz seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). 3) Checco This is a request for an interpretation in accordance with Article X, Section 62-40.A (2), alleging that the Building Inspector was in error for refusing to issue a Certificate of Occupancy for a four-family residence. The public notice was read aloud. The Chair asked if the returns were received. Sean McCarthy responded yes. Angie Checco is the executor of the estate and is representing this application. She stated that the original structure was a 2-family structure. She stated that an addition was completed in 1972. The Chair stated that in order to be grandfathered, the structure needs to be an existing 4-family structure before 1964. Eliot Martone asked if a variance was granted to convert to a four-family. Angie Checco responded that documents are missing from the Village Building Department folder. She stated that she has some of the missing records. Angie Checco stated that the studio apartment is the apartment in question. She stated that a general Certificate of Occupancy was issued in 1999. She stated that her parents purchased the property in 1970 as a 2-family residence. The Chair informed the applicant that based on her statement; the Board should deny her request. He stated that the property was purchased in 1970 as a 2-family. He stated that this is a clear example of a pre-existing use. Angie Checco stated that she can prove that the apartment in question existed prior to 1959. The Chair asked about the zoning in the area. Sean McCarthy responded that it is in an R-5 zone, which allows multi-family. The Chair stated that the property does not comply with parking. He stated that the house does not conform to the zoning code and requires variances. He stated that in order for the property to be grandfathered, the property needs to be existing prior to 1964 and no changes are made to the property since 1964. He reviewed the requirements that must be met in order for the Board to grant a variance. Sean McCarthy stated that the application was reviewed with the applicant. He stated that the applicant was advised that a parking variance and site plan approval would be required. He stated that the applicant chose to seek an interpretation. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, July 20, 2005 4 �Angie Checco stated that several documents are missing from the building records. The Chair asked about the front entrance. Angie Checco spoke about the front and rear entrances. She described the methods of access to each of the four apartment. She stated that the original survey from 1957 indicated that the studio apartment is shown. She stated that the proof is shown by the basement window wells and the basement apartment entrance, which is shown on the survey. The Chair asked about creating parking on site to accommodate parking. Angie Checco responded that it would be a major expense. She stated that the property currently accommodates four (4) cars. The Chair asked when the extension was completed. Angie Checco responded 1972. The Chair referenced an insurance document from 1974 indicating that the property was a 2family structure. Sean McCarthy submitted the building permit for the previous building addition to the Board. The Chair referred to several letters submitted to the Board. The Chair asked how many meters are present. Angie Checco responded three. She stated that the studio apartment utilities are connected to the property owner’s meters. The Chair stated that the building records indicate that the property is a 2-family residence. He stated that a variance is needed to change the property from a 2-family to a 4-family. He stated that there are two ways to get an exception to the Zoning Code: 1) Prove that the property existed as a pre-existing use prior to 1964. 2) Seek a variance. He explained the requirements for obtaining a variance. The Chair asked if there was any information that the owners wanted to present to the Board. Angie Checco responded no. The Chair asked if the public had any comments. Rose Maria McManis (31 New Broadway) asked what the tax roll states. Angie Checco stated that the Town of Mt. Pleasant lists a 5-family residence. She stated that there is another apartment that her parents used that is illegal and is currently being removed. Sean McCarthy stated that the Village tax records only indicate multi-family. Eliot Martone stated that tax roll information could help justify the variances. The Chair stated that there are other 4-family homes in the area. Angie Checco asked what type of variance is needed. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, July 20, 2005 5 �The Chair responded that an area variance is needed. Sean McCarthy stated that a site plan is needed for the proposed parking along with the variances. The Chair asked about the parking requirements. Sean McCarthy responded that approximately eight parking spaces are needed based on the number of bedrooms and number of dwelling units. James Galgano asked why this all came up. Angie Checco responded that the property was up for sale and the potential buyer discovered that the property was not a 4-family residence. James Galgano asked if Sean McCarthy had inspected the structure. Sean McCarthy responded yes. He stated that the basement apartment would meet the requirements for an efficiency unit. James Galgano asked if 4-family residences are permitted in the area. Sean McCarthy responded yes. Sean McCarthy stated that there is an open building permit. He stated that once the permit is closed, a Certificate of Occupancy for a 3-family residence will be granted. The applicant thanked the Board for their input. No action was taken. 4) 300 North Broadway, LLC This is an application for variances to construct a mixed-use (commercial and residential) building with 8 (eight) residential units and 6 (six) units which have a home occupation/home profession space. This application requires the following variances: Front Yard – New Broadway Required front yard = 10.0-feet Existing front yard = 0.5-feet Proposed front yard = 1.0-feet Front Yard – North Broadway Required front yard = 20.0-feet Existing front yard = 0.5-feet Proposed front yard = 0.0-feet Rear Yard Required rear yard = 20.0-feet Existing rear yard = 8.8-feet APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, July 20, 2005 6 �Proposed rear yard = 5.0-feet Application of Regulations – Article IV, 62-7.B Adding to and altering an existing non-conforming building The public notice was read aloud. The Chair asked if the returns were received. Sean McCarthy responded yes. Kyle McGovern is the representing this application along with the owner, Dan Beaton. Kyle McGovern summarized the applications before the Planning Board and the Waterfront Advisory Committee. The Chair asked for a copy of the Waterfront Advisory Committee minutes. Sean McCarthy provided a copy for the Board. The Chair noted that the Board had received the following: 1) Plans dated 6/20/05 2) Application dated 6/21/05 Kyle McGovern stated that one of the variances sought will be a lesser use than what is requested. Dan Beaton stated that the project was designed to try to keep within the existing building footprint. The Chair asked about the height requirements. Dan Beaton responded that the requirement is 35-feet from the New Broadway side. There was an open discussion on the calculation method for determining the height of a structure. The Chair asked Sean McCarthy to locate the Code section that allows the height to be measured from the lesser side of a corner lot. Dan Beaton spoke about the surrounding streets. He spoke about the proposed commercial and residential components. He spoke about that proposed parking plan. He stated that efforts were made to create some green space and that the parking flow was a concern of the owners. He stated that the Waterfront Advisory Committee made a recommendation to only allow a righthand turn out of the property. He spoke about the elevator access from the parking level. He stated that all cars should park in the North Broadway parking area and not on the street. Gordon Swartz asked about the number of parking spaces required for the residential units. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, July 20, 2005 7 �Dan Beaton explained the proposed parking plan. He spoke about the number of parking spaces required. He stated that the parking plan conforms to the Village Zoning code. The Chair asked the applicant to address the variances sought. Dan Beaton spoke about the interior units. He spoke about the proposed home-profession use. The Chair asked how many parking spaces are dedicated to the businesses. Dan Beaton responded that the parking spaces are not dedicated. He stated that the owners have a parking space already established. He stated that the parking lot will probably never see 25 vehicles since the proposed use is not retail. The Chair asked about the Zoning Code requirements. Sean McCarthy read the applicable zoning code sections aloud. He stated that he agrees with the proposed parking calculations. The Chair asked if the open space could be included in the parking plan. Dan Beaton responded that the plans submitted to the Board have been revised. He stated that units have been condensed by a few feet to increase the open space proposed. He stated that the revised plans are not available. He discussed some of the architectural changes that are also under revision. The Chair asked for an open space calculation. Sean McCarthy responded that the open space calculations are required for residential properties up to R-5. He stated that further investigation needs to be performed on a mixed-use structure. Dan Beaton stated that the structure is not changing from its existing footprint. Sean McCarthy stated that this property is a corner lot. He reviewed the property and associated required variances. The Chair asked about the adjacent properties. Kyle McGovern responded that the adjacent properties are pre-existing non-conforming use properties. The Chair asked if the information on the setbacks for the adjacent properties could be provided to the Board. He also asked the applicant to provide a building footprint that would conform to the zoning code. Dan Beaton stated that the proposed plan increases the green space on the site. Kyle McGovern stated that the zoning code does not have a requirement for open space for a C-1 zone. The Chair asked Sean McCarthy to verify the open space requirement. The Chair asked for a rendering of the front yard and rear yard to understand if the proposed structure is in character with the neighborhood. The Chair stated that elevations and a markedup survey at a minimum should be submitted. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, July 20, 2005 8 �The Chair asked the applicant to review the reasons why a variance should be granted. Dan Beaton responded that there is no self-created hardship. He stated that the property could be rented out. The Chair stated that the property is non-conforming and no matter what the applicants wanted to do with the property, a variance would be required. The Chair opened the public hearing. Rose Marie McMannis (31 New Broadway) stated that the property view shed should be protected under the LWRP. The Chair asked if the Waterfront Advisory Committee meetings are public. Sean McCarthy responded no. He stated that the Waterfront Advisory Committee is an advisory committee and the committee stated that the plan complies with the LWRP. Rose Marie McMannis continued by stating that there are too many units proposed. She stated that 4-units should be proposed. She stated that parking will be a problem. She stated that parking would be a problem. She stated that the proposed property is too large as well. She stated that the proposed structure does not belong in the community. The Chair explained the review process of the Planning Board and Architectural Review Board. The Chair asked if the applicant could provide additional landscaping on the New Broadway side. Dan Beaton responded that the foundation would have to be moved and that parking would be reduced. Sonja Munroe (63 New Broadway) stated that the applicant should try to include more green space on New Broadway. Ann Connor (66 New Broadway) stated that the scale is too large. She stated that she is opposed to the size of the development. Richard Kirby (64 New Broadway) stated that something should be placed at the site that blends into the neighborhood. He stated that parking would be an issue. He stated that controlling the home-profession will be difficult. The Chair asked if the home-profession use is described in the zoning code. He stated that the only business that could be operated from the site is a business that is operated by the property owner. Sean McCarthy responded yes. James Devangelo (77 New Broadway) stated that the intended project is too big without allocated space. He stated that the concept is good but too large. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, July 20, 2005 9 �Since there were no further public comments, Eliot Martone made a motion to close the public hearing. Gordon Swartz seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). James Galgano stated that a decision should not be made tonight since the several Board members are not present. He stated that the residential outlets on New Broadway are a concern. He stated that parking on New Broadway seems unavoidable. Dan Beaton asked if the entrances should be eliminated on New Broadway. James Galgano responded that he would recommend that the entrances be removed. Gordon Swartz stated that he is pleased that the site will be developed. He stated that he is concerned with the scale of the proposed project. He stated that he would like to see the Broadway side get recessed. He expressed some concerns about the proposed traffic flow exiting the parking area and the line-of-site from Route 9. He commended the applicant for proposing a positive plan. Eliot Martone stated that this proposal for the site is the best plan for the site since Tappan Motors vacated the site. He stated that this property is the gateway into the Village. He stated that the property should blend into New Broadway. He stated that the buildable areas of the Village are limited and care needs to be taken in how this area is developed. The Chair asked if the NYSDOT needs to be involved in the change of the traffic pattern. Sean McCarthy responded yes. He stated that the applicant will need to apply to the DOT for a permit. The Chair stated that the property is a difficult one to develop. He stated that the traffic problem could be alleviated by reducing the number of units proposed. The Chair stated that visitors might be inclined to park on New Broadway to be able to leave the area and access Route 9 South easier. The Chair stated that the setback on New Broadway should be addressed. He stated that the property should be analyzed to allow alternatives to be proposed. Dan Beaton stated that the break-even point on 8-units is $700,000/unit. He stated that the break-even point on seven (7) units is over $800,000/unit. Kyle McGovern requested an adjournment to the September meeting so that more information can be provided. Gordon Swartz seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). 5) Minutes – The minutes for June 2005 will be reviewed at the next meeting. Adjourned at 10:21 p.m. Respectfully Submitted APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, July 20, 2005 10 � 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_2005-07-20 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