https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/c5af512e509f248f78af7d2ad256bd20.pdf 9988b9233c63a425c50f23e748010731 PDF Text Text Village of Sleepy Hollow Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting June 21, 2023 Chairman Timothy Church called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. Present: Timothy Church, Chairman Craig Lis Margaret Rubick Gorete Crowe Also Present: Sean McCarthy, Village Architect Pamela Kroll, Secretary to the Zoning Board Absent: Sandra Tripp Carol Lyden Thomas Chang Agenda: 1) Jeffrey White, 42 Hudson Street, Proposed two-story addition - Public hearing 2) Vinay Gupta and Vanina Schick, 1 Kelbourne Avenue, Proposed additions and alterations- Public hearing 3) Approval of minutes, April 19, 2023 1. Jeffrey White, 42 Hudson Street, Proposed two-story addition- Public hearing Chairman Church read the public notice, listed the documents submitted with the application, and asked Sean McCarthy to confirm that the Building Department received the mailing receipts. Sean McCarthy stated that the Building Department received proof of the mailing. Chairman Church stated that the since there are only four members of the Board present, the vote must be unanimous. The applicant has the option of deferring the decision to the next meeting. Chairman Church invited the applicant to present the application. Kathy Sullivan stated that she is the architect representing the applicant as required by the condition of the September 15, 2021 approval. Ms. Sullivan stated that the approval granted by the Board expired. Since the approval, the Zoning District has changed from the R-4A to the R-5 district. The R-5 Zoning District increases the one-side yard setback requirements from 3 feet to 5 feet and the combined side yard requirements from 12 feet to 15 feet. Ms. Sullivan stated that the applicant proposes to enclose the addition’s lower lever and increase the one-side yard setback from .60 feet to 1 foot to accommodate footings. Ms. Sullivan presented photographs of the existing house and directional views of Hudson Street. Ms. Sullivan presented plans that illustrated the proposed addition's setbacks and area. 1 (ZBA 6/21/2023) �Chairman Church asked Ms. Sullivan to explain if the increased setback would reduce the size of the proposed addition by 5 inches. Ms. Sullivan stated that the proposed 15-foot by 18-foot addition dimensions remain the same. Ms. Sullivan presented renderings to show views of the proposed addition from the neighboring property to the right, the vacant lot on the left, and the rear of the property. Craig Lis asked Ms. Sullivan to confirm that the proposed addition will be in the rear of the house. Ms. Sullivan stated that the proposed addition is entirely on the rear of the house. Chairman Church asked Ms. Sullivan for the distance between the addition’s side, which includes a window, and the neighboring property line. Ms. Sullivan stated that there are approximately 6 feet between the proposed window and the neighboring property line. Chairman Church asked Ms. Sullivan to describe the uses of the proposed addition and what area they propose to enclose since the previous approval. Ms. Sullivan stated that the lower level was originally an open screened-in area. The application proposes to enclose the lower level as a family room and add a bedroom, studio, and bathroom on the second floor. Chairman Church solicited questions from the Board. There were no questions from the Board. A motion was made to open the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Crowe Vote 4-0 Chairman Church solicited comments from the public. There were no comments from the public. A motion was made to close the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Lis Vote 4-0 Chairman Church made a motion to approve the requested variances based on the following criteria: 2 (ZBA 6/21/2023) �1. The requested variances will not produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties, as the width of the proposed addition is consistent with the existing house, and the length of the proposed addition is consistent with neighboring properties. 2. There is no other way to achieve the benefit sought by the Applicant to increase the square footage on the non-conforming property lot without requesting a variance. 3. The requested variances are not substantial as the addition will not be visible from the street and only visible to two neighboring properties because it backs up against MetroNorth. 4. Granting of the area variances will not cause an impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood. 5. Although the requested variances are self-created, there are other factors the Board considers when granting a variance. A motion was made to approve the application. Moved: Church Seconded: Rubick Timothy Church, Chairman - yes Margaret Rubick - yes Craig Lis - yes Gorete Crowe - yes Vote 4-0 APPROVED 2. Vinay Gupta and Vanina Schick, 1 Kelbourne Avenue, Proposed additions and alterations- Public hearing Chairman Church read the public notice, listed the documents submitted with the application, and asked Sean McCarthy to confirm that the Building Department received the mailing receipts. Chairman Church stated that the Board received letters in support of the application. (See Exhibits #s 1, 2, and 3) Sean McCarthy stated that the Building Department received proof of the mailing. Chairman Church stated that although there are four Board members present, one of the Board members lives across the street from the applicants’ property. Normally if a Board member lives within the notice area, they would abstain from voting on the application to avoid a conflict of interest. Chairman Church stated that the Board can hear the presentation, but since only four members are present, the vote must be unanimous. The applicants can defer the decision to the next meeting or waive the potential Board member conflict and request that the Board vote on the application tonight. 3 (ZBA 6/21/2023) �Niall Cain stated that he is the architect representing the applicants. Mr. Cain presented a parcel map to show the location of the property. Mr. Cain presented photographs of the existing house, neighboring property, and views from North Broadway. The application seeks to alter the driveway while keeping the existing curb cut, entrance, and exit. Mr. Cain stated that they propose to remove the existing 6-foot-high fencing and replace it with 6-foot-high wood stockade fencing along the property line. Mr. Cain stated that the applicants propose to keep the existing footprint of the house and construct an addition at the rear of the house and an entry portico addition at the front. Mr. Cain presented the proposed site plan and stated that the applicants propose to replace the existing asphalt driveway with a garden to create a more pleasant side yard. Mr. Cain stated that he has worked with the Village Engineer to confirm that the slope of the proposed driveway is 9.44% and in compliance with driveway requirements and the turning radius work for any normal residential vehicle. Mr. Cain presented a rendering of the proposed house and stated that the existing house is 22.42 feet high. The applicants propose to raise the house’s roof to 31.25 feet high. The proposed third-story addition requires a variance for the front yard setback. The proposed vestibule addition and canopy would project 2.8 feet into the front yard setback and requires a variance for the front yard setback. Mr. Cain summarized the details for the proposed exterior materials and the addition. Mr. Cain stated that the renderings tell the story of the proposed application. Chairman Church asked Mr. Cain if a height variance is required. Mr. Cain stated that the proposed 31.25-foot building height does not require a variance. Chairman Church asked Mr. Cain to explain the reason for curving the driveway around the side house. Mr. Cain stated that the proposed driveway location, compared to the existing orientation of the house and the blacktop, would be a big improvement for the applicants and the neighboring property owner in terms of getting the cars away and bringing them around to the side of the house. Mr. Cain stated that the proposed driveway would be impervious brick pavers that would be aesthetically pleasing compared to blacktop surfaces. Chairman Church asked Mr. Cain to present the proposed site plan drawing. Chairman Church asked Mr. Cain if moving the driveway entrance east instead of in front of the proposed vestibule would cause a grade issue. Mr. Cain stated that moving the driveway entrance to the east would be dangerous due to the site lines from North Broadway. Chairman Church asked Mr. Cain where they propose to install 6-foot high fencing. Mr. Cain indicated on the proposed site plan where 6-foot fencing is proposed. Craig Lis asked Sean McCarthy if there are any exceptions to fence height regulations for fences along Route 9. 4 (ZBA 6/21/2023) �Sean McCarthy stated that the maximum permitted fence height in required front yards is 3 feet. Chairman Church stated that installing a 6-foot high fence to the curb cut would affect visibility for drivers heading east or southwest on New Broadway and those coming into the driveway. Gorete Crowe suggested that the applicant install fencing that gradually steps from 6 feet to 3 feet in height or install 3-foot high fencing with plantings to provide additional privacy. Magaret Rubick stated that property owners often come to the Board requesting to replace an existing 6-foot high fence. As per the Zoning regulations, the maximum permitted height in front yards is 3 feet and applies to all property owners, even Board members. Vanina Schick stated that she is the property owner. Ms. Schick stated that she is requesting the 6-foot fence height to protect her toddler from the dangerous conditions of Route 9. Chairman Church stated that the Board would consider a 6-foot fence along the straight portion of Route 9 and suggested gradually reducing the fence to 3 feet around the curve may improve visibility and safety. Mr. Cain displayed the current condition along the curb of Route 9 and stated that a 6-foot high fence would not cause visibility issues. Vinay Gupta stated that he is the property owner. Mr. Gupta stated that the application proposes to remove fencing on the property as a whole and that the proposed fencing would not cause a visibility issue. The requested fence height is for safety rather than privacy. Chairman Church requested that Mr. Cain present the photographs showing views of the fencing along North Broadway. Mr. Cain stated that there is already a precedent for 6-foot stockade fencing along properties on North Broadway. Sean McCarthy asked Mr. Cain if he has revised the curvature of the driveway entrance on the Site Plan since the applicant was before the Planning Board. Mr. Cain stated that he did not change the Site Plan since meeting with the Planning Board. Sean McCarthy stated that the rendering does not match the proposed Site Plan. The rendering depicts the walkway as parallel with the front of the vestibule addition, and the Site Plan shows the walkway is almost flush with the house. Mr. Cain stated that the walkway in the rendering curves and the dimensions on the Site Plan are accurate to what they propose to build. 5 (ZBA 6/21/2023) �Mr. McCarthy stated that the renderings misrepresent the proposed Site Plan. Mr. Cain disagreed and stated that the renderings match the Site Plan. There was a discussion regarding the discrepancies in the rendering as compared with the Site Plan. Mr. Cain stated that the proposed driveway curve complies with the maximum radius and highway guidelines for residential vehicles. Chairman Church stated that the application proposes to increase the encroachment into the front yard setback where the house is already non-conforming with the minimum required setback. The driveway would seem like a road in the front yard from the sidewalk. Chairman Church requested that the applicant consider reducing the driveway width on the west side and suggested they consider creating a walkway across the driveway using materials similar to the walkway and stairs at the vestibule addition. Ms. Schick stated that the materials proposed for the driveway are not asphalt. Chairman Church stated that it is not the purview of the Zoning Board to dictate the use of certain materials because if the applicant sells the house, a new owner may not want to use the permeable pavers. The Board would decide on granting the area variance based on the dimensions of the driveway. Chairman Church stated that the Board considers granting variances for excessive fence heights when there is a safety reason and that they need to be careful not to grant a variance that may cause a safety issue. Chairman Church requested that the applicant provide views from North Broadway to judge the visibility pulling out of the proposed driveway and the visibility for drivers entering Kelbourne Avenue from North Broadway. Chairman Church requested that the applicant provide documents to show the height of the fencing on the property to the north. Mr. Gupta asked if a prior incident of a car going through a fence warrants the consideration of a 6-foot fence as a safety issue and if there is special consideration given for corner lots along North Broadway as they relate to front yard designations. Mr. McCarthy stated that the height of a fence would not stop a car from going onto the property from North Broadway. There was a discussion regarding the reasoning for the permitted fence height regulations, the exceptions the Board considers for corner lots along North Broadway, and what the Board suggests for the requested fence heights. The Board members agreed that the fence should taper from 6 feet to 3 feet in height. Chairman Church asked the applicants if the requested zero foot in the side yard setback is for the proposed garden. 6 (ZBA 6/21/2023) �A motion was made to close the meeting at 8:30. Moved: Church Seconded: Crowe Vote 4-0 Respectfully Submitted, Pamela Kroll Secretary to the Zoning Board of Appeals 8 (ZBA 6/21/2023) �Exhibit #1 �Exhibit #2 �Exhibit #3 � 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_2023-06-21_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