https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/ca450dc1517dcbbe375fb23a3b603da8.pdf 7bbd04e40125f27629151a73da6a2648 PDF Text Text Village of Sleepy Hollow Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting October 20, 2021 Chairman Timothy Church called the meeting to order at 8:00 pm. Present: Timothy Church, Chairman Gorete Crowe Sandra Tripp Thomas Chang Margaret Rubick Also Present: Sean McCarthy, Village Architect Pamela Kroll, Secretary to the Zoning Board Absent: Craig Lis Agenda: 1) Michael Gelb and Deborah Domanski, 120 Gorey Brook Road, Determination/AppealContinued public hearing 2) Larry Welch and Nana Lamouse-Welch, 67 Sleepy Hollow Road, Proposed exterior stair and fencing- Public hearing 3) Approval of minutes - September 15, 2021 1. Michael Gelb and Deborah Domanski, 120 Gorey Brook Road, Determination/AppealContinued Public hearing Chairman Church stated that the applicants have requested an adjournment to the November meeting. Motion was made to adjourn the public hearing to the November 17, 2021 meeting. Moved: Church Seconded: Tripp Vote 5-0 2. Larry Welch and Nana Lamouse-Welch, 67 Sleepy Hollow Road, Proposed exterior stair and fencing - Public hearing Chairman Church read the public notice and listed the documents submitted with the application. Chairman Church asked Sean McCarthy if all of the mailing receipts have been received. Sean McCarthy stated that all of the mailing receipts have been received. 1 (ZBA 10/20/2021) �Chairman Church invited the applicant to present the application. Christina Griffin is the architect representing the applicants. Ms. Griffin presented the property survey and stated that the side yard is existing non-conforming. The application proposes to construct an exterior stair in the side yard that will allow the applicants to gain access from the front yard to the rear yard of the house. Ms. Griffin presented the site plan and stated that the applicants are planning improvements to the rear patio and wish to include the addition of the new staircase on the left side of the house. The existing side yard set-back is 5.84 feet and the staircase is proposed to be constructed within the set-back and be 2.5 feet from the property line, along the side of house where the existing retaining wall is located. There is an existing terrace, within the setback, that extends to the property line. Chairman Church requested that Christina Griffin demonstrate where the existing terrace is located on the site plan. Christina Griffin presented photographs and elevation drawings and indicated where the exiting terrace is on the site plan. Christina Griffin stated that the application also proposes to extend the 4-foot high fencing on the top of the retaining wall to align with the existing fence and provide safety from the steep drop of the property. The proposed staircase is proposed to go from the rear patio to the upper grade and provide access from the existing terrace up to the top of the retaining wall. Chairman Church requested that Christine Griffin describe what currently exists. Christina Griffin presented photographs of the existing conditions and stated that there is a railing at the top of the retaining wall. The proposed stair would provide access from the rear patio to the front of the house. Chairman Church requested that Christina Griffin confirm that the neighbors on the south side own the retaining wall and that there is currently is no access from the front yard to the rear yard. Christina Griffin stated that the retaining wall is owned by the neighboring property and that the applicants propose to remove the railing and install the staircase. Chairman Church requested that Christina Griffin present an elevation drawing that shows the proposed staircase from the south side and asked what will be viewed by the neighboring property. Christina Griffin stated that the neighboring property, to the left, also has a staircase against the house and that the stairs stop where the retaining wall begins. Gorete Crowe asked if the neighboring property has a patio on the top of the retaining wall. Christina Griffin stated that she is not certain if there is anything beyond the retaining wall on the neighboring property. 2 (ZBA 10/20/2021) �Sandra Tripp requested that Christina Griffin confirm if the only the current access to the rear yard is from the street. Margaret Rubick requested that Christina Griffin present the current accessibility to the rear yard from the front of the house. Christina Griffin presented photographs to show that because of the steep slope of the front yard, the only way to access the rear yard is to go from the inside of the house or around on the street and driveway. Chairman Church asked if there has been any feedback received from the neighboring property owners and if the house is occupied. Christina Griffin stated that she hasn't received any comments from the neighboring property owner and she can't confirm if the house is currently occupied. Chairman Church stated that the stairs are a reasonable request and solicited comments from the Board. There were no comments from the Board. Chairman Church requested that Christina Griffin describe the proposed fencing. Christina Griffin stated that there is an existing piece of 4-foot high fencing at the top of the retaining wall to the left of the garage, and that the applicants are requesting to extend the 4-foot high fence by 9 feet, at 90 degrees, along the top of the retaining wall to provide safety from falling over the corner of the stone wall. Chairman Church asked Sean McCarthy if the existing 4-foot high fence is permitted on the property. Sean McCarthy stated that the existing fencing is within the front yard setback of the corner lot and should have also been 3 feet in height. Chairman Church stated that the requested variance should include the existing fence and the proposed additional 9 feet of 4-foot high fencing. Christina Griffin stated that the existing fencing is in good shape and that is the reason why they are proposing to extend it. Chairman Church asked Christina Griffin how high the drop is from the existing fence to the driveway. Christina Griffin estimated that there is a 7-foot drop from the existing fence to the driveway. 3 (ZBA 10/20/2021) �Chairman Church asked Christina Griffin if she believes that a 3-foot high fence would not be sufficient for safety reasons in that corner. Christina Griffin stated that in cases where there is a drop, it would probably be safer to have a 5foot high fence. Margaret Rubick questioned how long the existing fence has been on the property. Christina Griffin stated that the fence was installed prior to the applicants purchasing the house. Thomas Chang asked Christina Griffin to describe what is behind the retaining wall. Christina Griffin stated that the street is behind the retaining wall. 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 public comments. Motion was made to close the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Rubick Vote 5-0 Chairman Church stated that the requested variance to construct the exterior staircase is a reasonable request because although it will extend into the buffer zone, it will not increase the view into the neighboring property and the neighboring property has a similar staircase. The existence of the neighboring staircase indicates how desirable it is for the applicants. The proposed stair will not increase the height of the home or create an eyesore. Motion was made by Chairman Church to approve the requested variance for the exterior stair based on the following criteria: 1. Granting of the area variance will not be detrimental to the character of the neighborhood or the neighboring properties as the neighboring property has a similar staircase. 2. Granting of the area variances is the only feasible method to achieve the benefits sought by the applicants to access the rear yard from the front of the house and prevent using the street. 3. The requested variance is not substantial when compared to the other structures that are within the side yard setbacks. 4 (ZBA 10/20/2021) �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. The requested variance is a self-created hardship but it is difficult to access the property's rear yard without the proposed exterior stair. Motion was made to approve the variance for the exterior staircase as requested. Moved: Church Seconded: Rubick Timothy Church, Chairman- yes Margaret Rubick - yes Gorete Crowe - yes Sandra Tripp - yes Thomas Chang - yes Vote 5-0 APPROVED Chairman Church stated that in regards to the proposed fencing, the Villages' 3-foot fence height requirement for front yards and corner lots is a benefit to the community because it allows views across properties and is safer for cars. In this case, the existing 4-foot high fence is not blocking anyone's view because it is on top of the driveway and above a 6 to 7-foot drop. The proposed 9foot fence extension will be abutting a sloped street that already prevents views of the front yard. The requested 9-foot extension of the fencing is reasonable but does not justify the addition of a 4-foot high fence in other areas of the property. Chairman Church solicited comments from the Board. Sandra Tripp stated that she is concerned about setting a precedent with the approval of variance for 4-foot high fence and questioned if the transparency of the material can be incorporated into the criteria of the approval. Sean McCarthy stated that the Board could impose a condition of approval stating that the material design is to remain similar to the existing fencing if the applicant chooses to replace it in the future. Motion was made by Chairman Church to approve the requested variance for the proposed 4-foot high fencing based on the following criteria: 1. Granting of the area variance will not be detrimental to the character of the neighborhood or the neighboring properties as the existing fence and the proposed 9foot extension of the 4-foot high fencing will not block views to the neighboring properties due to its height and location on the property. 2. Granting of the area variance is the feasible method to achieve the benefits sought by the applicants because they propose to continue the same style of transparent fencing and only extend it by 9 feet. 5 (ZBA 10/20/2021) �3. The requested variance is not substantial from 3 feet in height to 4 feet in height when installing the same style fence. 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. The requested variance is a self-created hardship but it is not the only factor that Board considers when reviewing an application. Granting of the area variance will include the following condition: 1. Approval is granted to install the requested 9-foot extension of 4-foot high fencing of transparent material, similar to the existing fence. Any material change would be required to come back to the Zoning Board of Appeals for approval. Motion was made to approve the variance for the existing 4-foot fence and the installation of 9 feet of 4-foot high fencing as requested. Moved: Church Seconded: Tripp Timothy Church, Chairman- yes Margaret Rubick - yes Gorete Crowe - yes Sandra Tripp - yes Thomas Chang - yes Vote 5-0 APPROVED 3. Approve of minutes - September 15, 2021 Motion was made to table the September 15, 2021 minutes to the November 17, 2021 meeting. Moved: Church Seconded: Crowe Motion was made to adjourn the meeting at 8:35 pm. Moved: Church Seconded: Crowe Vote 5-0 Respectfully Submitted, Pamela Kroll Secretary to the Zoning Board of Appeals 6 (ZBA 10/20/2021) � 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_2021-10-20_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