https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/1e18ce1b81726ef80bbe2e88841de153.pdf eb7308b04e87c64f78c9b12b834808d0 PDF Text Text Village of Sleepy Hollow Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting July 20, 2022 Chairman Timothy Church called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. Present: Timothy Church, Chairman Gorete Crowe Sandra Tripp Thomas Chang Craig Lis Margaret Rubick Also Present: Sean McCarthy, Village Architect Absent: Pamela Kroll, Secretary to the Zoning Board Agenda: 1) Maria Martins, 11 Kendall Avenue, Appeal and Interpretation of the Building Inspectors determination that the proposed application for the development at 135 Beekman Avenue complies with the Zoning Code- Public hearing 2) Filipe and Jose Ribeiro, 20 Continental Street, Proposed addition and alterationContinued public hearing 3) Hudson Pines LLC, 180 Bedford Road, Proposed exterior stair and catwalk- Public hearing 4) Pia Salk and Peter Neidell, 130 Palmer Avenue, Storage of recreational vehicle- Public hearing 5) Landrock LLC, 231 Webber Avenue, Proposed entrance gates, walls, piers, fencingPublic hearing 6) Approval of minutes, May 18, 2022 1. Maria Martins, 11 Kendall Avenue, Appeal and Interpretation of the Building Inspectors determination that the proposed application for the development at 135 Beekman Avenue complies with the Zoning Code- Public hearing Chairman Church stated that the Planning Board and the Board of Trustees are reviewing the Zoning Code. The applicant has requested an adjournment until the September 21, 2022 meeting. Motion was made to adjourn the public hearing to the September 21, 2002 meeting. Moved: Church Seconded: Lis 1 Vote 6-0 (ZBA 7/20/2022) �2. Filipe and Jose Ribeiro, 20 Continental Street, Proposed addition and alterations- Public Hearing Chairman Church stated that the Board received the revised drawings submitted at the last meeting and the additional drawings dated May 23, 2022. Chairman Church invited the architect to present the recent materials. Jorge B. Hernandez is the architect representing the applicants. Mr. Hernandez stated that revisions include removing the bollard in the driveway to provide two parking spaces, and moving the garbage containers to the driveway side of the property. Chairman Church asked Mr. Hernandez if moving the garbage containers would affect the parking. Mr. Hernandez stated that the parking in the driveway would not affect the parking. Mr. Hernandez stated that they have eliminated the window wells near the east property line. There are balconies proposed on the rear of the building to step back the bulk of the proposed addition and to provide emergency access from the units. Mr. Hernandez presented comparison elevation drawings to show the changes from the original application. Mr. Hernandez presented the solar study to show the shade implications to the neighboring homes during the day at different times of the year. Chairman Church asked Mr. Hernandez to confirm how many parking spaces require a variance. Mr. Hernandez stated that the proposed application requires (8) parking spaces, there will be (2) existing parking spaces on site: so they are requesting a variance for (6) parking spaces. Gorete Crowe asked if fire escape stairs are proposed. Mr. Hernandez stated that fire exit stairs are no longer required by Code. Sean McCarthy stated that since the building will have a full fire sprinkler system, it reduces the requirement for two fire exits from each floor. Chairman Church asked Sean McCarthy if any of the variance request calculations change due to the revised application. Sean McCarthy stated that the revised submission would not affect the proposed building coverage. Although the proposed addition changes the bulk of the building, the coverage does not change because the footprint of the ground floor will remain the same size. The required number of parking spaces increases by (2) because the proposed addition creates an additional bedroom. Chairman Church solicited comments from the Board. 2 (ZBA 7/20/2022) �There were no comments from the Board. Motion was made to open the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Lis Vote 6-0 Chairman Church solicited comments from the public. Cheryl Cappello is the owner of 18 Continental Street and stated that she lives next door to the building. Ms. Cappello stated that the post was removed but that only (1) car is being parked in the driveway, and the garbage cans are still in the back by the shed. Ms. Cappello asked Mr. Hernandez to confirm that there will not be stairs from the porches and if the tenants will be able to put grills on the porches. Ms. Cappello asked Mr. Hernandez to confirm how far the building will extend out before it hits Howard Street, where the egress windows will be located, if the proposed condensers take up more space from the property line, and if a playroom is proposed in the basement. Mr. Hernandez stated there would not be stairs coming down from the porches. There will be (1) egress window on the side of the building, opposite from the driveway. The dimension from the rear of the property to Howard Street is 25 feet. The HVAC unit will take up a few feet in the rear yard. There is a playroom proposed in the basement level. Chairman Church stated that a variance is not required for the rear yard setback. Ms. Cappello stated that she is against the proposed addition. There were no other comments from the public. Motion was made to close the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Lis Vote 6-0 Chairman Church stated that the original application proposed a larger scope of work than the revised plan. Chairman Church made a motion to approve the application based on the following criteria: 1. The applicant restored the (2) existing parking spaces in the driveway and reduced the number of required parking spaces. 2. The installation of a fire sprinkler system in the entire building will increase fire safety for the neighboring properties and eliminate the stair egress from each floor. 3. The proposed rear yard elevations will be stepped back to maximize the sunlight and minimize the shade impacts to the neighboring properties and reduce the bulk of the addition. 3 (ZBA 7/20/2022) �4. The requested variances are not substantial in relation to the existing non-conformities of the existing lot area, lot width, setbacks, and building coverage. 5. The proposed overall improvements will be a benefit to the neighborhood. 6. The requested variances are not a self-created difficulty due to the existing nonconformities of the property. Sandra Tripp asked Chairman Church to read the requested variances. Chairman Church read the requested variances. Sandra Tripp requested an explanation for the building coverage variance. Sean McCarthy stated that the existing detached garage structure is part of the overall building coverage. The application proposes to remove the detached structure, and the proposed addition will replace most of the demolished area. Mr. Hernandez stated that the existing side yard setback is 0.60 feet and the proposed addition complies with the Zoning Code. Craig Lis stated that the revised application addresses some of the concerns expressed to the Board. Motion was made to approve the application. Moved: Church Seconded: Crowe Timothy Church, Chairman - yes Margaret Rubick- yes Craig Lis - yes Gorete Crowe- yes Sandra Tripp- yes Thomas Chang -yes Vote 6-0 APPROVED 3. Hudson Pines LLC, 180 Bedford Road, Proposed exterior stair and catwalk Public hearing Chairman Church read the public notice, listed the documents submitted with the application, and asked Sean McCarthy to confirm that all of the mailing receipts have been received. Sean McCarthy stated that all of the mailing receipts were received. 4 (ZBA 7/20/2022) �Chairman Church invited the applicant to present the application. Kimberly Martelli is the architect representing the applicant. Ms. Martelli stated that the property is a single-family residential site with multiple accessory structures. The Music Room is a single large room with the primary level on grade, a mezzanine level with (2) spiral staircases, and a basement level that houses the utilities and a pantry kitchen. The application proposes to construct a catwalk and exterior stair to allow circulation down to the sloped side of the building and to provide access from the main level down to the basement level kitchen. The applicant will be submitting a Building Permit Application requesting to construct a small catering kitchen on the main level. The use of the Music Room will not change and will remain as a place to showcase art or music events. There are (3) existing powder rooms within the structure. Chairman Church asked Ms. Martelli to describe the main element that requires an encroachment on the front yard setback. Ms. Martelli stated that the proposed catwalk is an accessory structure because it sits above the grade by a full level and falls 100 percent into the front yard setback. The existing Music Room building requires a 75-foot front yard setback and is currently existing non-conforming and 36.70 feet away from Bedford Road. The proposed catwalk would decrease the front yard setback to 32.20 feet. The proposed catwalk, with the railing, is 3.5 feet wide and would measure a little over 4 feet on an angle encroaching into the setback. Ms. Martelli presented photographs of the existing building conditions and described where the proposed catwalk, stair, and railings would be located. Chairman Church solicited comments from the Board. There were no comments from the Board. Motion was made to open the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Tripp Vote 6-0 Chairman Church solicited comments from the public. Michael Rockefeller is the Managing Member of Landrock LLC and stated that he is support of the application to make the space more useable and modern. There were no other public comments. Motion was made to close the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Lis Vote 6-0 Chairman Church made a motion to approve the application based on the following criteria: 5 (ZBA 7/20/2022) �1. Granting of the area variance will not produce an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood because the building is not visible from the road. 2. The requested variance of 4.5 feet into the front yard setback is not substantial because the pre-existing structure encroaches into the front yard setback and the proposed increase of 4.5 feet into the setback is for an open metal structure that would not be an obvious change to the structure, and will not result in making the structure larger. 3. The benefits sought by the applicant to construct a catwalk is a feasible method to provide access to the basement level of the existing building. 4. The requested variance for the front yard setback is self-created but is not the only factor the Board considers when granting a variance. Motion was made to approve the application. Moved: Church Seconded: Rubick Timothy Church, Chairman- yes Margaret Rubick- yes Craig Lis - yes Gorete Crowe- yes Sandra Tripp- yes Thomas Chang- yes Vote 6-0 APPROVED 4. Pia Salk and Peter Neidell, 130 Palmer Avenue, Storage of recreational vehicle-Public hearing Chairman Church read the public notice, listed the documents submitted with the application, and asked Sean McCarthy to confirm that all of the mailing receipts have been received. Sean McCarthy stated that all of the mailing receipts were received. Pia Salk and Peter Neidell are the owners of the property. Ms. Salk presented a photograph of the recreational vehicle and stated that it is a 1976 GMC motorhome. Mr. Neidell stated that the vehicle is 26 feet in length. Ms. Salk stated they are seeking permission to park the motorhome in the driveway yearly from May 1st to November 1st and stated that they would be willing to change the time from June 1st to September 1st. Ms. Salk stated that they are unable to use the RV in a reasonable manner if they are unable to access it in their driveway as they prepare for and return from summer trips. Ms. Salk stated that the requested variance is not substantial because it is for a specific vehicle that fits within their driveway, and because it is for a limited portion of the calendar year. There will not be an adverse impact on the environmental or physical conditions in the neighborhood or district. Ms. Salk stated that the request is self-created as they purchased the vehicle to provide a remedy to the COVID pandemic in order to provide a secure safe way for recreational activities for their family. They do not intend to store the RV in 6 (ZBA 7/20/2022) �their driveway when it is not in regular use, the RV does not require a trailer to move it, and the RV and their cars can be contained in the driveway without the use of street parking. Ms. Salk stated that parking a RV in the driveway during select months for regular use does not constitute the term for storage and that the storage of a boat is different because it is not in the water. The RV would be parked in the driveway and not in their front yard. They do not keep the RV in the driveway when it is not in regular use. Ms. Salk stated that their house sits sideways on their property and that the driveway is on the side of the house. The front yard sits off the street behind the front gate. If the house was front facing, they would be able to store the RV according to the Code. Chairman Church asked Pia Salk to explain why a request to park the RV in the driveway during the summer months should not be subject to the Code regulation, and how it differs from storing a boat in the winter months or keeping it in the driveway during the summer and bringing it to the water to use. Chairman Church asked Ms. Salk where they store the RV during the winter months, where it is currently stored, and if they have researched other options for storing the RV in other areas of the Village. Chairman Church asked Ms. Salk if she has considered how the neighborhood would be impacted if recreational vehicles were permitted to be stored in the front yards of homes. Chairman Church asked Ms. Salk how many vehicles they have and if they are able to park the cars in the driveway when the RV is in the driveway. Chairman Church asked Ms. Salk if there is any availability in the side yard. Pia Salk stated that the term storage implies to something that is not moving regularly and when a boat is stored during the winter, it is not used. The RV is currently stored at a friend’s house and that they will make other storage arrangements for the winter months. Ms. Salk stated that she would not want to see large RV’s stored on neighboring properties and that the vehicle they have is small, fits in the driveway that is screened with trees. Their property does not allow for other options. Ms. Salk stated that they have (2) other vehicles and that they can fit the cars and the RV in the driveway. There is not availability in the side yard. Chairman Church solicited comments from the Board. Gorete Crowe asked Ms. Salk if she was aware of the Zoning regulations when they purchased the RV. Ms. Salk stated that they thought they could park the RV in the driveway because the vehicle is self-propelled, does not need a trailer, and could fit in their driveway. Gorete Crowe stated that the Board has to consider that if they grant the request, others would expect to request similar approvals. Sandra Tripp stated that she is unclear on the interpretation of the Code as it relates to driveways and front yards and asked Sean McCarthy if there are as-of-right locations where an RV could be stored on the property that complies with the Zoning Code. 7 (ZBA 7/20/2022) �Sean McCarthy stated that the storage of an RV is permitted if it stored beyond the front yard setback. Mr. McCarthy stated that the restriction with the applicant’s property is that their existing fence prohibits the ability to extend the driveway back further to comply and be within the setback. Thomas Chang stated that consideration should be consistent when looking at the Code ordinance for setbacks as they relate to boats, RV’s and commercial work vehicles. Sean McCarthy stated that the Building Department is not a patrolling agency. This application arose because of a complaint received in which the violation was visible from the street. Margaret Rubick stated that the Board is not an enforcement agency. Her concern relates to creating a precedent, and the Board received a letter from a resident who is unhappy about this application. Sean McCarthy stated that the words “storage” and “parking” get used interchangeably and quoted the general restrictions of the Code, which reads that “It should be unlawful for any person to park any of the following defined recreational vehicles on any residential property or street in the Village except as provided” There was a discussion with the Board, the applicants, and Sean McCarthy regarding the property conditions, if the driveway could be altered to comply with the setback requirements, if the side yard could be utilized, and what the required front yard setback is in that neighborhood. The Board suggested locations where the applicants could pay for storage of the RV. Motion was made to open the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Crowe Vote 6-0 Chairman Church solicited comments from the public. Michael Doorley is the owner of 128 Palmer Avenue and stated that he owns the house that is adjacent to the applicant. Mr. Doorley requested that the Board not make a decision until they have read the document that he submitted (See Exhibit #1). Mr. Doorley stated that the owner did not provide a picture that shows all (3) of their vehicles in the driveway at the same time. Mr. Doorley submitted a photograph to the Board to show that the car sticks out onto the sidewalk when both cars are stacked in the driveway (See Exhibit #2). Mr. Doorley described some of the reasons for his objection that were included in the letter he submitted to the Board. Public comment letters were received from the owners of 216 Palmer Avenue (See Exhibit #3) and 126 Palmer Avenue (See Exhibit #4). There were no other public comments. Motion was made to close the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Rubick 8 Vote 6-0 (ZBA 7/20/2022) �Chairman Church invited the applicants to speak in response to Mr. Doorley’s comments. Pia Salk stated that their application is true and that Mr. Doorley did not provide any documentation to support his comments related to safety issues, realtors, and the driveway size. Ms. Salk stated that the dates Mr. Doorley provided for times that they were away are incorrect. Ms. Salk stated that altering their property is not feasible and not related to cost. They do not intend to use the RV as an extension of their home. Chairman Church stated that granting a variance is an exception to the Code regardless of any requested length of time. Creating a precedent or creating rules around the term regular use of a vehicle would require enforcement by the Village Building Department and they do not have the resources to regulate a conditional variance. Chairman Church made a motion to deny the application based on the following criteria: 1. Granting of the requested variance would create an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by obtaining vehicle storage locally or in other neighboring communities. 3. The requested variance would not create an adverse physical or environmental condition in the neighborhood or district. 4. The requested variance is self-created and granting a conditional variance is not enforceable by the Village. Motion was made to deny the application. Moved: Church Seconded: Rubick Timothy Church, Chairman- yes Margaret Rubick- yes Craig Lis - yes Gorete Crowe- yes Sandra Tripp- abstained Thomas Chang- yes Vote 5-0-1 APPROVED 5. Landrock LLC, 231 Webber Avenue, Proposed entrance gates, walls, piers, fencingPublic hearing Chairman Church read the public notice, listed the documents submitted with the application, and asked Sean McCarthy to confirm that all of the mailing receipts have been received. 9 (ZBA 7/20/2022) �Sean McCarthy stated that all of the mailing receipts were received. William Null is a partner with Cuddy & Fedar LLP representing the applicant and stated that there are (2) principle reasons for requesting the proposed variances. If they installed the proposed gates, piers, fences, and walls within the front yard 75-foot setback, the structures would be on the other side of the bridge and not provide effective security methods to prevent people from coming on to the property. The application requests permission to install the structures closer to road that are higher than 3 feet. Donna Maiello is an associate of DTS Provident Design Engineering LLP representing the applicant. Ms. Maiello presented photographs to show existing local structures that are similar to what is proposed. Ms. Maiello presented an illustrative site plan and elevation drawings, and described the size and locations of the proposed structures. William Null stated that the proposed structures are 18 feet from the road. Although the structures are close to the property line, there is a good distance from the road before you get to piers. Ms. Maiello presented the photographs of the existing property conditions and Mr. Null stated that the existing metal gate is 4 plus feet high and that the existing stone wall, along the edge of the driveway, is 3 feet high. Craig Lis asked Ms. Maiello if the existing stone wall will be removed. Ms. Maiello stated that the existing stone wall will remain and will be pushed back to make room for the gates, and then curve up to meet the new stone wall. Mr. Null stated that there are similar walls along the Rockefeller State Park Reserve. Ms. Maiello stated that the existing split rail fences in the park are also 4 feet high. Chairman Church asked Ms. Maiello for the length of the proposed split rail fencing. Ms. Maiello stated that the application proposes 100 feet of the 4-foot split rail fencing. There was a discussion regarding properties that the applicant referenced as having entrance structures of similar character. Mr. Null stated that they submitted a Statement of Principle Points for the review of area variance standards. A 3-foot high fence would not provide enough security to prevent vehicles from entering the private property of (3) house sites on 35 acres. The gates will be operable with security and will be accessible for emergency vehicles. Chairman Church asked Mr. Null where else the 4-foot split rail fence is present on the Rockefeller Estate. 10 (ZBA 7/20/2022) �Mr. Null stated that there are split rail fences along the paths of the Rockefeller Estate. There was a discussion between the Board and the applicant regarding the interpretation of the rendering perspective and the space between the road and the proposed entrance structures. Chairman Church stated that the Board has reviewed several applications for requested fence heights and they have been consistent in saying that the Board of Trustees decided the fence height regulations. The Board’s concern is granting a variance for a self-created hardship that would establish a precedent that invites other applications requesting a similar variance. Chairman Church invited the applicant to explain why the proposed application is unique. Mr. Null stated that the driveway is essentially a private road to (3) homes. Although the front yard is large enough to put a higher fence further back, it would not meet the security requirements. Pedestrians have been using the private property as a public park for years and now the property will be used by (3) individual private homes, so it is necessary to have structures that delineate the property line. Mr. Null stated that the proposed improvements would enhance the character of the neighborhood and will be in keeping with a property that is next to Rockefeller State Park. Chairman Church asked Mr. Null if the applicant would agree that if a variance was granted for the 4-foot fence height, the material for the proposed split rail wood fence material and style would be maintained. Mr. Null stated that the applicant would agree to the condition that the fence material and style would remain as shown in the application. Chairman Church solicited comments from the Board. Sandra Tripp asked Ms. Maiello to confirm the proposed height of the driveway gate. Ms. Maiello stated that the proposed driveway gate will be at a 5-foot maximum height and that it will gradually slope down to 4 feet. Sandra Tripp asked Sean McCarthy if there is any precedent in the Village describing the driveway as a private street verses an individual private driveway. Sean McCarthy stated that the most recent similar situation is located at Bedford Road, right before County House Road, where there is a private shared driveway for (3) homes with similar piers and walls at the entrance. Gorete Crowe stated that the location Sean described does not have a gate and that she does not believe the piers or walls are 6-foot high. Sean McCarthy asked Mr. Null to demonstrate where the 75-foot setback is on the property. 11 (ZBA 7/20/2022) �Mr. Null indicated on the illustrative site plan where the 75-foot setback is on the property and stated that it is past the bridge. Gorete Crowe stated that even if the structures were 3 feet high, it would still discourage the public from entering the property, and that the gate and columns would immediately indicate that it is private property. Mr. Null stated that a 3-foot high gate would not look appropriate in the location. Craig Lis stated that a fenced in yard is very different from an entranceway aesthetically. Sandra Tripp stated that she is concerned about the proposed gate height not being in the setback and asked if the driveway is considered a street or a driveway. Margaret Rubick asked Mr. Null to explain the issue related to the bridge and installing the structures within the setback. Mr. Null stated if the applicant installed the structures within the setback, past the bridge, there are concerns that people would drive down the driveway and not be able to turn around. Margaret Rubick asked Mr. Null if there is a sign that says “Private Drive”. Mr. Null stated that the applicant may install a private drive sign but that he is not sure it would be meaningful to people. Margaret Rubick stated that a split rail fence would also not be a deterrent for those who want to enter private property. Mr. Null stated that the split rail fencing would delineate the private property as separate from the park. Margaret Rubick stated she is also concerned about establishing a precedent given how many applications the Board receives for fence heights. Michael Rockefeller is Managing Partner for Landrock LLC. Mr. Rockefeller stated that this application is truly different. Mr. Rockefeller stated that if the Board looks at the AllTrails internet engine, that keeps track of parks and trails, they would find that the property is listed 60 different times as an area where people are directed to go up to the top of the hill for beautiful views and get access to the State Park trails. Mr. Rockefeller stated that Landrock feels strongly that if there is not a visual deterrent, people are going to continue to enter where the driveway is, causing a safety issue. The public has had access to the property since 1940. Margaret Rubick asked if they expect to have a transition period while people learn it is not open park land. 12 (ZBA 7/20/2022) �Mr. Rockefeller stated that when he purchased the property in 2002, he made the decision to keep the land open to the public even though he was advised to put a chain link fence around the entire property. Mr. Rockefeller stated that when people enjoy something they take it for granted and continue to use it. Chairman Church stated that there is an open concept to the top of the gate so it will not obstruct anyone’s view. Sandra Tripp stated that her issue is not with the design but with creating a precedent. Craig Lis stated that if someone came before the Board stating that 200 people were crossing their back yard, it would also be a reasonable request to grant an exception. Motion was made to open the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Lis Vote 6-0 Chairman Church solicited comments from the public. There were no comments from the public. Motion was made to close the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Crowe Vote 6-0 Chairman Church stated that the property is unique. The propose fence is consistent with farmland fencing and the surrounding land. A substantial portion of the proposed fencing would be recessed in between the road and the property. The applicant is permitted to install a larger fence, within the setback, that may not be in character with the surrounding park fences. Chairman Church made a motion to approve the variance for the 100 feet of 4-foot wooden split rail fence based on the following criteria: 1. Granting of the variance for the wood fence will not create an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood and the neighboring property doesn’t object. 2. The requested variance for a 4-foot fence where a 3-foot fence is permitted is not substantial based on the proposed design. Sean McCarthy asked the applicant if wire attachments are proposed to the wood split rail fencing and if the landscape buffer in front of the walls and pillars will be maintained. Michael Rockefeller stated that they do not plan on adding wire attachments to the wood split rail fencing. 13 (ZBA 7/20/2022) �Mr. Null agreed that a condition of approval could include maintaining the landscape buffer in front of the walls and pillars. Chairman Church stated that granting of the area variance for 100 feet of 4-foot wooden split rail fencing includes the following condition: 1. Any deviation from the fence material in the proposed design is prohibited and will be result in a fine from the Village, and require the applicant to resubmit an application to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Chairman Church made a motion to approve the proposed 5-foot driveway gate, 6-foot piers, 7- foot piers, and 4-foot walls based on the following criteria: 1. Piers are part of the natural features of some of the properties in the Village, do not obstruct views, and are proportional, and aesthetically appropriate. 2. The proposed 5-foot gate will have a sloping concave design from the piers to the middle and have an open element. The gate will enhance the character of the neighborhood by replacing the existing metal gate. 3. The applicant has substantiated the factors for an exception to the Code related to granting area variances and the approval will not establish a precedent for future applications that do not have similar property conditions. Chairman Church stated that granting of the area variances for the 5-foot gates, 6-7foot piers, and 4-foot walls include the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall maintain the landscape buffer in front of the piers and walls. Motion was made to approve the requested variances and conditions. Moved: Church Seconded: Rubick Timothy Church, Chairman- yes Margaret Rubick- yes Craig Lis - yes Gorete Crowe- yes Sandra Tripp- yes Thomas Chang- yes Vote 6-0 APPROVED 6. Approval of minutes- May 18, 2022 Motion was made to approve the May 18, 2022 minutes as amended. Moved: Church Seconded: Crowe 14 (ZBA 7/20/2022) �Timothy Church, Chairman - yes Margaret Rubick- yes Craig Lis - yes Gorete Crowe- yes Sandra Tripp- yes Thomas Chang -yes Vote 6-0 APPROVED Motion was made to adjourn the meeting at 8:58 pm. Moved: Church Seconded: Tripp Vote 6-0 Respectfully Submitted, Pamela Kroll Secretary to the Zoning Board of Appeals 15 (ZBA 7/20/2022) �Exhibit #1 130 Palmer Avenue -ZBA Application Submission Doorley Comments 1 .JUL 2 0 2022 From: To: Cc: Date: Subject: �/'M .. L. Michael Doorley Timothy Church, Chaii;;gn - Sleepy Hollow Zoning Board of Appeals Sean McCarthy July 20, 2022 130 Palmer Avenue-ZBA Application Submission ·co:- ::,:.cL Introduction I am writing in opposition to the above referenced matter. I have owned various properties on Palmer Avenue for over 35 years. And I own 128 Palmer Avenue, the property and house adjacent to 130 Palmer Avenue to the east. It was along my property line where the RV was stored for six months in 2021, in violation of the Village Code (the "Code"). This document comprises an introduction, a summary, a review of the application, and a conclusion. The review of the application is an accurate retelling of specific questions and answers submitted in the Village of Sleepy Hollow ("Village") Zoning Board of Appeals ("Board") Application: Part 2 of 5 ("Application"). I add my comments and point out where I believe the Applicant did not answer the question, or where the answer is deficient, misleading, or untrue. And I explain my objections to the matter under consideration by the Board. I like my neighbors, Pia and Peter, (hereinafter for simplicity, I will refer to them individually or collectively as the "Applicant"), and I like recreation vehicles ("RVs"). I hope the Applicant has many years enjoying their RV consistent with the existing Code but not at my expense or the expense of others. This is an important issue not only for my property, or for Philipse Manor, but potentially for the entire Village. Requests to store or park an RV visible to neighbors or to the street are not unique to our Village. Our neighboring villages of Irvington and Tarrytown, and many municipalities throughout the country, have considered the question of storing RVs. And I believe they overwhelmingly do not permit them. I respect the Applicant's right to an interpretation of the Code. Likewise, I hope the Applicant will respect my right to protect my property value and interest. If the Applicant, Board, or anyone else takes issue with anything I wrote herein, and they can demonstrate to me that I am incorrect, I will stand corrected, apologize, and amend my comments. Y HOLLOW �130 Palmer Avenue - ZBA Application Submission Doorley Comments 2 Summary The following is a summary of some of the points discussed in greater detail in The Application (below). I understand the request for an interpretation of the Code or for an area variance was caused solely by the Applicant's storing of their RV in their front driveway, which is clearly visible to Palmer Avenue. This was caused by the Applicant not verifying with the Village whether storing or parking an RV would be in compliance with the Code before acquiring the RV. Had the Applicant made this simple inqui ry , they could have addressed this issue before being in violation of the Code or needing to request an area variance. This situation can be resolved through feasible means without the granting of an area variance. Although viable alternatives are available, it appears Applicant is seeking a favorable interpretation of the Code, or variance, for their convenience and cost saving while knowingly harming my property value, and likely that of others. And the granting of a favorable decision may create a slippery slope and cause an unnecessary, and undesirable, change in the neighborhood and possibly the village. Irvington, Tarry town, and likely most municipalities throughout the country do not permit the parking or storing of an RV visible to the street. Applicant may already be in violation of Village Code 400-43, if applicable, even before the addition of the RV. And the addition of their RV could be an avoidable obstacle to emergency personnel and apparatus. After a close review of the Application, I state my positions, and support my conclusions, that the answers to various questions in the Application contain deficient, misleading, or untrue statements. I submit that the Application does not provide justification or substantive documentation for the Board to arrive at a favorable interpretation of the Code or for the Board to grant an area vanance. I object to any interpretation of the Code permitting the storing or parking of an RV or the granting of an area variance permitting the storing or parking of an RV inconsistent with the existing Code or visible to neighbors or to the street. �130 Palmer Avenue - ZBA Application Submission Doorley Comments 3 The Application I acknowledge that it is not my role to evaluate the Applicant's responses to the questions (noted in bold typeface) in the Application. That said, after reading the Application and identifying what I believe are deficient, misleading, or untrue statements in certain responses contained therein, I felt, in the interest of fairness, obligated to comment. Question 3. Describe the scope of the project: The Applicant_requests permission to park their RV in their driveway during the summer months, defined by the Applicant as May 1 to November 1 yearly. Since the summer months are June to September, the Applicant either defined the "summer months" incorrectly or the Applicant is requesting two additional months, or 50% more time, for a total of six months, one-half of the calendar year. Question 6. AREA VARIANCE - the Applicant was instructed to explain specifically how it satisfies each of the following criteria and attach any documentation that supports its position. I submit - I believe the Applicant's responses to this question are in part deficient, in part misleading, and in part untrue. And the Applicant did not support their statements, which were mostly opinions, with credible supporting documentation. a. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by granting of the area variance. The Applicant stated that an undesirable change will not be produced in the neighborhood's character. A detriment to nearby properties will not be created, iii) the vintage/antique nature of the RV is in keeping with the neighborhoods sophistication and the value placed upon preservation. We keep the RV in pristine condition, and it fits comfortably in their driveway, shielded by trees. Many neighbors in fact enjoyed the vehicle and have expressed disappointment that it is no longer on our property. Please see attached support letters from a majority of our direct neighbors. I submit i) With respect to the Applicant stating an undesirable change will not be produced in the neighborhood's character or a detriment to nearby properties will not be created the Applicant failed to support its statement with credible independent documentation. For example, the Applicant could have submitted a statement �130 Palmer Avenue - ZBA Application Submission Doorley Comments 4 from independent local, active realtors in the neighborhood, or other authoritative sources. ii) Applicant failed to support its statement that a detriment to nearby properties will not be created with credible independent documentation. In addition, in July of 2021, which was well before Applicant completed and submitted the Application, I told the Applicant, in no uncertain terms, that I object to the parking of the RV, and I wanted to talk to them about it before talking to the Village. I also told the Applicant that I had been recently informed by a local realtor, active in the neighborhood, that the parking of their RV was a detriment to the curb appeal of my property and thus reduced the value of my property. After that conversation, the Applicant has acknowledged to me that I objected to the parking of the RV. Since that conversation I have not changed my position, nor have I ever remotely given the Applicant any reason to believe I have changed my position. In addition, the RV is visible from the front door and every front window of my property. iii) The Applicant stated that the RV is in "pristine condition." I do not see how this statement is relevant. If the Board deems it relevant, the Board might note that the Applicant offered no independent third-party appraisal or other supporting documentation of the RV's physical condition such as from the National Auto Auction Vehicle Condition Grading Scale Association or a similar organization specifically for RVs. From the photo on page 29 of the Application, one can easily see the rusted bumper, faded paint, dulled chrome, and the general wear and tear on this almost 50-year-old RY. In my opinion, it is in significantly less than "pristine condition" which is even more evident when viewed in person. iv) The Applicant stated the RV fits "comfortably' in their driveway. They submitted three photos of the RV in the driveway. The Board may note that the Applicant did not submit one photo showing the RV and Applicant's two passenger cars in the driveway at the same time. I submit, when two cars and the RV (that approximates the size in length and width of two cars) are all parked in the driveway at the same time the word "comfortable" is misleading. The two cars are stacked almost bumper to bumper terminating at or very near the sidewalk and forcing one car to be moved to the street so the other car can enter or exit. If applicable, Village Code Section 400-43-Parking space dimensions-states the following: "A parking space shall be 300 square feet. Each parking space shall include the individual car parking area, and necessary aisle space for parking areas, but does not include space required for exit or entrance from parking area to street." �130 Palmer Avenue -ZBA Application Submission Doorley Comments 5 The code specifically states the word "car" and not "vehicle" or "RV." It is likely the Village was only granting authority to passenger automobiles. The Applicant's blacktop driveway measures approximately 20 feet wide by 27 feet long or 540 square feet. The Applicant parks two cars in the driveway, which in accordance with the Code requires 600 square feet. That leaves no space for an additional car, in accordance with the Code, let alone an RV that is almost the size of two additional cars. If storing the RV is permitted, and this Code section is applicable, then the Applicant would need to double the size of their driveway, possibly to 1,200 square feet. Because the blacktop driveway's size for Applicant's two passenger cars is below the minimum dimensions set forth in the Code, parking the RV in the driveway due to its size and height, for any length of time is a potential obstruction to emergency personnel and their equipment, such as fire, in the case of an emergency. Thus, parking the RV is a potential detriment to the Applicant and their property as well as to me and my property. In addition, I have heard from others outside the Village that it can be a slippery slope - first boats, then RVs, then commercial vehicles in residential driveways. That is not what I would like, and I believe most others would agree. v) The Applicant stated the RV is shielded by trees. However, the Applicant failed to submit documentation supporting this statement. From the photo on page 29, which was taken from a northly viewpoint looking south, one can easily see that this statement is not true. There is no shielding or screening at all; thus, the view of the rear of the RV is unobstructed and fully visible from Palmer Avenue. Although not fully shown from points to the east and to the west, the RV is visible to various extents from a distance. For example, the RV was present on June 28, 2022. I was able to see various lengths of the RV from the northwest side of the street at the intersection of Palmer and Munroe to the northeast side of Palmer and Bellwood and beyond, a distance of almost 500 feet. I also point out that the screening to the east is primarily weed shrubs on my property, that I plan to cut down when I replace and extend the old rotten and falling down fence along the property line. Moreover, the branches of the one tree start approximately IO feet high, thereby providing no screening for the RV. Also of note, the east side of Applicant's blacktop driveway tenninates at the property line. If I remove the shrubs, Applicant will not be able to plant screening without first removing a sufficient section of their blacktop, thereby further reducing the size of their already noncom pliant driveway. �130 Palmer Avenue - ZBA Application Submission vi) Doorley Comments 6 With respect to the "support letters" submitted with the Application, the letters state that the signers are the residents. I believe the letters must state that they are from the owners of the properties whose property value is at risk. Case in point, the letter from 151 Palmer was signed by Ben Dickson. I believe Mr. Dickson is a tenant. According to tax records, the registered owner of the property is a Nanette Aguirren. In addition, these letters are over one year old, and they do not make any representations as to the qualitative and/or financial impact to neighbors and property values. A support letter was received by the Village on July 13. The commenter states that they understand the Applicant: i) needs to store their RV on their property from time to time, during ce11ain times of the year, ii) they have no problem with them keeping the vehicles on their property during these times, iii) since the house sits sideways it doesn't allow Applicant to store the RV in their backyard, and iv) allowing them to keep the vehicle on their property is the neighborly thing to do. I submit, i) the Applicant does not "need" to store their RV on their property and it is not "from time to time." I believe it is merely a cost saving and a convenience for Applicant, and it is likely for half of the year, ii) the house sits sideways - see my comment in 8. INRERPRETATION/APPEAL, iii) the commenter has no problem with them keeping the vehicle on the property. The commenter lives a block away - well outside the 200-foot area designated by the Village as directly impacted, and iv) I counter that the neighborly thing to do is not to request a variance to the Code for your savings and your convenience which will knowingly devalue your neighbor's property value. b. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an area variance; Applicant stated we are unable to make use of the RV in a reasonable manor if we are unable to access it in our own driveway as we prepare for and return from frequent summer trips. I submit: i) The Applicant failed to answer the question. The question asked for some feasible method and not some reasonable method. There's a significant difference between the words feasible and reasonable. The Applicant responded with what the Applicant subjectively felt was reasonable, not what was feasible and could be independently supported through a study or other means. The Applicant could both feasibly and reasonably achieve the benefit of the RV through means other than an area variance. For example, the Applicant could do what many RV owners throughout the country do: store or park the RV at a location zoned for RV storage, then drive the RV to the Applicant's home on the �130 Palmer Avenue - ZBA Application Submission Doorley Comments 7 day ofdeparture for a multi-day trip, prepare the RV, then depart on the trip, and do the reverse on the return trip. Or the Applicant can extend its driveway and make the necessary alterations to store the RV at the back ofthe Applicant's property. The Applicant could plant mature, full screening trees to conceal the RV from neighbors' sightline consistent with the Code. Or the Applicant could build a garage suitable for the RV. These are all feasible. Whether the Applicant will choose to do any ofthese and bear the cost is the Applicant's decision. In addition, the Applicant failed to offer specific reasons or examples as to why they would be unable to use the RV in a reasonable manor. The primary purpose ofan RV is to travel to a location, enjoy the RV at a location zoned for RV use, and return from the destination. Unless, ofcourse, it is intended to be used as an extension to one's home. ii) The Applicant stated taking frequent summer trips but offered no definition of "frequent" or supporting dates or documentation ofthese trips. I believe this statement is misleading. I recall, the RV arrived in early May 2021 and last departed on November 1, 2021. This was approximately 184 days, or six months. Under advice from people I know, who experienced similar issues and warned me ofa potential request for a variance, starting on July 9, 2021, I maintained a contemporaneous record ofthe overnight days the RV left the property and returned, with the exception ofthe evening ofAugust 10 through to August 13, when I was away. The dates in 2021 after July 9, when I observed the RV was gone, with the exception of August 10 through August 13, were as follows: Departed July 19 July 24 Sept. 1 Nov. 1 Returned July 22 July 31 Sept. 3 # of Overni�hts 3 7 2 Therefore, the RV was on a multi-day trip and not in the driveway for 12, possibly 15, days out ofa period of 115 days (or three months and 23 days) from July 9 to November 1. With respect to the dates before July 9, I recall the RV having temporary license plates throughout the month ofMay and being there every day. I believe the Applicant's daughter was in school during the month ofMay and most ofJune, and my recollection is the RV was there most, ifnot all, ofthese months. Ifwe count from May 1, the RV was used for approximately 15 days in a six-month period. Which means it was stored in the driveway for approximately five and one-halfmonths. �130 Palmer Avenue -ZBA Application Submission Doorley Comments 8 If the Applicant believes my dates are incorrect or there were additional multi-day trips in 2021, the Applicant could offer the Board documentation, such as the RV park reservation receipts, or other proof, demonstrating the RV was away overnight. c. Whether the requested area variance is substantial; The Applicant stated the requested variance is not substantial. It is for a very specific vehicle that fits comfortably within the driveway and only for a portion of the calendar year. I submit - The Applicant did not provide any independent third-party documentation supporting their position that the variance is not substantial. The Applicant only offered its opinion. I believe, as do others, that a favorable interpretation for the Applicant or approval of this variance would have a substantial adverse impact on the character of the neighborhood, curb appeal of my property and home value, and likely that of others, and potentially may be used as a precedent for future applications, as supported by a realtor's comments. d. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; The Applicant stated it will not have an adverse impact on the environment or physical conditions. Pease again refer to neighborhood support letters. I submit - The Applicant failed to offer any credible, independent third-party documentation as to whether the proposed variance would have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental condition of the neighborhood or district. e. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created; The Applicant stated we originally purchased the RV as a remedy to the CO YID pandemic in order to secure a safe summer of recreation activities for our daughter. We have greatly enjoyed it and are hopeful that we can continue to do so in the upcoming summer. I submit - The Applicant failed to answer the question by not stating whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. I believe it was self-created. From a conversation I had with the Applicant in July 2021, I learned they were unaware of the Village Code before acquiring the RY. Thus, I submit this alleged difficulty was self-created by the Applicant. Should the Board determine �130 Palmer Avenue -ZBA Application Submission Doorley Comments 9 where the RV is parked in regard to the COVID-19 pandemic, I submit that most people's reactions to the pandemic with respect to mask wearing and social distancing in the summer of2021 are dramatically different now, especially after the availability of multiple vaccines. Even then, the RV can be as well protected in a secure off premise parking facility. f. State any additional information that you believe would be helpful to the Board in making a determination; The Applicant stated that it would seem reasonable to think my family and I should be able to park our vehicle in our own driveway between frequent trips - especially during the summer months. We do not intend to 'store' it in our driveway when it is not in regular use. Parking an RV such as ours in distinctly different from 'storing' a boat that by definition is being 'stored' because it is not in fact in the water. I submit - With respect to the Applicant's response, I previously addressed "frequent trips," "summer months," and "regular use." I will explain why I believe the Applicant's reference to boats does not support their case. I am an active member of the U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary and have been for 25 years. I must stress that I am not authorized to speak on behalf of the U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary, and therefore, will not. My views and comments herein are solely mine and not those of the U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary. I only mention that I am an active Auxiliarist as a matter of fact, and to support that I have more than a layperson's knowledge of boating. I submit that an RV is primarily intended for traveling to a location, living in it while traveling and returning from a location, and not for long-term parking or storage in a driveway- unless its intended use is as a home or extension to a home. The primary use of an RV that is not used as an extension to a home is not all that different from a boat stored on a trailer that will be towed by a vehicle for periodic use on different bodies of water and returned to its storage location. Many boaters throughout the country routinely store their boats on trailers at locations zoned for such storage. They trailer the boat to the body of water, put it in the water at the boat ramp, use it in that body of water for a period of time, and return it to its storage location. In my opinion, that's no different from an RV travelling to and from a location. Question 7. USE VARIANCE The Applicant is required to show and prove that the applicable zoning regulations and restrictions have caused unnecessary hardship and: �130 Palmer Avenue -ZBA Application Submission Doorley Comments 10 a. Under applicable zoning regulations, the Applicant is deprived of all reasonable economic use or benefit from the property in question, which deprivation must be established by competent financial evidence; The Applicant responded "N/A." I submit, the Applicant failed to answer this question and demonstrate, with supporting competent financial evidence, that the restrictions have caused unnecessary hardship and that the Applicant would be deprived of all reasonable economic use or benefit from the RV. The Applicant will have use of their home and reasonable use of their RV, if the RV is stored behind their house or is not stored at 130 Palmer Avenue. b. The alleged hardship relating to the property in question is unique and does not apply to a substantial portion of the district or neighborhood; The Applicant did not submit an answer. I submit - I believe the alleged hardship is not unique to the Applicant. Virtually every house in Philipse Manor has a driveway, and any homeowner in Philipse Manor could own an RV or a boat and want to store it in their driveway. And Applicant's driveway can be extended. c. The requested use variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood; and The Applicant did not submit an answer. I submit - I was told by more than one realtor that the parking of an RV in the Applicant's driveway adversely affects the curb appeal of my property. I don't know of any property whose value either increased or somehow was not adversely affected by the visible storing or parking of an RV next to it. I reference my initial comment about other municipalities not permitting the visible storing of RVs in part because they do adversely alter the essential character of a neighborhood. d. The alleged hardship has not been self-created. The Applicant did not submit an answer. I submit - The hardship was self-created by the Applicant not seeking and receiving a favorable interpretation of the Code or not seeking and receiving a variance from the Village prior to the acquiring the RV. �130 Palmer Avenue -ZBA Application Submission Doorley Comments 11 Question 8. INRERPRETATION/APPEAL b. Provie a detailed explanation as to why you believe the Village Official's interpretation is not correct; Applicant stated - It is debatable whether parking this vehicle during select months in which it is in regular use, constituted 'storage.' We do not intend to 'store the vehicle in our driveway when it is not in regular use. Parking an RV such as ours is distinctly different from storing a boat that- by definition is being 'stored' because it is not in fact in the water where one uses it. Furthermore, the RV would be in or driveway, not our"front yard' as the code states. Please note- While it may not be relevant, it is worth noting that 130 Palmer is unique in so far as it sits sideways and therefore the driveway is effectively on the side of the house. To attempt to accommodate the vehicle outside of the driveway would block the front entrance. I submit - I believe the Village's interpretation of"store" is correct, and I believe the Village should not grant an area variance as I discussed earlier. 130 Palmer does sits sideways, which is different from most houses in the neighborhood. But that difference was created by a previous owner and known to the Applicant when they purchased the property. The RV would not block the front entrance of the house if the RV was stored off-site or the driveway was extended and the RV properly stored in the rear yard, in compliance with the Code, either of which are feasible. The Applicant has not demonstrated unnecessary hardship or deprivation of any or all economic use or benefit of the RV. In addition, the RV is a detriment to neighbors' property values, and it will produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood. The RV was infrequently used in 2021, the driveway does not meet the minimum space dimensions making the parking or storage a potential safety issue, the RV is clearly visible from the front windows of my property and from the street on three sides, and the Applicant submitted no independent third-party documentation supporting Applicant's responses based on the questions asked in the Application. c. State the conclusion you believe the Board of Appeals should reach. Applicant concluded - Parking an RV that comfortably fits in a driveway, during specific months in which it is regular use, is distinctly different from"storing" an unused RV or boat in a"front yard." To barr the homeowner doing so effectively precludes that homeowner from realistically owing and using an RV at all. We, as a family, Applicant's �130 Palmer Avenue -ZBA Application Submission Doorley Comments 12 deserve to be able to use their property, our home and our driveway in a respectful yet realistic manner that does not impinge on our rights as homeowners. I submit - In conclusion, most of the Applicant's answers either failed to answer the question or were deficient, misleading, or untrue. And where requested, the Applicant failed to submit credible, relevant supporting documentation. In addition, Applicant did not demonstrate unnecessary hardship or deprivation of all economic use or benefit of the RV, particularly because of a situation caused solely by the Applicant, that can otherwise be mitigated. Applicant produced no logical reason or support as to why they are effectively precluded from realistically owing and using an RV at all. Applicant's statement is contrary to thousands of RV owners throughout the country who store their RV in a location zoned for RV storage and yet still use it and enjoy it. I believe Applicant's request for a favorable interpretation of the word "store" or their request for an area variance are for the sole use, convenience, enjoyment, and cost saving of the Applicant and to the detriment and expense of their neighbors, neighborhood, and Village. And it devalues my property and impinges on the rights of others. Therefore, I believe that the Applicant has not met the basic criteria for the Board to make a favorable interpretation of the Code or for the board to grant an area variance. Thank you. I'll be happy to answer any questions at, or after, the meeting. �Exhibit #2 �Exhibit #3 Subject: Date: Fwd: 7-13-22_Comments from Owner of 216 Palmer Avenue Wednesday, July 13, 2022 10:47:2S AM RECEIVED JUL 1 3 2022 From: Denise Scaglione Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2022 8:50 AM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.org> Subject: Zoning Board Public Hearing - Salk/Neidell BUILDING DEPT. VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW Hi Sean, I am writing to show my support for my neighbors on Pia Salk & Pete Neidell. My understanding is that they need to store their RV on their property from time to time, during certain times of the year. I have no problem with them keeping the vehicle on their property during these times. They have a house that is not situated like most houses and it sits sideways, therefore not allowing them to store the RV in their back yard. I fully support them being allowed to keep their vehicle on the property, it's the neighborly thing to do. Please submit my comments for public record for the zoning hearing on 7 /20/22. Thanks. Denise Scaglione 216 Palmer Ave. SH, NY �Exhibit #4 -----Original Messagc----From: Stephan Murphy <stcphanmurphy®verizon.nct> Sent: Monday. July 18. 2022 8:36 PM To: Scan McCarthy <smccarthy@slcepyhollowny.org> Subject: 130 Palmer Ave Variance Application To whom it may concern. RECEIVED JUL 1 8 2022 BUILDING DEPT. VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW We arc neighbors and friends of the applicant and appreciate their desire to park their RV in their front yard driveway during the Summer Months ··May to November"·. We like kitsch and the Green Gherkin is a special antique vehicle. Our primary concerns arc parking their other vehicle on the street exasperating an already unsafe condition with street parking on Palmer Ave with the very high volume or traffic; i.e. Kingsland Park. Summer Day Camp. the train station and the beach club. Too many cars arc parking on the street already. An accident is waiting to happen with someone. a child or a dog walking between cars into the street. Additionally. the existing variance is there for a reason. no RV·s in the front yard. Simply put. it's a convenience but also an eyesore and property degradation for others. Finally. we look at summer months as the calendar identifies. June 21 through September 21st. We do not dislike the Mighty Gherkin. in fact we arc fans. But the nostalgia and convenience of parking it in the front yard should be considered versus the existing variance. safety or the street (too many cars already parked in the street) and the nature of a precedent. Creating exceptions for one inevitably creates exceptions for many. Let's keep the quality of the neighborhood. visually and by safety standards to the high quality that exists. Rcspcctfi.illy yours. Stephan Murphy and Cass Anderson 126 Palmer Ave Stcphanmurphy@vcrizon.net 914-391-3237 Sent from my iPad � 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-2022 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_2022-07-20_Approved-ZBA-Minutes Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2022 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2022 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