https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/5cc454d6f322b699daca4a0a6a6f168f.pdf 6c639afb28dc3b50dcca831ba0d802c1 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING -APPROVED December 21, 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 Linda Moiron Eliot Martone Peter Koffler James Galgano Absent : Gordon Swartz Also Present: Sean McCarthy (Village Architect/Village of Sleepy Hollow) Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Agenda: 1) Mill Point Partners 300 North Broadway 2) William Cai 21 Fremont Road 3) Minutes for October and November 2005 meetings mixed use bldg deck Announcements: None. 1) Mill Point Partners This is a continuation from previous meetings. 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. Kyle McGovern is the attorney representing this application along with architect, Ed Vogle. The Chair noted that the Board had received the following: 1) Revised drawings dated October 06, 2005 2) Short EIS. 3) Note that Planning Board is acting as the Lead agency. 4) Summary of Planning Board’s December 2005 meeting. The Chair asked if there was any discussion at the December Planning Board meeting regarding the parking. Sean McCarthy responded that the Planning Board discussed the matter. He stated that the Planning Board did not feel that the parking would be a problem. The Chair asked if the Village Code addresses tandem parking. Sean McCarthy responded that the code only addresses the size of the parking spaces. He referred to § 62-14 (off-street parking and loading spaces) and § 62-22 (vehicular access to commercial and industrial uses). The Chair asked if the parking spaces were full-size. Kyle McGovern responded yes. The Chair asked where the parking was indicated on the plans. Ed Vogle responded that the parking plan is located on drawing 3 of 8. The Chair stated that after reviewing the applicable Village Code sections, it does not appear that the code addresses tandem parking. Kyle McGovern summarized the recent Planning Board meeting where the Board unanimously recommended that the variances be approved. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, December 21, 2005 2 �The Chair responded that the Planning Board was not asked to comment on the requested variances. He stated that the Planning Board was asked to comment on the traffic flow and parking. Ed Vogle gave an overview of the proposed live-work units. He spoke about the proposed variances. He stated that the existing building has an existing 6” offset on New Broadway and a 6” offset on Broadway. He stated that the variance for the New Broadway side was increasing due to the addition of covered entries at each unit. The Chair stated that the New Broadway side is used as the rear yard. Ed Vogle responded yes. Ed Vogle spoke about the Broadway side. He stated that the setbacks are not changing and the existing 6” offset will remain the same. The Chair asked about the added landscaping. He stated that the landscaping appears to extend beyond the property boundaries. Ed Vogle confirmed that the proposed landscaping extends beyond the property boundaries. Sean McCarthy responded that the sidewalk would be expanded and a larger green space would be added. He stated that the building owner would be responsible for maintaining the landscaping. The Chair stated that the Board made comments at the last meeting requesting that the applicant try and increase the front yard setbacks on Broadway. The Chair asked the applicant why the setbacks on Broadway couldn’t be reduced. He stated that the applicant needs to explain why a variance is needed. Ed Vogle responded that by keeping the lower level structure of the building intact, the applicant is able to reduce the number of units from 8 (original proposal) to 6 units (current proposal). He stated that to bring the building inward to comply with the current zoning code, the project would not be economically practical. The Chair asked about the practicality of the live-work units. Kyle McGovern responded that a marketing study was submitted to the Planning Board indicating that there is a market for live-work in the area. Sean McCarthy responded that the owners couldn’t rent out the commercial area to another party. Peter Koffler asked if there was a restriction on what businesses can operate out of the property. Sean McCarthy responded that the Village Code addresses what occupations could operate at the property. He read the applicable code section. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, December 21, 2005 3 �Ed Vogle spoke about the loading zone variance. He stated that the proposed loading zone would impede on one parking spot and garage. He stated that he loading zone would not be a dedicated area. Kyle McGovern responded that the types of trucks that would service the property would be small delivery trucks. Eliot Martone asked if there was a sufficient turn-around area. Sean McCarthy responded yes. He stated that the loading zone is needed for garbage pick-ups, etc. The Chair asked about the ingress and egress issues. He stated that §62-21 covers off-site parking and traffic hazards. Kyle McGovern stated that left-hand turns out of the property would not be allowed. He stated that the Planning Board has requested that a traffic study be performed. Sean McCarthy stated that a curb cut permit is also required from NYS DOT. The Chair stated that in general the traffic flows in this area of the Village have major drawbacks. The Chair opened the public hearing. Since there were no public comments, Eliot Martone made a motion to close the public hearing. Peter Koffler seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). The Chair asked if the Board had any questions. Eliot Martone asked a question about the loading space. He stated that the proposed space is 35’x10’ which is 350 sf and the code requires a 350sf loading zone. He asked why a variance is needed. Ed Vogle responded that the loading zone is not dedicated. The Chair stated that this proposal would have the least traffic impact of potential development of this site. He stated that the application is not a self-created hardship. He stated that the property is unique. He also stated that the proposed variance is the minimum variance allowed. He stated that he would recommend the approval with the condition that there is a no left-turn sign exiting the property. Peter Koffler asked how the visitors would park and enter the property. Ed Vogle responded that the visitors could park in the Broadway lot and walk around. Eliot Martone asked if the parking spots would be assigned. Ed Vogle responded that currently the parking spaces are unassigned. Eliot Martone agrees that the application is a good proposal. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, December 21, 2005 4 �Peter Koffler stated that the neighbors were really concerned with the traffic and parking but were generally in favor of the application. James Galgano made a motion to approve the application with the condition that there is a no left-turn sign exiting the property and subject to Planning Board and Architectural Review Board approvals. Peter Koffler seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). 2) William Cai This is a continuation from previous meetings. 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 is the owner and is representing this application. The Chair stated that the Board had not received any additional information on this application. William Cai submitted additional information to the Board. He summarized the events from the last meeting. He stated the Sleepy Hollow Manor Association stated that they did not have a problem with the height of the proposed landscaping. The Board reviewed the submitted information. Linda Moiron read a section from the Sleepy Hollow Manor Association covenant (submitted by the applicant) that limits the height of hedges to a maximum height of 5feet tall. William Cai referred to several rendered photos from his deck, which shows what the proposed landscaping will look like. The Chair stated that the covenants would not allow him to plant the proposed 6-foot tall hedges. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, December 21, 2005 5 �The Chair stated that the letter from the Sleepy Hollow Manor Association does not state that they reviewed the proposed 6-foot tall landscaping plan. Peter Koffler stated that at the last meeting the Board proposed as an alternative solution for the applicant to construct a patio in lieu of the deck. William Cai responded that he would be concerned with the safety of his family due to the patio door and number of steps needed to get down to a grade level patio. Peter Koffler stated that a platform could be constructed to transition down to the patio. The Chair read a letter from several neighbors in favor of the proposed application. Their addresses were 7 Hemlock Drive, 10 Hemlock Drive, 20 Fremont Road and 23 Fremont Road. He asked if the neighbor who opposed the application had signed the letter. William Cai responded no. The Chair asked why the deck is needed as opposed to a patio. William Cai stated that there are other houses in the area that have larger decks without any screening. He submitted a photo of another house in the area with a similar deck. The Chair opened the public hearing. Paul Wichmann (20 Fremont Road) stated that the renderings are not totally accurate. He stated that he is trying to help his neighbor in getting this application approved. He stated that the proposed deck will drop by 8-inches during construction for snow loading. He stated that all of the screening in the rendering is not needed. He stated that the neighbor who opposed the application live two houses away from the applicant. He stated that a patio would be too low and would not be practical. He also stated that moving the deck to the other side of the house would not be very functional for the owners. He stated that the proposed landscaping could really enhance the view. Since there were no further public comments, Eliot Martone made a motion to close the public hearing. Peter Koffler seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). The Chair asked if the Board had any questions. The Chair stated that the Board had requested a smaller deck. He also stated that the covenants restrict the proposed 6-foot screening. Eliot Martone stated that he does not have a major problem with the deck. He stated that moving the deck to the other side of the house would not make the deck very useful to the owners. The Chair stated that the deck should be made smaller. He stated that he would have less of a concern with a 7-foot deck. He asked Sean McCarthy about the height of the deck. Sean McCarthy responded that the deck must be between 4” to 8 ¼” below the sill plate. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, December 21, 2005 6 �Peter Koffler stated that he is concerned that the size of the deck is the minimum reasonable size for a deck. He also expressed some concerns about the height. He stated that the applicant should explore installing a deck with a landing and some steps. William Cai stated that he would be willing to construct an 8-foot deck. The Chair asked why the applicant is not willing to lower the deck. He stated that the Board has not seen any alternative proposals. He stated that if the deck was lowered and steps are required, the deck could be slightly larger to compensate. He also stated that if the deck were not lowered, he would like to see a reduced deck. William Cai responded that he would return with some additional sketches. Eliot Martone made a motion to adjourn the application to the next meeting. Peter Koffler seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). 3) Minutes for October and November 2005 meetings– The minutes for October 2005 were reviewed. Eliot Martone made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Linda Moiron seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). The minutes for November 2005 were reviewed. Peter Koffler made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Linda Moiron seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). Peter Koffler made a motion to adjourn. Eliot Martone seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). Adjourned at 9:35 p.m. Respectfully Submitted APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, December 21, 2005 7 � 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_2005-12-21 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