https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/97286ef2d206a4bc673364c8d9bb2644.pdf 984f4aa4156b0db2d3ba0a893a55df62 PDF Text Text Village of Sleepy Hollow Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting September 15, 2021 Chairman Timothy Church called the meeting to order at 8:00 pm Present: Timothy Church, Chairman Gorete Crowe Craig Lis Sandra Tripp Thomas Chang Margaret Rubick Also Present: Sean McCarthy, Village Architect Clinton Smith, Village Attorney Pamela Kroll, Secretary to the Zoning Board Agenda: 1) Jeffrey White, 42 Hudson Street, Proposed addition- Public hearing 2) Michael Gelb and Deborah Domanski, 120 Gorey Brook Road, Determination /Appeal- Public hearing 3) Approval of minutes - May 19, 2021 Chairman Church read the agenda. 1. Jeffrey White, 42 Hudson Street, Proposed addition - Public hearing Chairman Church read the public notice and listed the document submitted by the applicant. Chairman Church asked Sean McCarthy to confirm that all of the mail receipts have been received. Sean McCarthy stated that all of the mailing receipts have been received. Chairman Church invited the applicant to present the details of the application Jeffrey White is the owner of 42 Hudson Street and stated that the existing house is a two-story, two bedroom, one bathroom structure that is located in the inner Village where all of the properties are very close together without sufficient setbacks. Mr. White stated that the application proposes to construct a 15 x 18 foot one-story addition on the back of the house to add one bedroom, one bathroom, a closet, and an unfinished screened-in area below the addition, off the back of the existing kitchen. Mr. White stated that the proposed addition will not be over the permitted building coverage area. 1 (ZBA 9/15/2021) �Chairman Church asked Mr. White if the application proposes an extension to the kitchen or the creation of a bedroom. Mr. White stated the application proposes to add a bedroom and to add a screened-in area under the addition. The existing kitchen is located at the garden level and they will need to excavate to bring the garden level down to where the existing foundation is. The addition will be constructed on columns. Chairman Church stated that the proposed addition will extend the same distance to the rear yard property line of the neighbor to the south and less distance than the rear yard property line of the neighbor on the north side. Craig Lis stated that there are no variances required for the rear yard or front yard setbacks. The variances required are for the existing non-conforming side yard setbacks. Chairman Church asked Mr. White to confirm that his property backs up to the Metro-North Railroad and not another residential property. Mr. White confirmed that his property backs up to Metro-North Railroad. Chairman Church asked Sean McCarthy to confirm that the Building Department will review the architectural plans submitted to ensure that the application complies with variances granted by the Zoning Board. Sean McCarthy stated that schematic plans were submitted and if the application is approved by the Zoning Board, the Building Department will review the architectural plans as part of the Building Permit Application to make sure that are compliant with the Building Codes and any conditions that the Zoning Board imposes. Any Fire Code issues related to the minimum required setbacks will be worked out in the construction drawings. The property is only 25 feetwide, if the applicant had to comply with the minimum setback requirements he would not be able to achieve the goal of his application. Sandra Tripp asked Mr. White to confirm that the house will remain a single-family residence. Jeffrey White stated that the house will remain a single-family residence. He has two daughters and he would like them each to have their own room. The bedroom addition will become his room or a room for his mother if needed. Motion was made to open the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Crowe Vote 6-0 Chairman Church solicited comments from the public. There were no public comments. 2 (ZBA 9/15/2021) �Motion was made to close the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Rubick Vote 6-0 Motion was made by Chairman Church to approve the area variances based on the following criteria: 1. Granting of the area variances will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or be a detriment to the nearby properties as the proposed addition will affect the rear of the property, not the front. 2. Granting of the areas variances is the most feasible way to achieve the benefits sought by the applicant and cannot be achieved by another method because the addition would only be permitted to be 13 feet wide if the applicant was required to conform to the minimum setback requirements. 3. The requested area variances are substantial, however the proposed addition will match the existing building setbacks and will not exceed the building coverage requirement.. 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. The requested variances are a self-created hardship but it is not the only factor that the Board considers when reviewing an application. Granting of the area variances will include the following condition: 1. Drawings will be prepared by a New York State registered architect and will be submitted with the Building Permit Application for review by the Building Department to ensure compliance with the Code of the Village of Sleepy Hollow, New York State Building Code, New York State Fire Code, and the variances approved by the Board. Motion was made to approve the application as requested. Moved: Church Seconded: Lis Timothy Church, Chairman- yes Margaret Rubick - yes Gorete Crowe - yes Sandra Tripp - yes Thomas Chang - yes Craig Lis - yes Vote 6-0 APPROVED 3 (ZBA 9/15/2021) �2. Michael Gelb and Deborah Domanski, 120 Gorey Brook Road, Determination/Appeal Public hearing Chairman Church read the public notice and asked Sean McCarthy if all of the mailing receipts have been received. Pamela Kroll stated that all of the mailing receipts have been received. Chairman Church stated that a letter, application, and supporting documents were received from the applicant on July 8, 2021. Letters was received from Mark Vaughan and Jill Parella, the owners of 1 Ridge Street, dated August 30, 2021, and September 9, 2021. A letter was received from Tammy Gales, the owner of 37 Gorey Brook Road, dated September 13, 2021. Chairman Church invited the applicant or representative to present the application. Katherine Zalantis is an attorney from the law firm of Silverberg Zalantis LLC representing the applicants. Ms. Zalantis stated that their appeal challenges a redetermination of the decisions made by the Building Inspector. The first item they are challenging is the decision made by the Building Inspector to issue a Building Permit to the owners of 1 Ridge Lane to allow the owners of 1 Ridge Lane to install stone landscaping steps on her client's property. The second item that they are challenging is the Building Inspector's failure to rectify his decision and revoke the Building Permit, even when presented with proof that her clients are the owners of the property. The third item they are challenging is the Apparent Notice of Violation and the Building Inspector's failure to close it out when he was presented with proof. Ms. Zalantis stated that her client should not have been forced to bring this appeal before this Board. It all should have been dealt with at the Building Department stage. Chairman Church requested that Ms. Zalantis agree that her clients are here based on the decisions of the Sleepy Hollow Building Department and that the Zoning Board is authorized to review the decisions. Katherine Zalantis stated that under State Law, the Board has the authority to reverse or modify the decisions of the Building Inspector; not only reverse or modify the decisions of the Building Inspector but to make the decisions, by the opinion of the Board, that the ought to have been made by the Building Inspector. Ms. Zalantis stated that Exhibit #1 is the Building Permit that was issued authorizing the owners of 1 Ridge Street to construct bluestone landscaping steps on her clients' property and to place, subject to the Building Departments approval, a mailbox on her clients' property. Ms. Zalantis stated that Exhibit #4 is a copy of the client's survey. Ms. Zalantis distributed enlarged copies of the survey to the Board members. Ms. Zalantis demonstrated on the survey where the proposed landscaping steps and the mailbox will be located and stated that that this portion of the property is owned by her clients and will be referred to as the "Driveway Parcel" 4 (ZBA 9/15/2021) �Margaret Rubick requested that Ms. Zalantis indicate where the mailbox for 1 Ridge Street is currently located. Ms. Zalantis pointed to a location on the survey where the mailbox for 1 Ridge Street was originally proposed and stated that they have since moved it to an area that is not on her client's property but is abutting the client's "Driveway Parcel". Ms. Zalantis stated that the Village doesn't own the "Driveway Parcel"; the "Driveway Parcel" is not a municipal right-of-way; it is not a private right-of-way; the owners of 1 Ridge Street do not have any interest in the "Driveway Parcel", or a right of access to the "Driveway Parcel". It is fully and completely owned by her clients. Since 1850 the clients' predecessors-in-interest have acquired title to what was referred to as the "Gore" and this is discussed in the extensive title research report that was provided. Ms. Zalantis stated that there was a clerical mistake and the Driveway Parcel metes and bounds description did not appear on her clients' 2016 deed. When their immediate predecessor's-in-interest, the Zegarellis, conveyed the property to her clients, her clients acquired and ownership interest in the "Driveway Parcel". Chairman Church stated that the submission received does not map out the history from the earliest deeds and documents that shows that the "Driveway Parcel" was conveyed at the beginning and consistently through to her clients. Ms. Zalantis stated that if the Board doesn't want to recognize or agree with the conclusion that the abstract or title company stating that her clients have a fee interest in the "Driveway Parcel", the Board doesn't have to look at the report because they now have a Correction Deed. Ms. Zalantis stated that whatever alleged issue existed with the metes and bounds description, was replaced by a Correction Deed, recorded on June 29, 2021. Chairman Church asked Mr. Zalantis why the Board cannot be presented with quotes from each land transaction of conveyance that identifies that the parcel was conveyed to the owners after 1850, and to confirm that the parcel was only mistakenly not conveyed to the current owner/applicants in 2016, which then required a Correction Deed. Ms. Zalantis stated that a complex title research was completed and provided to the Board. They came to the conclusion that by the 1850's, her client's predecessors-in-interest acquired title to "Parcel One" as well as "the Gore" or "Driveway Parcel" Ms. Zalantis stated that the chain of title was continued to their immediate predecessor-in-interest, the Zegarellis, and included the "Gore Parcel". When it was conveyed to her clients in 2016, they acquired a fee interest. Ms. Zalantis stated that research isn't required because the Correction Deed is prima facie evidence that her clients own the "Driveway Parcel". Chairman Church asked Ms. Zalantis who filed the Correction Deed. Ms. Zalantis stated that the Correction Deed was conveyed from the Zegarellis to her clients and their attorney. 5 (ZBA 9/15/2021) �Chairman Church asked Ms. Zalantis who drafted the Correction Deed and who filed it with the County. Ms. Zalantis stated that one of the attorneys in the transaction drafted and filed the Correction Deed. Chairman Church asked Ms. Zalantis who retained the attorney. Ms. Zalantis stated that she is not aware of who retained the attorney, or who drafted the Correction Deed; whether it was the Zegarrelli's attorney or her clients, but it is prima facie evidence that her clients own the property. Ms. Zalantis stated that she doesn't know how the Board could state that they didn't provide the evidence that her client acquired the title of the property and that it is clear in the title search provided. They don't need the Correction Deed to establish the ownership as it was established prior to the filing of the Correction Deed. The Correction Deed makes it clear that although the metes and bounds description was left out of the 2016 Deed it is now included. Ms. Zalantis stated the Building Inspector should never have issued the Building Permit because prior the issuance the Building Inspector had the title research. The Village "policy" to authorize construction on land that is not owned by the Village, not owned by 1 Ridge Street, and that 1 Ridge Street has no interest in does not trump her client's ownership interest of the "Driveway Parcel" Chairman Church stated that the Village agrees that the parcel is not a public right-of-way. The application is requesting the Board to decide if the property is owned by the applicants. If it is determined that the applicants own the property, then a Building Permit cannot be issued complete construction on someone else's property. Mr. Church questioned if there is an agreement in place that the property is a shared right-of-way. Ms. Zalantis stated that the property is not a shared right-of-way. Chairman Church stated that the ownership of the property and the metes and bounds description was not included in the deed that transferred the property to the current owner. Chairman Church questioned what will become of the property if the Board determines that the property is not owned by the applicant. Ms. Zalantis stated that if the Board decides that the property is not a private right-of-way, her clients intend to pursue every available resource to appeal it. This is not a property dispute between homeowners. This is an instance where the Village, through the Building Department, is using its' authority and weight, as a municipality, to tip the scale in favor of one property owner over another and using its' authority to allow one resident to construct on another residents property. Chairman Church asked Ms. Zalantis if the Board determines that the parcel is a shared private right-of-way, will the applicants still contest that the Building Department has the authority to issue a Building Permit to construct the bluestone steps. 6 (ZBA 9/15/2021) �Ms. Zalantis stated that if the parcel is a shared right-of-way, the only people that have interest in the shared private right-of-way are the owners of the shared private right-of-way. Without getting consent of all of the owners on a shared private right-of-way, the Building Department has no such authority. The Building Department has the authority to issue Building Permits on a municipal right-of-way because those are controlled by the Village. Chairman Church stated that no documentation has been submitted to state that if the parcel is a shared right-of-way, that the Building Department does not have the authority to issue a Building Permit. If the property is owned by the applicants, then the Building Permit was issued in error. If the property is a shared right-of-way, then the Board needs to determine to how to address the issue. Ms. Zalantis stated that the Board has a Correction Deed in front of them and that it is not the Boards purview or the Building Inspectors' purview to question the Correction Deed. The Correction Deed is prima facie evidence that her clients own the property. Unless a court says otherwise, her clients own the property. As of now, no one has challenged the Deed, no one has raised an issue about the Deed; so the Deed stands. The Board does not have the authority to question the validity of the Correction Deed. Ms. Zalantis requested the Board ask the Village attorney if the Board has the right to determine the interest of two private landowners. Chairman Church stated that the Board has been asked to hear an appeal filed by the applicants for the Building Departments decision to grant a Building Permit because the applicants are contesting that they own the property. The Building Department has not yet found that the property is owned by the applicants. Ms. Zalantis stated that she has not seen a determination from the Building Department showing that the applicants do not own the property. Chairman Church stated that there are facts that need to be conveyed to the Board to convince them that the applicants own the property. Chairman Church requested that the applicants map out the deeds, quotes, and metes and bounds descriptions to show that from each conveyance that the "Driveway Parcel" was transferred. Chairman Church requested that the applicants submit evidence as to why the 2016 Deed did not include the correct description and why an unidentified attorney filed a Correction Deed. There would not be a need for a Correction Deed if the first deed was properly described. The filing of a Correction Deed does not determine that the property is owned by her clients. Ms. Zalantis stated that she will map out the previous deed conveyances. Ms. Zalantis requested that she be supplied with the opposition letters. Ms. Zalantis distributed copies of a Site Plan to only the members of the Board and stated that the Building Permit violates the approved Site Plan for 1 Ridge Street. The approved Site Plan shows that the retaining wall was to be setback five (5) feet. Ms. Zalantis used to the site plan to demonstrate to the Board members that the retaining wall has been constructed on and over the side property line. Ms. Zalantis used the site plan to demonstrate to the Board members where 7 (ZBA 9/15/2021) �the proposed bluestone steps will be located. As per the condition of the Planning Board Site Plan approval, if the plan needs to be amended, they were required to go back to the Planning Board with an as-built plan. Ms. Zalantis questioned who would be liable if someone falls off the retaining wall onto her client's property. Chairman Church asked Ms. Zalantis what documents were submitted to the Board to confirm that the retaining wall was built over the applicant's side property line. Ms. Zalantis stated that pictures were provided to the Board to show the location of the retaining wall and that the clients will provide testimony of its location. Ms. Zalantis stated again that the Correction Deed is uncontroversial proof that her clients own the "Driveway Parcel" Chairman Church stated that based on the photograph submitted, the Board cannot conclude that the retaining wall encroaches on the five (5) foot setback. Ms. Zalantis suggested that the Board request for the Building Inspector to confirm the setback of the retaining wall. Margaret Rubick asked Ms. Zalantis who is currently using the property in dispute and who else has been using it. Ms. Zalantis stated that the "Driveway Parcel" is the only access to her client's property and no one else is allowed to use it. Ms. Zalantis stated that the driveway and the garage for 1 Ridge Street are located on Ridge Street, so their mailbox should be located on Ridge Street. Chairman Church asked Ms. Zalantis where the front door for 1 Ridge Street is located. Ms. Zalantis stated that she does not know where the front door for 1 Ridge Street is located. Chairman Church stated that the front door for 1 Ridge Street is located on the west side of the house. Ms. Zalantis stated that the location of the mailbox for 1 Ridge Street has created an issue of life and safety because the mail trucks are stopping at the driveway and blocking access to her client's property. Ms. Zalantis stated that the Correction Deed and the title research establishes that the property is not a private right-of-way or any other right-of-way. Ms. Zalantis cited the Zoning provisions that are relevant to the Boards review. Sandra Tripp stated that the Building Permit was issued by the Building Department prior to the establishment of the Correction Deed and that it is possible that the permit was issued in good faith. 8 (ZBA 9/15/2021) �Ms. Zalantis stated that if the title research was not understood, once the Building Department was presented with the Correction Deed, the permit should have been revoked. Ms. Zalantis requested the documentation that the Board has that shows that 1 Ridge Street has any interest in the "Driveway Parcel" and stated that the Board has no such evidence before them. Chairman Church asked Ms. Zalantis who provided the title report, what their role was in the overall transaction, and when were they retained. Ms. Zalantis stated that she doesn't understand the basis of the questions and asked Chairman Church if he is questioning the veracity of the title report and the Correction Deed. The role of the title company was to explain to the Building Inspector and the Village how the title concept works and how her clients acquired the property. Ms. Zalantis stated that the Board is asking questions that are beyond their purview and suggested that the Board go into Executive Session and get advice from the Village Council so that the Board may understand their purview and their authority to question and access the rights of ownership between two private individuals. The Board is not being asked to question and review the Correction Deed and its legitimacy. The Board and the Building Inspector do not have the authority to ignore the Correction Deed. Chairman Church asked Ms. Zalantis what authority she is relying on to compel them to follow the Correction Deed. Ms. Zalantis stated that the Correction Deed includes the metes and bounds description of the "Driveway Parcel". It has been recorded and stands until such time a court overturns it. Chairman Church asked if the letters submitted by 1 Ridge Street were provided to the applicants. Pamela Kroll stated that letters submitted by the owners of 1 Ridge Street were not provided to the applicants. Chairman Church stated that the letters submitted by the owners of 1 Ridge Street include documents related to the disputed land and include a heading stating that the Ridge Street RightOf-Way has been a shared roadway for over one-hundred and sixty years and provides documents to support it. It would be helpful for the applicants to receive the documents in order for them to have time to review and submit comments. The Board will not likely make a decision tonight. Ms. Zalantis again stated that the extensive title research and the Correction Deed is prima facie evidence and it is all the Board needs to see. If her clients cannot get relieve from the Board, she will encourage them to commence an Article 78 proceedings to bring damages action against the Village for violation of their constitutionally protected rights because the Village is acting law and attempting to strip them of their property rights. Chairman Church invited the applicants to speak on behalf of their application. 9 (ZBA 9/15/2021) �Deborah Domanksi stated that she is the owner of 120 Gorey Brook Road. Ms. Domanski stated that they moved to Sleepy Hollow in 2015. Ms. Domanski stated that they are seeking an appeal to restore the feeling of a safe and unobstructed access to their home. Their driveway is the only access to their home. Their neighbors on 1 Ridge Street have their own driveway on Ridge Street. The western boundary of the 1 Ridge lot is clearly defined and 1 Ridge has no legal claim to the property beyond the western line. The Village of Sleepy Hollow has no legal claim and no interest in the property. The permit issued to 1 Ridge Street to do work over their western boundary line and the violation notice sent to them about their gate are predicated on the false assumption that the bottom of their driveway is a Sleepy Hollow Village municipal right-of-way. They challenged this assumption and appealed to their title insured, Stewart Title Company, to do a deep search. The Chief Executive Claims council Eric Zeni did an extensive search and he issued his report in April of this year concluding that no part of their driveway had ever been conveyed to the Village or anyone else. It has always been private property belonging to 120 Gorey Brook Road. Andres Valdespino communicated the results of the title report to the Building Department and other Village officials and requested that the permit not be issued to 1 Ridge Street and the violation notice for their property be withdrawn. Mr. Valdespino reviewed the chain of title, the language in their original deed, and the information brought forth by the title company. Mr. Valdespino determined that the full driveway and the strips of land on either side, collectively known as the "Purdy Gore" have always been a part of the 120 Gorey Brook Road property. A Correction Deed was prepared, executed, and recorded at the Westchester County Clerk and the tax authority has been informed so that the tax maps can also be corrected. More than one-hundred years of tradition, continuous maintenance, the chain of title, a recorded Correction Deed, and a revised survey show that the full driveway and the strips of land on either side are a part of the 120 Gorey Brook Road property. The assumptions upon which the permit and the violation notice was issued is invalid and therefore must be withdrawn. She requested that the Board consider the implications of the decision for public safety and order. The intersection of their driveway, Gorey Brook Road, the old Croton Aqueduct, and Ridge Street is confusing and dangerous. Since the mailbox for 1 Ridge Street has been placed on their driveway it has become more confusing and dangerous. The Fire Chief, John Korzelius accessed the danger and stated that his younger people will not know where 120 Gorey Brook is and might get confused. It would better and safer if the 1 Ridge mailbox wasn't on the 120 Gorey Brook driveway. Delivery drivers for 1 Ridge Street pull into their driveway instead of the 1 Ridge Driveway blocking their only access to their home. It will be more dangerous and confusing if a staircase is allowed that would encourage pedestrian traffic on their active driveway. If the presence of the stairs encourages a child to trespass on their active driveway, they may get hit by a confused delivery driver. If the Village allows the 1 Ridge Street mailbox on their driveway, allows 1 Ridge Street to build a stairway on their driveway, and encourages the 1 Ridge Street guests and residents to trespass on their private property to get their mail or to enter their property, then the Village must assume all moral responsibility and legal liability for any accidents, damage to property, injury, or death that may result. Another liability issue that the Board should consider is the retaining wall on the west side of the 1 Ridge Street property. It was allowed to be built, despite their written objection, right up to and in some areas over their property line. It was a clear violation of the five (5) foot setback in the approved Site Plan. The wall has no fencing and no guardrail. If someone falls off of the wall directly onto their property 10 (ZBA 9/15/2021) �and hits their head on their driveway, please note for the record that the Village will be solely liable for any injury or damages. The respect of property rights and legal boundaries are important to the welfare of all. They request that the Board honor these rights and boundaries and appeal to the Board to restore the safety and order to the neighborhood and to protect their unobstructed access to the only entrance to their home. Chairman Chuch asked if there is numbering on the mailbox indicating that it is for 1 Ridge Street and not 120 Gorey Brook Road. Michael Gelb is the owner of 120 Gorey Brook Road and stated there is a gate at the bottom of their driveway that has been there for twenty (20) years and that is was constructed as per the regulations at that time. Their mailbox is next to the gate and has been there for seven (7) years. The mailbox has the house number and street on it and it is the sole identifier for their house. On October 11, 2020 the owners of 1 Ridge Street placed their mailbox on their driveway right next to theirs and obscured the view of their mailbox. To resolve the problem, they contacted Andres Valdespino. Although the neighbors recently moved their mailbox further away, it is still confusing and dangerous. The Fire Chief agreed with Mr. Gelb and stated that is doesn't make sense to have a Ridge Street mailbox on a Gorey Brook driveway. The owners of 1 Ridge Street have an identifier on their home and on their driveway. Their main door is on the side of their house and their garage faces Ridge Street. They are genuinely concerned about the safety of the retaining wall. Delivery trucks get confused and often stop in their driveway. When they were told that the property was a municipal right-of-way and part of the "Ridge Street Extension", they requested time to investigate. They hired Andres Valdespino and a title company to request why the ownership of the property wasn't clear when they bought the property. Mr. Valdespino found documentation to prove that the property was a part of their original deed and promptly informed the Building Department. Chairman Church asked where the other Ridge Street mailboxes face. Michael Gelb stated that all of other Ridge Street mailboxes face Ridge Street. The owners of 1 Ridge Street have a mailbox on their main door. They consulted with the Postal Service and they agreed that they would deliver mail right up to the 1 Ridge Street mailbox on the door. Chairman Church asked if there is a walkway on 1 Ridge Street to the mailbox at the main door. Michael Gelb stated that there a walkway from the driveway to their main door. Mr. Gelb stated that there is a big slope down to their driveway from the 1 Ridge Street property so it doesn't make sense for them to walk down the side of their house and on his active driveway. They have no objection to the owners of 1 Ridge Street building stairway on Ridge Street. They would also be willing to allow them to use the corner so it is very clear that the path leads to their home on their property. Sandra Tripp stated that the Board is asking questions in order to understand the issues. The real issue is that the Board has the purview to weigh in on the application. They are not trying to sway the decision one way or another. She does not appreciate the tone in which some of the 11 (ZBA 9/15/2021) �questions from Mr. Gelb's attorney were directed at them. They are volunteers who are trying to help the Village. She is appreciative that he has taken the time to share the clear details with the Board. Thomas Chang stated that from the testimony given before the owners, he was confused and thought that they wanted to put steps up to their house and that his attorney was arguing on behalf of 1 Ridge Street as to why the stairs should not be permitted. The Board is not hear to try and make things difficult. They are trying to confirm what the application is asking the Board to make a determination on. Michael Gelb stated that they are willing to have Sean McCarthy mediate the situation. Margaret Rubick stated that she drove by the property today and was so confused about what she read in the application verses what she saw, and that she will go back after this meeting. Chairman Church requested that the applicants' attorney continue the presentation. He informed Peter Zegarelli that he will have the opportunity to speak when they open the public hearing for comments. Katherine Zalantis stated that Exhibit 3 of the application is the Notice of Apparent Violation issued to the applicants. In the letter prepared by Sean McCarthy dated May 11, 2020, he agreed to defer the advancing of the Notice of Violation while the research was being done. Ms. Zalantis read the Village Code associated with item #1 and stated that the property is not public property and that the violation related to the motion detectors and cameras should be closed out because the property is owned by her clients. Ms. Zalantis read the Village Code associated with item #2 and stated that her clients own the driveway parcel and it is not a wall or a fence. It is gate and her clients are permitted to have a gate on a driveway. Chairman Church stated that, putting aside whether or not the gate is considered a fence, the gate was installed years ago according to past regulations. Chairman Church questioned if the applicants agree that the gate is not in compliance with the current Zoning Regulations. Ms. Zalantis stated that the gate is not subject to the provisions of the Code because the gate is not a wall and it is not located on a front yard. Chairman Church asked Ms. Zalantis if they maintain that the front yard for 120 Gorey Brook Road is the west facing part of the parcel. Ms. Zalantis agreed that the front yard for 120 Gorey Brook Road is the west facing part of the parcel. Chairman Church requested that Sean McCarthy describe how fencing is determined for corner lot properties. 12 (ZBA 9/15/2021) �Sean McCarthy stated that the existing structure is both a fence and a gate and requires a Building Permit. A corner lot has two front yards. The apparent violation was deferred pending the investigation of the ownership of the property. This is why no further action has been taken. Chairman Church stated that the Board does not have evidence that shows that the gate was constructed in conformance with the Zoning regulations twenty (20) years ago. Motion was made to go into an executive session at 9:25 PM. Moved: Church Seconded: Rubick Vote 6-0 The Board returned from executive session at 10:10 PM. Chairman Church requested that the applicants trace the deeds and conveyances of the property, including the contentious area, so that the Board has a clear understanding of the conveyances. He suggested that the applicants and their counsel visit with the Building Department and Sean McCarthy to go over the Village records so that the applicants will have full knowledge of what the Building Department has found. The applicants can then present or submit further documentation that will clarify the issues of the ownership of the area in contention. The applicants will also be provided with the comment letters submitted by the owners of 1 Ridge Street. Chairman Church requested that the applicants describe the location of the proposed steps in relation to the existing gate. Katherine Zalantis requested that going forward, they are provided with submissions made regarding the application. Michael Gelb stated that the updated survey clearly defines the ownership of their property and the property of 1 Ridge Street. If the area of the property was a shared right-of-way, they should have a say considering it is their only means of ingress and egress to their property. Chairman Church stated that the Building Department would need to be consulted on the regulations for constructing steps on shared a right-of-way. Michael Gelb stated that it has been established on the surveys that the 1 Ridge Street boundary is clear. The owners of 1 Ridge Street have no claim to the driveway parcel, the Village has no interest in the property, and there are no records of it being a Village municipal right-of-way. The benefit of a doubt should go to them because they have a Correction Deed and a survey that shows that they own the property. Thomas Chang stated that they are asking the applicants to compare the documents that they have with the records that the Building Department has so that a determination can be made. Michael Gelb described the location of their gate and their mailbox and stated where the landscape plans shows the proposed steps for 1 Ridge Street would be constructed. The proposed stairs will not be aesthetically pleasing and would make the area more confusing. Mr. Gelb 13 (ZBA 9/15/2021) �described a solution for the proposed stairs that would make it more acceptable to them. He would much prefer a wise resolution for everyone's interest. Clinton Smith stated that if Mr. Gelb wants a wise decision for everyone's best interest, he is at the wrong forum. This is a Zoning Board of Appeals meeting and after this, your attorney stated that she will pursue action in court. The judges and juries of a court will not look at everyone's' interest. The court will look at the logs. If Mr. Gelb is seeking a solution that is in everyone's interest, he and his wife should speak with the owners of 1 Ridge Street. Mr. Gelb stated that the owners of 1 Ridge Street will not agree to speak with them. Mr. Gelb stated that they are then required to ask what does the law say, what is the responsibility of the Zoning Board of Appeals, and does the Zoning Board make decisions on if it is legitimate to grant a permit to build on property which there is clearly a strong claim on. Sandra Tripp stated that the Village's documentation shows actual facts that the driveway parcel is Village property. In order to settle the dispute, the applicants and the Village needs to get together to review document findings from both parties. Thomas Chang stated that before the Board can have these discussions, there has be meeting between the parties and their attorneys to determine the findings based on the registered surveys, come to conclusions, and then make their arguments. Chairman Church stated that the last issue brought up by the applicant was the wall and its' alleged location encroaching over the 5-foot setback. Chairman Church asked Sean McCarthy to provide details of the construction of the retaining wall. Sean McCarthy stated that the wall at 1 Ridge Street was part of the Site Plan Approval. On September 4, 2019, a site inspection of the property was conducted. The contractor advised the Building Department that they wanted approval to move the stone wall closer to the property line. On September 19, 2019, the requested change was brought up at a Planning Board Work Session because the resolution stated that any material changes requested to the approved Site Plan would require them to go back for Planning Board Approval. The Planning Board was presented with the proposed changes to the wall location and the Planning Board had no objections and did not require the applicant to go back to the Planning Board for amended Site Plan approval. The applicant proceeded with revising the plans and constructed a portion of the wall on the property line. The wall maintains the originally approved design and the patio location did not change. A retaining wall or a fence is permitted to be installed on the property line. An as-built survey was submitted as required for the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy showing the wall located on the property line. Michael Gelb stated that they were never informed of the relocation of the wall. There was no variance, no public notice, and no opportunity for them to weigh in about the change. 14 (ZBA 9/15/2021) �Chairman Church stated that the applicants will have an opportunity at the next hearing to discuss whether or not the applicants want to contest the construction of the retaining wall. Ms. Zalantis stated that the Planning Board resolution required that if there was a material change, they were required to go back for site plan amendment and that didn't happen. Sean McCarthy stated that the scope of the work that was being revised on the site was within the authority of the Building Department to make a decision on whether the change needed to be brought back to the Planning Board. It was brought to the Planning Board for their consideration and the Planning Board determined that the proposed change was not material enough to require an amended site plan. If an application was submitted today for a retaining wall on the 1 Ridge Street property, it would not require site plan approval; nor would a gate or a patio require site plan approval. The construction of the single-family house did require site plan approval and that is what was approved. Katherine Zalantis attempted to interrupt Mr. McCarthy. Chairman Church stated that the Board wishes to avoid a back and forth dialog. Sean McCarthy stated that questioning the issue of not being able to issue the Building Permit to construct the steps is incorrect. The appeal should have claimed that the Certificate of Occupancy for the house was issued in because of the construction of the wall; and not that a future Building Permit cannot be issued because one has nothing to do with the other. Katherine Zalantis stated that there is a pending violation. Sean McCarthy stated that there is not a violation on the property. Clinton Smith stated that the question is if the moving of the wall was a material change. The issue can be debated, analyzed, and be presented but he doesn't think it was a material change and believes it was discussed with the Planning Board. Sean McCarthy stated that the construction of the retaining wall is not a part of the public notice before the Board. Katherine Zalantis stated that the construction of the retaining wall was argued in their appeal. This relates to the issuance of the Building Permit because she argues that the change to the retaining wall was a material change when a five-foot setback is established in the approval and then construction was allowed within the five-foot setback. Motion was made to open the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Crowe Vote 6-0 Chairman Church solicited comments from the public. 15 (ZBA 9/15/2021) �Peter Zegarelli stated that he is the resident of 21 Ridge Street. Mr. Zegarelli stated that his family owned the 120 Gorey Brook Road property and the lots on Ridge Street from 1949 to 2015. He has lived on Ridge Street since 2004. The portion of the driveway in question belongs to 120. The property has always been maintained by his family. His father had it paved more than once, they cut the grass, swept the roadway, raked the leaves, and plowed the snow. The Village has never serviced the roadway or the property on either side of it. When Mayor Ken Wray recently commented on the issues and the driveway, he said that the Village of Sleepy Hollow has no interest in the property. Not only does the Village have no interest but they have no legal interest in it. The Village has never had any interest in the property. They recognize it as my family's property; the whole neighborhood has recognized it as that. He and his brothers collectively owned the Ridge Street lots for several decades and each of them understood that the lots all face south to Ridge Street and that was their only access point. The lots had no access to the east, the north, or the west. Lot 1, which is now occupied by 1 Ridge Street, did not have any rights of access to the west onto the 120 Gorey Brook Road property, nor the driveway. The placement of the 1 Ridge Street mailbox facing Gorey Brook Road has brought a dispute out into the neighborhood and is causing a safety issue. When you drive up to Gorey Brook Road you go up a very long hill to the crest where it flattens out and forks. It is at this intersection where things get confusing. To the left is Gorey Brook Road and to the right is the Gorey Brook Road Extension; not Ridge Street Extension, which further rises up to meet the 120 Gorey Brook Road driveway on a straight line. On the right Ridge Street rises at 90 degree angle, almost hidden. The 120 driveway is several hundred feet long and looks like a road. The convention for mailboxes is that they should face the road to which it is on. The 1 Ridge Street owners have placed their mailbox, not facing south to Ridge Street, but facing west to Gorey Brook Road. The mailbox for 1 Ridge Street should be on Ridge Street near their driveway and face Ridge Street. The first thing you see when you are at the intersection is the mailbox for 1 Ridge Street. Mr. Zegarelli provided an example of a confused driver and stated that the driver claimed that there was a mailbox with Ridge Street on it that pointed left so that is the direction he went. If an emergency vehicle made the wrong turn, it would be difficult to turn around and it could be delayed. Mr. Zegarelli asked if this Village and certain private individuals in the room, want to assume the liabilities that would arise if an emergency vehicle was delayed, the delay caused harm to the injured or ill person, or a fire got out of control all because of the improper placement of a mailbox. The solution is that there needs to be respect for property lines metes and bounds. If this stands then any property owner can claim access over a neighboring property as long as it give them access to a Village Right-of-Way. Any building identifying markers such as a mailboxes must be placed as to indicate where the building is and the street it faces to not cause misdirection to that building or neighboring properties. Tammy Gales is the owner 37 Gorey Brook Road and stated that she would like to read the letter that she submitted to the Board on September 14, 2021. (See Exhibit #1) Mark Vaughn stated that he and Jill Parella are the owners of 1 Ridge Street. Mr. Vaughn stated that they support the decision by the Building Department both in terms of the Ridge Street Right-of-Way, what is existing as of today, which is a property that is not owned by anyone, and also the issuance of the permit to build steps on the west side of their property. Mr. Vaughn provided examples of how they plan to use the proposed steps. His eleven year old daughter gets 16 (ZBA 9/15/2021) �off the bus at the intersection of Gorey Brook Road and Ridge Street. She would like her to cross the street and use the steps to get to their front door. He and his wife will use the steps for access to work on the landscaping on their property. The mail carrier is excited for the steps to be constructed so that he can have an easier access to deliver packages to their front door. They like to walk to the farmers market and would like to go out through their front door to the right-ofway. Mr. Vaughn stated that as in the letters submitted to the Board, the Ridge Street Right-ofWay has been a shared roadway for over one-hundred and sixty years and it is very clear historically from the deeds and the maps. He has gone through the documents to try and figure who owns what and no one knows. None of the deeds filed with Westchester County currently have the right-of-way in their boundaries of property. It doesn't exist in the metes and bounds of any of the filed deeds with the County since the 1860s. The Right-of-Way is not on the Village or Town tax rolls and as it was mentioned earlier by the applicants that they want to add it to the tax rolls. It has never been on the tax rolls because no one owns it. The Correction Deed filed by the owners of 120 Gorey Road Road is a meaningless set of documents. There is no merit to what they have put together. It is meaningless because it contradicts one-hundred and sixty years of historical documentation that show it as a shared roadway. It is beyond him to know why the owners of the properties back then decided it would be shared. His guess is that they needed to share the land in order to sell it. The Correction Deed is meaningless because the Zegarrelli estate signed the correction. The Zegarelli estate didn't own the property to begin with so they can't convey something to the current owners if they didn't own it. The Correction Deed itself does not include the Ridge Street Right-of-Way in the metes and bounds description of the property. They didn't include it because they would have to extend the boundaries of the property, which they can't do. In summary, this leaves the Board with a meaningless set of documents parading as a Correction Deed that was filed with Westchester County Clerk that does not and cannot convey the property to the owners of 120 Gorey Brook Road. The conclusion that he comes to is that the appeal should be denied. Chairman Church asked Mark Vaughn if he wanted to provide comments on the placement of the mailbox. Mark Vaughn stated that they originally put the mailbox on their house. There is still a mailbox on the house because he has hopes that the Post Office will someday change their mind. The Post Master came to them and told them they didn't want to deliver to it and told them to move it. They had a discussion with the Post Master and it was decided that because of the large gutters on both sides of their driveway on Ridge Street, the best place to put it was in the Right-of-Way. It has been moved once because of the permit. Sean McCarthy asked them to move if further away from the 120 Gorey Brook Road mailbox so that you could clearly see their address. It is now located in the easement of Ridge Street. Chairman Church asked if the proposed steps will be located where the applicants described. Mark Vaughn stated that the proposed location is correct but with the gate in its current location, the steps will be in-between their gate and their mailbox. They suggest that the owners of 120 Gorey Brook Road move their mailbox across the Right-of-Way so it will be clearer that their 17 (ZBA 9/15/2021) �house is located up the hill. Since their mailbox sits adjacent to their property, they get their deliveries. Chairman Church solicited comments from the Board. Sandra Tripp asked Mr. Vaughn that based on the comments received from the neighboring properties, would they consider moving the mailbox to Ridge Street. Mr. Vaughn stated if the Village would finish the road so they could have proper drainage and so the road doesn't gutter down, they would consider moving the mailbox to Ridge Street. Thomas Chang asked Mark Vaughn how they received their mail prior to the current mailbox location. Mr. Vaughn stated that they delivered the mail to the front door for about a month before they were contacted by the Post Office to say they would stop the mail delivery to that mailbox because it is too far for the mail carrier to go up the driveway. Even when they had the mailbox on their front door, the confusion related to 120 Gorey Brook Road was already occurring because the driveway to 120 Gorey Brook Road is on Ridge Street and not on Gorey Brook Road. Clinton Smith asked if the other houses on Ridge Street have the same gutter issues. Mark Vaughn stated that their house is the only house that has a gutter in front of the driveway. Sandra Tripp asked if they considered the suggested location for the steps at the corner from Ridge Street. Mark Vaughn stated that his preference is to have the shortest set of stairs from his sidewalk down to the Right-of-Way. Chairman Church solicited additional comments from the public. There were no other public comments. Motion was made to adjourn the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Tripp Vote 6-0 Motion was made to continue the public hearing to the October meeting. Moved: Church Seconded: Lis 3. Approval of minuties - May 19, 2021 Motion was made to approve the May 19, 2021 minutes. Moved: Church Seconded: Lis 18 (ZBA 9/15/2021) �Timothy Church, Chairman- yes Gorete Crowe - yes Sandra Tripp - yes Craig Lis - yes Thomas Chang - yes Margaret Rubick - yes Vote: 6-0 APPROVED Motion was made to adjourn the meeting at 11:05 pm. Moved: Church Seconded: Lis Vote 6-0 Respectfully Submitted, Pamela Kroll Secretary to the Zoning Board of Appeals 19 (ZBA 9/15/2021) �EXHIBIT #1 RECEIVED SEP 1 4 2021 September 13, 2021 Dear Chair Church and Village ol Sleepy Hollow Board Members, BUILDING DEPT. VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW I am writing in regard to the certified letter residents received about the Public Hearing to take place on Wednesday, September 15. 2021. about the properties at 120 Gory Brook Rd. and 1 Ridge St. 1 live at 37 Gory Brook Rd. I am currently writing in two capacities: 1) as a neighbor who has been negatively affected by the mailbox placement of 1 Ridge St. for the past year, and 2) as a professor who studies language and law reading "the spirit'' of our Village code. First, over the past year with the placement of the 1 Ridge St. mailbox on the driveway of 120 Gory Brook Rd., I have had an overwhelming number of lost delivery drivers outside of my home. This impacts me both in term of noise (especially since I've been teaching at home) and fumes from the vehicles while idling (especially while windows are open during the warmer months). Specifically, my house sits across the street from where the OCA crosses Gory Brook Rd. and at the base of Ridge St. When people come up to the dead ends of either Gory Brook Rd. or Ridge St., they turn around in front of my home. This is generally not an issue since they continue moving down Gory Brook Rd. However, since the mailbox of 1 Ridge St. was placed on the driveway of 120 Gory Brook Rd.. I have had numerous delivery vehicles come up Gory Brook, turn around on Ridge/Gory Brook, and then let their delivery vehicles idle in front of my home while they try to figure out where 120 Gory Brook Rd. is. The most recent occurrence actually happened on the day I receive the certified letter about this hearing. In that instance, a UPS driver drove up and down Gory Brook and Ridge several times, turned around, and idled in front of my home for approximately 10 minutes. After I finished the work meeting I was in, I went outside to inquire if he needed directions. "Yes. 120 Gory Brook Rd.?" Even after I pointed him in the right direction, he questioned me. asking if that was correct given the prominent placement of the 1 Ridge St. address on the first mailbox. This is not the first time I've had to confirm that 'yes, indeed, that is 120 Gory Brook Rd.' (And the most frustrating times are when the drivers see me working from home and actually ring my bell - oftentimes during class or meetings - to ask for directions to 120 Gory Brook Rd.) These frequent requests for directions did not happen prior to the placement of the I Ridge St. mailbox on the driveway of 120 Gory Brook Rd. Given where I live, 1 am used to giving directions to hikers who have come off the OCA trail across from my home and are looking for the next connecting point. That is understandable and quiet (and not part of the Village's responsibility). The idling trucks, the ringing doorbell, and the lost delivery drivers (let alone the potentially lost emergency vehicles) are the Village's responsibility, and the issue is easy to solve. Please support that any signage related to 1 Ridge St. (including the mailbox) be relocated to Ridge St. and not remain on Gory Brook Rd. Second, I purchased my home on Gory Brook Rd. in 2013 and it needed a complete renovation in order to qualify for a C/O. 1 have worked extensively (and continue to do so) with the Building Department. Since 2013,1 have had continual positive interactions with all members of �that department. I believe a large part of our successful interactions stem from the fact that we adhere to the Village code - and the "spirit" of the Village code, as it specifically states. In that respect, I'd like to point out two aspects of the Village code that address "the spirit" of the current situation. 1) Village code section 151-4 emphasizes that building numbers should comply with a logical sequence, which is based on the number or numbers of properties on either side, and which are located on the same side of the street. This includes numbers attached to a mailbox. While this clause may refer to the assignment of building numbers, within "the spirit of these regulations," this must also logically refer to the placement of such assigned numbers. Surely placing numbers out of a logical sequence and on two different roads does not adhere to the spirit of our code. 2) Village code section 151-2 addresses the placement of building numbers which face "two or more public roadways." In the case of 1 Ridge St., the driveway faces Ridge St. and the home does have an address marker attached to their home appropriately facing that road. The double placement of their address on the driveway of 120 Gory Brook Rd., which is not a public roadway, is therefore unnecessary and misleading. As noted above, this causes great confusion for delivery (and possibly emergency) vehicles who need to find the driveway for 120 Gory Brook Rd. (and possibly others on Ridge St. if vehicles continue up the 120 Gory Brook Rd. driveway instead of driving up Ridge St.) In "the spirit" of the code, it is therefore clear that the placement of the 1 Ridge St. mailbox should be moved to Ridge St. for the benefit of all neighbors, service vehicles, and, especially, emergency vehicles. I greatly appreciate your time and attention. Please feel free to reach out if you have further questions. I greatly enjoy living in this Village and hope to support a peaceful co-existence with all neighbors. Best, Tammy Gales 37 Gory Brook Rd. Sleepy Hollow, NY 10591 � 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-2021 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_2021-09-15_Approved Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2021 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2021 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