https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/30501caa90baeab8f030ceb496e132e9.pdf bf8d6ac0e496f56877101935dfa66a99 PDF Text Text Village of Sleepy Hollow Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting December 21, 2022 Chairman Timothy Church called the meeting to order at 7:02 pm. Present: Timothy Church, Chairman Craig Lis Thomas Chang Margaret Rubick Sandra Tripp Also Present: Sean McCarthy, Village Architect Pamela Kroll, Secretary to the Zoning Board Absent: Gorete Crowe Agenda: 1) George Gerlanc and Sonia Kazazis, 11 Tappan Avenue, Interpretation /Appeal, Legalization of a basement dwelling and a three-family residence- Continued public hearing 2) Andrew Cannistra and Rebecca Heck, 214 Palmer Avenue, Proposed additions and alterations- Public hearing, requested adjournment 3) 46 Hudson St. LLC, 46 Hudson Street, Proposed three-family residence - Public hearing 4) Kirsten Hase and Barry McLauglin, 43 New Broadway, Proposed deck expansion and stone walkway steps- Public hearing 5) Filipe and Jose Ribeiro, 22 Lawrence Avenue, Proposed covered rear stair- Public hearing 6) Approval of minutes, 1. George Gerlanc and Sonia Kazazis, 11 Tappan Avenue, Interpretation/Appeal, Legalization of a basement dwelling and a three-family residence- Continued public hearing Chairman Church stated that although he was not present, he has watched the November 16, 2022 meeting. The Board had requested that the applicant provide further documentation to show that the house was a three-family use in 1964 and to demonstrate that the three-family use has continued from 1964 to the present. Chairman Church invited the applicant to present the supplemental findings. 1 (ZBA 12/21/2022) �Maximillian Mahalek stated that he is an associate of Cuddy + Feder, LLP presenting on behalf of the applicants. Mr. Mahalek stated that he met with Sean McCarthy and the Village Counsel on November 28, 2022, and that they went through the records to translate the history of the property before 1964 and up until the present day. Mr. Mahalek stated that the documents submitted on December 8, 2022 contained all of the documents reviewed with the Village staff. Mr. Mahalek stated that the December 8, 2022 submission included two signed and notarized statements from residents stating that they recall a woman named Ella living in the basement of the residence as of the late 1950s, into the early 1960s, and after 1964. The copy of a Death Certificate submitted for Ella Clark states that her address was 11 Tappan Avenue. Chairman Church asked Mr. Mahalek how they know there were two other families living in the home when Ella Clark was occupying the basement. Mr. Mahalek stated that the affidavit provided by Eda Modesta stated that the Gerlancs lived on the main level, Ella lived in the basement, and William and Regina Horner lived on the top floor. Mr. Mahalek stated that a Town of Mount Pleasant Property card, with an inspection date of 1963, lists the home as a three-family residence. According to conversations with Grace Papa, the Receiver of Taxes and James Timmings, the Assessor, this is the only property card on file with the town. Mr. Mahalek presented photographs and requested that George Gerlanc state what year the pictures were from and who was in them. Mr. Gerlanc provided testimony stating that the pictures submitted were taken in 1961 and that he was included in the pictures. Mr. Mahalek stated that the pictures show a separate gate, walkway, and mailbox for the basement residence. Mr. Mahalek reviewed the other documents submitted, including a survey from 1955, a report from a licensed home inspector, and a letter from a licensed electrician that indicate the likely use of the three-family residence. Chairman Church asked Mr. Mahalek if there are records between the years of 1964 and 1980 that indicate the use as a three-family residence. Mr. Mahalek stated that Mr. McCarthy found a Building Permit application from 1976 in the Village records that listed the home as a three-family residence at that time. Mr. Mahalek stated that he did not find any Building Department records from 1964 to 1980 that indicate the use of a three-family residence. Mr. Mahalek described documents from after 1980 that describe the home as a three-family residence. Chairman Church asked Mr. Mahalek if the owner lived in one unit and rented the other two units, and if there is any evidence of rent rolls. 2 (ZBA 12/21/2022) �Mr. Mahalek stated that the applicant’s parents occupied one unit as their residence and rented the other two units. Mr. Mahalek stated that they have not found any evidence of formal rent rolls. Chairman Church asked Mr. Mahalek if there are additional Building Permit Applications that reference the two-family or three-family use. Mr. Mahalek stated that there were plans filed in 1976 for work to the basement. George Gerlanc stated that in 1976 his parents got a permit for an extension to the home that provided for additional space on the first floor and the basement. There was also a permit issued in 1980 to complete the kitchen in the basement apartment. Chairman Church asked Mr. Gerlanc if the permit request was to add the kitchen or to renovate an existing kitchen. Mr. Gerlanc stated that the permit application requested to move and renovate the existing kitchen into the expanded space. Chairman Church suggested that the Board open the public hearing and address the evidence of continuous use of the home as a three-family residence from 1964 to the present, and vote on that part of the application. Chairman Church asked Sean McCarthy if the Village records contain documents that were not part of submission that are relevant for the Boards’ consideration. Sean McCarthy stated that the owner indicated the structure was a three-family residence on the 1976 permit application. Motion was made to open the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Tripp Vote 5-0 Chairman Church solicited comments from the public. Thomas Capossela stated that he is the owner of 5 Tappan Avenue. Mr. Capossela stated that he has lived in his residence since 1958 and that he has no problem with the basement apartment. Mr. Capossela stated that the covered patio located on the northeast corner of the property has no setbacks to his property. He believes there is a 3 foot required setback from the property line and there is currently no setback on the north side or the east side. The covered patio is an illegal structure that the Board cannot considered grandfathered. Chairman Church stated that the Board is voting on granting permission for the three-family use and the patio structure is not part of the application. Thomas Capossela requested a response from Sean McCarthy. 3 (ZBA 12/21/2022) �Sean McCarthy stated that the Building Department acknowledges his comments. There were no other comments from the public. Motion was made to close the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Rubick Vote 5-0 Chairman Church stated that the applicant has established the existence of the three-family use before 1964 and that it has been continuous periodically over the years. Chairman Church made a motion stating that the Building Department may approve a certificate of occupancy for a three-family residence based on the “grandfather” law. The Board did not address the arguments that an area variance is required to legalize the number of dwellings units, and not a use variance. Motion was made to approve the continuation of an existing non-conforming three-family residence. Moved: Church Seconded: Rubick Timothy Church, Chairman - yes Margaret Rubick - yes Craig Lis - yes Sandra Tripp – yes Thomas Chang- yes Vote 5-0 APPROVED 2. Andrew Cannistra and Rebecca Heck, 214 Palmer Avenue, Proposed additions and alterations - Public hearing Chairman Church stated that the applicant has requested an adjournment until the January 18, 2023 meeting. 3. 46 Hudson St. LLC, 46 Hudson Street, Proposed three-family residence- Public hearing Chairman Church stated that the application will been adjourned to the January 18, 2023 meeting due to notification requirements. 4. Kirsten Hase and Barry McLaughlin, 43 New Broadway, Proposed deck expansionPublic hearing and stone walkway steps- Public hearing Chairman Church read the public notice and 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 12/21/2022) �Chairman Church invited the applicant to present the application. Barry McLaughlin is the owner of the property and stated that the application proposes to construct a deck addition, stairs, and to extend the stone walkway along the side of the house to meet the new stair landing. The existing walkway is six inches off the property line and not in good shape. Chairman Church asked Mr. McLaughlin to describe the addition. Mr. McLaughlin stated that they are proposing to construct a 4-foot extension to the first floor deck and to construct a second floor deck. Kirsten Hase is the owner of the property and stated that they have an existing deck and a side yard walkway that has three steps that need replacement. They are proposing to expand the first floor deck and to add stairs and a stone walkway. The proposed walkway is non-compliant and requires a variance. The design intent of the walkway is so it will meet the deck and provide safe accessibility with the property grade change. Margaret Rubick asked the owners to explain why they are proposing to widen the existing stairs. Barry McLoughlin stated that the existing stairs are not code compliant. Sandra Tripp asked Sean McCarthy to explain what is causing the change requested for the one side yard variance. Sean McCarthy stated that the 0.80 ft. refers to the north side of the property but counts as part of the minimum combined side yard requirement. The property has one side yard that is only 0.80 ft. The house sits 3.5 feet from the property line. In order to have a legal width stair that will architecturally align with walkway, they have no choice but to encroach on the 3.00 ft. setback. Since the walkway will be stepping with the grade, it will not appear as a large structure sticking out of the ground. Because of the property setback on the north side, the south side is their only access to the backyard. Motion was made to open the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Lis Vote 5-0 Chairman Church solicited comments from the public. There were no comments from the public. Motion was made to close the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Rubick 5 Vote 5-0 (ZBA 12/21/2022) �Chairman Church made a motion to approve the requested variances based on the following criteria: 1. Granting of the area variances will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood as the proposed walkway will be barely visible from the street. 2. The benefits sought be the applicants to construct a walkway and code compliant stairs on the south side of the property is the only feasible method to access to the rear yard and cannot be achieved due to the existing non-conformities of the north side yard setback. 3. The requested area variances are not substantial as they are only required for the stairs. 4. Granting of the area variance will not cause an impact to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood. 5. The requested variances are self-created but are necessary to improve the condition of the house. Motion was made to approve the application. Moved: Church Seconded: Lis Timothy Church, Chairman - yes Margaret Rubick - yes Craig Lis - yes Sandra Tripp - yes Thomas Chang- yes Vote 5-0 APPROVED 5. Filipe and Jose Ribeiro, 22 Lawrence Avenue, Proposed covered rear stair- Public hearing Chairman Church read the public notice and 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. Chairman Church invited the applicant to present the application. Jorge B. Hernandez stated that he is the architect representing the applicant. Mr. Hernandez stated that while construction work was in progress, they found structural damage to the existing enclosed porches and the exterior of the house that needed further repairs. Mr. Hernandez stated that revised plans submitted show that the proposed porches are outside of the required property setback lines. Mr. Hernandez stated that there were interior stairs within the porch area that were not code compliant and unstable. The application proposes to construct code compliant stairs to the exterior of the building structure. Mr. Hernandez presented a photograph of the building and 6 (ZBA 12/21/2022) �stated the previous owner had permits to enclose the porches. The applicants filed for permits to restore the rear porches to open air structures. Chairman Church asked Mr. Hernandez if adding the exterior stairs to the side of the house increases the lot area occupied by the structure and asked why the applicants are requesting variance approvals. Mr. Hernandez stated that the addition of the exterior stairs increases the lot space occupied by the structure. Sandra Tripp asked if the applicant is required to move the stairs to the exterior in order to be compliant with the code. Sean McCarthy stated that the applicant could reconstruct code compliant interior stairs within the rear porches. The current structure used the porches as the second means of egress. The application proposes to create covered porches, and to construct the stair portion as an addition to the existing building structure. The proposed stairs would increase the total area of the building structure. Chairman Church asked Mr. Hernandez if the proposed application would result in a loss of parking. Mr. Hernandez stated that proposed application would not affect the parking. Sandra Tripp asked Mr. Hernandez where the proposed stairs would land on the property. Mr. Hernandez stated that the stairs would be on the right side of the existing patio. Motion was made to open the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Lis Vote 5-0 Chairman Church solicited comments from the public. Julio Carchi stated that he lives at 30 Lawrence Avenue and is there on behalf of Zoila Naulasaca. Mr. Carchi asked Mr. Hernandez to describe what side the stairs will be located on in relation to his house. Chairman Church stated that the applicant is proposing stairs that are within the rear yard. Sandra Tripp asked Mr. Hernandez to confirm that the proposed stairs will not extend beyond the existing flagstone patio. Mr. Hernandez stated that the stairs would not extend beyond the existing side flagstone patio. 7 (ZBA 12/21/2022) �Motion was made to close the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Lis Vote 5-0 Sean McCarthy stated that the upper portion of stair structure would go beyond the existing flagstone patio. Mr. McCarthy suggested that the applicants consider rebuilding the deck structure to be compliant with the required rear yard setback and to align with the proposed stair structure. Mr. Hernandez stated that he would have to consult with the applicant. Sean McCarthy suggested that if the applicant centered the proposed porch structure and the stairs with the main roofline it would create a new roof overhang covering that would be more architecturally appropriate for the building. Mr. Hernandez stated that the original intention was to renovate the existing structure and that finding the damage was what led them to the Zoning Board. Sean McCarthy stated that there was a permit issued to remove the walls around the porches. The applicants received a Stop Work Order because the Applicants extended the decks and started the work without a permit. Mr. McCarthy stated that since the applicants are reconstructing the structure, the Board is requesting that Mr. Hernandez create a new design that would be more architecturally appropriate and be more compliant with the Zoning Code. Mr. McCarthy stated that the applicant could still achieve their goals for increasing the size of the porches without an interior stair. Mr. McCarthy suggested that the applicant could be more compliant with the side yard requirements if they center the structure with the back of house and that it might be beneficial to cover the stair. Mr. Hernandez stated that the rear and side yard setbacks are existing non-conforming conditions. Mr. Hernandez asked if the applicant agreed to move the deck rear deck in 1.9 feet, would the Board vote to approve the requested side yard variance. Sean McCarthy stated that the Board can vote to approve the variances if the applicant agrees to revise the application to construct the covered rear porch and covered stair to align with the existing building structure and to stay within the required rear yard setback. Chairman Church made a motion to approve a revised application to construct a covered porch 1.9 feet in from the rear yard setback to be code compliant with the 25 foot rear yard setback and to construct a covered stair the will be centered with the rear of the house structure based on the following criteria: 1. Granting the area variances for the existing non-conformities of the property related to lot area, lot width, building coverage, and front and side yard setbacks will not produce an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to the nearby properties. 8 (ZBA 12/21/2022) �2. Granting the area variances for the revised application is the feasible method to achieve the goals for a covered porch and stairs. Moving the stairs to the rear of the property will be more architecturally appropriate for the building and reduce the variances requested for the other pre-existing non-conforming conditions of the property. 3. Granting of the area variances for the revised application are not substantial because the applicant would be not increase the pre-existing nonconformities of the property. 4. Granting of the area variances for proposed additions will not cause an impact to the environmental or physical conditions of the neighborhood. 5. The requested variances are self-created but the revised application will result in an improvement to the building structure. Motion was made to approve the application. Moved: Church Seconded: Rubick Timothy Church, Chairman - yes Margaret Rubick - yes Craig Lis - yes Sandra Tripp – yes Thomas Chang- yes Vote 5-0 APPROVED Chairman Church stated that if the applicant does not agree with the suggested revisions, the Board could reopen the public hearing without revising the public notice. 6. Approval of minutes- November 16, 2022 Motion was made to approve the November 16, 2022 minutes as amended. Moved: Church Seconded: Rubick Timothy Church, Chairman - yes Margaret Rubick - yes Craig Lis - yes Sandra Tripp – yes Thomas Chang- yes Vote 5-0 APPROVED Motion was made to adjourn the meeting at 8:15 pm. Moved: Church Seconded: Rubick 9 Vote 5-0 (ZBA 12/21/2022) �Respectfully Submitted, Pamela Kroll Secretary to the Zoning Board of Appeals 10 (ZBA 12/21/2022) � 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 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_2022-12-21_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