https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/d818e36b48aed969c62068dcc0d26afc.pdf 9a4e931c8475627243466d620d71730d PDF Text Text Village of Sleepy Hollow Zoning Board Meeting - APPROVED June 19, 2 0 1 3 Peter Koffler, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 8:07pm. The Chair noted that a quorum was present. Present: Peter Koffler, Chairman Timothy Judge Michael Wernick Vishal Brown Timothy Church Absent: Maria Gorete-Crowe Sherry Bishko Also Present: Sean McCarthy (Village of Sleepy Hollow/Building Department) Janet Gandolfo (Village Attorney) Mary Gerlanc (Recording Secretary) Agenda: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) James and Dana McGovern Beekman Realty Anna Komorowski Peter Oppenheim Approval of Minutes Announcements this meeting. 2 0 3 Harwood Avenue 1 8 5 Cortlandt Street 9 Hemlock Drive 1 2 1 Hunter Avenue Continued Public Hearing Public Hearing Public Hearing May 15, 2 0 1 3 The Chair announced that item No. 4 would not be on the agenda for 1) James and Dana McGovern 2 0 3 Harwood Avenue Continued The Chair stated the Board had given the applicant the option to postpone their application until this month since there were only four voting members present at last month's meeting and the vote would have to be unanimous. The Chair recused himself from this matter since he was in the notice area. He suggested the applicant proceed with the application for the benefit of the two new members who have not heard it before and then the applicant would again have the decision to postpone the decision until next month when there would be more voting members present. �Sid Schlomann, architect represented this application. Mr. Schlomann handed out additional materials to the Board. Timothy Judge stated he would be the acting chair for this application since the Chairman has recused himself from this matter. The Acting Chair stated the Board had received the following documents: • Variances requested and the applicant's opinions regarding those variances. • Google Earth image showing the path of the sun. • Additional images of the applicant's property and some neighboring properties. • Letter from Beck Liebman Petrone, P.C. to the Board dated May 7, 2013. • Email received by the Village on June 19, 2013 from Kathy Yeager, residing at 215 Harwood Ave. Sid Schlomann stated the proposed project is to construct an addition to an existing home in an R2 zoning district. They would construct an entry portico and a rear addition that aligns with the existing home, except in the rear of the house. Mr. Schlomann showed the Board the front; side and rear yard existing setbacks. He pointed out the area they are requesting a variance of approximately 13 inches. All other aspects of zoning are fully compliant with the zoning codes. Mr. Schlomann indicated the proposed interior alterations, which include making the kitchen into an open floor plan with the family room and dining area. The second story aligns with the existing structure, however the configuration of the rooms would change slightly. They applicant is proposing an exterior brick facade which ties in with the existing brick on the house. The Acting Chair asked if the left side elevation has two additional windows. Mr. Schlomann stated that the neighbor had objected to facing a brick wall so there was the option to add the two windows to the plans. The Acting Chair stated the Boards copy of the plan is dated March 6, 2013. He asked Sean McCarthy if these plans were available to the public for viewing at Village hall. Mr. McCarthy stated they were available. Mr. Schlomann stated he felt the proposed addition, either built to align with the existing house or 13 inches back would only have a good effect on the neighborhood. He asked the Board to look at the Google Earth map of the house. He referred to the neighbor's concerns regarding the shadows the new structure would create on their property. Mr. Schlomann indicated that the morning sun would be minimal and there is full vegetation between the neighboring properties. He stated the additional photos show the house and the existing vegetation at various times of the year. Mr. Schlomann stated that recently there was a fence installed between the two properties by the neighbor and he asked that the Building Department or Code Enforcer review the materials used for the fence. Planning Board Meeting, June 20, 2 0 1 3 - APPROVED 2 �Michael Wernick asked about the details on the Board's plans as compared to the plans Mr. Schlomann presented at the meeting. The Board's plans showed windows on the second story of the left side elevation and Mr. Schlomann's plans did not include those windows. Mr. Schlomann stated they felt those windows were unnecessary to the plan. There was discussion regarding which plans were current to the application and which plans were available to the public. Mr. Schlomann conferred with his client who decided the windows would be included as shown in the Board's version of the plan. Sean McCarthy asked Mr. Schlomann if there was another window in the second story bathroom that wasn't shown on the plans. Mr. Schlomann stated that window was not on the current plan. Michael Wernick stated the Board should have accurate plans since aesthetics are part of the Board's decision on this variance request. Mr. Schlomann stated the applicant would like to postpone the vote until next month and he would submit accurate plans to the Board. Motion to open the Public Hearing: Moved: Judge Seconded: Wernick Vote: 4-0 Abstained: Koffler Absent: Gorete-Crowe, Bishko PUBLIC HEARING RICHARD PLANO, 215 Harwood Avenue stated the existing house is within the existing R2 zoning requirement and to reduce the spacing between the houses would reduce the privacy. He also stated it is only 13 inches for the applicant to comply with the zoning code. Regarding the fence, the 8.9-foot strip is temporary vinyl latticework to hide the utility area used for trash, so he could use his backyard and terrace without looking at trash and recyclables. There were no additional public comments. Motion to adjourn the Public Hearing and this matter until next month: Moved: Judge Seconded: Wernick Vote: 4-0 Abstained: Koffler Absent: Gorete-Crowe, Bishko 2) Beekman Realty 185 Cortlandt Street Public Hearing The Chair confirmed with Sean McCarthy that the returns were in for this application. The Chair read the Public Notice into the record. The Chair stated the Board had received the following documents: • An application dated April 15, 2013. • A site plan and survey received April 15, 2013. Planning Board Meeting, June 20, 2 0 1 3 - APPROVED 3 �Frank Tancredi, architect and John Manuele, property owner of 110 Beekman Ave. and 185 Cortlandt Ave. represented this application. Mr. Tancredi stated the current building is comprised of a four-story structure, which has residential space on three stories and commercial space on the bottom floor. It is attached to a two-story portion of the building, which has access from 110 Beekman Avenue, which is currently vacant. The bottom floor had been warehouse space and the second floor had been a social club. Since the bottom floor was vacant for a period of time, the nonpermitted use had lapsed. The Planning Board had asked the applicant to develop the lower floor as retain space and the upper floors as two residential apartments. The applicant is asking the Zoning Board for area variances for the retail space. The parking requirement for the proposed structure would be 10.3 parking spaces. They are proposing a loading area in the back of the building. Mr. Tancredi showed plans for the two apartments on the second floor. He stated they would omit the current garage door on the lower level and install storefront windows. Michael Wernick asked what variances the applicant was requesting. Discussion ensued regarding the variances for the retail space and two apartments. The Chair asked if the ground floor retail use was a permitted use. Mr. Tancredi stated it was a permitted use. Janet Gandolfo stated the retail space required an area variance, not a use variance because the applicant does not have the parking and certain setback requirements. The Chair asked how many parking spaces are needed for the commercial portion of the building. Mr. Tancredi stated that zoning required 7.8 spaces for the retail space and the residential space requires 2.5 parking spaces. The Chair asked what other uses are permitted in the ground floor space. Mr. Tancredi stated it could be used for retail business or office usage. The Chair asked Sean McCarthy if office use has different parking requirements than retail use. Mr. McCarthy stated that office use requires one parking space for every 300 square feet and retail use requires one parking space for every 250 square feet. The Chair asked about the permitted use for the residential portion of the property. Sean McCarthy stated it was permitted for residential however the question was how many dwelling units could be constructed in that space. The more dwelling units in the building, the more bedrooms and the need for more parking spaces. John Manuele stated it currently is a big open space and they are proposing to divide it into two apartments. Sean McCarthy stated the retail portion could be sales of goods or a food service establishment and the parking requirements for food service are based on the number of seats as opposed to square footage. The Chair asked the size of the residential units. Mr. Tancredi stated they are proposing 810 and 781 square foot units. The Chair asked if the parking requirement would change if Planning Board Meeting, June 20, 2 0 1 3 - APPROVED 4 �there were one residential unit instead of two. Mr. McCarthy stated it might change by only one space. The Chair asked the size of the retail space. Mr. Tancredi stated the plan showed it was approximately 913 square feet with some space for storage in the rear. Mr. McCarthy asked if the storage space was factored into the calculation for the parking. Mr. Tancredi stated that number was factored into the calculation. The Chair asked if the variance was for retail use or food establishment. Mr. McCarthy stated the applicant would have to return for an additional variance unless they proposed a seating arrangement for the food establishment that didn't exceed the current request for the parking variance. Motion to open the public hearing: Moved: Koffler Seconded: Judge Vote: 5-0 Absent: Gorete-Crowe, Bishko There were no comments from the public. Motion to close the public hearing: Moved: Koffler Seconded: Wernick Vote: 5-0 Absent: Gorete-Crowe, Bishko Mr. Wernick asked how long the building was vacant. John Manuele stated the last ground floor tenant vacated the premises in 2010. Mr. McCarthy stated the second floor had been vacant since a fire in 1998. John Manuele stated he was happy to own the property, however financially he could use income from the property since he was spending money to make it nicer for the Village. The Chair asked if the Planning Board's observation, that they prefer this property to be retail space instead of warehouse, was part of the minutes. Janet Gandolfo stated it was in the minutes but not an official referral to the Zoning Board. The Chair asked if there were any questions. Michael Wernick asked if the residential portion would be constructed first. Mr. Tancredi stated it would. Ms. Gandolfo reminded the Board the village does have monthly rental parking across the street or on Elm Street so there is permit parking available for tenants. The Chair stated this is a ground floor space that is sitting empty and located on a main street. He stated it is hard to tell someone they need to keep their building empty when it is on a thoroughfare and even though they could apply for a use variance, the parking requirement for warehouse use is not that different from the requirement for retail use. As far as the residential portion, two units area being created where none had existed before, although the parking offset for one unit as opposed to two units is not that different Planning Board Meeting, June 20, 2 0 1 3 - APPROVED 5 �either. The Chair stated that having an active retail area with lights on versus a vacant space is not going to be detrimental to the neighborhood or change the character in any negative way or the environment. Based on the history, the Chair stated he doesn't consider this to be self created hardship by the applicant. The Chair made the motion to approve the variance requested subject to all the requisite approvals by all the Boards. Moved: Koffler Seconded: Judge Vote: 5-0 Absent: Gorete-Crowe, Bishko Janet Gandolfo stated there would be a formal resolution prepared for the next meeting and it would be filed with the Village Clerk's office once it is approved. 3) Anna Komorowski 9 Hemlock Drive Public Hearing The Chair read the public notice into the record. The Chair confirmed with Sean McCarthy that the returns were received for this application. The Chair stated the Board had received the following: • Application dated May 10, 2013 • Survey and plans received May 10, 2013 • Letter dated June 10, 2013 from Arthur McKinley received June 19, 2013 • Email from George Lence to Arthur McKinley dated June 18, 2013 Sid Schlomann, architect and Anna Komorowski, property owner, represented this application. Mr. Schlomann stated the lot is a legal non-conforming lot and requires an area variance. They are proposing to build habitable space on an existing one-story garage and add a rear deck on the kitchen to add egress from the kitchen to an outdoor patio space. The addition over the garage is slightly smaller than the existing space and complies with the Zoning Code. The Deck requires a 25-foot setback in the rear and they are proposing a deck that is approximately 14 feet by 20 feet into the yard. The deck is 2.8 foot above grade. Discussion ensued about the shape of the deck and the part of the kitchen that cantilevers over the basement space below. The deck would be built around the cantilevered area. Mr. Schlomann showed photos of the property, which is a corner lot and the landscaping that screens the property from the street. He showed where the roofline of the new space above the garage would match the roofline on the existing house. Planning Board Meeting, June 20, 2 0 1 3 - APPROVED 6 �He showed the location of the deck and stated that current landscaping screening would be removed to construct the deck, although there is additional screening landscaping between the property and the neighbor to the rear. The Chair asked for a motion to open the Public Hearing: Moved: Koffler Seconded: Judge Vote: 5-0 Absent: Gorete-Crowe, Bishko PUBLIC HEARING ARTHUR McKINLEY, 18 Kingsland Road stated that he was the writer of the letter to the Board regarding this application. He clarified where the neighbors who co-signed the letter, live in relation to the property requesting the variance. He stated all the vegetation seen in the photos is on his property. He is the nearest neighbor. Mr. McKinley stated he is opposed to variances because they are damaging to the neighborhood and he feels the Zoning Board is here to enforce the zoning code. He believes the house if fairly large for the lot and they could construct a deck which doesn't encroach on the setback line. He feels this is major construction that is turning an existing nonconforming lot into a much larger non-conforming lot. DAVID IMPASTATO, 9 Hemlock Drive, stated he is the husband of the applicant. They have an extended family including elderly parents that spend time with them and could use an extra bedroom to accommodate them. He stated the house was built in 1958 and never renovated. They are redoing the kitchen and since the patio is not close to the kitchen, it would be easier for their parents not to have to go up and down stairs to the patio area. They can supplement vegetation so the deck would not be seen by the neighbors. He stated they have a legal non-conforming house and would need a variance even if they built a much smaller deck. He stated they already have a patio that is approximately the same distance from Mr. McKinley's house as the proposed deck. The Chair made a motion to close the public hearing. Moved: Koffler Seconded: Church Vote: 5-0 Absent: Gorete-Crowe, Bishko The Chair asked Mr. Schlomann decided on a 14-foot deck. Mr. Schlomann stated there were several factors including the size of the table, the bbq grill, and the number of people who would be on the deck. Timothy Church asked if it was possible to gain the same amount of space by making the space closer to the house but wider. David Impastato stated they are willing to consider a compromise. The Chair asked what possible mitigation they could come up with to lessen the extent of the variance request. Mr. Schlomann stated they did not want to make the deck wider. Timothy Judge suggested extending the deck two-feet to the east and aligning the stairs Planning Board Meeting, June 20, 2 0 1 3 - APPROVED 7 �with the existing patio. Mr. Schlomann asked the owners if they would consider that. They nodded. Discussion ensued regarding the placement of the deck and the stairs to the patio below. Sean McCarthy asked the height of the deck off the ground. He asked if there was a step down from the house or if it was flush with the house. Mr. Schlomann stated the deck was 32-inches from the ground and there was one step out of the house and then another four risers down. Mr. McCarthy asked if they had considered lowering the deck from the house and removing the guardrails. Mr. Schlomann stated they had considered it but felt they needed it for small children and privacy reasons. Michael Wernick asked how many surrounding properties could view the deck if there were no landscaping. Mr. Impastato stated there was a variety of landscaping and shrubbery with some spaces in between the shrubs so it might be seen. Mr. Schlomann stated the owner would supplement that landscaping. He stated it was fairly well screened from the street. Timothy Church asked where the vegetation would be supplements. Mr. Schlomann showed along the rear property line. Mr. Impastato stated they would be moving the gate that currently faces west towards the south and covering the corner with higher vegetation. The Chair stated he was comfortable granting the variance with the following condition: • The deck should be scaled back southward by 2-feet in depth. He stated this variance wouldn't have a detrimental affect on the neighborhood or the environment based on the overall lot size. He stated the Board evaluates every variance and since the overall size would be scaled back two feet, this is not a substantial variance. He doesn't want to mandate landscaping since it is difficult to monitor and very subjective. The Chair stated the applicant would most likely be concerned with their privacy and would want to install privacy shrubbery. The Chair made a motion to grant the variance based on the condition that the deck is scaled back southward by two feet, although it could be built more westward but not eastward. Motion: Koffler Vote: 5-0 Seconded: Church Absent: Gorete-Crowe, Bishko 3) Approval ofMinutes May15, 2 0 1 3 The Chair made a motion to approve the minutes of May 15, 2013. Moved: Koffler Seconded: Wernick Vote: 3-0 Abstained: Brown, Church Absent: Gorete-Crowe, Bishko Planning Board Meeting, June 20, 2 0 1 3 - APPROVED 8 �The Chair made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Moved: Koffler Seconded: Judge Vote: 5-0 Absent: Gorete-Crowe, Bishko The meeting was adjourned at 9:37pm. Planning Board Meeting, June 20, 2 0 1 3 - APPROVED 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-2013 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_2013-06-19 Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2013 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2013 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