https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/a8f173ad1fa6fb602409ae90b2bfe453.pdf 20ae15edecdea70dc683a8b971e7c6e0 PDF Text Text Village of Sleepy Hollow Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting May 21, 2025 Chairman Church called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. Chairman Church stated that the 50 on Hudson Street LLC application is a continued public hearing from April 16, 2025. Since that meeting, the Board has received two public comment letters and revised plans from the applicant. Present: Timothy Church, Chairman Craig Lis Sandra Tripp Dennis Xenos Carol Lyden Also Present: Sean E. McCarthy, Village Architect Absent: Thomas Chang Gorete Crowe Pamela Kroll, Secretary to the Zoning Board of Appeals Agenda: 1) 50 on Hudson St. LLC, 50 Hudson St. LLC, Proposed three-family residence- Public hearing 2) Approval of minutes, April 16, 2025 1. 50 on Hudson St. LLC, Proposed three-family residence- Public hearing Chairman Church invited the applicant to present the changes made to the application. Brian Hopkins is the owner and the architect. He summarized the architectural changes per the Planning Board's comments and stated that the changes do not affect the requested zoning variances. Chairman Church asked Mr. Hopkins to compare the proposed building's size with that of the existing non-conforming structure and describe what is driving the increase in the proposed building's coverage. Mr. Hopkins presented the Zoning Analysis and stated that the new building structure proposes to increase the coverage by 132 square feet. The current building is existing non-conforming as it relates to building coverage and setback lines on the north and west sides of the property lines. The shape of the lot and the desire to have two bedrooms on each floor plate drive the requested 1 (ZBA 5/21/2025) �increase in building coverage. Mr. Hopkins described how the proposed building would conform more to the required setbacks. Sandra Tripp asked Mr. Hopkins if the existing structure is a single-family home. Mr. Hopkins confirmed that the existing structure is a single-family home. Chairman Church asked Mr. Hopkins to compare the sizes of full and compact parking spaces. Mr. Hopkins stated that the revised application proposed one compact and two full-size parking spaces. The two full-size parking spaces are 9 and 1/2 feet wide, and the compact space is 8 and 1/2 feet wide. Chairman Church asked Mr. Hopkins if the plan could be adjusted to include 3 full-size parking spaces. Mr. Hopkins said the compact space could be widened to a full size while still providing the required turning radius. Chairman Church asked Mr. Hopkins to confirm the proposed number of bedrooms and to explain why the requested variance for compact parking spaces changed. Mr. Hopkins stated that the Planning Board recommended the reorientation of the parking area to increase the width. Sean McCarthy stated that reorienting the parking area eliminates the variance for compact parking spaces. Chairman Church asked Mr. Hopkins to compare the neighborhoods’ lot coverage on Hudson Street. Mr. Hopkins presented Zoning Metrics and stated there is precedent for building structure size at 34 and 46 Hudson Street. Chairman Church stated that the proposed building on 50 Hudson Street would cover 36 percent of the lot, whereas 46 Hudson Street covers 24 percent of the lot, with a different footprint. Mr. Hopkins stated that the shared driveway easement agreement with 48 Hudson Street increases the functional lot size of 50 Hudson Street to 4,299 square feet. He presented bulk, style, and layout comparisons. He stated that similar variances were approved for 46 Hudson Street for a three-family building with the same unit configuration proposed for 50 Hudson Street. 2 (ZBA 5/21/2025) �Sandra Tripp asked if the coverage area proportions were calculated with or without the easement. Mr. Hopkins stated that the coverage area calculations do not include the easement area. Craig Lis stated the lot area coverage for 46 Hudson Street is not much different from the proposed coverage at 50 Hudson Street, other than the cars parking in the driveway at 46 Hudson Street. Ms. Tripp stated that the demolition of the existing structure, proposed development, and the shared driveway easement agreement allow a fourth car to get off the street by providing a parking space for 48 Hudson Street. Chairman Church moved to open the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Lis Vote 5-0 Chairman Church solicited comments from the public. Clara Teagle stated that she lives at 38 Hudson Street and has submitted a comment letter to the Board (See attached Exhibit #2). Mr. Teagle summarized her opposition to the modern building style, required lot area for a three-family residence, parking requirements and accessibility, and the effect on the 48 Hudson Street property. Chairman Church stated that the applicant agreed to plan revisions for the three full-size parking spaces to eliminate the variance for the compact parking space. The building department will confirm the required access to the parking spaces at 50 Hudson Street and 48 Hudson Street. William White is a resident of 48 Hudson Street. Mr. White stated that he is not opposed to a new structure but is concerned that the proposed project and easement will impede the options for future construction of a unit on 48 Hudson Street. The Board received correspondence from Mr. White on 5/9/25 (See attached Exhibit #1) Chairman Church moved to close the public hearing. Moved: Church Seconded: Tripp Vote 5-0 Chairman Church suggested that the Board approve the revised application that eliminates that variance for a compact space by providing (3) full size parking spaces and include the condition for the applicant to designate (1) off-street parking space for each unit without charging an additional rental fee and restrict the owner and tenants from renting parking spaces for other purposes. The new structure will improve the front yard and combined side yard setbacks. The proposed site plan and driveway easement with 48 Hudson Street will create (1) parking space at 48 Hudson Street and (3) parking spaces at 50 Hudson Street where no parking spaces are currently available. Approval of the application will not restrict the owner of 48 Hudson Street from submitting an application to increase the number of units and the easement will provide a 3 (ZBA 5/21/2025) �better opportunity for future development. The proposed application would provide a benefit to the neighborhood. The benefit sought by owner to demolish the existing structure and to construct a building that increases the off-street parking availability by four parking spots is a feasible method. The proposed building footprint coverage is not out of character with other houses on the street and is not overly substantial. Approval of the application will not impact the environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The construction of a house that is within the property lines will provide a benefit to the physical conditions of the neighborhood. Although it is a self-created hardship the applicant is proposing a more conforming building in terms of the setbacks, and it is not the only factor the Board considers when granting approval. Chairman Church moved to approve the revised including the amended conditions. Moved: Church Seconded: Tripp Vote 5-0 Timothy Church, Chairman- yes Craig Lis- yes Carol Lyden- yes Sandra Tripp- yes Dennis Xenos- yes Vote 5-0 2. Approval of minutes, April 16, 2025 Chairman Lis moved to approve the minutes from the January 15, 2025 and the February 19, 2025 meetings. Moved: Church Seconded: Tripp Chairman Church, Chairman- yes Craig Lis- yes Carol Lyden- yes Sandra Tripp- yes Dennis Xenos- yes Vote 4-0 Chairman Church moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:47 PM. Moved: Church Seconded: Tripp Vote 5-0 Respectfully Submitted, Pamela Kroll Secretary to the Zoning Board of Appeals 4 (ZBA 5/21/2025) �Exhibit #1 From: To: Subject: Date: William White Sean McCarthy Opposition to 50 Hudson St. redevelopment Thursday, May 8, 2025 9:48:34 PM Dear Chairpersons Krakauer and Church, I am writing as a concerned resident of 48 Hudson Street Sleepy Hollow, to express my opposition to the proposed redevelopment of 50 Hudson Street into a three-family residence, as currently presented. Architectural Incompatibility The proposed design features a flat roof and modern façade materials that starkly contrast with the traditional architectural styles prevalent on Hudson Street. The neighborhood is characterized by historic homes with gable roofs and classic detailing, contributing to the village's unique charm. Introducing a modern structure with a flat roof disrupts this architectural harmony and sets a concerning precedent for future developments. Zoning Variances and Overdevelopment The proposal requires multiple significant variances from the Village Code, including: Lot Area and Width: The existing lot area is 3,479 sq.ft., below the minimum required 5,000 sq.ft. The lot width is 37 ft., under the required 50 ft. Setbacks: The proposed front yard setback is 9.4 ft. (minimum required is 20 ft.), and the side yard setback is 3 ft. (minimum required is 5 ft.), with combined side yards at 7.3 ft. (minimum required is 15 ft.). Building Coverage: The proposal exceeds the maximum allowed building coverage of 30% by proposing 36%. �current proposal for 50 Hudson Street and request a redesign that aligns more closely with the traditional architectural elements of Hudson Street, including the incorporation of a gable roof and adherence to zoning regulations. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, William C. White 48 Hudson Street �Parking: Only three parking spaces are proposed, whereas seven are required by code. All proposed spaces are compact, which may not accommodate standard vehicles effectively. Concerns Regarding Prior Variance at 46 Hudson Street I would also like to bring to your attention the negative impacts resulting from the variance previously granted to 46 Hudson Street. The decision to allow the developer to move the structure closer to 48 Hudson Street has led to unintended consequences, including: Loss of Sunlight: The reduced distance between the buildings has significantly diminished natural light for the adjacent property, affecting the quality of life we enjoyed for decades. Wind Tunnel Effect: The narrowed space between the structures has created a wind tunnel, leading to increased wind noise and vibrations. These outcomes highlight the importance of thoroughly evaluating the potential impacts of granting variances on neighboring properties and the overall community. Granting these variances would not only strain the existing infrastructure but also encourage overdevelopment in a neighborhoods that thrives on its historical scale and character. Community Impact The proposed design scale and modern aesthetic are inconsistent with the existing streetscape. The insufficient parking provision could exacerbate existing parking challenges, leading to increased congestion and safety concerns. Conclusion While I understand the need for development and modernization, it is crucial that new constructions respect and reflect the historical and architectural context of their surroundings. I urge the Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals to reconsider the �Exhibit #2 From: To: Subject: Date: Clara Teagle Sean McCarthy; Martin Rutyna Opposition to 50 Hudson St. Redevelopment Proposal Wednesday, May 21, 2025 12:17:10 PM ****[CAUTION: This email originated from an external source. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.]**** To: Chairperson Lindsay Krakauer, Chairperson Timothy Church I am a concerned resident of 38 Hudson Street, Sleepy Hollow, NY. This letter is to express my opposition to the proposal for the redevelopment of 50 Hudson Street into a three-family residence. Design The proposed design is a totally modern building that is inconsistent with properties on Hudson Street. Zoning Variances The proposal requires many significant variances from the Sleepy Hollow Village zoning code in addition to an easement to accommodate building a structure on a lot size that is too small. Lot Area and Width Ft. Minimum Required Lot Area           5,000 Sq.          Proposed Lot Area Sq. Ft. 5,000          Existing Lot Area Sq. Ft. 3,479 Variance 1,521 �Sq. Ft.          Minimum Required Lot Width                          50.0 Ft.          Proposed Lot Width                                           50.0 Ft.          Existing Lot Width                                              37.0 Ft Ft. Variance                                                              13.0 Setbacks          Minimum Required Side Yard                           5.0 Ft.          Proposed Side Yard                                            3.0 Ft.          Existing Side Yard                                               2.8 Ft          Variance                                                              0.2 Ft.          Minimum Required Combined Side Yard        15.0 Ft.          Proposed Combined Side Yard                         7.3 Ft.          Existing Combined Side Yard                            2.8 Ft.          Variance                                                              7.7 Ft. �Building Coverage          Maximum required Building Coverage            30%          Proposed Building Coverage                             36%          Existing Building Coverage                                32% Parking According to Article VII, 450-41.E of the zoning code, seven (7) spaces are required for a three-family home. The proposal is for three (3). According to Article VII, 450-41.A.(4) of the zoning code Permitted compact parking spaces is zero (0). The proposal is for three (3). In the application, Page 3 of 6, Item f., the applicant/developer referred to arriving at the architectural solution by using the same approach to Setbacks and Parking that was used for 46 Hudson Street. The setback variance approved for that house compromised the property of 48 Hudson Street. As configured, the parking at 46 Hudson Street will not accommodate three (3) cars parked perpendicular or at an angle – not standard size cars and unlikely compact cars. The property at 50 Hudson Street is much smaller so there will be insufficient parking, which will further exacerbate the parking problem. I urge both the Planning Board and the Zoning Board to clearly recognize and acknowledge that the design in the current proposal for 50 Hudson Street should be redesigned to align more closely with the other �properties on Hudson Street and that there is compliance with the zoning regulations. Thank you. Clara Teagle 38 Hudson Street � 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-2025 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_2025-05-21 Approved ZBA Minutes Subject The topic of the resource Zoning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2025 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2025 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