https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/953737fb8ef0364b17f0e0ea1a3f72e9.pdf 4d0829edb75e749f5b22062079b28bc8 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING -APPROVED November 16, 2005 The meeting was called to order by Peter Koffler, Acting Chairman at 8:15 pm. The Chair noted that a quorum was present. Present: Linda Moiron Gordon Swartz Peter Koffler, Acting Chairman James Galgano Absent : Robert Anello, Chairman Eliot Martone Also Present: Sean McCarthy (Village Architect/Village of Sleepy Hollow) Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Announcements: The Chair stated that William Cai (21 Fremont Road) has been removed from the agenda. Agenda: 1) Mill Point Partners 300 North Broadway 2) Garcia 10 Gorey Brook Road 3) Oliveira 117 Van Tassel Avenue 4) Public comments 5) Minutes for October 2005 mixed use bldg deck additions 1) Mill Point Partners This is an application for a variance to construct a mixed-use (commercial and residential) building with 6 (six) residential units, which have a home occupation/home profession space where the proposal creates the following noncompliance: Front Yard Setback (New Broadway) Required front yard = 10.0 ft. Existing front yard = 0.5 ft. Proposed front yard = 0.5 ft. Front Yard Setback (North Broadway) Required front yard = 20.0 ft. Existing front yard = 0.5 ft. Proposed front yard = 0.5 ft. �Rear Yard Setback Required rear yard setback = 20.0 ft. Existing rear yard setback = 8.8 ft. Proposed rear yard setback = 5.0 ft. Off Street Loading Space (2) Minimum area = 350 sq. ft. Proposed area = 200 sq. ft. Article IV, 62-7.B. Applications of Regulations 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. Dan Beaton is the owner and is representing this application along with architect, Ed Vogle. Dan Beaton reviewed the application to date. He spoke about some of the issues raised by the public during the last Zoning Board meeting. He spoke about many of the changes to the current plan from the original plan. He stated that the revised application contains only 6 units. He stated that the revised drawings also significantly reduce the amount of demolition required to complete the project. He stated that many of the neighbors concerns are addressed in the revised plan. He spoke about the interior layout of the 6 live-work units. Dan Beaton spoke about the proposed parking layout. He reviewed the requested variances. He stated that the front yard setback requirement is not changing. He stated that applies to the New Broadway and North Broadway sides. He spoke about the proposed overhang that is creating the increased rear yard setback requirement. He spoke about the required loading zone. He stated that the proposed loading zone could only accommodate 200 sf where 350 sf are required. The Chair asked why a loading zone is required. Dan Beaton responded that a loading zone is required since the property is in a C-1 zone and the proposed loading zone will overlap with the proposed driveway. The Chair asked if there is street parking on the New Broadway side. Sean McCarthy responded yes. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, November 16, 2005 2 �Dan Beaton stated that the proposed plan included replacing the sidewalk and curbs. He stated that the proposed project would enhance an eyesore in the Village. He stated that many alternatives were reviewed and this is the most feasible proposal. The Chair asked about the size of each unit. Dan Beaton responded about 2500sf including the office space but excluding the garage. Dan Beaton stated that the site is a difficult site to develop. The Chair asked if the Board had any questions. Gordon Swartz stated that many of the properties on North Broadway have setbacks. He stated that the offices would generate traffic in the area. He stated that he is concerned with adding additional traffic to this corner. Dan Beaton responded that traffic could be controlled by making a right hand turn from site (i.e. no left hand turns). Gordon Swartz responded that making a left-hand turn would be hazardous. He stated that the parking on the site could be a problem depending on the proposed use. He stated that there could be traffic problems. Dan Beaton stated that the offices are about 250sf and cannot accommodate a high volume of visitors. Gordon Swartz responded if a doctor occupied the space, there could be many patients parking cars on the site. Gordon Swartz made a motion to open the public hearing. James Galgano seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). Rosemarie McMannis (31 New Broadway) stated that the proposed awnings would not look good on New Broadway. She stated that the parking in the area is horrendous. She stated that the proposal is a big improvement. She stated that if the property was strictly residential, she would be in favor of the project but with the commercial component, she is concerned with the traffic and parking. Dan Beaton reviewed the proposed traffic flows in and out of the site. Larry Doyle (16 New Broadway) stated that his property was converted without any additional parking added on the street. He stated that his view shed would be greatly improved by enhancing this site. He stated that additional parking could be added on the street in front of his property by removing the yellow curb in front of his property. He stated that he is in favor of the project based on the proposed plan. Richard Kirby (64 New Broadway) stated that the current plan is better. He stated that he is still concerned with the traffic on New Broadway. He stated that the traffic is so bad that a school bus cannot pass in the afternoon due to congestion. He asked what would happen if the livework owner sub-leases the property. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, November 16, 2005 3 �Alexander Shishnu (29 New Broadway) stated that he is concerned with the parking in the area. He stated that sometimes there is no parking in the area. Michelle Gonzales (137 Gordon Ave) stated that maybe a reduction to 5-units could reduce the traffic slightly. She stated that the area has many children in the area and the increased traffic would greatly impact the neighborhood. Anne Acone (66 New Broadway) stated that she is concerned with the parking and the scale of the property. She asked about the need of a commercial aspect. Dan Beaton responded that the property is located in a C-1 zone and must be a mixed-use property. He stated that the project does not require a parking variance. He stated that the project meets the required parking under the Village Code. He stated that the other issues could be addressed in the site plan review with the Planning Board. Larry Doyle reviewed the potential parking space available by eliminating the yellow curb in front of his house. Since there were no further public comments, Linda Moiron made a motion to close the public hearing. Gordon Swartz seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). The Chair stated that the proposed project is a great clean up of the site. He stated that there are serious issues regarding traffic and safety. He stated that the public opinion is in favor of some development of this site. He stated that the project is a significant one for the Village. He stated that the Board should discuss these issues with the Planning Board. He stated that the traffic issues need to be reviewed. The Chair asked if the Board had any questions. Gordon Swartz stated that a precedent should not be set by not looking to push the structure back to accommodate a setback. The Chair stated that the public did not appear to have a problem with the bulk of the site. Gordon Swartz stated that the Board should meet with the Planning Board and try to develop some guidance to resolve the traffic and parking layout issues. It was agreed that the applicant should coordinate future meetings with Sean McCarthy. 2) Christine Garcia This is an application for a variance to construct a rear deck where the proposal creates the following non-compliance: APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, November 16, 2005 4 �Front Yard setback Existing front yard set back = 14.8 ft. Required front yard setback = 20.0-ft One-side Yard setback Existing one side yard setback = 2.6-feet Required one side yard setback = 3.0-feet Rear Yard setback Required rear yard setback = 25.0-feet Existing rear yard setback = 27.0-feet Proposed rear yard setback = 17.0-feet The public notice was read aloud. The Chair asked if the returns were received. Sean McCarthy responded yes. Deidre Carsto is the contractor and is representing this application with Ruben and Christine Garcia. Deidre Carsto spoke about the proposed project. She stated that the existing deck was very small. She stated that the property would be lowered to accommodate the deck installation. She stated that the deck would be level with the backyard. She stated that the deck is not very large. She stated that the deck would be carried along the foundation to create a path. Linda Moiron asked what is behind the property. Christine Garcia responded that there is a stone retaining wall and a garage on top of the wall. Linda Moiron made a motion to open the public hearing. Gordon Swartz seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). Since there were no public comments, Linda Moiron made a motion to close the public hearing. Gordon Swartz seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). The Chair asked if the Board had any questions. Gordon Swartz asked what surrounds the property. Christine Garcia responded that the property is surrounded by single and multi-family properties. The Chair asked if the proposed deck is basically a platform deck. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, November 16, 2005 5 �Christine Garcia responded yes. She stated that the deck is only visible from the elevated porch of the neighbor’s property. The Chair asked if the 10-foot depth would be the minimum depth in order to make the deck a functional area. Deidre Carsto responded yes. 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. Gordon Swartz made a motion to approve the application as submitted. James Galgano seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). 3) Edward Oliveira This is an application for a variance to construct a 2-story breezeway addition; second floor addition and expansion over the existing residence and garage; covered porch addition; and a 1-story garage addition where the proposed work created the following non-compliances. Front Yard Setback Existing front yard set back =7.2 ft. Required front yard set back =20.0 ft. Proposed front yard set back =1.5 ft. Corner Yard Setback Existing corner yard set back =9.1 ft. Required corner yard set back =10.0 ft. Proposed corner yard set back = 9.1 ft. Rear Yard Setback Existing rear yard set back = 8.6 ft. Required rear yard set back = 25.0 ft. Proposed rear yard set back = 4.0 ft. Lot Coverage Existing coverage = 29% Maximum coverage = 35% Proposed coverage = 37% Floor-Area-Ratio Existing floor area = 1,152 sq. ft. Maximum floor area = 1,920 sq. ft. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, November 16, 2005 6 �Proposed floor area = 2,142 sq. ft. Article IV, 62-7.B. Applications of Regulations 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. The Chair stated that the Board has received the following: 1) public notice 2) application 3) survey Edward Oliveira is the owner and is representing this application along with his wife, Marion. Edward Oliveira spoke about the existing residence. He stated that the house is rather small with small bedrooms. He stated that the master bedroom is 12x11 and does not have a closet. He stated that there is no room for recreation since the house is so small. He stated that the second floor has low ceilings and a steep staircase. He spoke about the proposed driveway expansion. He stated that he has two teenage children and the need for privacy is a concern. He stated that since the lot is on a corner lot, the required variances seem larger than what would be required on an interior lot. He stated that he loves the neighborhood and does not want to move. He stated that the lot coverage is only increasing by 2%. Ed Oliveira stated that the project would keep in character with the neighborhood. He submitted a map of the area that shows other corner lots with greater lot coverage than what is proposed. He stated that the slope of the area is not changing. The Chair asked if the height of the structure would change. Ed Oliveira responded yes. Gordon Swartz asked if the property would be the tallest property on the street. Ed Oliveira responded no. He showed photos that show other houses with a greater height than the proposed structure. He stated that the house was built in 1956 and he purchased it in 1992. Linda Moiron made a motion to open the public hearing. Frank Janos (46 Holland Avenue) stated that he has no problem with the overall scope of the proposed project. He had some concerns with a few issues. He stated that there is a 7-8 foot variation in grade between the rear of his mother’s property on Holland Avenue and the applicant’s property on Van Tassel Avenue. He stated that he would like to review the angles of the garage roofline to fully understand the impacts. He stated the existing garage would probably not be able to accommodate a two-story addition. He stated that the back of the APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, November 16, 2005 7 �property is bound by a retaining wall that is in disrepair. He also stated that he is concerned with the storm water management since there have been problems in the past with storm water runoff. He also questioned the length of the proposed garage area. The Chair stated that the structural analysis of the garage is a building department issue. Sophie Janos (46 Holland Ave) stated that the retaining wall has been a problem in the past. She stated that she would like to see the garage moved away from the wall. Since there were no public comments, Linda Moiron made a motion to close the public hearing. Gordon Swartz seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). The Chair asked if the Board had any questions. The Chair stated that there is several issues raised by the neighbors are building department issues. He stated that the proposed project is not out-of-character with the neighborhood. Gordon Swartz stated that the applicant has made efforts to maintain basically the same footprint. He stated that he is not opposed to granting this variance. Linda Moiron made a motion to approve the application as submitted. James Galgano seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). 4) Public comment – Hugh Jones (253 Hunter Avenue) addressed the Board. He referred to the last meetings approval of Brad Kenyon. He stated that many of the neighbors were pleased with the work. He stated that the only concern was with the height of the proposed structure. He stated that the existing structure is 12-feet and the proposed structure is 15-feet. He stated that the proposed structure would block his views of the Hudson River. He stated that Brad Kenyon was supposed to reduce the proposed garage from 15-feet to 12-feet. He stated that the variance was approved at 15-feet. He stated that if he knew that Brad Kenyon was not going to reduce the structure, he would have appeared at the meeting and opposed the height of the structure. He asked the Board for advice on how to handle this issue. The Chair stated that he could have attended the meeting to voice his objection. He asked the contents of the public notice. Hugh Jones responded that the public notice indicated that the garage was a replacement. The Chair stated that unless the Board was deceived or the public notice was inaccurate or misleading, it has no action. He recommended that Hugh Jones seek the advise of an attorney. The Board unanimously recommended that this matter be referred to the Village attorney for review. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, November 16, 2005 8 �Sean McCarthy stated that this matter is still before the Architectural Review Board. He stated that the height issue could be addressed by the Architectural Review Board. 5) Minutes for October 2005 – The minutes for October 2005 will be reviewed at the next meeting. Linda Moiron made a motion to adjourn. Gordon Swartz seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). Adjourned at 9:55 p.m. Respectfully Submitted APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, November 16, 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_2005-11-16 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