https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/dbc6bb813856de7f68bdbd00e73e3a34.pdf 12bc3146c3f68e7753171d1c0c3d87b8 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING -APPROVED August 15, 2007 The meeting was called to order by Robert Anello, Chairman at 8:00 pm. The Chair noted that a quorum was present. Present: Robert Anello, Chairman Eliot Martone Peter Koffler Linda Moiron Timothy Judge Gordon Swartz Absent : Diane Martello Also Present: Sean McCarthy (Village Architect/Village of Sleepy Hollow) Dan Pennella (Charles A. Manganaro/Village Engineer) Agenda: 1. Steurer 415 North Broadway Fence 2. Andreou 2 County House Road Enlarge rear deck 3. Silverman 48 Fremont Road Rear yard deck 4. Fuller 548 Munroe Avenue Two story addition 5. Cuadrado 20 Maple Street Convert 2-family to a 3-family house 6. Carroll 265 Harwood Avenue Enclose rear porch 7. McCabe 17 Evergreen Way Construct a family room 8. Approval of Minutes June 20, 2007 Announcements: None. 1) Steurer 415 North Broadway Fence - This is a continuation from previous meetings. Ken Steurer stated that he is seeking a variance of 1 foot. He stated that the ARB has given positive feedback for replacing the fence with the same fence currently installed at the Philipsburg Manor Restoration property. The Chair asked for photos of what will be installed. Ken Steurer responded provided photos of the proposed fence. The Chair stated that the previously presented photo is not what was presented to the Board at the last meeting. Ken Steurer acknowledged the discrepancy. He stated that the revised fence is more in character with the neighborhood. The Chair stated that the original application requested a 3-foot fence and a 5-foot fence in some areas. �Ken Steurer responded that the fence height varies in some areas since the property slopes but it is always at a minimum of 4-foot fence. He stated that the ARB indicated that the fence height should be the same throughout the property. The Chair stated that he is concerned with the accuracy of the public notice. The Chair asked if the Board had any questions. There were none. The Chair opened the public hearing. Since there were no public comments, Eliot Martone made a motion to close the public hearing. Timothy Judge seconded. It was unanimous (6-0). The Chair asked if there would be sight issue concerns regarding traffic at the corner. The Board didn’t think that there would be sight line issues. The Chair asked if the same materials would be used. Ken Steurer responded that the same materials and style would be used. The Chair stated that this is not a substantial variance. He stated that it is not out-ofcharacter with the neighborhood. He also stated that this is the minimal variance that can be granted. The Chair made a motion to approve the variance as requested. Peter Koffler seconded. It was unanimous (6-0). 2) Andreou 2 County House Road Enlarge rear deck This is an application for an area variance from the Village Zoning Code, to enlarge an existing rear yard deck on a single-family residence where the following variance is required: Lot Area Existing lot area is 34,357 sq. ft. Minimum lot area is 43,560 sq. ft. Rear Yard setback Proposed rear yard setback is 19.06 ft. Minimum rear yard setback is 35.00 ft. The Chair asked if the proof of public notice was received. Sean McCarthy responded yes. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, August 15, 2007 2 �Len Andreou is the owner and is representing this application. The Chair asked if this is a pre-existing non-conforming use. Sean McCarthy responded that the pre-existing non-conforming use is due to the cluster zoning and the site plan approval for the development. Len Andreou stated that he wants to enlarge the deck for privacy issues and functionality issues. He also stated that the enlarged deck would allow him to better watch his kids when they play in the back yard. The Chair reviewed the requirements for granting an approval for an area variance. He stated that the applicant needs to address the requirements under the statute. Len Andreou responded that it is not a self-created hardship since the developer indicated that the road adjacent to the property would be closed. He stated that this road was not closed as promised. The Chair stated that the rear yard setback variance request is over 50% and is considered substantial. Len Andreou responded that the rear yard is bordered by a large wooded area. He stated that there is only one neighbor who would be affected by this deck. He submitted a letter from the neighbor for the record. The Chair stated that the Board is in receipt of the following: 1) application 2) short form EAF 3) plans dated 5-16-07 4) letter from neighbor not objecting to proposed deck Len Andreou presented photos to the Board to further illustrate the existing conditions of the property. The Chair asked about the square footage of the existing deck. Len Andreou responded about 800sf. The Chair asked how that compared to other houses in the area. Len Andreou responded that adjacent neighbors have larger decks based on the topology of the property. Len Andreou stated that there are sight line issues with the existing deck. Timothy Judge stated that the expanded deck would create an elevated view of the yard. The Chair stated that the applicant needs to demonstrate that the project should be granted based on the statute. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, August 15, 2007 3 �The Chair asked whether a patio could accommodate their needs. The applicant did not respond. 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 (6-0). The Chair stated that this is a self-created hardship since the applicant was aware of the property boundary issues when they purchased the property. He stated that the applicant can achieve the same results through other methods. Gordon Swartz agreed. He stated that other methods should be explored. Timothy Judge stated that constructing the deck over the air-conditioning condenser unit would make that section of the deck very hot. The Chair stated that this would be setting a precedent for other houses in the development. He stated that this house is located in a new development. Len Andreou stated that the proposed deck can be reduced by 3-feet to reduce the variance request. Eliot Martone stated that the applicant needs to present some alternatives so show why this proposal is the only proposal that can achieve the applicant’s needs. Len Andreou stated that the plans could be revised to remove some of the square footage. This was adjourned to the next meeting. 3) Silverman 48 Fremont Road Rear yard deck This is an application for an area variance from the Village Zoning Code, to construct a rear yard deck on a single-family residence where the following variance is required: Lot Area Existing lot area is 12,750 sq. ft. Minimum lot area is 15,000 sq. ft. Rear Yard setback Proposed rear yard setback is 16.00 ft. Minimum rear yard setback is 25.00 ft. The Chair read the public notice aloud. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, August 15, 2007 4 �The Chair asked if the proof of public notice was received. Sean McCarthy responded yes. The Chair stated that the Board has received the following: 1) application 2) plans dated April 12, 2007 Mrs. Silverman is the owner and is representing this application. Mrs. Silverman stated that they want to extend a deck outward to square off with the recently added extension. The Chair asked about the area behind the house. Mrs. Silverman responded that there are woods behind her property. The Chair asked if the house received a variance to be built. Sean McCarthy responded that this house is a pre-existing non-conforming use. 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 (6-0). The Chair stated that this deck cannot be seen from the road. He stated that this is a preexisting non-conforming use and is not a self-created hardship. He stated that there is a very small portion of the deck that infringes on the rear yard setback. He stated that this is the minimal variance that can be granted that would achieve the owner’s objectives. Gordon Swartz made a motion to approve the variance as requested. Timothy Judge seconded. It was unanimous (6-0). 4) Fuller 548 Munroe Avenue Two story addition This is an application for an area variance from the Village Zoning Code, to construct a two story addition where the following variances are required: Rear Yard setback Proposed rear yard setback is 21.37 ft. Minimum rear yard setback is 25.00 ft. The Chair asked if the proof of public notice was received. Sean McCarthy responded yes. The Chair read the public notice aloud. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, August 15, 2007 5 �The Chair stated that the Board is in receipt of the following: 1) application 2) survey 3) building plans dated 5-24-07 Frank Manfredy is the project architect and is representing this application on behalf of the owners. Frank Manfredy stated that this house received a variance back in 2003 which expanded the kitchen towards the rear of the house. He stated that the extension would be built where the current garage exists. He submitted 2 renderings to the Board. The Chair asked if the side yards are in conformance. Frank Manfredy responded yes. The Chair asked if the application had received ARB approval yet. Frank Manfredy responded no. The Chair asked if the owner moved the addition forward, it could be built without a variance. Frank Manfredy responded yes. He stated that there would be a problem getting light and ventilation to the basement rooms. The Chair opened the public hearing. Since there were no public comments, Linda Moiron made a motion to close the public hearing. Peter Koffler seconded. It was unanimous (6-0). Peter Koffler asked if the extension could be built 3-feet narrower. Frank Manfredy responded that the interior space would be very narrow. The Chair stated that this is a pre-existing non-conforming use and is not a self-created hardship. He stated that this is the minimal variance that can be granted that would achieve the owner’s needs. He stated that the extension could be built larger without a variance. He also stated that this application is not out-of-character with the neighborhood. Gordon Swartz made a motion to approve the variance as requested subject to ARB approval. Eliot Martone seconded. It was unanimous (6-0). 5) Cuadrado 20 Maple Street Convert 2-family to a 3-family house This is a request for an area variance and a use variance from the Village Zoning Code, to APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, August 15, 2007 6 �convert a two-family residence to a three-family residence. Where following variances are required: Front Yard Setback Existing front yard is 8.16 ft. Minimum front yard is 20.0 ft. One Side Yard setback Existing one side yard is 1.93ft. Minimum one side yard required is 3.00ft. Combined Side Yards Existing combined side yards are 13.78ft. Minimum combined side yards required are 12.00ft. Floor Area Ratio Existing Floor Area Ratio is 2442sf Maximum floor area ratio is 2300sf Parking Spaces Existing parking - 3 spaces Required parking -6 spaces Schedule of Regulations Proposed three-family residence is not a permitted. The Chair read the public notice aloud. The Chair asked if the proof of public notice was received. Sean McCarthy responded yes. Sean McCarthy recused himself from this application. The Chair stated that this is an application for an area variance and a use variance. He noted that Board has received the following: 1) application 2) tax bills and utility receipts 3) letters from several neighbors 4) survey dated July 8 ,1977 5) building plans Jeffrey Shumedja is the attorney representing this application on behalf of the owners. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, August 15, 2007 7 �Jeffrey Shumedja stated that this house was constructed in 1930. He stated that in 1964, a Certificate of Occupancy was issued without noting the number of units. He stated that the current owners have purchased the property in 1987 and have operated it as a 3family dwelling. He stated that there are 3 gas meters and 3 electric meters. He stated that the owners are only seeking to continue the current use of the property as a 3-family residence. He stated that the required parking can be provided. The Chair asked for the current rent roll of the property. Mr. Cuadrado responded that the total rent roll of $2625/month. He stated that the lost unit provides an additional income of $1000/month. The Chair asked which apartment was vacated. Mr. Cuadrado responded that one of the upper floor units is vacant. The Chair asked about the potential income if the vacated unit was combined with one of the other 2 units. Jeffrey Shumedja responded that he did not know but he could get a realtor to evaluate the potential rental income. Jeffrey Shumedja stated that a Certificate of Occupancy for a 3-family home was issued in 1963. He referred to a document dated in 1963 that indicated that renovations were completed at the property. He stated that the Building Department does not have any detailed records of the work performed. He stated that a Certificate of Occupancy was issued in 1964. The Chair asked Jeffrey Shumedja to provide the Certificate of Occupancy. Jeffrey Shumedja provided a letter dated Sept 23, 2005 (item #4) that stated that a Certificate of Occupancy was issued in 1964. He presented a document from1930 that showed when the house was built. He also referred to another document from December 1963 that indicated that renovations were completed at the property. He stated that the conversion from a 2-family residence to a 3-family residence was completed at this time. Timothy Judge asked Jeffrey Shumedja to explain how the property can be considered a 3-family residence. Jeffrey Shumedja responded that the house has always been a 3-family residence since the current owners purchased it. He stated that the previous owner completed the work to convert the property from a 2-family to a 3-family back in 1963. The Chair asked if the applicant is stating that the conversion of this property pre-dates the zoning code. Jeffrey Shumedja responded that that is one of the issues surrounding this property. He stated that the applicant purchased the property in 1987. He stated that the Title search produced a letter from the Building Inspector stating that the property pre-dates the Village zoning code and that no Certificate of Occupancy exists. He stated that the same document was produced in 1999 when his client re-financed the property. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, August 15, 2007 8 �The Chair stated that there is no statement about the occupancy of the building. He states that the Building Department records only state that no Certificate of Occupancy exists. He stated that no documents indicate that the occupancy was changed from a 2-family to a 3-family residence. Eliot Martone asked if any building plans are on file. Jeffrey Shumedja responded no. Jeffrey Shumedja cited a 2003 application from 185 Beekman Avenue where the Board approved a similar application. The Chair stated that the 2003 application did not require a use variance. The Chair stated that the argument for a 3-family structure is not a strong argument. Jeffrey Shumedja stated that the Building Department records are inadequate. The Chair stated that the applicant should focus on the use variance. He stated that the area variance will be addressed after the use variance matter is settled. Jeffrey Shumedja stated that there are twenty-seven 3-4 family residences in the area. He stated that the Village consulting engineer has stated that only eight houses are 3-4 family homes. The Chair asked if there was any information on the mortgage. Jeffrey Shumedja responded that he could get this information. Eliot Martone asked about when the electrical meters were installed. Jeffrey Shumedja responded that he tried to get the information from Con Edison but was unsuccessful. The Chair asked the applicant to address the use variance issues. Jeffrey Shumedja stated that the property can accommodate 6 parking spaces. He stated that a landscaping buffer can be installed between the neighbors is required by the Board. He stated that the necessary drainage issues will also be addressed. Dan Pennella stated that parking spot #1 in the proposed parking plan is decreased from the Village standards. The Chair asked about other zoning standards regarding installing the parking plan. Dan Pennella responded that there are no other Village standards for parking lots. The Chair opened the public hearing. Diane McCarthy (16 Maple Street) submitted (4) photos of the subject property. She stated that there are many issues with parking on Maple Street. She stated that the applicant’s property currently has storm water runoff issues. She stated that the owner APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, August 15, 2007 9 �does not allow his tenants to park on the property. She stated that the interior of the units are very small and the apartment access is from the side yard not the front yard. She also stated that there are 12 houses on Maple Street and all of them are 2-family houses. She requested that the application for a variance be denied. Anna Abewalav (58 New Broadway) stated that the house was bought in the 1980s. She stated that parking is a problem in the area. Sonia Munroe (63 New Broadway) stated that the street is very small. She also stated that the property should remain as a 2-family to keep in character with other houses in the neighborhood. Houston Campell (22 Maple Street) stated that there are 12 children living on Maple Street. He stated that there are safety issues with the driveway. Diane McCarthy submitted a petition from the neighbors. Tonia Mulhare (32 Maple Street) stated that there are too many cars in the neighborhood. She stated that nobody uses the driveway at 20 Maple Street. She stated that drainage is a problem in the area. She stated that the property is not well maintained. She requested that the application be denied. Since there were no further public comments, Linda Moiron made a motion to close the public hearing. Peter Koffler seconded. It was unanimous (6-0). The Chair asked if there is any other information that the applicant would like to present to the Board. Jeffrey Shumedja responded that he would like to present additional info on the mortgage, Con Edison information and other information requested by the Board. The Chair stated that the hardship is not unique. He stated that the proposed increase to a 3-family would be out-of-character with the neighborhood. He stated that the area variance would be difficult to approve based on the presented information. Gordon Swartz stated that the applicant should address the financial hardship statement. He stated that the character of the neighborhood (specifically the street) is negatively impacted. Peter Koffler and Eliot Martone agreed with the statements from the Chair and Gordon Swartz. The Chair stated that the missing financial information would not be enough to approve the requested variances. He stated that if the variance is denied, the applicant can reapply in 6-months. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, August 15, 2007 10 �Jeffrey Shumedja requested an opportunity to present the missing information to the Board. The Chair responded that there is insufficient information presented for a use variance. He stated that the financial hardship would not sway the Board to grant either a use or area variance. Jeffrey Shumedja requested an adjournment to the next meeting so that more accurate financial data can be presented. The Chair responded that the financial hardship is unique to this property. He also stated that the property is similar to many other 1-2 houses in the area. He also stated that this variance will negatively impact the neighborhood. He stated that the streets are very narrow and parking is a big concern. The Chair stated that the applicant had an opportunity to present accurate financial information to the Board. He stated that the financial hardship requirement would not be satisfied. He stated that the requested variances are substantial. He also stated that there is a serious safety concern with placing a 6 car parking lot on a shared driveway. Linda Moiron made a motion to deny the request for a use variance. Peter Koffler seconded. The application was denied (6-0). 6) Carroll 265 Harwood Avenue Enclose rear porch - This is an application for an area variance from the Village Zoning Code, to enclose a rear porch where the following variances are required: Lot Size Existing lot size is 9,448 sq. ft. Minimum lot size is 10,000 sq. ft. Lot Width Existing lot width is 63.00 ft. Minimum lot width is 75.00 ft. Combined Side Yards Existing combined side yards are 21.8ft. Minimum combined side yards required are 25.00ft. The Chair asked if the proof of public notice was received. Sean McCarthy responded yes. The Chair stated that the Board had received: 1) application 2) zoning compliance form APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, August 15, 2007 11 �3) building plans dated May 22, 2007 4) survey dated May 13, 1987 George Riley is the contractor performing this work and he is representing this application on behalf of the owners. George Riley stated that the existing deck will not be made larger than what is there currently. He briefly described the proposed landscaping improvements. He also stated that the roof and trim would match the existing finishes on the main house. The Chair asked why a variance is needed. Sean McCarthy responded that this is a change to the structure and the house is a preexisting non-conforming regarding the lot size, lot width and combined yards. The Chair opened the public hearing. Since there were no public comments, Linda Moiron made a motion to close the public hearing. Peter Koffler seconded. It was unanimous (6-0). Eliot Martone stated that this variance is not substantial. The Chair stated that this is a pre-existing non-conforming use and is not a self-created hardship. He stated that this application is not out-of-character with the neighborhood. He also stated that this is the minimal variance that can be granted that would achieve the owner’s needs. Eliot Martone made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Peter Koffler seconded. It was unanimous (6-0). 7) McCabe 17 Evergreen Way Construct a family room - This is an application for an area variance from the Village Zoning Code, to construct a family room where the following variances are required: Lot Size Existing lot size is 11,004 sq. ft. Minimum lot size is 15,000 sq. ft. Lot Width Existing lot width is 95.03 ft. Minimum lot width is 100.00 ft. Rear Yard Setback Existing rear yard setback is 17.1ft. Minimum rear yard setback is 25.00ft. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, August 15, 2007 12 �The Chair asked if the proof of public notice was received. Sean McCarthy responded yes. Sam Vieira is the project architect and is representing this application on behalf of the owners. Sam Vieira stated that the public notice indicates that the owners want to construct a family room but the applicant is actually converting a screened porch into a year-round room. He stated that the property is undersized and the requested variances are preexisting. He stated that the Floor-Area-Ratio in Sleepy Hollow includes permanent perimeter walls into the FAR calculations. He stated that since the FAR is increasing, the ZBA approval is required. He stated that the FAR is in compliance with the Village’s FAR requirements. Sam Vieira stated that this screened porch has been existed for over 10 years and is not detrimental to the neighborhood. Sean McCarthy stated that the deck has grown over the years. He stated that a variance should have been sought when the porch was expanded. The Chair opened the public hearing. Since there were no public comments, Linda Moiron made a motion to close the public hearing. Peter Koffler seconded. It was unanimous (6-0). The Chair stated that this is the minimal variance that can be granted that would achieve the owner’s needs. He stated that this application is not out-of-character with the neighborhood. He also stated that this is a pre-existing non-conforming use and is not a self-created hardship. Timothy Judge made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Linda Moiron seconded. It was unanimous (6-0). 8) Minutes from the June 20, 2007 meeting The minutes from the June 20, 2007 meeting were reviewed. Linda Moiron made a motion to approve the June 2007 minutes as submitted. Eliot Martone seconded. It was unanimous (6-0). Adjourned 11:05 pm. APPROVED - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, August 15, 2007 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-2007 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_2007-08-15 Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2007 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2007 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