https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/2de5ca3a48396404d67c6d11bebc7f88.pdf 19a88204faedf60ef8644a51dd41d5ee PDF Text Text Village of Sleepy Hollow Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting October 21, 2020 Chairman Timothy Church called the meeting to order at 8:00 pm. Present: Timothy Church, Chairman Margaret Rubick Richard Hughes Gorete Crowe Craig Lis Also Present: Sean McCarthy, Village Architect Clinton Smith, Village Attorney Pamela Kroll, Secretary to the Zoning Board Agenda: 1) Elizabeth Hill and Rachid Tbahi, 9 Irving Place, Proposed third apartment-Withdrawn 2) Michael and Christine Glynn, 37 Hemlock Drive, Proposed air conditioning condensers installation - Public hearing 3) Russell and Hope McAdam, 7 Farrington Avenue, Proposed patio addition - Public hearing 4) Rose Venditti, Executor, Estate of Maria Cuadrado, 123 New Broadway, Appeal Public hearing 5) Saavan Gatfield and Madhavi Shah, 2 Harwood Avenue, Proposed covered porch addition- Public hearing 6) Approval of minutes, July 15, 2020 1. Elizabeth Hill and Rachid Tbahi, 9 Irving Place, Proposed third apartment - Withdrawn Chairman Church stated that the applicants have withdrawn the application. 2. Michael and Christine Glynn, 37 Hemlock Drive, Proposed air conditioning condensers and installation - Public hearing Chairman Church read the public notice, 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 Church invited the applicant to present the application. 1 (ZBA 10/21/2020) �Amanda Linhart, R.A is the architect representing the applicants. Ms. Linhart stated that the applicants propose to add air conditioning to the second floor and add a second condenser unit next to the existing condenser unit next to the chimney where it exceeds the front yard set-back requirement. Michael Glynn has spoken with the neighbors and they haven't received any objections. There were no permits issued to the previous owners for the installation of the central air conditioning so the applicants are also seeking to legalize the location of the existing condenser. Chairman Church stated that the Board received a letter of support from Robert and Ellen Tobey, the owners of 34 Hemlock Drive. Chairman Church solicited comments from the Board. There were no comments from the Board. Motion was made to open the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Crowe Vote 5-0 Chairman Church solicited comments from the public. There were no comments from the public. Motion was made to close the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Crowe Vote 5-0 Motion was made by Chairman Church to approve the area variances as requested based on the following criteria: 1. Granting of the area variances will not be a detriment to the character of the neighborhood. 2. Granting of the area variances is the feasible and reasonable method to achieve the benefits sought by the applicant. 3. The requested variances are not substantial due to the existing and proposed locations of the condenser units. 4. Granting of the area variances will not have a permanent adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood 5. Although the requested variances are a self-created hardship, the benefit of granting the variances outweighs any negative impacts on the property or for the neighborhood. Motion was made to approve the area variances. Moved: Church Seconded: Crowe 2 (ZBA 10/21/2020) �Timothy Church, Chairman - yes Richard Hughes - yes Gorete Crowe - yes Margaret Rubick - yes Craig Lis - yes Vote: 5-0 APPROVED 3. Russell and Hope McAdam, 7 Farrington Avenue, Proposed patio addition- Public hearing Chairman Church read the public notice, listed the documents submitted with the application, and asked Pamela Kroll to confirm that all of the mailing receipts have been received. Pamela Kroll stated that all of the mailing receipts have been received. Chairman Church invited the applicant to present the application Hope McAdam is the owner of 7 Farrington Avenue and stated that they propose to add a flat bluestone patio in the rear yard. Chairman Church asked Mrs. McAdam if the proposed patio will be elevated. Margaret Rubick asked Mrs. McAdam if the proposed patio will be covered. Hope McAdam stated that the proposed patio will not be elevated or covered. Chairman Church asked Mrs. McAdams is the proposed patio will have railings. Hope McAdam stated that their back yard is flat and the proposed patio will be flat with no railings. Motion was made to open the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Rubick Vote 5-0 Chairman Church solicited comments from the public. There were no comments from the public. Motion was made to close the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Rubick Vote 5-0 Motion was made by Chairman Church to approve the area variance as requested based on the following criteria: 1. Granting of the area variance to construct a flat patio will not create a detriment or undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood. 3 (ZBA 10/21/2020) �2. Granting of the area variance to construct a flat patio is a feasible method to achieve the benefit sought by the applicant in lieu of an elevated deck structure. 3. The requested variance is not substantial because the proposed patio will be flat with no elevation change. 4. Granting of the area variance will not have a permanent adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 5. Although the requested variance is a self-created hardship, it is not the only consideration for granting the area variance and there are no objections from the public. Chairman Church stated granting of the area variance will include the following condition: 1. The variance will be granted for a ground level patio structure with the condition that if the current or future owners wish to change or cover the patio, they would be required to come back before the Zoning Board of Appeals. Motion was made to grant the variance as requested. Moved: Church Seconded: Lis Timothy Church, Chairman - yes Richard Hughes - yes Gorete Crowe - yes Margaret Rubick - yes Craig Lis - yes Vote: 5-0 APPROVED 4. Rose Venditti, Executor, Estate of Maria Cuadrado, 123 New Broadway, Appeal - Public hearing Chairman Church read the public notice, listed the documents submitted with the application, and asked Pamela Kroll to confirm that all of the mailing receipts have been received. Pamela Kroll stated that all of the mailing receipts have been received. Chairman Church stated that Chapter 450-80 of the Code of the Village of Sleepy Hollow details the powers and duties of the Zoning Board of Appeals and stated that the Board has the power to interpret Zoning Law and the Official Zoning Map. The Code gives the Board the authority to decide on the issuance of Special Permits and the authority to grant area and use variances. Chairman Church stated that he is not sure if the Zoning Board of Appeals has the jurisdiction to review a decision made by the Building Department. Chairman Church invited the applicant to present the application. 4 (ZBA 10/21/2020) �David E. Venditti, Esq. is a Partner of Gaines, Novick, Ponzini, Cossu & Venditti, LLP, representing the applicant. Mr. Venditti stated that as per Sean McCarthy's letter, the Zoning Board has the authority to hear and decide on an appeal of the decision of the Building Department. Mr. Venditti solicited confirmation from Clinton Smith, the Village Attorney. Clinton Smith stated that the New York Village Law says specifically that the Zoning Board of Appeals has the authority to hear the appeal application and to affirm or overrule a decision from the Building Inspector and has all the powers of the administrative official from whose order, requirement, decision, interpretation or determination the appeal is taken. Mr. Smith stated that the Zoning Board has the authority to hear the appeal and the authority to issue a decision superceding the Building Departments decision. David Venditti stated that the existing third apartment in the basement is above grade in the back of the building. Mr. Venditti stated that they are not seeking a variance. They are seeking an appeal for the denial from the Building Department and the approval for a re-issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the building that was issued as a three-family residence in 1979. Mr. Veditti stated that the denial received from the Building Department results in a nullification of the valid legal Certificate of Occupancy No. 423 dully issued on July 9, 1979 and signed twice by Building Inspector Victor Page under the authority of the Village of North Tarrytown that stated that " This property is a three (3) family non-conforming building and may continue as such. This C of O covers the enclosed rear porches. " Chairman Church asked if the Certificate of Occupancy No. 423 is included in the Building Department files. David Venditti stated that he assumes that Certificate of Occupancy No. 423 is in the Building Department files and that it was included in the request to the Building Department for the documents that were cited in the denial letter. Mr. Venditti stated that the Certificate of Occupancy No. 423 is referenced in the log book on July 9, 1979 as forwarded to the Town of Mount Pleasant contemporaneously with its issue. David Venditti stated that they were not given the file when they met with the Building Inspector so he can't confirm what is in the Building Department files but they were able to locate the Certificate of Occupancy. Chairman Church asked David Venditti where they located the Certificate of Occupancy No. 423. Rose Venditti is the Executrix of the Estate of Maria Cuadrado and stated that she found the Certificate of Occupancy No. 423 in her aunts' old files. David Venditti stated that at the time of the sale of the property in 1979, Westchester Land Records indicates that a mortgage was taken out with Tarrytown and North Tarrytown Savings and Loan Bank and that money would have been lent based on a three-family residence based on the valid and subsisting Certificate of Occupancy dully issued by a Village official in the Village of North Tarrytown. Chairman Church asked David Venditti is there are loan documents available that show a mortgage was issued based on a three-family residence. 5 (ZBA 10/21/2020) �David Venditti stated that they do not have the loan documents from 1979 but assumes that the bank would have required the issued Certificate of Occupancy and would have made income assessments of the three apartments in order to justify the lending of the money. Mr. Venditti stated that this will be problematic for many people in the Village if a forty year old Certificate of Occupancy is called into question especially if they have an existing mortgage. David Venditti read other documents issued by Building Inspector Victor Page from the Village of North Tarrytown in the years 1979 and 1980 which he contended describe the property as a non-conforming three-family residence. Mr. Venditti stated that a no violations legal pre-date letter, dated June 19, 1979 was issued and signed twice by Building Inspector Victor R. Page stating that " This building is a three (3) family non-conforming building, and such, use may be continued in its present status." Mr. Venditti stated that on September 8, 1980, a letter was issued to state that the Certificate of Occupancy No. 423 was issued to G. Giardina of 123 New Broadway of North Tarrytown. In 1979 the Village of North Tarrytown maintained a CO and Building Records hand written log book. Copies provided to them from the Building Department confirms that CO No. 423 was issued in July of 1979. Mr. Venditti stated that he submitted documents and letters dated November 26, 1997 and December 22, 1997 on a stove malfunction and a repair issue in the basement apartment. The page that is titled Sleepy Hollow Code Enforcement Program, with an inspection date of November 26, 1997 and inspected by Gary McLean as the Code Enforcement Officer, indicates that 123 New Broadway is a multiple dwelling, three-family home. At that time, no violation was issued for unlawful use as it was a legal three-family residence with a prior Certificate of Occupancy, a prior pre-date letter and supporting documentation. Mr. Venditti described the tax records, receipts, assessment rolls, building permits, and property cards that were submitted with the appeal application indicating that the property has been a consistent three-family residence. Mr. Venditti stated that he disagrees with the comment in the Building Inspectors denial letter that stated that in 1979, the Town of Mount Pleasant made written notes and decisions because the property was being used contrary to its designated use. Mr. Venditti stated that the Town of Mount Pleasant doesn't inspect any properties in the Village of Sleepy Hollow and that he recently confirmed this with Building Inspector Sal Pannelle. Mr. Venditti stated that the Town of Mount Pleasant receive documents from the Village in order to update their property cards. Chairman Church asked Building Inspector Sean McCarthy to confirm what the Certificate of Occupancy No. 423 says according the Village of Sleepy Hollow Building Department records. Sean McCarthy stated that the Building Department does not have the same document submitted by the applicant. The Village ledger book shows an entry that indicates Certificate No. 423 was issued and does not indicate the number of families. David Venditti stated that he can't speak to what became of the record that the Village submits as the Certificate of Occupancy No. 423. Margaret Rubick stated that certificates of occupancies are issued in response on the Building Permit issuance and close out process and asked Sean McCarthy to confirm. 6 (ZBA 10/21/2020) �David Venditti stated that in order to sell a three-family residence in the Village of Sleepy Hollow, you must apply for a certificate of occupancy. Upon receipt of the application and a scheduled inspection, Mr. Joseph Paiva R.A, the Zoning Inspector of the Village of Sleepy Hollow, issued a letter to state that the certificate of occupancy was denied and that the property was in violation because the basement was being occupied without the benefit of a certificate of occupancy. Margaret Rubick stated that the inspection indicated that there were items in the basement apartment that do not meet the Village of Sleepy Hollow Code requirements for a safe habitable space. David Venditti stated that since the inspection letter was issued, the basement apartment has been vacated, an Architect was hired to complete drawings to improve conditions and attach the basement space to the first floor apartment. The applicant has also applied and received an approved variance from New York State for the height deficiencies in the basement. Mr. Venditti stated that the basement apartment was inspected in 1997 stated that there are many items that pre-date and are not up to today's code but that doesn't mean that every old house should get shut down. Chairman Church asked David Venditti if the applicant disputes that the original permit was issued was to erect a two-family frame house. David Venditti stated that the applicant does not have the original building permit from 1929 and that there is no record of a certificate of occupancy issued when the house was built. Mr. Venditti stated that he doesn't know what it is in the Village's files. Chairman Church asked David Venditti if he submitted a FOIL request for the Village files. David Venditti stated that they requested copies of all the documents sited in the Building Inspectors denial letter and that they did not receive a copy of the Building Permit from 1929. Sean McCarthy stated that all the documents preceding the 1970's are indicated in a ledger book. Mr. McCarthy stated that the applicant received copies of all the Building Department records from the property file and that the applicant was offered access to personally review the Village ledger books. Mr. McCarthy stated that he and the Building Department staff researched to see if they could find any documentation that indicated that the building was a three-family residence prior to 1979 and the could not. Mr. McCarthy stated that the Building Department has reviewed the Village Zoning Codes from the years of 1926 through 1964 and the requirements for a Building Permit, a Certificate of Occupancy, and the establishment of a Zoning Board of Appeals have not changed. The Building Department acknowledges that the apartment has probably existing prior to 1979. The main issue was the failure to receive approval from the Zoning Board for a three-family use variance. Mr. McCarthy stated that he does not have the authority to change a certificate of occupancy or to continue a non-conforming use without proper documentation. Mr. McCarthy stated that in response to Margaret Rubick, a Certificate of Occupancy or a Certificate of Compliance is the document issued to close out the Building Permit or that authorizes a change in the use of the property. The Certificate of Occupancy No. 423 was issued for the permit to install three enclosed porches and is not an indication of the use. 7 (ZBA 10/21/2020) �There was a Building Permit issued for the construction of three porches and there was a Certificate of Occupancy issued for the porches. Mr. McCarthy questioned why Mr. Vendetti's copy of the Certificate of Occupancy is signed twice with one date and with language added to say that it is an existing non-conforming building and can used as a three-family. Margaret Rubick asked if the Building Inspector has the authority to decide that a building can be something different than originally designed. Sean McCarthy stated that they Building Inspector would require documentation to support the change. David Venditti stated that it shouldn't be the responsibility for the applicant to find documentation that was in the sole custody of the Village and that the current owner should not have to defend a Certificate of Occupancy that was issued over forty years ago. Mr. Venditti stated that there is clearly a large gap in the Village records. Chairman Church asked Sean McCarthy if there is any documentation to show the existence of the basement apartment was legalized through issued permits. Sean McCarthy stated that the Building Department exhausted all efforts to check previous owner records or any reference to the legalization of the three-family use. Mr. McCarthy stated that access to the files and records were given to the applicant and their team. The recent inspection completed by the Building Departments' certified inspector and registered architect raised a red flag due to the numerous Building Code violations. Mr. McCarthy stated that there is a problem with the ceiling height as the ceilings are 6 foot and drops where the pipes are and at the doorway and then 6 foot 3-4 inches in some areas. There are two steps up in the bathroom that is built underneath the front porch. The violations that were sited in 1977 were written by an inspector that was relieved of his Village duties. If an inspector witnesses that a cooking device is being plugged in with an extension cord into the boiler room, lack of light and ventilation, and lack of a second means of egress should be raised as red flags. Mr. McCarthy stated that Certificates of Occupancy that were issued after 1979 referencing the property as a two-family residence and that the owners did not report an error. Mr. McCarthy corrected David Venditti's comment in which his letter stated that the State approved the basement. Mr. McCarthy stated that the application for a ceiling height variance was submitted to New York State as per the direction from the Building Department for approval to legalize the basement space and connect it to the first floor apartment, not for the basement as an apartment space. Mr. McCarthy read a portion of the variance approval from New York State which stated "The petition pertains to alterations to an existing two-family dwelling, two stories in height located at 123 New Broadway. " Mr. McCarthy read No. 7 from the Finding of Fact from the State of New York variance determination which stated "The local code enforcement official has been consulted in this matter and does not object to the granting of a routine variance under the provisions of 19 NYCRR 1205.6. David Venditti stated that the variance application to New York State was submitted for a twofamily residence based on the information given to him by the Building Department after they received the denial to reissue the Certificate of Occupancy for a three-family residence. 8 (ZBA 10/21/2020) �Sean McCarthy stated that he is providing a response to the letter submitted by David Venditti which falsely indicated that the state approved the basement. New York State approved a routine variance for the height of the basement. David Venditti stated that the issue is that the Zoning Board is being asked to nullify a threefamily Certificate of Occupancy issued by the Village and if this precedent is set, it will place other village properties into non-compliance. Mr. Venditti stated that he objects to the characterization that is being made to the apartment. Sean McCarthy stated that they have not made a characterization and that their architect has drawn plans to correct the existing problems. David Venditti stated that they were forced to do hire an architect to draw plans to correct the problems in the basement and that they weren't informed of prior village records and a village inspection. Sean McCarthy stated that he submitted documents in response to the application letter submitted by Mr. Venditti and that the applicant was provided access to all the information that the Village has on file and that they were informed of their options. They were informed that could apply for a use variance to legalize the third apartment or apply to make the required changes to connect the basement space to the first floor apartment. Mr. McCarthy stated that the Village has factual evidence of information related to a permit for two-family residence. A conversion to a three-family residence would have been required to comply with the 1952 Multiple Residence Law. Chairman Church asked Sean McCarthy to confirm that prior to the permit issued for the rear porches, the records indicate that it was a two-family home. Sean McCarthy stated that the survey from 1951 shows that the rear porches were not constructed prior to 1952 and therefore could not have complied with the Multiple Residence Law. David Venditti stated that the front porches and the stairway to the second floor always existed. Most houses don't have a front entrance and rear porches coming down. Sean McCarthy stated that when a conversion from a two-family residence to a three-family residence is proposed, you are required to have a covered second means of egress. This is important as it shows that the house was not a three-family residence at the time of the construction of the rear porches. David Venditti asked Sean McCarthy if he surmising or if he is stating that there are Village records of a survey saying the structure was a two-family in 1951. Chairman Church stated that the Village records show that a permit was recorded to construct a two-family residence in 1928 and the next permit on record is to add two dormers, and then a permit was issued in 1959 to erect three rear open porches to the dwelling. This is the only evidence existing to suggest that there are three apartment units and it post-dates the 1952 9 (ZBA 10/21/2020) �Multiple Residence Law. The Building Department has made efforts to look for any evidence of a three-family residence prior to 1952 and has allowed the applicant to submit evidence. Sean McCarthy stated that a survey was prepared for Ceceila Ricci by Edward Martin Jr., Land Surveyor last dated April 3, 1951. David Venditti stated that the survey doesn't speak to how many apartments are in the building and that there is no way that anyone can say if the house was not a three-family in 1949 and if the rear porches were built in the 1950's to comply with the existing law. Mr. Venditti stated that he has a legal Certificate of Occupancy issued in 1979 for a three-family residence and that all the information has been surmised and he has the only factual piece of evidence. Craig Lis asked if the submitted copy of the assessment role states that the building was a threefamily residence. David Venditti stated that the building appeared as a three-family residence on the 2017 tax assessment roles. Sean McCarthy stated that the assessment role is not a valid legalizing tool. The Building Inspector of the Town of Mount Pleasant does not inspect the properties. The Assessor inspects the properties and makes notes in the margins of property card of an observed change for follow up investigation, not a legalization. David Venditti stated that the Board is at risk of creating a dangerous precedent by the Village if a legal certificate of occupancy document is overturned. Margaret Rubick stated the referenced Certificate of Occupancy No. 423 is modified by saying that the Certificate of Occupancy covers the enclosed porches. The enclosed porches are the scope of work covered in the Certificate of Occupancy. David Venditti stated that he has two documents stating that the building was a non-conforming three-family residence and that back in the 1970s, when a document didn't have all the information it needed, they wrote on it by hand and then signed it again. Chairman Church asked Sean McCarthy if any records were found to indicate the property applied for a variance for a three-family residence. Sean McCarthy stated that no records have been found to indicate the property applied for a use variance. Mr. McCarthy stated that the Code of the Village of Sleepy Hollow and New York Village Law allows for the revocation or suspension of certificates and specifically; "If the Building Inspector determines that a certificate of occupancy/certificate of compliance or a temporary certificate was issued in error because of incorrect, inaccurate or incomplete information, and if the relevant deficiencies are not corrected to the satisfaction of the Building Inspector, within such period of time as shall be specified by the Building Inspector, the Building Inspector shall revoke or suspend such certificate " The Building Department believes there was a mistake in the issuance of the previous documents. Sean McCarthy stated that they acknowledge the Certificate of Occupancy was issued for the porches. 10 (ZBA 10/21/2020) �David Venditti stated that the Building Department is missing records like the permit and certificate of occupancy for the construction of the residence in 1929. Sean McCarthy stated that the Village didn't say they are missing documents. Some of the older documents do not exist. A Building Inspector made an arbitrary decision to modify a Certificate of Occupancy document with no backup information in 1979 and then reissued in 1980 without the same information included. Richard Hughes asked David Venditti if their goal is to sell the property and if they have plans to renovate the basement to be code compliant habitable space. David Venditti stated that upon receipt of the denial letter for the certificate of occupancy, they contracted an architect to draw plans to renovate and connect the basement space to the first floor apartment. Mr. Venditti stated that during the process, they located the legal Certificate of Occupancy that was issued in 1979. Richard Hughes stated that he agrees with Sean McCarthy to say that the Certificate of Occupancy references the permit issued for the porches and does not confirm a three-family residence. Margaret Rubick stated that the Building Inspector did not have the authority to change the Zoning of the property. David Venditti stated that there are numerous records missing so there is no way to confirm whether or not the Building Inspector changed the zoning of the property. Chairman Church stated that there are not records missing from prior to 1952 as the ledger was provided to review what permits were applied for and issued. David Venditti asked where the prior application documents are located. Sean McCarthy stated that the documents recorded in the ledger were disposed of and the ledger is certified by the Village Clerk. Sean McCarthy stated that non-conformity can only be established when the use of the property was established prior to the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance. This means that when you have a permit to construct a two-family house and the Zoning Ordinance changes, it isn't nonconforming, it remains a conforming use. Motion was made to open the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Crowe Vote 5-0 Clinton Smith stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals should accept the State of New York Variance for the property into the public record. Chairman Church solicited comments from the public. 11 (ZBA 10/21/2020) �Robert Ponzini is an attorney from Gaines, Novick, Ponzini, Cossu & Venditti LLP. Mr. Ponzini stated that he disagrees with the decision from Building Inspector Sean McCarthy. Mr. Ponzini stated that he can't discuss the records prior to 1979 or whether a past Building Inspector allowed for construction to be completed. Mr. Ponzini stated that cases are won and lost on proof, not speculation. If you have an official document from a municipality it should be given a high degree of respect for evidence. Mr. Ponzini stated that the Board will make a ruling based on the law but that there is also a doctrine in New York Law called Laches which means that when something is done for a long period of time, you can't put the burden on another person based on failure to enforce it. Mr. Ponzini stated that it would be a disservice not to allow the building to be a three-family residence. There were no additional comments from the public. Motion was made to close the public hearing. Moved: Chairman Church Seconded: Rubick Vote 5-0 Motion was made to go into Executive Session with the Village Attorney at 9:40 PM. Moved: Chairman Church Seconded: Lis Vote 5-0 Motion was made to leave the Executive Session at 10:00 PM. Moved: Chairman Church Seconded: Rubick Vote 5-0 Chairman Church solicited additional comments from the applicant. David Venditti stated that he has no additional comments. A motion was made to reject the re-interpretation of Mr. McCarthy's denial to issue a Certificate of Occupancy for a three-family residence based on the following criteria: 1. The Zoning Board of Appeals and the Building Inspector have the ability to review the propriety of prior certificates of occupancy. 2. There is a Village ledger book that indicates that the building was built in 1928-1929 as a two-family residence. 3. Exhausted searches of the Building Department records, the Village ledger books and the Zoning Board of Appeals minutes and decisions from 1929 to 1979 revealed that no actions were taken to convert the building from a two-family to a three-family residence. 4. The Certificate of Occupancy document submitted by the applicant dated July 9, 1979 stated that the certificate covers the enclosed rear porches. The other letters submitted are not proof that steps were taken to convert the building into a three-family home. 5. There is a precedent of rejection for another property for a prior application in which the Zoning Board of Appeals rejected an appeal for the refusal from the Building Department 12 (ZBA 10/21/2020) �to issue a certificate of occupancy for a four-family residence where Village records did not reveal it was a legal four-family residence. 6. The Building Inspector does not have the authority to override the Zoning Code. The decision made by the Building Inspector Sean McCarthy in refusing to reissue a certificate of occupancy issued in error was within his proper exercise of discretion. Motion was made to deny the interpretation appeal as requested. Moved: Church Seconded: Rubick Timothy Church, Chairman- yes Richard Hughes - yes Gorete Crowe - yes Margaret Rubick - yes Craig Lis - yes Vote: 5-0 APPROVED 5. Saavan Gatfield and Madhavi Shah, 2 Harwood Avenue, Proposed covered porch addition- Public hearing Chairman Church read the public notice, listed the documents submitted with the application, and asked Pamela Kroll to confirm that all of the mailing receipts have been received. Pamela Kroll stated that all of the mailing receipts have been received. Craig Lis stated that he resides within the public notification area so he is recusing himself from voting on the application. Chairman Church informed the applicant that there will be only four voting members of the Board for the application and therefore the vote must be unanimous. Chairman Church invited the applicant to present the application Frank Tancredi is the architect representing the applicant and stated that they propose to construct a covered front porch. Mr. Tangredi stated that the existing front stoop consists of concrete and bluestone and is in need of repair from exposure to the weather. The house is situated on a corner lot and they propose to stay consistent with the original zoning of the property from 1963 when Harwood Avenue was the legal frontage. Chairman Church asked Frank Tancredi if the proposed porch would be enclosed. Frank Tancredi stated that they proposed porch will be an open structure with a roof and railings. Gorette Crowe asked if the bushes in the front of the house would need to be removed. Frank Tancredi stated that some of the bushes would need to be removed to create the new walkway and others will be trimmed back. 13 (ZBA 10/21/2020) �Richard Hughes asked if the proposed sidewalk will follow the existing path. Frank Tancredi stated that they plan on extended the walkway straight out to the street. Sean McCarthy stated that the proposed depth of the porch at (7) feet is the minimum variance that would allow space for people sitting and that any less wouldn't be practical for the benefit sought by the applicant. Motion was made to open the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Crowe Vote 5-0 Chairman Church solicited comments from the public. There were no comments from the public. Motion was made to close the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Rubick Vote 5-0 Motion was made by Chairman Church to approve the area variance as requested based on the following criteria: 1. Granting of the area variance will not create and undesirable change to the neighborhood as it will be an improvement to the aesthetics of the property. 2. The requested area variance is not substantial and it is the minimum variance in depth that will allow the applicant to construct a porch that can safety accommodate people sitting on it. 3. Granting of the area variance will not have a permanent adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood as it is not an enclosed structure. 4. Granting of the area variances is the feasible method to achieve the benefits sought by the applicant 5. Although the requested variance is self-created hardship, it is not the only consideration for granting the area variance and there have been no objections from the public. Motion was made to grant the variance as requested. Moved: Church Seconded: Rubick Timothy Church, Chairman- yes Richard Hughes - yes Gorete Crowe - yes Margaret Rubick - yes 14 (ZBA 10/21/2020) �Craig Lis - abstained Vote: 4-0-1 APPROVED 6. Approval of minutes - July 15, 2020 Motion was made to approve the July 15, 2020 minutes. Moved: Church Seconded: Lis Timothy Church, Chairman - yes Gorete Crowe - yes Margaret Rubick - yes Craig Lis - yes Richard Hughes - yes Vote: 5-0 APPROVED Motion was made to adjourn the meeting at 10:30 pm. Moved: Church Seconded: Rubick Vote 5-0 Respectfully Submitted, Pamela Kroll Secretary to the Zoning Board of Appeals 15 (ZBA 10/21/2020) � 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_2020-10-21 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