https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/f667bc44fc3fbd4e469ceb6deb969f9f.pdf ca626ca841a2036f8569c65afc54780b PDF Text Text Village of Sleepy Hollow Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting February 19, 2020 Chairman Timothy Judge called the meeting to order at 8:00 pm. Present: Timothy Judge, Chairman Gorete Crowe Richard Hughes Alex MacFarlane Also Present: Sean McCarthy, Village Architect Pamela Kroll, Secretary to the Zoning Board Absent: Margaret Rubick Craig Lis Timothy Church Agenda: 1) Carlos Rodrigues, 54 Pocantico Street, Proposed second-story rear deck addition Public hearing 2) 34 On Hudson LLC, 34 Hudson Street, Proposed two-family house -Public hearing 3) Stephen Zachensky, 27 Amos Street, Proposed front entry portico- Public hearing 4) Approval of minutes, January 15, 2020 Chairman Judge stated that there are just four members of the Board present at the meeting. If a vote is taken, it must be unanimous by all four members. The applicants have the option to request an adjournment to the next meeting in anticipation of the presence of a full Board. 1. Carlos Rodrigues, 54 Pocantico Street, proposed second-story rear deck addition - Public hearing Chairman Judge read the public notice and listed the documents submitted in the application and asked Sean McCarthy to confirm that all of the mailing receipts have been received. Sean McCarthy confirmed that all of the mailing receipts have been received. Chairman Judge invited the applicant to present the application. William Simeoforides is the architect representing the applicant. Mr. Simeoforides stated that the rear yard set-back calculation of 31.75 feet includes the existing deck that was constructed without a Building Permit in the late 1970's and that the other requested variances are due to existing non-conforming conditions of the property. The applicant proposes to legalize the deck by demolishing the existing structure and obtaining a building permit to construct a new deck of the same size. Mr. Simeoforides stated that the deck will be in character with the neighborhood 19 (ZBA 1/15/2020) �and will not have any negative environmental impact to the area. Although it is a self-created hardship, there is no other feasible way to have a functioning deck on the building off the existing doorway. Gorete Crowe asked if the deck door is the only entrance to the upstairs apartment. Mr. Simeoforides stated that there is another entrance door off the kitchen. Chairman Judge asked if the existing footings will be utilized. Mr. Simeoforides stated that the footings and the landing supports will be redone correctly and are planned to stay within the same footprint of the existing deck. Chairman Judge solicited comments from the Board. Sean McCarthy stated that the property, in respect to the rear property line, is an irregular shape. There is a jog that is 21 feet in depth on the property resulting from its' intersection with a property on Howard Street that causes the non-conforming rear yard set-back. Mr. McCarthy stated that the property is unlike the other properties on the street that are more rectangular in shape. Motion was made to open the public hearing. Moved: Judge Seconded: Crowe Vote 4-0 Chairman Judge solicited comments from the public. There were no comments from the public. Motion was made to close the public hearing. Moved: Judge Seconded: Crowe Vote 4-0 Motion was made by Chairman Judge to approve the area variances as requested based on the following criteria: 1. Granting of the area variances will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to the nearby properties as the variances are all related to existing non-conformities of the lot and the structure. 2. Granting of the area variances is the only feasible method for the Applicant to achieve the benefits of having a functioning deck on the building. 3. The proposed variances are not substantial due to the pre-existing non-conformities of the property and building because the proposed new deck construction will not exceed the distances of the structure. 20 (ZBA 1/15/2020) �4. The proposed variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 5. The proposed deck was existing when the property was purchased and the requested variances will allow the applicant to rebuild the deck structure, to the same dimensions of the existing deck, by obtaining the required Building Permits and approvals. Chairman Judge stated that the application meets the requirements for a Type II action under SEQRA 617.5. Chairman Judge stated that if the applicant agrees to have a vote taken, it must be unanimous by all four members in order for approval to be granted. If the approval is not granted, the applicant will be required to wait six months before the application can be resubmitted. Chairman Judge asked Mr. Simeoforides to confirm his decision. William Simeoforides requested that the Board take a vote on the application. Motion was made to grant the area variances as requested. Moved: Judge Seconded: MacFarlane Timothy Judge, Chairman - yes Richard Hughes - yes Alex McFarlane - yes Gorete Crowe - yes Vote: 4-0 APPROVED 2. 34 On Hudson LLC, 34 Hudson Street, proposed two-family residence - Public hearing Chairman Judge read the public notice and listed the documents submitted with the application and asked Sean McCarthy to confirm that all of the mailing receipts have been received. Sean McCarthy stated that all of the mailing receipts have been received. Chairman Judge invited the applicant to present the application. Brian Hopkins stated that he is an Architect, partner of Hopkins Holub Architecture and the owner of 34 Hudson Street. The proposed application for 34 Hudson Street will be their first ground-up project in Sleepy Hollow. Mr. Hopkins stated that Hudson Street is the only area in Sleepy Hollow that is located in the R-4A district. Mr. Hopkins questioned the permitted uses in the R-4A zoning district in relation to the variances listed on the public notice. Chairman Judge asked Sean McCarthy to confirm the accuracy of the public notice and the Zoning Code requirements of the R-4A district. Sean McCarthy stated that the proposal is to demolish a three-family house down to the foundation and construct a new two-family residence with an extension to the rear. The 21 (ZBA 1/15/2020) �requested variance is required because when there is a non-conforming lot, only a one-family house is permitted. Mr. McCarthy stated since the lot is non-conforming, any work proposed to the building beyond a single-family residence would require variances; but one and two-family residences are permitted to be constructed in the R-4A District. Alex MacFarlane questioned if all of the variances were related to existing non-conforming conditions of the lot for the construction of a two-family residence in lieu of a three-family residence. Sean McCarthy stated that the requested variances for the building coverage and the floor area ratio exceed the existing non-conformities because the footprint is proposed for expansion and therefore require new variances. The other variances relate to existing non-conforming conditions of the lot. Alex MacFarlane asked Mr. Hopkins when the original structure was constructed. Brian Hopkins stated that the structure was erected in the 1920's but that he is unsure of the exact date. Brian Hopkins stated that the lots on Hudson Street are severely constrained sites because they are undersized and sloping; however the bluff location allows for river views. Mr. Hopkins stated that they propose to target transit oriented medium income residents. Mr. Hopkins presented a summary of the proposed demolition, site plan, and elevation drawings in relation to the requested variances and the existing non-conforming conditions of the site. Mr. Hopkins presented conformance comparisons of the properties abutting 34 Hudson Street. Richard Hughes asked for the increase in coverage to the rear of the house and the proposed roof height. Brian Hopkins stated that the foundation will be extended 18.6 feet in the rear of the building; the existing footprint is 600 square feet, and it is proposed to expand the footprint by 300 square feet, which is thirty percent. Mr. Hopkins stated that they plan to keep the existing footprint for the new deck in the backyard. The rear of the house will protrude 2.6 feet less than the adjoining property, but the deck will extend further in the rear yard of the property. The roof height will not exceed the maximum permitted height of 35 feet. Richard Hughes asked for the width between the neighboring buildings. Brian Hopkins stated that the 34 Hudson Street building is off the property line by 6 inches and the 36 Hudson Street building is off the property line by 12 inches; leaving 18 inches between the two buildings. There will not be windows on the north side of the building, but there will be side windows on the south side of the building where it abuts 32 Hudson Street. Gorete Crowe asked for an explanation of the proposed unit layouts. Brian Hopkins referenced the drawings to explain the proposed layouts for the first and second floor units. 22 (ZBA 1/15/2020) �Gorete Crowe asked if the first floor apartment would have access to the deck and the backyard. Brian Hopkins stated that the first floor garden apartment will have access to the deck and the backyard and the second floor sky unit will have a terrace and a river view in lieu of access to the backyard. Richard Hughes asked if the units will be sold or rented. Brian Hopkins stated the units will start out as rentals and that they may offer them for sale in the future. Richard Hughes asked what the current parking conditions for the property are. Brian Hopkins stated that there are no available dedicated parking spots and that there is no feasible cost effective way to add parking spots to the site. Chairman Judge asked how many bedrooms are in the existing structure. Brian Hopkins stated that the existing structure has one bedroom in basement, two bedrooms on the first floor, and two bedrooms between the second and third floors. Motion was made to open the public hearing. Moved: Judge Seconded: MacFarlane Vote 4-0 Chairman Judge solicited comments from the public. Clara Teagle is the owner of 38 Hudson Street and asked if the proposed three-story building will be the same height as the existing building; will there be porches on every level of the building; will the existing attic space and the fire escape be eliminated; will the third-story porch be higher than the height of the house at 36 Hudson Street and what is the proposed height; will the existing front entry stairs be relocated towards the side of 36 Hudson Street, and how far will the new deck extend to the rear of the property beyond the 36 Hudson Street building. Chairman Judge and Brian Hopkins collaborated on the responses to Clara Teagle's questions and stated that the proposed building structure will have the same roof height as the existing building but will include design differences that create less of a steep slope. There will be porches on every level. The existing attic structure and the fire escape will be eliminated because the existing building structure will be demolished down to the foundation. The thirdstory porch will be located below the existing fire escape balcony and the roof will be the same height as 36 Hudson Street. The front entry stairs will be relocated towards the side of 36 Hudson Street in order to provide more light and air to the living spaces instead of a common stairway. The proposed rear deck will extend 7 feet past the building at 36 Hudson Street. The existing detached deck structure is located partially beyond the property line and on Metro-North railroad property. The detached deck structure will be removed and a retaining wall will be constructed along the rear property line. 19 (ZBA 1/15/2020) �Chairman Judge asked how the second mean of egress will be addressed. Brian Hopkins stated that the building will be fully equipped with fire sprinklers. On the first floor, there will be access from the front entry and the rear deck. Clara Teagle asked how the requested variances will affect the parking requirements. Brian Hopkins stated that the proposed construction of a two-family residence, each having two bedrooms, will reduce the density condition of the building. Clara Teagle asked why there is another public hearing for Thursday, February 20, 2020 Sean McCarthy stated that the Planning Board referred the applicant to the Zoning Board of Appeals for the required variances. Pending tonight's decision from the Zoning Board, there will be a public hearing for site plan approval of the application from the Planning Board. Chairman Judge solicited additional comments from the public. There were no other comments from the public. Gorete Crowe asked what the basement will be used for. Brian Hopkins stated that the existing ceiling height will not allow for the basement to be used as habitable space. The basement will be used strictly for utility equipment and storage. Motion was made to close the public hearing. Moved: Judge Seconded: Crowe Vote 4-0 Chairman Judge asked Sean McCarthy what issues are coming before the Planning Board for discussion. Sean McCarthy stated that the Planning Board will be addressing how stormwater management will be controlled with the additional proposed impervious surfaces on the property; construction of the retaining wall; and how the modular construction will be coordinated with the restraints of the existing lot and street conditions. Mr. McCarthy stated that the applicant has been addressing the questions with the Village Engineer and the Planning Board. Chairman Judge asked Brian Hopkins if they plan to keep the existing slope at the rear of the property. Brian Hopkins stated that the property begins to slope at the proposed rear deck location and that they plan on bringing fill into the site to create a more usable backyard. Chairman Judge solicited comments from Sean McCarthy. Sean McCarthy stated that the existing three-family structure is in poor condition. There are bedrooms without windows, lack of adequate ceiling height, light, and ventilation. The proposed 6 (ZBA 1/15/2020) �reconstruction of the building will be a benefit for the existing structure and the property. The applicant may also be able to use the excavation material from the new foundation addition to infill the slope at the rear yard without bringing additional fill materials in from off-site. Mr. McCarthy stated that the applicant has also provided engineering documentation to confirm the stability of the existing foundation and that it can support the proposed structure. Motion was made by Chairman Judge to approve the area variances as requested based on the following criteria: 1. Granting of the area variances will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to the nearby properties. Although there will be an impact to the neighborhood during the construction phase of the project, the end result will be beneficial compared to the existing conditions. 2. Granting of the area variances is a feasible method to achieve the benefits sought by the applicant as the proposed construction on the existing structurally sound foundation saves on project costs and the re-construction of the building will be a benefit to the property and of its' use. 3. The proposed variances are not substantial in consideration to the surrounding properties and due to the existing non-conformities of the building and lot. 4. The proposed application is not a self-created hardship as the property was purchased with the existing non-conforming building and lot conditions. 5. The proposed variances will not have a permanent adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. Temporary impacts to the physical conditions of the neighborhood will occur during the demolition and construction phases of the application. Chairman Judge stated that the application meets the requirements for a Type II action under SEQRA 617.5. Chairman Judge stated that if the applicant agrees to have a vote taken, it must be unanimous by all four members in order for approval to be granted. If the approval is not granted, the applicant will be required to wait six months before the application can be resubmitted. Chairman Judge asked if Mr. Hopkins would like the Board to take a vote tonight. Brian Hopkins stated he would like the Board to take a vote tonight. Sean McCarthy stated that the Planning Board will be considering the construction impacts as part of their review. Motion was made to grant the area variances as requested. Moved: Judge Seconded: Crowe 7 (ZBA 1/15/2020) �Timothy Judge, Chairman - yes Richard Hughes - yes Alex McFarlane - yes Gorete Crowe - yes Vote: 4-0 APPROVED 3. Stephen Zachensky, 27 Amos Street, proposed front entry portico - Public hearing Chairman Judge read the public notice and listed the documents submitted in the application and asked Sean McCarthy to confirm that all of the mailing receipts have been received. Sean McCarthy confirmed that all of the mailing receipts have been received. Chairman Judge invited the applicant to present the application. Steve Zachensky is the owner of 27 Amos Street and stated that they are in the middle of constructing an addition and renovation project. The approved Building Permit drawings did not include a front entry portico or overhang in order to comply with the Zoning Code set-back requirements for the front yard set-back. The current plan doesn't allow for gutters on the side so rain puddles and freezes on the front steps. Mr. Zachensky stated that he would like variance approval for the front yard set-back in order to construct a front entry portico. Chairman Judge stated that he has reviewed the application and doesn't have any concerns. Sean McCarthy stated they propose to build the front entry portico over the existing concrete stoop. Motion was made to open the public hearing. Moved: Judge Seconded: Hughes Vote 4-0 Chairman Judge solicited comments from the public. There were no comments from the public. Motion was made to close the public hearing. Moved: Judge Seconded: Crowe Vote 4-0 Motion was made by Chairman Judge to approve the area variances as requested based on the following criteria: 1. Granting of the area variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to the nearby properties and does not detract from the architecture of the house. 2. The proposed variance impacts the front yard set-back by 4.47 feet and therefore is not considered substantial. 8 (ZBA 1/15/2020) �3. The proposed variance is a feasible method to achieve the benefit sought by the applicant to provide a protected covering over the front door. 4. The proposed variances will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 5. The proposed application is not a self-created hardship as the existing home was purchased without a front entry portico. Chairman Judge stated that the application meets the requirements for a Type II action under SEQRA 617.5. Motion was made to grant the area variance as requested. Moved: Judge Seconded: Crowe Timothy Judge, Chairman - yes Richard Hughes - yes Alex MacFarlane - yes Gorete Crowe - yes Vote: 4-0 APPROVED 4. Approval of minutes, January 15, 2020 Motion was made to table the January 15, 2020 minutes. Vote 4-0 Motion was made to adjourn the meeting at 9:35 pm. Moved: Judge Seconded: Crowe Vote 4-0 Respectfully Submitted, Poj>yutAz- ASL&M Pamela Kroll Secretary to the Zoning Board of Appeals 9 (ZBA 1/15/2020) � 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-2020 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_2020-02-19 Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2020 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2020 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