https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/8961f858beac00b8a3ffd6f842bdbdb7.pdf 53dca5668e8839df6caf3490162b0ce2 PDF Text Text Village of Sleepy Hollow Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting March 15, 2023 Chairman Timothy Church called the meeting to order at 7:02 pm. Present: Timothy Church, Chairman Craig Lis Gorete Crowe Sandra Tripp Thomas Chang Carol Lyden Also Present: Sean McCarthy, Village Architect Pamela Kroll, Secretary to the Zoning Board Absent: Margaret Rubick Agenda: 1) 46 Hudson St. LLC, 46 Hudson Street, Proposed three-family residence - Continued public hearing 2) Dennis and Margaret Kraft, 124 Hunter Avenue, Proposed 4 foot high fencing- Public hearing 3) Sean Bell-Thomson & Alexandra Electric, 465 Munroe Avenue, Proposed addition and alteration- Public hearing 4) Michael Evry and Laura Bedrossian, 435 Bellwood Avenue, Proposed 5 foot high fencing- Public hearing 5) Approval of minutes, January 18, 2023 1. 46 Hudson St. LLC, 46 Hudson Street, Proposed three-family residence- Continued Public hearing Brian Hopkins stated that he is the architect presenting on behalf of the Applicant. Mr. Hopkins stated that they completed a zoning study in order to break down the six requested variances by the five characteristics that allow the Board to make a decision. Chairman Church asked Mr. Hopkins if there are proposed changes to the dimension or the location of the building since the last public hearing. Mr. Hopkins stated that there are no proposed changes to the shape or location of the building and the applicant proposes to maintain a three-foot setback from the north side of the building. Mr. Hopkins stated that the proposed building is in keeping with the nature of the street and the proposed building is smaller than the existing building. 1 (ZBA 3/15/2023) �Mr. Hopkins presented an existing street elevation drawing and stated that the residences located at 54 Hudson Street and 34 Hudson Street are buildings that were re-constructed. Mr. Hopkins listed the six requested variances. Mr. Hopkins quoted a section of a document that discusses the rules for granting area variance from New York State and stated that the applicant believes that granting of the proposed variances will result in an improvement to the street. Mr. Hopkins quoted a section of the Village of Sleepy Hollow Comprehensive Plan and stated that it specifically addresses ways to encourage redevelopment on Hudson Street. Mr. Hopkins stated that Hudson Street is a transit-orientated hub, adjacent to the Tarrytown train station, which requires less parking. Purchasing and consolidating adjacent parcels is unrealistic for developers. Mr. Hopkins stated that the only way to encourage redevelopment on the street is through granting variances. Mr. Hopkins suggested that the Village could alleviate parking pressures through parking permits for the street. Chairman Church asked if the revised Zoning Code changed the requirements of the combined side yard setback. Mr. Hopkins stated that he was unsure if combined side yard setback requirements were changed. Mr. Hopkins presented a diagram to detail the current land use in the surrounding target areas and stated that 42% of the homes are two-family and three-family residences. Chairman Church asked Mr. Hopkins if he determined how many homes are two-family and how many homes are three-family. Mr. Hopkins stated that he is using data provided by the Village of Sleepy Hollow and that he would need to conduct a full building analysis confirm the two and three-family uses. Mr. Hopkins presented diagrams that detailed that number of parking stalls provided by undersized lots less than 4,000 square feet in the target area. Mr. Hopkins stated that only 19% of the target area provides three or more parking stalls on site. Chairman Church asked Mr. Hopkins how many of the lots provide more than three parking stalls on site. Mr. Hopkins stated that 46 Hudson is one of only (3) lots in the target area that are two-and three-family uses that have three parking stalls. Mr. Hopkins stated that there are (76) lots where no on-site parking spaces are provided and there are (6) lots providing three parking spaces. Mr. Hopkins presented diagrams and images to address the responses to the five criteria factors as they relate to the requested variances for the existing lot area, lot width, the proposed front and side yard setbacks, and the proposed parking. 2 (ZBA 3/15/2023) �Sandra Tripp stated that Mr. Hopkins should represent his statements as his opinion and not as a fact of what is possible in accomplishing the redevelopment of the property. Chairman Church asked Mr. Hopkins to provide the proposed side yard setback for the north and south sides of the building. Mr. Hopkins stated that the application proposes a 3-foot side yard setback on the north side, which will allow the applicant to add windows and eliminate the fire-rated wall requirements. They propose a 10-foot side yard setback on the south side of the building. Chairman Church asked Mr. Hopkins to confirm if the proposed side yard setback on the north side has changed since the last meeting. Mr. Hopkins stated that originally, the proposed side yard setback on the north side was 2 foot 7 inches, and they changed it to 3 feet. Chairman Church asked if the width of the proposed building changed. Mr. Hopkins stated that the proposed building width decreased by 5 inches. Mr. Hopkins stated that the existing conditions of the property provided for one (1) parking stall. The proposed application would provide (3) parking stalls. The existing residence and proposal had (7) bedrooms and their revised application proposes (6) bedrooms, which will require a variance for three (3) additional parking spaces. The proposal will provide 50% of the required parking spaces. Chairman Church stated that if the applicant proposed a two-family unit, they could propose eight (8) bedrooms and still have sufficient parking because only one parking space is required per unit as per Code. Mr. Hopkins stated that they are targeting transit-oriented families that will live in Sleepy Hollow and commute to the City. Chairman Church asked Mr. Hopkins if the applicant would agree to designate one parking space per unit without charging the tenants an additional fee. Alex Tseng is the owner of the property and stated that he would be open to including one designated parking space for each unit at no additional charge as a condition of the Zoning Board approval. Mr. Hopkins presented a parking analysis diagram and comparison of other properties on Hudson Street to demonstrate how many parking stalls are available on Hudson Street and suggested that if the Village provided permit parking on the street and in the municipal lot, it would alleviate the parking problems. Chairman Church stated that there are no current parking requirements to park on Hudson Street. 3 (ZBA 3/15/2023) �Chairman Church solicited comments from the Board. Gorete Crowe asked Mr. Hopkins how many bedrooms are proposed on the third floor. Mr. Hopkins stated that there are (2) bedrooms proposed on the third floor. Sean McCarthy asked Mr. Hopkins to confirm the existing lot area calculations. Mr. Hopkins stated that the existing lot area is 3,965 square feet. Motion was made to open the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Crowe Vote 6-0 Chairman Church solicited comments from the public. Steven Maceyak stated that he is the owner of the Bridge View Tavern and that the proposed project is too big. Mr. Maceyak stated that the job of the Zoning Board is prevent developers from over-building, and to keeping the character of Hudson Street. Mr. Maceyak stated that he built the parking lot for 13 cars thirty years ago because there were problems with parking. Mr. Maceyak stated that if the proposed house was scaled down to a two-family residence, it may take the applicant a little longer to get his investment back, but he wouldn’t need as many of the variances. Clara Teagle stated the she is the owner of 38 Hudson Street. Ms. Teagle read her letter submitted on February 14, 2023 (See Exhibit #1). William White stated that he lives as 48 Hudson Street. Mr. White stated that his family has lived in Tarrytown and has owned the property for over 38 years. Right now, there is a 10-foot gap between 46 and 48 Hudson Street. The proposed project is requesting to build the new building 36 inches from the 48 Hudson Street structure. There are three windows on the south side of the 48 Hudson building. If the proposed structure is built that close to his house, it will take away sunlight, ventilation, and privacy. A westerly wind tunnel would be created between the buildings that could potentially damage the existing structure of 48 Hudson Street. Ed Oliveira stated that he owns 24 Hudson Street and that the proposed project would be at the expense of the residents and the neighborhood. Mr. Oliveira stated that he had to provide parking in order to get a variance approval in 1987. Mr. Oliveira stated that parking is already a detriment to the neighborhood and residents are forced to park on Beekman Avenue and River Street. The request for a three-family residence is excessive even though the parking requirement is less for a two-family, regardless of the number of bedrooms. The proposed application would have an adverse effect on the neighborhood as it relates to parking. The proposed application is a self-created hardship because the applicants were aware of the zoning requirements. Although side yard setbacks are an issue with some properties, these are existing conditions that have been 4 (ZBA 3/15/2023) �in effect for over 100 years. Mr. Oliveira requested that the Board not allow the project to move forward. William White asked the Board to confirm that they received his letter containing the references related to wind studies. Chairman Church stated that the Board received his letter (See Exhibit #2). Motion was made to close the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Lis Vote 6-0 Chairman Church solicited comments from the Board. There were no further comments from the Board. Chairman Church stated that at the first presentation the applicant sought a building that was larger. The original application proposed a north side yard setback of 2 feet, 7 inches, which would have required the exterior wall to be fire-rated. The revised application proposes to add 5 inches to the north side yard setback to provide a 3-foot separation on the north side. The 3-foot side setback will allow the applicant to provide windows on the north side eliminating the need for fire-rating and produce a more aesthetic building. The applicant has also reduced the number of bedrooms from seven to six, which creates the likelihood of less of a parking space strain on the neighborhood. The existing building was a two-family building with a larger footprint than the applicant is proposing and contained seven (7) bedrooms. The proposed application reduces the number of bedrooms while increasing the number of families. The parking demand for the proposed building may be the same as previously existed. The proposed three-family building with six (6) bedrooms will not result in a material difference or increased burden on the neighborhood in terms of the parking requirement. The applicant has agreed not to charge the tenants extra to park in the spots behind the house. Chairman Church asked Sean McCarthy how the applicant could inform prospective tenants about the designated parking spots, and if the Building Department could enforce the parking arrangements. Mr. McCarthy stated that the designated parking spots could be part of the tenant lease agreements. The Building Department could enforce the designated parking spots as a condition of the variance approval, and the Planning Board would incorporate the condition as part of the Site Plan approval. Chairman Church stated that although the application proposes to move the south side of the building closer the to the north side border, there will still be 3 feet of access to the 48 Hudson Street building. Chairman Church stated that he assumes that the developer would allow reasonable access to the 46 Hudson property as needed for repairs at 48 Hudson Street. Chairman Church stated that it is within the applicants rights to decide which side of the lot the building is located. The front yard setback will be consistent and similar to the other buildings on the street. The lot area and lot width are existing non-conforming conditions. Although the application is a self-created hardship and there are other potential alternatives, there are other three-family 5 (ZBA 3/15/2023) �residences in the area so the proposed building would not result in an overall detriment to the neighborhood. The requested variances are not substantial when compared to neighboring property conditions. Gorete Crowe asked Sean McCarthy to confirm that the building is required to comply with the Fire Code. Sean McCarthy stated that the building would require a full automatic fire sprinkler system with smoke, carbon monoxide and fire separation between the different dwelling units. Sandra Tripp asked Sean McCarthy if the application satisfies the requirements for the combined side yards setback, and if they could build up to the property line as of right. Mr. McCarthy stated that the minimum side yard setback is five feet. The combined side yards setbacks are required to add up to 15 feet. Sandra Tripp stated that if the Board grants the requested variances it would permit one side yard to be 2 feet less than the minimum and 2 feet less of the combined side yards setback at 13 feet. Motion was made to approve the revised application with the condition that one on-site parking space will be designated to each of the three dwelling units at no additional fee. Moved: Church Seconded: Crowe Chairman Church polled the Board members for their votes on the application. Timothy Church, Chairman - yes Sandra Tripp - no Thomas Chang - yes Craig Lis - yes Gorete Crowe- yes Carol Lyden - yes Vote 5-1 2. APPROVED Dennis and Margaret Kraft, 124 Hunter Avenue, Proposed 4 foot high fencing- 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 the Building Department received proof of the mailing. Chairman Church invited the applicant to present the application. Dennis and Margaret Kraft stated that they are the owners of 124 Hunter Avenue. Mr. Kraft presented the property survey and stated that there are 12 feet from their property line to Hunter 6 (ZBA 3/15/2023) �Avenue. The proposed fence will be located 22 feet from the stop sign on the corner of Hunter Avenue and 20 feet from Bellwood Avenue. The elevation of Bellwood Avenue is higher than their property. Mr. Kraft provided a specification of the proposed fencing and photographs depicting where they proposed to install fencing in relation to their property line, the existing hedges and the streets. Mrs. Kraft stated that they have no other options because they do not have a backyard. Craig Lis asked Sean McCarthy to confirm the front yard setback where the fence height would not require a variance to be above 3 feet high. Sean McCarthy stated that if the applicants installed the fence 30 feet in from the property line, a higher fence would not require a variance. Mrs. Kraft stated that they are requesting a variance for a 4-foot high fence to contain their dog. Chairman Church asked the applicants if they are proposing to put the fence behind the existing hedges. Mr. Kraft stated that they propose to install the fence way behind the hedges. Chairman Church asked the applicants if there are other fences on Hunter Avenue. Mrs. Kraft stated there are fences on the Bellwood Avenue and Devries Avenue. Mr. Kraft stated that there are more fences along Bellwood on the side yards. Chairman Church stated that a fence is out of character on Hunter Avenue. Sandra Tripp stated that she is concerned about precedent because the Board has declined other applications requesting to go from a 3-foot high fence to a 4-foot high fence based on the guidelines for regular shapes lots. Since they have a corner lot, it is an irregular shaped lot and is open to interpretation, and the Board should not grant a variance solely based on a way to better contain a dog, as it is a self-created hardship. If the Village decided to remove the hedges and put in a sidewalk, the fence may be the only visible fence along the edge of the property line in the neighborhood. The applicants stated that the hedges are higher than (3) feet and are causing obstructed views. They have paid to maintain them for the Village. Sean McCarthy stated that the property owners are required to maintain the hedges even though they are located on the Village property Right of Way. Mrs. Kraft stated that the proposed fencing would not cause an obstruction because their property line is so far back from the street. 7 (ZBA 3/15/2023) �Craig Lis stated that they do not have the option of going back 30 feet from the property line to install a fence higher than 3 feet because of the shape of their lot. Thomas Chang asked Mr. Kraft for the distance from the property line to the existing flag stone walkway. Mr. Kraft stated that the property line touches the corner of the garage and the flag stone walkway goes into the Village property. There was a discussion between the Board and the applicants on where the fencing is proposed. Chairman Church stated that the neighborhood has an open characteristic and that there are few fences above 3 feet in the front yards of houses in the Manor’s, and that he is not aware of any fences on Hunter Avenue. Thomas Chang stated that the shape of their lot is triangular and does not allow them to consider going back 30 feet to install a higher fence. When they consider precedent, this lot is not consistent with other lots in the neighborhood. Craig Lis stated that their property line is far back from the street line. Sandra Tripp stated that the hedges are not in the Board’s purview for height restrictions. Chairman Church asked for the distance between the rails of the proposed fencing. Mr. Kraft stated that he was unsure of the distance between the rails of the proposed fencing. Motion was made to open the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Tripp Vote 6-0 Chairman Church solicited comments from the public. Michael Evry stated that he is the owner of 435 Bellwood Avenue and stated that their house is on the corner of Bellwood Avenue and Devries Avenue. Mr. Evry stated that there are street facing fences that are 4 feet or higher in the neighborhood but they may be subject to front or side yard interpretation. Gay Daly stated that she is the owner of 127 Hunter Avenue and that her house is directly across the street from the applicant’s property. Ms. Daly stated that the applicants have an incredibly challenging lot and that since the hedges are so high and the property slopes down from Bellwood Avenue, you will not see the fencing from the street. Ms. Daly stated that she and two other neighboring property owners have discussed the application and that she does not have a problem with the proposed fencing. 8 (ZBA 3/15/2023) �Motion was made to close the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Lis Vote 6-0 Chairman Church solicited comments from the Board. There were no further comments from the Board. Chairman Church stated that the dog issue is not a persuasive or deciding factor for the Board. The applicants could install a 3-foot high fence with a 5-foot high hedge and generally not worry about the dogs. Chairman Church stated that the shape of the lot makes it difficult to accomplish what the applicants are seeking. Chairman Church made a motion to approve requested variance based on the following criteria: 1. The property is a triangular shaped lot that is difficult to accomplish the applicants’ goals to fence in their yard. 1. Granting of the requested variance for a 4-foot high open fence will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood, as it will not obstruct street views or views of neighboring property owners. 2. The requested variance is a feasible way for the applicants to fence in the property where the lot is an irregular shape and the applicants are unable to install the fence 30 feet from the property lines. 3. The requested variance is not substantial as it relates to the distance from the streets to the property lines, and the 4-foot fence height will not be visible from the street. Motion was made to approve the application with the condition that the fencing be open style similar to the materials specified. Moved: Church Seconded: Tripp Timothy Church, Chairman - yes Sandra Tripp - yes Thomas Chang - yes Craig Lis - yes Gorete Crowe- yes Carol Lyden - yes Vote 6-0 3. APPROVED Sean Bell-Thomson and Alexandria Electris, 465 Munroe Avenue, Proposed additions and alterations- 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. 9 (ZBA 3/15/2023) �Sean McCarthy stated that the Building Department received proof of the mailing. Chairman Church invited the applicant to present the application. Jorge B. Hernandez stated that he is the architect presenting on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Hernandez stated that the current residence is 1,500 square feet and located near Devries Park. The application proposes a second floor addition over the existing structure where the combined yards setback is existing non-conforming by ten (10) inches. The overall height of the building will increase by six (6) feet. Sandra Tripp asked Mr. Hernandez if the house is elevated off the street and has a retaining wall by the sidewalk. Mr. Hernandez stated that the house is slightly elevated and that the garage slopes downhill. Mr. Hernandez stated he received the comment letter (See Exhibit #3) and that the proposed addition will not affect the neighboring property views because although the house is slightly elevated, the grade goes up hill and the house is located in the lowest part of the neighborhood. Motion was made to open the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Tripp 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 made a motion to approve the variances based on the following criteria: 1. The requested variance is pre-existing and the applicants are not proposing to expand the footprint of the house or exceed the permitted building height. 2. The requested variance for a second floor addition is consistent with the character of the neighborhood and the addition is proposed at a lower elevation compared to the neighboring houses. 3. The requested variance is not substantial because it is pre-existing Motion was made to approve the application. Moved: Church Seconded: Tripp Timothy Church, Chairman - yes Sandra Tripp - yes 10 (ZBA 3/15/2023) �Thomas Chang - yes Craig Lis - yes Gorete Crowe - yes Carol Lyden - yes Vote 6-0 4. APPROVED Michael Evry and Laura Bedrossian, 435 Bellwood Avenue, Proposed 5 foot high fencing - 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 the Building Department received proof of the mailing. Chairman Church invited the applicant to present the application. Laura Bedrossian stated that she is the owner of the house that is located at the corner of Bellwood Avenue and Devries Avenue. They are seeking a variance to install a 5-foot high white picket concave open fence around part of their property in order to contain their dog and growing family. Michael Evry stated that they have an odd shaped lot where the driveway is on Devries Avenue and the house faces Bellwood Avenue. The neighboring houses face Devries Avenue. The neighbor at the top of their property faces Merlin Avenue and has a 5-foot high fence going up to Bellwood Avenue at the side yard. The proposed fence in that location will connect with the neighboring fence at Bellwood Avenue. Mr. Evry stated that there is not room to go back 30 feet along Bellwood Avenue because of the where their house sits on the lot, and that there is a large three-story tree in the right corner of their property. They are not proposing to install fencing near the corner of Bellwood Avenue and Devries Avenue so there will not be obstructed views. Mr. Evry presented a photograph of their backyard and stated that it acts as more of an access corridor. The fencing will sit behind the existing hedges that run along the front yard of Bellwood Avenue. Mr. Envry presented photographs to show the size of their front yard behind the hedges and views of the hedge during winter months. Chairman Church asked Mr. Evry for the height of the lowest part of the fence asked how far the fence would be from the sidewalk. Mr. Evry estimated that the fence would sit 2 feet from the sidewalk behind the hedge. Chairman Church asked Mr. Evry if they could accomplish their goals with the 4-foot fence. Mr. Evry stated that they selected the concave fence material to be in character with the fences in the neighborhood and to be more in line with the height of the neighboring fence. Installing the specified fencing in 4-foot lengths would be lower in some parts. 11 (ZBA 3/15/2023) �Chairman Church stated that the Board cannot mandate the height of the hedges and if the hedge died the fence would be very visible. The proposed fence may be in character with the neighboring property, but not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. Chairman Church solicited comments from the Board. Sandra Tripp asked Mr. Evry if they considered a garden lattice fence similar to the neighbor’s fence. Mr. Evry stated that the lattice type fence should not be in the front yard, they are matching the other white picket fences in the neighborhood, and the white vinyl fence is easier to maintain. Sandra Tripp stated that the siting of the house has the front on Bellwood Avenue and so the requested variance for higher fence so close to the street is significant. Mr. McCarthy stated the Code permits fencing installed up to the property line, not to the street. Mr. Evry stated that they do not intend to remove the hedges. Chairman Church stated that he does not have an issue with the North West segment being 5 feet high but he sees a problem with granting a variance for the fence running along Bellwood Avenue through the front yard. There was a discussion between the Board and the applicant regarding existing fence heights in the area. Motion was made to open the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Crowe Vote 6-0 Chairman Church solicited comments from the public. There were no comments from the public. Motion was made to close the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Tripp Vote 6-0 Chairman Church stated that the general characteristics of Philips Manor and Sleepy Hollow Manor neighborhoods has open views and 3-foot high front yard fences. The Board does not typically grant variances for fences two feet above what the Code allows without extenuating circumstances. Chairman Church stated that the application does not provide reasons to grant the 5-foot variance for the North South section bordering Bellwood Avenue and the segment that runs East West through the front of the yard up to Bellwood Avenue. 12 (ZBA 3/15/2023) �Thomas Chang suggested that the Board grant a variance to approve a 4-foot fence height in the location along Bellwood Avenue so there would be a less of a drop from one fence section to the next. Sandra Tripp stated that since the fence is scalloped, she would agree to the variance for the 4foot fence. Chairman Church made a motion to approve a revised application as follows: 1. Grant an area variance permitting a 5-foot high open scalloped white picket fence at the North and North West segments of the property. 2. Grant an area variance permitting a 4-foot high open scalloped white picket fence at the North South segment bordering Bellwood Avenue and the segment that runs East West through the front yard and up to Bellwood Avenue. Motion was made to approve the revised application. Moved: Church Seconded: Tripp Timothy Church, Chairman - yes Sandra Tripp - yes Thomas Chang - yes Craig Lis - yes Gorete Crowe - yes Carol Lyden - yes Vote 6-0 APPROVED 5. Approval of minutes - January 18, 2023 Chairman Church tabled the approval of the January 18, 2023 minutes to the April 19, 2023 meeting. Motion was made to adjourn the meeting at 9:27 pm. Moved: Church Seconded: Lis Vote 6-0 Respectfully Submitted, Pamela Kroll Secretary to the Zoning Board of Appeals 13 (ZBA 3/15/2023) �Exhibit #1 RECEIVED Date: To: From: February 14, 2023 Timothy Church FEB 14 2023 BUILDING DEPT, LLOW VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HO Clara Teagle (38 Hudson Street) Subject: Regarding 46 Hudson Street Proposal I have reviewed the Zoning Board of Appeals application and documentation, submitted by Brian Hopkins, for a proposed house to be built at 46 Hudson Street. This proposal, if approved, would be at the detriment to the owners of 48 Hudson Street. The proposed side yard of 2' 7" between 46 Hudson Street (owner Alex Tseng) and 48 Hudson Street (owners Lillian White, Fannie Allen, Joyce Allen) is unacceptable for the following reasons: 1. Now with this proposal if a problem with the electrical standpipe at 48 Hudson Street (south side of house) occurs - would not be able to access. 2. Now with this proposal if a problem with the telephone lines at 48 Hudson Street (south side of house) occurs - would not be able to access. 3. Now with this proposal if windows at 48 Hudson Street (south side of house) need to be serviced - would not be able to access. 4. Now with this proposal if any cleanup at 48 Hudson Street (south side of house) is needed - would not be able to access. 5. Now with this proposal if any repairs (i.e., vinyl siding) at 48 Hudson Street (south side of house) are needed - would not be able to access. 6. Now with this proposal fire is also a concern - would not be able to access between 48 Hudson Street and 46 Hudson Street. Currently, there is a driveway between 48 Hudson Street and 46 Hudson Street that is approximately 10' wide. The proposal to cut a new driveway between 46 Hudson Street (Alex Tseng) and 42 Hudson Street (owner Jeff White) is unnecessary. Instead leave the driveway between 48 Hudson Street and 46 Hudson Street and make the side yard 5.0' between 46 Hudson Street (owner Alex Tseng) and 42 Hudson Street (owner Jeff White.) With 5.0' between 46 Hudson Street and 42 Hudson 1 �����Exhibit #2 RECEIVED Date: To: From: Subject: February15, 2023 Timothy Church William C. White (48 Hudson St.) 46 Hudson St Proposal FEB 1 6 2023 BUILDING DEPT. VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW As a resident and principal of 48 Hudson St. I am presenting my concerns and opposition to the current proposal of 46 Hudson St. Specifically, the distance between the structures. Currently, the spacing between the structures is approximate 1 O' feet allowing 46 Hudson St access to a driveway. The proposed structure would encompass all but 2' 7" of the spacing between the two structures. The problems that will arise is access between the building and potential structural damage by westerly winds from the Hudson River. Below you will find information about the dynamics of westerly wind velocity on structures set close apart. There are several wind studies from the Hudson River in the Tarrytown's of New York. A study conducted in 2007 by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority found that the average wind speeds in the area were within the range of 3-24 meters per second at hub heights of up to 65 meters. The study also found that the Tarrytown's had relatively high turbulence intensity levels, similar to those found in other areas of the Hudson Valley. Other studies have also been conducted in the area since then, including a 2016 report by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) which found that wind speeds were generally higher in this Hudson River area than in other parts of New York State. Westerly winds can cause a "wind tunnel" effect between two three-story houses set 42" apart, leading to increased air pressure in the area between the two buildings. This increased air pressure can cause additional strain on the walls and roofs of the buildings, leading to cracking and other structural damage. Additionally, the wind can create a loud whistling sound as it passes through the area between the two buildings. Hypothetically, a 45mph westerly wind would have a significant impact on two three story houses set 31 inches apart facing west. The wind would hit the exposed sides of the houses, pushing the air pressure against them. This pressure would cause the roofs of the houses to be pushed up, while the sides of the houses would be pulled outwards. The wind would also increase the chances of shingle damage and gutter damage. The pressure created by the wind could also cause the walls of the houses to flex and bow outwards, potentially causing structural damage. Additionally, the wind could cause windows to rattle and doors to bang, creating a considerable amount of noise. Lastly, the wind could cause debris and dust to be blown around, creating a mess in and around the houses. Overall, a 45mph westerly wind would have a significant impact on two, three story houses set 31 inches apart facing west. What is an ideal spacing for two three story homes facing west with a westerly wind factor of 45mph? Research shows the ideal spacing for two three story homes facing west with a maximum westerly wind factor of 45mph is at least 24 feet apart. This distance allows for adequate protection from the wind, as well as enough space to ensure that the homes don't interfere with each other's wind load. ��Exhibit #3 465 Comments Received from 174 Merlin Avenue Wednesday, March 15, 2023 6:24:56 PM From: Kristy Yacovone Farbman Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2023 4:01 PM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.org> Subject: 465 Munroe Avenue Hi Sean, This is Kristy Yacovone Farbman, 174 Merlin Avenue, SH. I will not be at the hearing tonight but emailing you to address our one concern. We have not issues with 465 Munroe Ave building up as long as it does not block out view of the bridge which will likely effect our property value. We have water/bridge views from the backyard and backyard facing windows. Thank you, Kristy Yacovone Farbman 174 Merlin Ave, SH 914.671.8396 � 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-2023 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_2023-03-15_Approved ZBA Minutes Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2023 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2023 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