https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/9176cc70e6783b5ec4499901e528c96d.pdf b45d02f827fee22fc4cd99fae9a10b44 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING -APPROVED November 15, 2006 The meeting was called to order by Robert Anello, Chairman at 8:14 pm. The Chair noted that a quorum was present. Present: Robert Anello, Chairman Linda Moiron Peter Koffler Gordon Swartz Eliot Martone Absent : James Galgano Michael Fox Also Present: Sean McCarthy (Village Architect/Village of Sleepy Hollow) Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Agenda: 1) Samaras 175 Valley Street 2) Peter Castro 335 North Broadway 3) Oliveira 117 Van Tassel Avenue 4) Neiditch 263 Farrington Avenue 5) Cepin 224 Beekman Avenue 6) Jarin 37 Evergreen Way 7) Horseman Garage 8) Approval of minutes from October 2006 Certificate of Occupancy Change of Use Alteration & addition Covered Porch Change of Use Alteration & addition Discussion Announcements: None. 1) George Samaras This is an application requesting a temporary Certificate of Occupancy from the Village Zoning Board of Appeals for use of the rear dining room at 175 Valley Street where proposal requires the following variances: Parking Existing parking spaces = 0. Required parking spaces = 10. Proposed parking spaces = 0 The public hearing 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 2) short EAF 3) zoning compliance form 4) letter to the Building Inspector from several neighbors and tenants opposing the application Kyle McGovern is the attorney and is representing his application along with project architect, Ron Turnquist. Kyle McGovern stated that the owner is asking to provide the 10 parking spaces for the restaurant in an adjacent property. He stated that he is asking for the location to be approved to temporarily park the cars on the vacant lot so that the restaurant can operate. He summarized the previous approvals and conditions placed on the restaurant. He spoke about the proposed permanent parking plan. The Chair asked if the parking area would be paved and striped under the temporary use. Kyle McGovern responded that the lot would be stabilized but not paved and striped until a final approval is given. The Chair asked if the property is currently in violation. Kyle McGovern responded that the property does not have a Certificate of Occupancy. He stated that the property has operated under a temporary Certificate of Occupancy for several years. The Chair asked if the property has any past violations regarding the back room. Sean McCarthy responded that there is a violation letter from Jim Margotta from 2002 noting that the back room was in violation. George Samaras stated that the back room was operating since 2002. Kyle McGovern stated that there was a temporary Certificate of Occupancy was issued back in 2004 indicating that the past violation was corrected. The Chair asked for clarification of the cabaret operation. Kyle McGovern stated that the applicant was trying to sell the business. He stated that the previous tenant did not operate the property correctly. He stated that the owner is proposing to operate the site as a restaurant. The Chair asked if there are any other variances required since the applicant is going to change the use. Sean McCarthy responded that he did not know that the applicant was proposing to change the use. Ron Turnquist discussed the proposed site plan. He stated that the parking plan would include valet parking. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, November 15, 2006 2 �The Chair stated that valet parking does not always work as promised. George Samaras stated that the restaurant is currently closed and this is a financial burden. The Chair asked if the Board had any questions. Peter Koffler stated that if the larger development is approved, the parking lot might be unavailable while construction is in progress. Ron Turnquist discussed the parking contingency plan that would be in effect during any construction of the proposed residential development next door. There was an open discussion on the ingress/egress into the parking lot on a temporary basis and during and after construction. The Chair stated that there is not an application for the change of use for the proposed Greek restaurant. He stated that the Board is being asked to grant a temporary Certificate of Occupancy but only for the previously approved use. Sean McCarthy referred to 62-40(d). He stated that the Board can grant a temporary Occupancy and use of a structure. There was an open discussion on whether the Board can issue a temporary Certificate of Occupancy. Sean McCarthy gave a recent history of the property and its associated variances and applications to the Zoning Board and Planning Board. The Chair asked if the applicant would be willing to wait until the pending application for the residential development is completed. Kyle McGovern responded that the owner is losing revenue by not having the restaurant operating during that time. The Chair responded that the restaurant was operating illegally. George Samaras responded that the back room was inspected by the Village. He stated that the only thing missing was the parking spaces. The Chair stated that the owner has an obligation to appear before the Board to legalize the structure. Eliot Martone asked how long it would take to change the restaurant to a Greek restaurant. George Samaras responded 3 months. The Chair asked for a summary of the variances on this property. Sean McCarthy reviewed the approved and requested variances. The Chair opened the public hearing. Since there were no public comments, Eliot Martone made a motion to close the public hearing. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, November 15, 2006 3 �Linda Moiron seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). Gordon Swartz stated that the applicant should appear before the Board with all of the required variances for the restaurant so that the Board could make a comprehensive decision. The Chair agreed. He stated that the restaurant has been operating illegally for several years. There was an open discussion on the need for a variance for the restaurant. The Chair stated that the Board would be in a difficult position to issue a temporary Certificate of Occupancy and allow the restaurant to operate and later deny an applicant for a variance. The Chair stated that the applicant should appear before the Board’s next meeting with a full application. Alexandria Samaras stated that the restaurant is a family business. She stated that not operating the restaurant is a financial hardship. She asked the Board to allow the restaurant to move forward. Peter Koffler stated that he would like to see the proposed ingress/egress plan. He stated that he agreed that a complete application should be submitted. The Chair stated that the fire department already has a difficult time maneuvering thru the area. He stated that without proper parking facilities, there would be a greater risk to the neighborhood. He stated that more information is needed on the operation of the restaurant, the parking plan and construction parking plan. George Samaras stated that closing this restaurant is a financial hardship. Kyle McGovern stated that the applicant is asking for an adjournment and will provide the additional information. The Board unanimously agreed to grant the adjournment. 2) Peter Castro This is a continuation from the previous meeting. This is an application for an area variance to alter an existing building and convert a portion of an existing business, where the proposal requires the following variances: Front Yard Setback (Lawrence Ave) Existing front yard setback = 4.3 ft Required front yard setback = 20.0 ft APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, November 15, 2006 4 �Rear Yard Setback Existing rear yard setback = 2.3 ft Required rear yard setback = 20.0 ft Front Yard Setback (Lawrence Ave) for canopy Existing front yard setback for canopy= 11.0 ft Required front yard setback for canopy= 20.0 ft Front Yard Setback (Broadway) for canopy Existing front yard setback for canopy = 4.5 ft Required front yard setback for canopy = 20.0 ft Buffer Area Proposed buffer area = 0.0-ft Required buffer area = 5.0-ft Article IV, section 62-7.B: Appl. of regulations Altering an existing non-conforming structure. Food Service Establishment Cannot be located within 200 ft. of another food service establishment. Premise is located 85.75 ft. from Getty station/ convenience store. John Hughes is representing this application along with owner Peter Castro, Sr. and Peter Castro Jr. John Hughes stated that he has reviewed the application to date. He stated that a traffic engineers report has not been performed yet. He stated that he would like to go back to the Planning Board to get some additional input regarding the parking and traffic. Gordon Swartz made a motion to refer this matter back to the Planning Board. Peter Koffler seconded. It was seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). 3) Oliveira This is a requesting for an area 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 that will result in 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. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, November 15, 2006 5 �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 lot coverage = 29% Maximum lot coverage =35% Proposed lot coverage = 37% Floor Area Regulations Existing floor area = 1,152 sq. ft. Maximum floor area =1,920 sq. ft. Proposed floor area = 2,142 sq. ft. Also Adding to and altering an existing non-conforming building. Ed Oliviera is the owner and is representing this application. The public notice was read aloud. The Chair asked if the returns were received. Sean McCarthy responded yes. The Chair noted that he Board had received the following: 1) application 2) zoning compliance form 3) survey 4) minutes from previous ZBA meeting 5) floor plans 6) Photos of neighboring properties Ed Oliviera gave an overview of the application to date. He stated that the existing house has only one bedroom and almost no closet space. He stated that his family needs the additional space. He stated that the bedrooms are very small. He stated that there is very limited room to have any recreation. He stated that the garage is too small for his existing car. He stated that there are many properties that have larger lot coverage than what he is proposing. He stated that other options have been explored. He stated that he even considered moving. He stated that the proposed footprint is relatively unchanged. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, November 15, 2006 6 �The Chair stated that this variance was previously approved. The Chair asked about the front yard setback. He asked why such a large variance should be granted. Ed Oliviera responded that the front of the house has no sitting area. He stated that the proposed front porch would be at grade and would not require a railing. The Chair asked if the porch could be made smaller. Sean McCarthy responded that the porch is proposed at 6-feet wide. He stated that there is also a column proposed within that 6-foot area. He stated that a smaller porch would not be recommended. Ed Oliviera stated that the house was constructed in 1956 and pre-dates the Zoning code. He also stated that the side yard would be compliant but since the garage is attached to the structure, a larger variance is required. There was an open discussion on the calculations for floor area. The Chair asked about the average lot size in the area. Ed Oliviera responded that the average lot size in the area is about 40’ x100’. The Chair asked if the Floor-Area-Ratio included the garage and the breezeway. Sean McCarthy responded yes. He stated that the proposed front porch was not included. The Chair asked the applicant if there is a way to reduce the Floor-Area-Ratio. Ed Oliviera responded no. He stated that the bedrooms are only being increased slightly. He stated that the increase is the minimum that will allow his family to use the house. Sean McCarthy also stated that the house has a cathedral ceiling The Chair opened the public hearing. Rocky Buseto (123 Van Tassel Ave) stated that he is in favor of the proposed work. Anthony Marmo (Gordon Avenue) stated that he is in favor of the proposed addition. David Badel (122 Van Tassel) stated that many of the houses in the area are relatively small. He stated that the proposed work is in character with the neighborhood. Shauna Baltiera (120 Van Tassel Ave) stated that she does not have a problem with the proposed application. 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). APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, November 15, 2006 7 �Peter Koffler stated that the applicant has properly identified the need for the increased space. He stated that the proposed porch seems to be a luxury item and not needed so much as the interior changes. The Chair asked if there is any way that the porch size could be reduced. Ed Oliviera responded that the porch would be useless if it were any smaller. The Chair asked if the why the porch required a variance. Sean McCarthy responded that once the structure contains a roof, the area variances are applied. Eliot Martone stated that the proposed project is a good one. He stated that he is in favor of the application. The Chair stated that the code was recently changed to reflect a larger FAR requirement. He stated that if the applicant applied for a variance in 2004, he would be in compliance with regards to FAR. He stated that the proposed application is not out-of-character with the neighborhood. He stated that the proposed variance is the minimal variance that can be granted to achieve the applicant’s needs. The Chair stated that a variance is needed based on the size of the existing lot. He stated that the front yard setback is a limited setback and is not across the entire front yard. He stated that this proposed addition would have no adverse affect. The Chair stated that the corner yard requirement is a pre-existing condition. He stated that the applicant is only extending the rear yard variance is by adding the breezeway. He stated that this variance is not substantial. He stated that the applicant is only proposing a 2% increase in lot area. He stated that the variance is not substantial and would not have an adverse affect in the neighborhood. Lastly, he stated that the FAR requirement is not a substantial variance. He stated that a large amount of the FAR is taken up by the garage. He stated that other measures could be taken but the result would make the house look out-of-character with the neighborhood. Gordon Swartz made a motion to approve the variance as submitted. Eliot Martone seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). 4) Carol Neiditch This is a request for area variances to construct a covered porch at the rear of the residence where the proposal creates the following non-compliance: Lot Width Existing lot width = 59.65ft. Required lot width = 75.0 ft. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, November 15, 2006 8 �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. One side yard Existing one side yard = 8.7-ft Minimum one side yard = 10.0-ft Combined side yard Existing combined side yard setback = 19.9 ft. Minimum combined side yard set back = 25.0 ft. Lot Area Existing lot area = 8,948 sq. ft. Minimum lot area = 10,000 sq. ft. Building Coverage Existing building coverage = 20.9% Maximum building coverage = 20% Proposed building coverage = 22.5% Also Adding to and altering an existing non-conforming building and lot. 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 2) zoning compliance form dated 10-19-2006 3) survey dated 05-20-1915 4) site plan George O’Reilly is the contractor representing the owner Carol Neiditch. George O’Reilly summarized the previous approvals. He stated that due to an error by the project architect, there is a need for an additional variance. He stated that this would only be a 2% change. Carol Neiditch stated that the original lot coverage was miscalculated. She stated that some of the work has been scaled back due to cost overruns. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, November 15, 2006 9 �The Chair asked for the previous meeting minutes. The Chair reviewed the January 2005 meeting minutes. The Chair stated that only the building coverage is changing based on the porch overhang. George O’Reilly stated that the porch is located in the rear of the house. The Chair opened the public hearing. Since there were no public comments, Eliot Martone made a motion to close the public hearing. Gordon Swartz seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). The Chair stated that this variance is not substantial and would not have an adverse affect in the neighborhood. He stated that this is not a self-created hardship and would not be out-ofcharacter with the neighborhood. Gordon Swartz made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Eliot Martone seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). 5) Cepin This is a request for a change of use where the proposal requires the following variances: One Side Yard Setback Existing – 1.68-ft Minimum-3.0-ft Combined Side Yard Setback – Existing – 5.02-ft Minimum-12.0-ft Front Yard Setback – Existing – 0.0-ft Minimum-20.0-ft Parking Spaces Existing – 0 Required – 3 Proposed – 0 The public notice was read aloud. The Chair asked if the returns were received. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, November 15, 2006 10 �Sean McCarthy responded yes. The Chair stated that the Board had received the following: 1) application for zoning variance 2) short EAF 3) zoning compliance form 4) Survey 5) Application for a building permit with a denial letter from the building inspector Irving Ortiz is the project architect and is representing this application on behalf of the owners. Irving Ortiz stated that this property is surrounded by 2 commercial properties. He stated that the owners are looking to convert one of the existing dwelling units to a real estate office. The Chair asked if this is a permitted use under the zoning code. Sean McCarthy responded yes. Gordon Swartz asked about the parking requirements. Sean McCarthy stated that currently as a residential dwelling unit, only one parking space/dwelling unit is required. He stated that based on the proposed change, three parking spaces are now required. The Chair asked about the front yard setback. Irving Ortiz responded that the existing stairs and overhang are considered in the front yard calculation. There was an open discussion on what other uses are permitted. It was agreed that a condition could be placed limiting the use to a real estate office. Irving Ortiz stated that this would not be an undesirable change to the neighborhood. The Chair stated that this variance is not substantial and would not have an adverse affect in the neighborhood. He stated that the applicant cannot convert the property to a real estate office without a variance. The Chair opened the public hearing. Since there were no public comments, Eliot Martone made a motion to close the public hearing. Linda Moiron seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). Gordon Swartz expressed concerns about the future parking needs once the GM site is developed. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, November 15, 2006 11 �The Chair stated that this is not out-of-character with the neighborhood. The Chair also stated that this variance is not substantial and would not have an adverse affect in the neighborhood. Linda Moiron made a motion to approve the application with the condition that the 1st floor be used as a real estate office and that the existing kitchen does not serve food. Peter Koffler seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). 6) Jarane This is an application for an area variance to alter & add to an existing one family residence where the proposal requires the following variance: Lot Width Existing lot width = 63.27 ft. Minimum lot width = 100.0 ft. 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 2) drawings Andrew Dreuse is the project architect and is representing this application along with the owner Andrew Dreuse discussed the proposed work. He stated the first floor kitchen is being altered. He stated that a partial second floor is being added but the footprint is not changing. He stated that the variance is required due to a pre-existing condition. The Chair opened the public hearing. Since there were no public comments, Eliot Martone made a motion to close the public hearing. Linda Moiron seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). The Chair stated that this variance is not substantial and would not have an adverse affect in the neighborhood. Eliot Martone made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Linda Moiron seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, November 15, 2006 12 �7) Horseman Garage There was an open discussion on the ability of this property to operate a convenience store. There was an open discussion on the previous approvals and the approved site plan. No action was taken. 8) Minutes for October 2006 The minutes for the October 2006 meeting were reviewed. Peter Koffler made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Gordon Swartz seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). Gordon Swartz made a motion to adjourn. Eliot Martone seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). Adjourned at 11:03 p.m. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, November 15, 2006 13 � 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-2006 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_2006-11-15 Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2006 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2006 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