https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/df06798039842ceb1b3277a5536de565.pdf 5e05b77b6f873dbcb37762d69ef0f949 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING -APPROVED October 19, 2005 The meeting was called to order by Robert Anello, Chairman at 8:05 pm. The Chair noted that a quorum was present. Present: Robert Anello, Chairman Linda Moiron James Galgano Eliot Martone Absent : Gordon Swartz Peter Koffler Also Present: Sean McCarthy (Village Architect/Village of Sleepy Hollow) Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Agenda: 1) 300 North Broadway 2) William Cai 3) Carissimo 4) Marino 5) Kenyon 6) Garcia 7) Weltig 8) Minutes for June, July and September 2005 21 Fremont Road 256 Farrington Avenue 56 Clinton Street 259 Hunter Avenue 10 Gorey Brook Road 14 Merlin Avenue Announcements: The Chair stated that 300 North Broadway and 56 Clinton Street are not on tonight’s agenda. Linda Moiron made a motion to strike those items from the agenda and make the applicant’s renotice the public. Eliot Martone seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). The Chair also stated that the application for 10 Gorey Brook Road was not noticed for a long enough period of time. The applicant was advised that the item would be heard at the next meeting. Revised Agenda: 1) William Cai 2) Carissimo 3) Kenyon 4) Weltig 5) Minutes for June, July and September 2005 21 Fremont Road 256 Farrington Avenue 259 Hunter Avenue 14 Merlin Avenue �1) William Cai This is a continuation from a previous meeting. This is an application for a variance to construct a one story family room addition and a new open deck addition where the proposed addition creates the following non-compliances: Lot Size Minimum lot size = 15,000-sf Existing lot size = 14,630-sf Rear Yard setback Required rear yard setback = 25.0-feet Existing rear yard setback = 25.6-feet Proposed rear yard setback = 15.3-feet William Cai stated that he did not change his application from the last time. He provided a landscape plan that shows how the proposed deck would be screened from the adjacent property. He stated that the landscape plan should sufficiently address the neighbors concerns that were expressed at the last meeting. William Cai summarized the entire application for the Board members that were not present at the last meeting. The Chair stated at the last meeting, the Board proposed moving the deck to the other side of the house but the applicant stated that the deck would be accessed thru the master bedroom. He also stated that the Board also suggested that a smaller deck be constructed. The Chair stated that the concerns expressed at the last meeting focused on constructing a patio instead of a deck. The Chair stated that the patio would not crowd the neighboring property. William Cai responded that a patio would require 8 steps. He stated that he is concerned with the safety of his young child. The Chair asked if the existing deck is conforming. Sean McCarthy responded that the existing deck is non-conforming. The Chair asked about the width of the existing deck. William Cai responded 5-feet. The Chair opened the public hearing. Gary Lue (24 Fremont Road) stated that Sleepy Hollow is very cluttered. He stated that the applicant’s house is the first house that is seen when entering Fremont Road. He also stated that APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, October 19, 2005 2 �the Sleepy Hollow covenants do not allow hedges to be planted along the street. He stated that his concerns are not only with the applicant but with setting a precedent in the neighborhood. Since there were no further public comments, Eliot Martone made a motion to close the public hearing. Linda Moiron seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). The Chair asked if the applicant is aware of the Sleepy Hollow covenant. William Cai responded no. The Chair responded that the landscape plan should conform to the Sleepy Hollow covenant. He stated that the applicant should show why the variance is needed. He reviewed the conditions for granting a variance. He stated that the applicant should also show why a deck is needed. He stated that the lot is a full-sized lot. William Cai responded that the deck could be made 7-feet long instead of the proposed 10-feet long. He stated that the deck is for personal recreational use. The Chair asked if the Board had any questions. Eliot Martone asked Sean McCarthy if the house pre-dates the zoning code. Sean McCarthy responded yes. He stated that the house was constructed in 1956. The Chair asked if the deck pre-dates the zoning code. Sean McCarthy responded that the deck appears to be original. Eliot Martone asked to see the covenant. He stated that he would like to see this application held over to the next meeting since the Board only had four members present. Linda Moiron responded that she would approve a 7-foot deck. She responded that she would like to see the covenant as well. Eliot Martone made a motion to adjourn this application to the next meeting. Linda Moiron seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). Sean McCarthy stated that the deck is not only extending in length but in width as well. He asked if the Board had any problems with the increasing width. The Board agreed that there were no problems with the increased width. This was adjourned to the next meeting. 2) Carissimo – This is a continuation from the previous meeting. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, October 19, 2005 3 �This is an application for a variance to construct a covered porch to the front and west sides of the existing house; add a two story addition to the east and south sides; and extend an existing wooden deck in the rear of the house where the proposed garage level of the two story addition to the east side creates the following non-compliances: One Side Yard Required one side yard = 10.0-feet Proposed one side yard = 7.0-feet Sandro Carissimo is the owner and is representing this application along with contractor George O’Reilly and architect Harry Goldstein. The Chair acknowledged a letter from the applicant. The Chair asked if the applicant addressed moving the garage to the right and reducing the size of the utility room. Sandro Carissimo responded that the length of the room is small. He stated that a compact car would not fit into the garage. He stated that the utility room contains the boiler and electrical meters. Harry Goldstein stated that by moving the wall of the utility room would cause the relocation of two load-bearing walls. He explained the structural layout of the house and the potential impacts of relocating the two load-bearing walls. The Chair asked if the Board had any questions. There were none. The Chair made a motion to re-open the public hearing. Frank Patyi is an attorney for the applicant’s neighbor. He submitted a letter to the Board. He also read a prepared statement which stated that the neighbors oppose any extension of the existing structure towards the neighbors (Mr. and Mrs. Patyi’s) property. He stated that emergency vehicles would not be able to pass if the extension is constructed. The Chair questioned the use of “the reasonable use of the land” standard in Frank Patyi’s prepared statement. Frank Patyi responded that the section is listed in the Village Code under Section B. The Chair responded that the response is referring to a use variance. He also questioned the emergency vehicles restriction. Frank Patyi responded that the applicant would be encroaching on the existing breezeway between the two properties. Since there were no further public comments, Eliot Martone made a motion to close the public hearing. Linda Moiron seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, October 19, 2005 4 �The Chair stated that the variance was approved before. He stated that he is concerned that there might be an alternative way to construct the proposed addition. Sean McCarthy asked if the garage could be moved into the front yard. Harry Goldstein responded that the grade changes too much. The Chair asked for a topographical survey. Sandro Carissimo responded that he did not have a topographical survey. He showed photos of the utilities that are installed in the utility room. Eliot Martone stated that he feels that there is no other way that the applicant can achieve the desired objectives. He stated that the Board had previously approved the exact same application less than 2 years ago. Linda Moiron stated that the applicant has shown how alternatives are not viable. She stated that the requested variance is not substantial. The Chair stated that the proposed addition is not a detriment to the neighborhood. He also stated that the requested variance is small. He stated that it is not a self-created hardship and could not be achieved by any other method. Linda Moiron made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Eliot Martone seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). 3) Brad Kenyon – This is an application for an area variance to replace an existing detached two car garage where the following non-compliances are created: Existing Lot Size Existing lot size = 9,000 s.f. Minimum lot size = 10,000 s.f Existing Lot Width Existing lot width = 60 ft. Minimum lot width = 75 ft. One Side Yard Existing one side yard = 9.8 ft. Minimum one side yard = 10 ft. Combined side yards Existing combined side yards = 19.34 ft Minimum combined side yards = 25 ft. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, October 19, 2005 5 �Coverage and Open Space Proposed accessory building coverage = 34.6% (520 s.f.) Maximum building coverage = 30% (450 s.f.) The public notice was read aloud. The Chair asked if the returns were received. Sean McCarthy responded yes. The Chair stated that the Board has received the following: 1) application dated Sept 8, 2005 2) zoning compliance form 3) hand-drawn sketch of the site plan. 4) Building plans Brad Kenyon is the owner and is representing this application. He stated that his lot is nonconforming. The Chair asked if many of the requested variances are pre-existing based on the existing structure. Sean McCarthy responded yes. He stated that the main variance is for the size of the proposed garage. He stated that it is larger than the existing garage. The Chair asked if the building coverage is for all of the structures. Sean McCarthy responded that the variance is for the coverage of the accessory structure. The Chair responded that part of the problem is that the owners have an undersized lot. There was an open discussion on the calculation used to determine the maximum building coverage for an accessory structure. The Village Code was reviewed. It was determined that the Village Trustees should be consulted to determine which method should be used to calculate the building coverage for an accessory structure. The Chair made a motion to open 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 (4-0). The Chair asked if the Board had any questions. Eliot Martone stated that the variance is not substantial. 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. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, October 19, 2005 6 �Eliot Martone made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Linda Moiron seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). 4) Herbert Weltig This is an application for an area variance to construct a two story addition and patio where the proposal creates the following non-compliance: Front Yard Setback Existing front yard setback = 28 feet Minimum front yard setback = 30 feet Accessory Structure Side Yard Setback Existing side yard setback = 4.94 ft. Minimum side yard setback = 5.0 ft. Accessory structure building coverage Existing coverage = 77% Maximum coverage = 30% Accessory structure lot coverage Existing lot coverage = 19% Maximum lot coverage = 20% Proposed lot coverage = 22% The public notice was read aloud. The Chair asked if the returns were received. Sean McCarthy responded yes. The Chair stated that the Board had received the following: 1) Application dated Sept 14, 2005 2) building plans dated Aug 08, 2005 Keith Akroyd is the project architect and is representing this application on behalf of the owner. He stated that the owners want to add a master bathroom on the second floor, enlarge the kitchen area and adding a fourth bedroom. He spoke about the accessory structures on the site. The Chair asked if the house was a three bedroom house. Keith Akroyd responded yes. He stated that the house is a small house. The Chair asked if the addition was a 2-story addition. Keith Akroyd responded yes. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, October 19, 2005 7 �The Chair asked why the applicant could not build along the width of the building. Keith Akroyd responded that the driveway would need to be relocated. The Chair asked if the side and rear yard setbacks are being compromised. Keith Akroyd responded no. The Chair made a motion to open 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 (4-0). The Chair asked if the Board had any questions. There were none. The Chair asked how the house exceeds the maximum lot coverage because of the pool. Sean McCarthy responded yes. He stated that the pool is an accessory structure. He stated that the house would not be cluttered as a result of the addition. The Chair stated that the proposed variance is the minimum variance that could achieve what is needed. He also stated that the proposed project is in character with the neighborhood and that it is not a self-created hardship. Eliot Martone made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Linda Moiron seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). 5) Minutes for June, July and September 2005 – The minutes for June, July and September 2005 were reviewed. Linda Moiron made a motion to approve the June 2005 minutes as submitted. Eliot Martone seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). James Galgano made a motion to approve the July 2005 minutes as submitted. Eliot Martone seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). Eliot Martone made a motion to approve the September 2005 minutes as amended. Linda Moiron seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). Eliot Martone made a motion to adjourn. It was unanimous (4-0). Adjourned at 9:42 p.m. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, October 19, 2005 8 �Respectfully Submitted APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, October 19, 2005 9 � 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_2005-10-19 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