https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/8ae79d22018fb1aa8ed744229ad7f3da.pdf 5668738591f9c10bb369bfd1f7283cb3 PDF Text Text Village of Sleepy Hollow Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting December 15, 2021 Chairman Timothy Church called the meeting to order at 7:05 pm. Present: Timothy Church, Chairman Gorete Crowe Thomas Chang Margaret Rubick Craig Lis Also Present: Sean McCarthy, Village Architect Pamela Kroll, Secretary to the Zoning Board Absent: Sandra Tripp Agenda: 1) Michael Gelb and Deborah Domanski, 120 Gorey Brook Road, Determination/AppealContinued public hearing 2) Jeffrey and Morgan Moriarty, 21 Kingsland Road, Proposed fencing and detached storage shed- Public hearing 3) 14 Clinton LLC, 14 Clinton Street, Proposed two-family residence- Public hearing 4) Lighthouse Landing Communities, LLC, Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development, Legend Drive, Phase III, Block O/P, Proposed townhome development- Request for height variance 5) Approval of minutes - September 15, 2021, October 20, 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 January 19, 2022 meeting. Motion was made to adjourn the public hearing to the January 19, 2022 meeting. Moved: Church Seconded: Rubick Vote 5-0 2. Jeffrey and Morgan Moriarty, 21 Kingsland Road, Proposed fencing and detached storage shed - Public hearing 1 (ZBA 12/15/2021) �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. Chairman Church invited the applicant to present the application. Morgan Moriarty and John Moriarty are the owners of 21 Kingsland Road. Mrs. Moriarty stated on their behalf that they are seeking to put up a 5-foot high fence around the perimeter of their property. Mrs. Moriarty stated that the house is on the corner of Kingsland Road and Lakeview Avenue. The area of the requested variance is for the side of the house that is on Lakeview Avenue. Mrs. Moriarty stated they have spoken to their neighbors at 2 Lakeview Avenue and that they are in full support of the application for a 5-foot high fence. Mrs. Moriarty stated that they are proposing to install the fencing closer to the property line so that it will follow the path of the existing stone retaining wall. Mrs. Moriarty stated that they are also seeking a variance to install a storage shed on the other side of the property. They have spoken with their neighbors at 10 Evergreen Way and the owners have no objections to the shed being closer to the property line. Chairman Church requested that Mrs. Moriarty provide an explanation of why they wish to install 5-foot high fencing in the areas where a maximum of 3-feet in height is permitted. Mrs. Moriarty stated that one of their dogs is a greyhound and can easily scale a 3-foot high fence. There are areas of the retaining wall where someone can easily climb over the top of the wall with a 3-foot fence, and that a higher fence would be safer. Chairman Church asked Mrs. Moriarty to confirm that the proposed fencing would be on the grass portion of the property, if they own the property beyond the stone wall, if the proposed 5foot high fencing will border Lakeview Avenue, and do they intend to create a closed-in area with a gate. Mrs. Moriarty confirmed that the proposed fencing would be on the grass portion of the property, and that the proposed 5-foot high fencing would border Lakeview Avenue. Mrs. Moriarty stated that they intend to create a closed-in area in the rear yard to allow the dog to be out and for the yard to be safer for their daughter. Chairman Church suggested putting a 3-foot fence on the opposite side of the stone wall so that the fence is above the wall to eliminate the ability to climb the wall and get over the fence. Mrs. Moriarty stated that they propose to install the fencing around the perimeter in front of the top of the wall and that there are portions of the property that are sloped and where the retaining wall is lower than 3-feet from the ground; so if they run the fence along the perimeter, in front of the wall, the dog would still be able to scale it. 2 (ZBA 12/15/2021) �Craig Lis asked to Mrs. Moriarty to confirm that the wall will be within the proposed fenced area. Mrs. Moriarty stated that the proposed fencing will be within the wall area. Margaret Rubick asked Mrs. Moriarty to explain where the shed is proposed. Mrs. Moriarty stated that if you are standing on Kingsland Road, the shed is proposed on the right hand side portion of their side yard next to the garage. Chairman Church requested that Mrs. Moriarty describe where the proposed 5-foot high fence will run along the sloped incline above the wall. Mrs. Moriarty stated that the part of the proposed fence that will face Kingsland Road will be 23feet back from the property line. The portion of the fencing that requires the variance is the portion on Kingsland Road, and a 25-foot section along their side yard that borders 3 Lakeview Drive. Chairman Church requested that Sean McCarthy confirm if the part of the proposed fencing that requires a variance begins where it contacts the house. Sean McCarthy stated that the length of the proposed fence on the Lakeview Avenue side, from the property line in, where the red line on the drawing is going perpendicular with the house and 25-feet in would require a variance as well as the portion of the fence that is located at the wall wrapping around at a 25-feet distance from the property line. Mr. McCarthy stated that the distance from the property line on the side to the corner of the house is 40.2-feet. Thomas Chang asked Mrs. Moriarty to describe the distance between the proposed fence and the wall. Mrs. Moriarty stated that there is approximately 1-foot between the proposed fencing and the wall and that their intention is to add landscaping in between. Thomas Chang asked Sean McCarthy to confirm if the applicants installed the fence 25-feet in from Lakeview Avenue and cut across to meet the other side of the fence, it would not require a variance. Mr. McCarthy stated that if the 5-foot fence was installed, set back 25-feet in from Lakeview Drive, it would not require a variance. Mrs. Moriarty stated that the wall is 4-feet high with steps and that is they would like to enclose the wall with the 5-foot high fencing so that they are not able to step over the wall and over a 3foot high fence. Thomas Chang asked Mrs. Moriarty why a variance is required for the proposed shed location. 3 (ZBA 12/15/2021) �Mrs. Moriarty stated that they do not have enough side yard distance from the property line and distance from their house. Margaret Rubick asked Mrs. Moriarty to confirm if the shed will border the backyard of the neighboring property on Evergreen Way. Mrs. Moriarty stated that there is landscaping between her property and the neighboring property on Evergreen Way. The proposed shed would be seen from the neighboring properties backyard. They have spoken to the owners of the property on Evergreen Way and they have no objections. Chairman Church asked Mrs. Moriarty to explain why the fence is proposed at a 5-foot height at the Lakeview section of the property. Mrs. Moriarty stated that in the areas where it is flat, their dog would be able to scale a 3-foot high fence and that enclosing the wall with 5-foot high fencing will be more consistent and appealing to their neighbors and safer for their family. Chairman Church stated that if they installed a 3-foot high fence along the landscaped portion of the wall, it would follow the same sloped grade of the wall, and suggested that they could install a 3-foot high fence running perpendicular from the house to Lakeview Drive so that it would not be affected by the wall. Chairman Church stated that the Village of Sleepy Zoning Code limits the fence height on street facing portion of homes because it provides for better views for the community and that the Board needs to be careful when considering granting a variance that remains with the property and that may create a precedent for future property owners requesting a variance for a 5-foot high fence. Craig Lis asked Mr. McCarthy where the proposed 5-foot high fencing could be installed along the Lakeview Avenue side to eliminate the need for a variance. Mr. McCarthy stated that if the front yard set-back on Kingsland Road is 29.5-feet and the setback from Lakeview Avenue is 40.2-feet, the applicant is permitted to install the 5-foot high fencing to the corner of the property line. On the Lakeview side, if the applicant went back 25feet, it would allow them 15-feet off the front of the house and the applicant could then run the fencing parallel with the property line on Lakeview Avenue and make the connection without requiring a variance. Chairman Church suggested that the applicant consider installing the 3-foot high fence and an invisible dog fence. Margaret Rubick suggested that adding additional landscape plantings would avoid the need for 5-foot high fencing. 4 (ZBA 12/15/2021) �Gorette Crowe stated that she doesn't understand the need for the 5-foot high fencing where the wall slopes with the property. Chairman Church stated that the fence is permitted to be 5-feet high if installed 25-feet in from Lakeview Avenue and suggested that the applicant could install 3-foot high fencing and then graduate to 5-foot fencing where permitted. 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: Lis Vote 5-0 Chairman Church asked Mrs. Moriarty which neighbor was in support of the application. Mrs. Moriarty stated that the owners of 2 Lakeview Avenue are in support of the application. (See Exhibit #1) Chairman Church stated that he cannot support the request to grant a variance for 5-foot high fencing based on the following criteria: 1. Lakeview Avenue is a public street and the Zoning Law requires that fences are not greater than 3-feet in height in the front yards. The Board requires a good reason to disregard the Zoning Law without creating a precedent for other property owners to request to have 5-foot high fencing. A dog is not a permanent structure and is not a valid reason to grant the variance. 2. Graduating the 3-foot and 5-foot height fencing can be accomplished without effecting the aesthetics of the property and is not a valid reason for granting a variance for 5-foot high fencing in areas where 3-foot high fencing is permitted. 3. The existing wall will slope with the fencing and the wall does not provide a distinguishing factor to grant the requested variance for a 5-foot high fence. Chairman Church stated that the Board looks for an exceptional reason to grant a variance. Margaret Rubick stated that she is concerned about creating a precedent. Chairman Church provided examples of applications that provided exceptional reasons for granting variances, applications that were denied, and applications in which a compromise was made in order to grant a variance for requested fence heights. 5 (ZBA 12/15/2021) �Mrs. Moriarty asked the Board if they would consider granting a variance for a 4-foot high fence. Chairman Church stated that the Board would consider granting a lower height variance depending on the distance proposed from the public road. Craig Lis stated that the regulations were made for a reason and that the Board is there to uphold them and make decisions based on the reasons for the requested variances. Chairman Church suggested that the applicant request an adjournment and come back at the next meeting with additional information or suggested changes to the application. Mrs. Moriarty asked the Board if they would feel more comfortable if they agreed to install a 3foot high fence at the Lakeview portion and then graduate from 4 to 5-feet at the backside of the corner. Chairman Church stated that he would be more comfortable with the proposed changes and that Mrs. Moriarty should detail where they would be requesting the 4 and 5-foot height fencing. Chairman Church stated that he doesn't see a problem with the requested variance for the proposed shed location. Motion was made to adjourn the public hearing to the January 19, 2022 meeting. Moved: Church Seconded: Rubick Vote 5-0 3. 14 Clinton LLC, 14 Clinton Street, Proposed two-family residence, 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 Chairman Church invited the applicant to present the application. James Dibbini is an attorney representing the applicant. Mr. Dibbini stated that the applicant purchased the property in April of 2017. Prior to the fire that destroyed the house, it was a twostory two-family house. The applicant submitted an application to the Building Department and the Planning Board and there have been several meetings in which changes were made to the plans as suggested. Mr. Dibbini stated presented the five points that the Board considers when reviewing an application and stated that 1. There will be no undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood resulting from the requested variances. There will not be any detrimental conditions to the neighborhood resulting from the granting of the area variances. The proposed new two-family house will be an improvement to the neighborhood. The proposed new two-family house will be contained in similar setbacks to the other buildings in the neighborhood. The Board will 6 (ZBA 12/15/2021) �2. 3. 4. 5. not be setting a negative precedent as the proposed new two-family house will have a similar footprint to the original two-family house that was there. The benefits sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by any other means and the applicant has considered all possible options, and has had numerous reviews with the Building Department and the Planning Board. The requested variances are not substantial in context with the entire application and the requirements of the Zoning District. The neighboring properties have similar or less buffer setbacks in between the houses and the front sidewalks. Parking will not be an issue as there is ample parking available on the street. The requested variances will not produce an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood. There will be no significant change to the neighborhood from the prior structure. The application is not a self-hardship as the applicant seeks to construct a two-family house where there was an existing two-family house that will be code compliant and better designed with similar setback of the existing structure. Chairman Church asked Mr. Dibbini to confirm the side yard set-back of the original building, prior to the fire. Mr. Dibbini stated that he is not aware of the side yard set-back of the original house but that it was very similar to what it being proposed now other than the rear is proposed to be pushed back 6-feet further back, which doesn't require a variance. Chairman Church asked Mr. Dibbini to confirm the previous building of the building. Mr. Dibbini stated that the original house was a two-family building. Sean McCarthy stated that the original structure was a single-family residence. Chairman Church requested that Mr. Dibbini provide some of the changes that were incorporated into the application based on the suggestions from the Planning Board and the Building Department. Mr. Dibbini stated that changes were made to the windows and the roof pitch, a rear porch was added, a rear staircase was eliminated, and a landscape plan was developed as requested. The proposed building was also moved further from the neighboring mechanic shop. Chairman Church requested that Mr. Dibbini provide an explanation as to why the applicant is requesting the variance for a 2 foot side yard setback. Mr. Dibbini stated that the lot is narrow and difficult to design for useful space. Chairman Church asked Mr. Dibbini if the proposed setback was reviewed with the Building Department prior to the submission of the application. 7 (ZBA 12/15/2021) �Mr. Dibbini stated that the application was reviewed by the Building Department. Sean McCarthy stated that he suggested that the applicant increase the original proposed side yard setback, which was less than 1 foot. The Building Department did not determine what the requested proposed setback would be. Chairman Church asked Sean McCarthy to confirm if there are other properties that have do not have the required minimum 3 foot side yard setback. Mr. McCarthy stated that there are existing homes that have alleyways. There has not been any new construction that was granted a variance for a similar setback. Most of the structures in the neighborhood are existing non-conforming. Chairman Church asked Sean McCarthy if it is unreasonable for the applicant to lose a foot to the house in order to comply with the 3.00 foot side yard setback. Sean McCarthy stated that there are several lots on Beekman Avenue and in the R-5 Zoning District that are less than 30-feet wide and have houses that are one, two, and three-family homes; so the applicant could afford to lose another foot in the house. The architect could rearrange the space to add another foot. The additional foot would also increase the fire distance between the property line and the structure and provide a benefit to the applicant. Mr. Dibbini stated that there is a parking lot on the side of the applicants' property and it doesn't pose a direct threat for a fire to jump into another house or window; and the neighboring structure is a one-car garage that is set back on the property. Sean McCarthy stated that when the Building Department looks at fire ratings and fire separations, it is based upon the New York State Code which overlaps with the Zoning Ordinance. Fire rating and separation requirements are based on fire approaching the building as well as fire from the inside going to the neighboring property. If you have less than a 3 foot side yard setback, the applicants may be required to change the wall construction type to comply with the stricter requirement of the State Code. Chairman Church asked Sean McCarthy if the neighboring property is permitted to construct a house where the existing parking lot and mechanic shop is located. Sean McCarthy stated that the neighboring property can build as house as it is a permitted use in the C-2 Zoning District. It is currently a non-conforming use and they are permitted to change the use in order develop the property. There was a discussion between the Board and Mr. McCarthy regarding the setback requirements for residential and mixed uses verses commercial uses in the C-2 Zoning District. Mr. Dibbini stated that the applicant has advised him that the proposed width of the house is code compliant and that if the size of rooms it reduced, the building won't comply with the code. 8 (ZBA 12/15/2021) �Mr. McCarthy stated that the room sizes are based on the New York State Code requirements and that the minimum room size for a habitable space is 7 feet wide. Chairman Church asked if the proposed home could extend further into the rear yard. Mr. McCarthy stated that the proposed house could be extended further back in the rear yard as long as it meets the coverage requirements. The proposed application received the benefit of aligning the front of the house with the average setback of the other buildings on the street which allowed the front yard setback not to require a variance. The recent adoption of the Zoning Code amendments also eliminated the parking requirements since the lot is less than 30 feet wide. Chairman Church stated that the letters of opposition that were received from Frank Morabito and the responses that were received from the applicant and representatives were entered into the public record. (See Exhibits #s 2-6) Motion was made to open the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Lis Vote 5-0 Chairman Church solicited comments from the public. Elizabeth Garrity stated that she is at the meeting on behalf of the Moribitos, the owners of the adjoining property, and stated the required combined side yard setback is 12 feet and that the applicant is asking for a total variance of 9 feet. Motion was made to close the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Lis Vote 5-0 Chairman Church asked Mr. Dibbini if he wanted to provide a response to the public comments. Mr. Dibbini stated that the variance they are seeking, as it relates the Moribito property, is for 2 feet. Chairman Church stated that the requested variance to construct a two-family home is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood and will benefit the community. Complying with the full required combined side yard setbacks is not a feasible method for the applicants to construct a home that is a reasonable size in the small lot area. However, there is not a compelling reason to grant the 2 foot side yard variance on the west side of the property due to the New York State Fire Code regulations and the room sizes permitted for habitable space. There is also an opportunity for the applicant to push the house further into the backyard and increase the square footage without a required variance. Chairman Church made a motion to grant the variances for the pre-existing non-conforming conditions of the lot area and lot width and grant a variance for the combined side yard setback with modifications and criteria as follows: 9 (ZBA 12/15/2021) �1. Granting of the area variances to construct a two-family home is in keeping with the character or the neighborhood. The proposed home will enhance the character of the neighborhood and will benefit the community by having a code compliant new structure. 2. The requested variances for the lot area and lot width are not substantial when compared to the other properties in the neighborhood. 3. Requiring the applicant to comply with the total required side yard setbacks would have a permanent adverse effect and impact on the physical aesthetics in the neighborhood. 4. The requested variance for the one side yard setback is not feasible due to the New York State Code regulations. If the neighboring property was developed in the future, there would be access issues. 5. The requested variances are a self-created hardship but the development of the property for the applicants benefit would be difficult without granting the variances for the existing non-conformities of the lot area and width. Motion was made to approve the variances related to the existing non-conformities of the existing lot area and the lot width. Moved: Church Seconded: Liz Timothy Church, Chairman- yes Margaret Rubick - yes Gorete Crowe - yes Thomas Chang - yes Craig Lis- yes Vote 5-0 APPROVED Motion was made to approve the variance for a combined side yard setback of 6 feet and with the condition that the west side yard setback will be 3 feet. Moved: Church Seconded: Rubick Timothy Church, Chairman- yes Margaret Rubick - yes Gorete Crowe - yes Thomas Chang - yes Craig Lis- yes Vote 5-0 APPROVED Motion was made to deny the requested variance for a 2 foot one side yard setback. Moved: Church Seconded: Rubick 10 (ZBA 12/15/2021) �Timothy Church, Chairman- yes Margaret Rubick - yes Gorete Crowe - yes Thomas Chang- yes Craig Lis- yes Vote 5-0 DENIED 4. Lighthouse Landing Communities LLC, Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development, Legend Drive, Phase III, Block O/P, Proposed townhouse development - Request for height variance Chairman Church stated that the applicant has requested adjournment to the January meeting. Motion was made to adjourn the public hearing to the January 19, 2022 meeting. Moved: Church Seconded: Lis Vote 5-0 5. Approve of minutes - September 15, 2021, October 20, 2021 Motion was made to approve the September 15, 2021 and the October 20, 2021 minutes. Moved: Church Seconded: Rubick Timothy Church, Chairman- yes Margaret Rubick - yes Gorete Crowe - yes Thomas Chang -yes Craig Lis - yes Vote 5-0 APPROVED Motion was made to adjourn the meeting at 8:30 pm. Moved: Church Seconded: Crowe Vote 5-0 Respectfully Submitted, Pamela Kroll Secretary to the Zoning Board of Appeals 11 (ZBA 12/15/2021) �Exhibit #1 From: Miles Greaves Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2021 1:34 PM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.org> Cc: Jen Woolf Subject: 21 Kingsland fence Hi Sean, This is Miles Greaves and Jennifer Woolf, from 2 Lakeview Ave (the couple that bought the house with the patio). We're writing in regard to the Moriartys' application to build a 5' fence (they live in 21 Kingsland Road), and want to say that we live across the street from them and have absolutely no problem with their fence proposal. It sounds like it will be a nice addition to the neighborhood and help keep their family safe! Thanks very much, Miles �EXHIBIT #2 REC3HX w i DEC 0 9 2021 BUILDING DEPT. VIUAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW From: ff 177 <ffl77fahotnnail.com> Sent: Thursday, December 9, 2021 6:14 PM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthyfo)sleepyhollownv.ore> Subject: 14 Clinton Street Zoning Board of Appeals Application Village of Sleepy Hollow Mr. Sean McCarthy, RA. Building Inspector 28 Beekman Ave Sleepy Hollow, N Y 10591 Re: Zoning Board of Appeals Application 14 Clinton Street, LLC Proposed Development of Vacant Lot - 14 Clinton St Dear Mr. McCarthy: I have reviewed the proposed plans for construction of a two-family residence at the above-reference property which will require substantial variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals. As stated in my previous letter, I am an adjoining property owner of the proposed development and remain staunchly opposed to granting the requested variances. The applicant is requesting substantial variances to develop a grossly undersized vacant lot with a two-family residence with no on-site parking. Pursuant to N e w York State Town law the zoning board of appeals shall take into consideration the benefit to the applicant weighed against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community by granting the variances. The board shall also consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance. The Board must consider the substantial proposed deviation from the bulk and area requirements with the density and physical aspects of surrounding properties, traffic and parking impacts. The Boards should also consider whether granting the variances will set a negative precedent for allowing development on grossly undersized lots and reduced lot widths. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The applicant has not, according to the plans and documents submitted, provided alternative designs (such as smaller single-family residence) that achieves the benefit the applicant is seeking and eliminates or lessens the need the side lot variances. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. . The C-2 Zoning District requires a minimum 4,000 sq. ft. lot for development. The �property is question is only 2,917 sq. ft., (1,083 sq. ft. less than was is permitted) requiring substantial variance of 72.9% reduction in lot size and, if granted, will permit the creation of a substandard lot. Second, required lot width is 40 ft., however the existing lot is only 25.02 ft., requiring a 6 2 . 5 5 % reduction in width. The requested side yard setback from 3 ft. to 2 ft. while appearing de minimus is actually substantial when viewing it from the lens of overdeveloped Clinton Street. Lastly, the combined side yard setback is 12 ft. however the proposed is 5 ft.,total combined side yard, resulting in a 4 1 . 6 6 % reduction. The percentages calculated above give a quick illustration that all of the requested variances are substantial. 4. W h e t h e r the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The construction of a two-family residence with no on-site parking will have a negative impact to the neighboring properties. The lot, although preexisting, is grossly undersized for the development proposed. Clinton Street is an over-developed street scattered with multi-family apartment houses, one and two-family houses and commercial uses. The variances, if granted will permit construction of a building 3 feet from the lot on the left of the property and 2 on the right. Since there has already been a massive tire at this location that damaged my property, 1 am concerned with the location of the building and its proximity to my property. 5. W h e t h e r the alleged difficulty w a s self-created The applicant knew was aware of the zoning and the deficiencies in the lot prior to attempting to redevelop it and therefore the hardship is indeed self-created. Although self-created hardship alone does not preclude the granting of the variance, I request the Board consider the self-created nature of the variance for its impact on the neighbors. I respectfully request that the Board consider the impact granting these variances would have on the neighboring properties as well as the negative precedent it would be setting. Thank you, Frank Morabito �EXHIBIT #3 From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Attachments: ycolombo casny.net Eugen Thercaj Pamela Kroll; Dena Alto; Sean McCarthy Re: 14 Clinton ZBA Application - Comments Received Friday, December 10, 2021 2:48:09 PM 12-9-21 14 Clinton Street Comments Rec from Frank Morabito.pdf Good afternoon, I am speechless. How can someone that owns the most terrible eyesore along the full length of Clinton Street write a letter like this?. His business is the one that's detrimental for the neighborhood and definitely not the proposed modest new, fully sprinklered, up to code and energy efficient 2 family. Im sure all neighbors would benefit from the development we are proposing as it will bring their property values up. Thank you, Yahaira M Volquez Colombo, RA, AIA, LEED GA Colombo Architectural Studio PC, WMBE Architectural Services - Special Inspection Agency 22 Villa Avenue Yonkers New York 10704 Tel: 347 767 0591 Fax: 646 357 1660 �EXHIBIT #4 From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Attachments: Eugen Thercaj Pamela Kroll Dena Alto; ycolombo casny.net; Sean McCarthy Re: 14 Clinton ZBA Application - Comments Received Friday, December 10, 2021 10:30:10 AM 12-9-21 14 Clinton Street Comments Rec from Frank Morabito.pdf Hi, He is doing all this to buy my land for 50k which will never happen. I will never sell in this life. Very mad because we spoke together and we had an agreement. Thanks On Dec 10, 2021, at 10:05 AM, Pamela Kroll <pkroll@sleepyhollowny.org> wrote: Team, Please see the attached letter received in regards to the Zoning Board Application submitted for 14 Clinton Street. Regards, Pam Pamela Kroll Secretary to Planning & Zoning Boards Village of Sleepy Hollow 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow NY, 10591 914-366-5111 pkroll@sleepyhollowny.org �EXHIBIT #5 From: To: Subject: Date: Sean McCarthy Pamela Kroll FW: Response to letter to the zoning board from Frank morabito Monday, December 13, 2021 8:54:46 AM Sean E. McCarthy, RA Village Architect Village of Sleepy Hollow 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, New York 10591 914-366-5124 From: nygal462 <nygal462@aol.com> Sent: Monday, December 13, 2021 7:37 AM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.org>; Pamela Kroll <pkroll@sleepyhollowny.org>; ycolombo casny.net <ycolombo@casny.net>; Sarah Murray <sarahm@drpilla.com>; Eugen Thercaj <eugenthercaj@hotmail.com> Subject: Response to letter to the zoning board from Frank morabito Dear mr McCarthy zoning board members In response to Mr Morabito's letter I am totally speechless as well as shocked our situation started myself and my partners with Mr Morabito who wanted to buy our property which was and is not for sale we are looking to enhance the neighborhood he is using the board as a tool to intimidate us not allow us to build and to sell it to him our property at $50,000 which will enable him to expand his mechanic shop which is next door I am still in shock that he would go this far everything in his letter is an untruth and another plot to try and obtain our property to expand his mechanic shop we have been working on this for a year and the house is going to be beautiful the mechanic shop utilizes all street parking with the mechanics on the street which if you look at the photos I am providing you will see what actually goes on cars are running polluting the air you also have them changing oil and normal parking spots on Street mechanic shop is dirty they threw food all over we've even had clean up our property several times from the tires that garbage I asked you to take in consideration the facts that are at hand the only thing that is actually negative on Clinton Street would be the mechanic shop which brings a great deal of traffic pollution to the area as well as making the area extremely dirty there are families with children in the area I would like if possible the board members board members and mister McCarthy to meet me at the property to see what a day is like by the mechanic shop thank you Dena Alto Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device ��V mi v< w �t �vV v m it 0 �EXHIBIT #6 RECEIVED DEC 1 5 2021 BUILDING DEPT. VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW From: ff 177 <ffl77@hotmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2021 1:59 PM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.org> Subject: Response to comments from 14 Clinton Street LLC Dear Mr. McCarthy: I have read the comments posted on Sleepy Hollow's ZBA webpage from the owner and architect of 14 Clinton Street regarding my objections to the proposed development and find it necessary to refute the allegations therein. First, 1 have not offered to purchase the lot for $50,000 or any other amount, rather this developer, on multiple occasions, has requested to purchase my property. Second, my objections are based on the substantial variances requested, the negative precedent the granting of the variances would create and the overall scope of the project. I do not object to the development of the property by the applicants, rather my objection is only to the overall scope of the proposal. I am certain their architect can prepare plans that will reduce the size of the building, thereby achieving the goal of the applicant and lessening the impact. Finally, as property owner I have a vested right and duty to object to any applications that I believe will have a negative impact to the area and my property directly. Thank you, Frank Morabito � 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_2021-12-15_Approved-ZBA-Minutes 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