Zoning Board of Appeals
Village of Tarrytown
Regular Meeting
June 11, 2007 8 p.m.
PRESENT: Chairwoman Lawrence; Members *Jolly, Brown, James; Counsel
Shumejda; Building Inspector/Engineer McGarvey; Secretary
D’Eufemia
ABSENT: Mr. Maloney
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Ms. James moved, seconded by Mr. Jolly, and unanimously carried, that the minutes of May 14, 2007, be approved as submitted.
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING – PUTNAM AVENUE HOMES, INC. – HILLSIDE STREET
Mr. Richard Blancato, attorney for the applicant, stated they are requesting a variance for disturbance of steep slopes areas. They spent a considerable amount of time with the Planning Board with many revisions to the plans and they finally have plans that are acceptable to the Planning Board for both lots. During the long process houses were moved and things were done since their application to the ZBA. As a result, two additional variances are needed – for the front yard and side yard. They will have to re-apply for those next month.
Chairwoman Lawrence read the following portion of the approval resolution by the Planning Board from their May 29, 2007, minutes:
“9. Approval by the Zoning Board for any variances required.
Given some of the special conditions and circumstances involved with this application, which include:
a. There had been subdivision approval and site plan approval, although the subdivision approval had lapsed.
b. The steep slopes on the site are man-made steep slopes with the strong probability of there having been a quarry on the site for rock or dirt. The removal of some of these steep slopes will not affect a previously existing natural topography.
c. There would be no disturbance of major trees or active water systems.
d. There is a need for providing safe egress of cars from the house driveway on Lot 3A
and, given that subsequent reduction in steep slope disturbance was achieved by several measures, including:
Zoning Board of Appeals -2- June 11, 2007
a. Significant reduction in house sizes and building footprints
b. Re-subdivision of the property to allow for the re-positioning of the homes to avoid steep slopes to a significant extent and to provide for additional open green space,
The Planning Board recommends that a variance for the remaining steep slope disturbance be granted.”
Chairwoman Lawrence questioned whether anyone wished to address the Board on this matter. No one appeared.
Counsel Shumejda stated the Planning Board as Lead Agency did the environmental review for this project. There is no necessity for the ZBA to do an environmental review.
Counsel Shumejda suggested that since a new legal notice is needed for the setback variances, the Board might want to incorporate all the needed variances, including the slopes, into a new notice. Mr. Blancato stated that would be fine since a new legal notice will be necessary.
PUBLIC HEARING – CASE – 77 CREST DRIVE
The Secretary read the following Notice of Public Hearing:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Tarrytown will hold a public hearing at 8:00 p.m. on Monday, June 11, 2007, in the Municipal Building, 21 Wildey Street, Tarrytown, New York to hear and consider an application by
Marcia Case
77 Crest Drive
Tarrytown, New York 10591
for a variance from the Zoning Code of the Village of Tarrytown for property located at the above address regarding connection of existing accessory structure (carport) to the principal structure creating a new one-car garage and the creation of a new third off-street parking space requiring the following variances:
1. One side yard is required to be 12 ft. and 6.315 ft is proposed (§305-9)
2. Parking in a required front and side yard setback (§305-19C(3)(b))
Documents are available for inspection in the Planning and Zoning Office at Tarrytown Village Hall. The property is shown on the Tax Maps of the Village of Tarrytown as Sheet 19A, Block 107A, Lot 24 and is located in an R-10 (Residential) zone.
Zoning Board of Appeals -3- June 11, 2007
All interested parties are invited to attend and be heard. Access to the meeting room is available to the elderly and the handicapped. Signing is available for the hearing impaired; request must be made to the Village Clerk at least one week in advance of the meeting.
The certified mailing receipts were submitted.
Board members visited the property.
Mr. Jonathan Hodash, architect, stated they are enclosing the carport to make a garage. The setback is not changing; however, since the garage will now be attached to the house, it is considered part of the principal structure so the side yard variance is necessary.
Chairwoman Lawrence stated the Board during the site visit did not have a problem with the garage; however, there was concern about the additional parking space in the front yard.
Mr. Jeffrey Meade, Ms. Case’s partner, stated they recognize zoning is important but they have some unique circumstances. There are only the two of them residing in the house and they have two cars. He is the Director of Emergency Life Support at Phelps Memorial Hospital and also a Deputy Team Leader for the Westchester County Department of Emergency Services Hazardous Materials Response Team. Both positions require that he be able to promptly respond to emergency situations. Ms. Case is an RN at Westchester Medical Center assigned to the Stat Mobile ICU team, responsible for the transport of neonatal and pediatric patients. Both of their positions require on-call overnight responsibility.
Ms. Case stated having a single lane driveway requires that they often have to move one vehicle to allow the other to depart, which can cause a significant delay in an emergency. They considered moving the additional parking space back but that would require removing a specimen tree. If they put it on the south side of the driveway, they are in the area of the fire hydrant. The only place the space can be put is where they propose it. Many of the homes on Crest Drive have this type of space already. There is a small tree that would have to come out but they would relocate that on the property. They have consulted the neighbors. The immediate neighbor (closest to the proposal) is not here but sent a letter saying she is not opposed. The neighbors on either side and
immediately across the street are in agreement. They thought about constructing a two-car garage; however they did not feel it would be in character with the neighborhood.
Chairwoman Lawrence read the following letter dated June 10, 2007, from John Ford and Alice Casey, 85 Crest Drive:
Zoning Board of Appeals -4- June 11, 2007
“We are Tarrytown residents at 85 Crest Drive and next door neighbors to Marcia Case at 77 Crest Drive. We are writing in reference to renovations planned by our neighbor. We have met with Marcia and she gave us a detailed description of the plans for improving
her property. We understand her explanation and have no objections to these plans. Thus, we request that Marcia Case’s application be approved.”
Counsel Shumejda questioned whether the applicant has a survey of the property. Ms. Case stated she has a 1947 survey but it doesn’t show the driveway or the carport.
Upon inquiry, Counsel Shumejda stated the prohibition of parking in the front yard went into effect several years ago.
Ms. Lawrence stated this house has a long driveway and with the garage there is parking for about three cars. Ms. Case stated that does not resolve the problem of having to move cars in the night. Ms. James questioned how often that happens. Mr. Mead stated quite frequently and many homes in the area have what they are requesting. Chairwoman Lawrence stated there are many pre-existing non-conforming situations since the ordinance has only been in effect five or six years. Ms. James stated the Board has had a number of similar applications since the ordinance was adopted and those have been rejected.
Mr. Hodash noted that if there are cars in the driveway, one will be in the front yard setback. Counsel Shumejda stated that is the driveway – this request is for a parking space in the front yard.
Ms. Case stated if this variance is not granted, one car will have to park on the street which is dangerous because of the curve in the road and the location of the fire hydrant.
Chairwoman Lawrence questioned whether anyone wished to address the Board on this matter.
Ms. Mary Ann Neiger, 78 Crest Drive, stated she lives across the street from this property and she is in support of the requested variances. She stated the applicant has consulted with neighbors and is trying to be environmentally friendly. She added that any cars parked on the street on that curve with the fire hydrant poses an extreme safety hazard. There have been times she has had tire tracks on her front lawn from people not being careful coming around that curve – and that was without cars parked on the street.
Mr. Bernard Brown, 57 Crest Drive, stated he has been in his house for 45 years and this house was there before he arrived. He did not feel the previous owners would have wanted anything destroyed.
Chairwoman Lawrence reported receipt of the following memo dated June 11, 2007, from Kathleen D’Eufemia, Designated Environmental Review Officer:
Zoning Board of Appeals -5- June 11, 2007
“Case – 77 Crest Drive - This is an application for the connection of the existing carport to the house and conversion of the carport to a garage. The second portion of the Zoning
application is for the creation of an additional parking space in the front and side yard. The Board can review these matters separately for environmental consideration. It appears the creation of the garage poses no significant adverse environmental impact; however, a parking space in the front yard can pose an adverse environmental impact. The Board will have to determine whether there are circumstances that would outweigh those concerns and if there are, they can make a negative determination.
Mr. Jolly moved, seconded by Ms. James, and unanimously carried, that the Board determines there will be no significant adverse environmental impact from the creation of the garage.
Mr. Jolly moved, seconded by Ms. James, and unanimously carried, that the portion of the hearing dealing with the creation of a garage be closed and the Board having arrived at the following findings required by the ordinance:
1.That the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood
2.That the proposed variance will not create an undesirable change to the neighborhood or detriment to the neighborhood
3.That the benefit the applicant seeks to achieve cannot be achieved by any other feasible method
4.That the variance is not substantial in the Board’s judgment
5.That the variance would not have an adverse environmental impact on the
neighborhood
6. That the variance is the minimum one deemed necessary and will preserve and
protect the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and
welfare of the community
grants the following variance:
One side yard is required to be 12 ft. and 6.315 ft is proposed (§305-9)
Subject to:
1. Approval of plans by the Building Inspector
2. Obtaining a building permit for the project within two years.
In regard to the portion of the application dealing with the parking space, Ms. Lawrence stated it did appear this variance is substantial especially since there is a garage and long driveway.
Zoning Board of Appeals -6- June 11, 2007
Counsel Shumejda stated it might be beneficial to have an updated survey and also to have the Village’s Landscape Consultant look at the property for his recommendation.
Ms. Nieger stated this house has always had beautiful landscaping and whether this space is approved or not that landscaping will be preserved which should diminish the impact the Board has addressed.
Mr. Jolly moved, seconded by Ms. James, and unanimously carried, that the Board establishes an escrow account in the amount of $500 to cover a review of the 77 Crest Drive property by the Village’s Landscape Consultant.
The Board unanimously agreed to continue the portion of this application relating to the creation of a parking space in the front yard at their next meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING – RENHA – 3 WINDLE PARK
The Secretary read the following Notice of Public Hearing:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Tarrytown will hold a public hearing at 8:00 p.m. on Monday, June 11, 2007, in the Municipal Building, 21 Wildey Street, Tarrytown, New York to hear and consider an application by
Ilda Renha
46 Gordon Avenue
Sleepy Hollow, New York 10591
for a variance from the Zoning Code of the Village of Tarrytown for property she owns located at 3 Windle Park, Tarrytown, New York, which is a legal four-family building, and applicant wishes to legalize an existing fifth apartment requiring the following variances:
1. Increase in the degree of existing non-conformities (§305-18A(1)):
A. Minimum lot size for four-unit building is required to be 9,000 sq. ft.; 5,237.6 ft. exists; 10,000 sq. ft. is required for a five-unit building.
B. Building coverage is permitted to be 25% and 31% exists.
C. Minimum front yard is required to be 25 ft. and 3 ft. exists.
D. Minimum side yard is required to be 20 ft. and 11 ft. exists.
E. Minimum combined side yards is required to be 40 ft. and 29 ft. exists.
F. Minimum rear yard is required to be 45 ft. and 23 ft. exists.
G. Required off street parking for a four-unit building is 11 spaces and required off street parking for a five-unit building is 13 spaces and 6 spaces are provided.
Zoning Board of Appeals -7- June 11, 2007
Documents are available for inspection in the Planning and Zoning Office at Tarrytown Village Hall. The property is shown on the Tax Maps of the Village of Tarrytown as Sheet 10, Block 33, Lots 6 and 7 and is located in an M-1 (Multi-family) zone.
All interested parties are invited to attend and be heard. Access to the meeting room is available to the elderly and the handicapped. Signing is available for the hearing impaired; request must be made to the Village Clerk at least one week in advance of the meeting.
The certified mailing receipts were submitted.
Board members visited the property.
*Mr. Jolly recused himself on this application.
Mr. John Turnquist, architect, stated the building is currently a four-unit building which had a fifth apartment which the owner says was there for about thirty years. This is a pre-existing non-conforming building. They don’t foresee any problems bringing the building up to all code requirements.
Counsel Shumejda stated this applicant was before the ZBA in March 2006 and got permission to legalize the fourth apartment. The fifth apartment was ordered by the Building Inspector to be vacated and removed. This application is for that fifth apartment.
Mr. Turnquist stated the applicant is claiming a hardship with the expenses of the building. Chairwoman Lawrence stated no financial statements have been provided to the Board.
Ms. James questioned why this fifth apartment was now absolutely needed when the Board had just approved the fourth apartment a year ago. Mr. Renha stated expenses are high and they have a child in medical school.
Counsel Shumejda stated competent financial information is needed – three years of tax statements by a certified public accountant with the expenses and income generated for this property and the amount of depreciation with an appraisal of the property a year ago and today.
Chairwoman Lawrence stated because of such a limited amount of parking on this property, she personally was leaning toward not granting this variance. She noted the applicant cited on the application that she would attempt to obtain parking from the YMCA. Mr. Turnquist stated the YMCA does lease parking to area residents.
Zoning Board of Appeals -8- June 11, 2007
Upon inquiry, Mr. Turnquist stated this fifth apartment is currently vacant and Chairwoman Lawrence confirmed that when the Board visited yesterday the appliances had been removed.
Upon inquiry from Ms. Brown, Mr. McGarvey stated this house had been a legal three-family and it was discovered last year there were five apartments. They came in asking for the legalization of the fourth with the elimination of the fifth apartment. Now they are coming in for the variance for the fifth apartment.
Mr. John Jolly, 68 Main Street, stated there is a scarcity of apartments in the Village. The apartment is probably only big enough for one person. Most of the houses on Windle Park do not comply and some have no parking. People can park on that street with a sticker. Parking is tight on that street because of the YMCA. He stated he supported the addition of this apartment. One of the reasons it had to be vacated was because they had to fireproof the wall but that would be done if this is granted.
Mr. Turnquist stated there was a seventh parking space but it was for a compact car. He showed the Board on the plan where that had been located. Ms. Brown stated if someone parked there, other cars could not get through. Mrs. Renha stated cars used to park there.
Chairwoman Lawrence stated if they brought in the information the Village Attorney referred to, the Board could look at it further. She stated she would also like to see this additional parking space laid out on the plan.
Chairwoman Lawrence questioned whether anyone wished to address the Board on this matter.
Ms. Rosalie Rusinko, Altamont Avenue, stated even if they can show economic evidence, they cannot overcome the environmental issues, particularly the shortage in parking. Chairwoman Lawrence stated the Board would have to review all the issues pertaining to this application. Ms. Rusinko stated one of the reasons they are claiming economic hardship is the fact they have a child in medical school but they should also provide whether they have grants and financial aid.
Ms. Jayne Vicelice, a resident of Whisper Hill Condominiums, stated variances are usually given because a particular property doesn’t conform to the specifications. This notice of hearing shows the house should be rezoned. Nothing is similar to what the area
is zoned for. She questioned why the applicants did not apply for the five-families last year when they came in for the fourth apartment. As far as real estate goes, it is subjective. Forget economic hardship. What property was worth last year is lower than it is this year. That is not necessarily economic hardship. For these people it is where real estate is at this time.
Zoning Board of Appeals -9- June 11, 2007
Chairwoman Lawrence noted a five-family house does comply with the zoning in this neighborhood; however the variances needed are considerable. Ms. Brown noted variances B-F are all existing non-conformities, which would not be changed. The parking is the variance this Board needs to consider.
Chairwoman Lawrence reported receipt of the following memo dated June 11, 2007, from Kathleen D’Eufemia, Designated Environmental Review Officer:
“Renha – 3 Windle Park - This is an application for the creation of a fifth apartment in an existing four-family building. An illegal fourth apartment was given variance approval by the ZBA last year and the applicant’s attorney at that time stated the illegal fifth apartment in the basement was being removed. This property only has six off street parking spaces and this application would require thirteen spaces. Parking on Windle Park is very difficult and an additional apartment without the required parking would exacerbate that problem. In order for the Board to determine there are no significant adverse environmental impacts from this proposal, they will need evidence presented as to why this variance should be granted.”
All agreed to continue the hearing at the next meeting if the applicant chooses to submit the additional information requested.
*Mr. Jolly returned to the meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING – C.M. PATEMAN & ASSOCIATES – VACANT LOT INTERSECTION OF ALTAMONT AVENUE/FAIRVIEW AVENUE
The Secretary read the following Notice of Public Hearing:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Tarrytown will hold a public hearing at 8:00 p.m. on Monday, June 11, 2007, in the Municipal Building, 21 Wildey Street, Tarrytown, New York to hear and consider an application by
C. M. Pateman & Associates, Inc., Contract Vendee
255 Mountain Road
Irvington, New York 10533
for a variance from the Zoning Code of the Village of Tarrytown for vacant property located at the intersection of Altamont Avenue and Fairview Avenue, Tarrytown, New York, regarding construction of a new single-family house requiring the following variances:
1.Steep Slopes Intrusion (§305-22)
a. Area of disturbed slopes = 1,567 sq. ft.
b. Area of slopes within house footprint = 188 sq. ft.
Zoning Board of Appeals -10- June 11, 2007
c. Area of slopes within building envelope = 544 sq. ft.
Documents are available for inspection in the Planning and Zoning Office at Tarrytown Village Hall. The property is shown on the Tax Maps of the Village of Tarrytown as Sheet 12, Block 47, Lot 51 and is located in an R-10 (Residential) zone.
All interested parties are invited to attend and be heard. Access to the meeting room is available to the elderly and the handicapped. Signing is available for the hearing impaired; request must be made to the Village Clerk at least one week in advance of the meeting.
The certified mailing receipts were submitted.
Board members visited the property.
Mr. Chuck Pateman, Contract Vendee, stated this application involves a request for a variance. The property complies with the Tarrytown Zoning Ordinance in all respects with the exception of Section 305-22 which states that ‘those portions of sites under review which contain steep slopes shall be excluded from use in the construction of principal uses permitted. Additionally, fifty percent of the steep slope areas shall be excluded from any and all density calculations pertaining to minimum lot size, coverage and other density calculations.’ The property is located in the R-10 zone which requires a net lot area of 10,000 square feet. This property contains 11,788 square feet and has a net site area of 10,238 square feet after the required deductions for steep slopes. There are
no other environmental constraints on the property. The most severe slope on the subject property is 25.35%, and the definition of a steep slope is 25% so it is about 4 inches. Mr. Pateman noted he submitted a great deal of documentation is his packet to the Board. He stated the variance is diminimous.
Upon inquiry from Ms. Brown, Mr. Pateman stated the living space of the proposed house is 3,144 sq. ft. It conforms to the F.A.R. regulations.
Chairwoman Lawrence questioned whether anyone wished to address the Board on this matter.
Ms. Angela Schneider, 16 Fairview Avenue, stated she has lived on the street for 20 years. She and her family came to Tarrytown because it was a much more beautiful Village than it is now. This was a lovely corner in an old neighborhood. Most homes in the area are at least 85 years old. “To my horror I see a modern house which does not fit in with this area.” Ms. Schneider stated she knows all about the runoff and on this corner and it is horrendous. She stated the rules and regulations in the Village are there for a reason and a variance should only be granted in exceptional cases but it seems developers come to these Board meetings and a variance is standard procedure. “I am questioning
Zoning Board of Appeals -11- June 11, 2007
why these Boards who work so hard to protect the Village give out these variances.” Ms. Schneider stated the intersection of Benedict/Highland/Prospect Avenues was magnificent. Now there are four houses, which has made the Church on that corner lose its magic. That is what the Board will do to this area if this house is built. This area should be an historic area. “We should take a strong stand against these variances.”
Ms. James stated none of the four houses mentioned by Ms. Schneider came to the Zoning Board for any variances.
Ms. James questioned whether Mr. Pateman could show the Board a house that could be built without a variance. Mr. Pateman showed the Board an outline of a house that could be built without a variance. He stated he did not feel the house would be aesthetically pleasing. He added they felt they had met the test requirements for the granting of a variance. Mr. Pateman stated this lot was totally conforming until the Village amended the steep slopes ordinance in 2006. Ms. James stated the lot is vacant. Nothing has been built. It is not an existing property that has fallen out of compliance.
Chairwoman Lawrence stated the procedure they have established on the Zoning Board is to refer this application to the Planning Board for their recommendation on the variance. The Board did that on the Hillside Street application, and she felt the ZBA should follow that procedure on this application as well. Mr. Pateman stated the ZBA could deny the application before them tonight.
Counsel Shumejda stated the Planning Board has declared its intent to be Lead Agency on this site plan. They have yet to make an environmental determination so the ZBA in his opinion was without authority to make a decision.
Mr. Pateman stated he was asking for a variance to grade this property, which he felt was a diminimous variance.
Chairwoman Lawrence stated the ZBA should not vote for or against the application without the Planning Board’s recommendation. Mr. Pateman stated the ZBA can deny the application. Counsel Shumejda stated he would recommend the ZBA not take that action because the environmental determination has not been made.
Mr. Pateman stated this is exempt from SEQR because it is a variance for a single-family house. The ZBA can make a decision without further environmental review.
Mr. Richard Blancato, attorney for the applicant, stated the reason they are before the Board is because it was their impression that the slopes disturbance variance is diminimous. The Planning Board is considering all the issues the neighbors have raised – runoff, siting of the house, trees, etc. They felt they could get past this variance issue since the issues are those before the Planning Board. Chairwoman Lawrence stated because of the environmental concerns, the ZBA has been advised not to make a
Zoning Board of Appeals -12- June 11, 2007
decision. Mr. Blancato stated the concerns of the neighbors are concerns for the Planning Board and Architectural Review Board. The variances are diminimous.
Mr. Jolly questioned whether the Planning Board said to go ahead and apply to the ZBA. Mr. Blancato stated the Planning Board has made no recommendations.
Mr. Pateman stated if the Village wants to keep this property clear, they can buy it. There have been comments the proposed house doesn’t fit in with the neighborhood and that is why there is an Architectural Review Board. The Planning Board requested they retain a Landscape Architect and an Arborist, which they have done and every tree has been reviewed. Runoff is being addressed by the Planning Board. They have agreed to all impervious surface and they will be building a retaining wall of 5 ft. and the Tarrytown code requires dry wells and they have agreed to comply with all of that. The purpose of a ZBA is to grant relief to someone who meets the five-point test and they have submitted in their package how they do that.
Ms. Laura Copeland, 40 Fairview Avenue, stated the proposed house needs a variance and she urged the Board to think carefully about that. The law was passed to protect the Village. Mr. Pateman is not entitled to a variance. The Village is entitled to pass legislation to protect the Village and it did. The ZBA does not have to grant a variance. It was said the Planning Board is the Lead Agency and the ZBA’s procedure is not to act until the Planning Board comes back with a recommendation, which they have not. “This application is not ripe for your judgment and I would urge you to not make a judgment.”
Ms. Copeland stated Mr. Pateman keeps asking the Board to deny the variance but that is not the issue. The ZBA does not have to say they are granting or denying. The ZBA has said they can’t make a determination now because they haven’t gotten the information from the Planning Board. It is not ready yet.
Mr. Pateman stated he is not before the ZBA for a site plan. He is here to reduce the grade on the property by 4 inches. It is a diminimous variance that does not require SEQR review. The Planning Board has not declared themselves Lead Agency nor are they required to do so. It is a single-family house, which does not require SEQR.
Ms. Rosalie Rusinko, Altamont Avenue, questioned whether the steep slopes issue could be segmented from the other issues before the Planning Board. Counsel Shumejda stated it is one project with different facets before different Boards but it should not be segmented.
Mr. Blancato stated to his knowledge the Planning Board has not determined they are Lead Agency and he felt they had to determine it is a Type II action, which is exempt.
Counsel Shumejda stated he would have to check the record.
Ms. Annette Stiloski, 59 Fairview Avenue, stated she didn’t know why this application was before the ZBA since Planning Board approval should be received first.
Zoning Board of Appeals -13- June 11, 2007
Chairwoman Lawrence stated Mr. Pateman came before the ZBA with an application for a variance and the ZBA has said they should have a recommendation from the Planning Board. Mr. Pateman had the right to request the variance. Ms. Stiloski stated she is opposed to the size of the house and she was concerned about runoff. She also expressed concern about blasting. She stated she was not against a house being built – she is against the look and design of the proposed house.
Mr. Chris Hunter, 60 Fairview Avenue, stated Ms. Schneider’s house might be bigger than the proposed house but the property is bigger. Mr. Hunter stated he did not receive a certified notice about tonight’s meeting and he believes he is within 100 ft.
Mr. Klaus Schreiber, 56 Grove Street, noted that Mr. Pateman referred to a five-point test for a variance and he questioned what those points were. He also noted that Mr. Pateman had been asked what house he could build without a variance and he did not answer that.
Mr. Pateman stated he did not want to build a house that goes around the slopes. It would be a zig-zag house. The five-point test is as follows:
1. No Undesirable Change Would Be Produced in Character of Neighborhood Nor Would There Be a Detriment to Nearby Properties.
Mr. Pateman stated the granting of the variance will not produce any undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor will it be a detriment to nearby properties. Many of the surrounding homes are on similarly situated lots and consist of varied architecture and are of similar size. Many properties in the neighborhood are on lots, which exceed 50% slopes. The proposed mitigation will result in a residence within the intent of the ordinance. Mr. Pateman stated he is willing to discuss any reasonable conditions the Board determines to attach to the variance being sought. Also, this lot was legally subdivided by the Tarrytown Planning Board and the Board stated in its decision that ‘the subdivision will have no adverse impact on the neighborhood.’
2. The Benefit Sought by Applicant Cannot Be Achieved by a Feasible Alternative
to the Variance.
Mr. Pateman stated the subject property complies in all other respects to the
Village’s Zoning Code with the exception of this variance. The minimal grading
of this site will have no impact on the purpose of the ordinance as a result of the
proposed mitigation.
3. The Requested Variance is not Substantial.
Mr. Pateman stated the intent of Section 305-22 was to preserve steep slopes,
which are defined as slopes having a grade of 25% or more. The steepest slope
on this property is 25.35% or 4” over 100” in excess of the definition of steep
slopes noted in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Pateman noted no other Village in
Westchester County prohibits development on steep slopes.
4. The Variance Will Not Have an Adverse Impact on the Physical or
Environmental Conditions in the Neighborhood
Zoning Board of Appeals -14- June 11, 2007
Mr. Pateman stated the application complies in all respects to the Zoning Code
with the exception of Section 305.22. Measures have been provided in the
engineer’s plans to mitigate potential impacts by the construction of stone walls
similar to several homes in the neighborhood.
5. The Alleged Difficulty Was Not Self Created.
Mr. Pateman stated that based upon the documentation and facts presented, when the benefit to the applicant if the requested variances are granted as
weighed against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood and the community, that the requested variances should be granted. The alleged difficulty was not created by the applicant. It was created by the Ordinance (adopted in September 2006), which prohibits new construction on what is described as steep slopes.
Ms. Schneider stated Mr. Pateman knew Tarrytown had this regulation where steep slopes were an issue. She stated in her opinion a variance is not an automatic right. “It is up to our Boards to take care of their residents.” Mr. Pateman stated he is a contract vendee and only discovered the variance would be needed after the topography map was done. He stated he never thought there would be a steep slopes concern on this lot.
Mr. John Garibaldi, Altamont Avenue, stated Tarrytown passed a law in September 2006. The word prohibit means not allowed for any reason. He requested the Board deny Mr. Pateman’s variance request. He stated Mr. Pateman should build a house that complies. “Surely a home that is pleasing could be built that fits in.”
Mr. Blancato stated the thrust of the neighbor’s objections have no relation to this steep slopes ordinance. He stated a house built without this variance would not be appropriate. “The people who would be screaming the most are these same people. It would be horrendous.” He stated their concerns are concerns for the Planning Board and Architectural Review Board – drainage, height of the house, looks of the house.
Ms. Helen Seibert, Rosehill Avenue, questioned what Mr. Pateman has done to make changes recommended by the Planning Board. Ms. James stated that issue does not involve the ZBA.
Ms. Rusinko stated the slope along Altamont has trees and rocks coming down and she was concerned what the result would be if blasting occurs. Mr. Pateman stated they would stipulate there would be no blasting. With regard to falling trees and rocks coming down, this application would improve that.
Ms. Karen Garibaldi, 93 Altamont Avenue, stated neighbors come out to these meetings because there have been homes built that have residents aghast.
Mr. Pateman stated after he built the two new homes on Prospect Avenue, neighbors in that area came to tell him they are beautiful and have increased their property values.
Zoning Board of Appeals -15- June 11, 2007
Mr. Pateman requested the ZBA request a recommendation from the Planning Board.
Ms. Brown moved, seconded by Ms. James, and unanimously carried, that the hearing be adjourned to the Board’s next meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING – DUNBAR – 94 MAIN STREET
The Secretary read the following Notice of Public Hearing:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Tarrytown will hold a public hearing at 8:00 p.m. on Monday, June 11, 2007, in the Municipal Building, 21 Wildey Street, Tarrytown, New York to hear and consider an application by
Jerome Dunbar
94 Main Street
Tarrytown, New York 10591
for a variance from the Zoning Code of the Village of Tarrytown for property located at the above address regarding addition of one-story family room at front of house requiring the following variances:
1. Increase in the degree of existing non-conformities (§305-18A(1)):
A. Minimum lot size is required to be 20,000 sq. ft. and 3,041 sq. ft. exists.
B. Width at front of building is required to be 120 ft. and 30.74 ft.
exists.
C. Lot coverage is permitted to be 18%, 39% exists, and 51% is
proposed.
D. Minimum side yard setback is required to be 16 ft., and .8 ft. exists. (3 ft. 6 in. will be provided in area of proposed addition)
E. Second side yard setback is required to be 18 ft. and 1.5 ft. exists. (3 ft. 9 in. will be provided in area of proposed addition)
F. Combined side yard setbacks are required to be 34 ft.; and 2.3 ft. exists.
G. Front yard setback is required to be 30 ft., 21.1 ft. exists, and 3.5 ft. is proposed.
H. Floor Area Ratio is permitted to be 0.43 (1,308 sq. ft.); 1.02 (3,094 sq. ft.) exists and 1.26 (3,838 sq. ft.) is proposed.
Documents are available for inspection in the Planning and Zoning Office at Tarrytown Village Hall. The property is shown on the Tax Maps of the Village of Tarrytown as Sheet 10, Block 33, Lot 3 and is located in an RR (Restricted Retail zone.
Zoning Board of Appeals -16- June 11, 2006
All interested parties are invited to attend and be heard. Access to the meeting room is available to the elderly and the handicapped. Signing is available for the hearing impaired; request must be made to the Village Clerk at least one week in advance of the meeting.
The Certified Mailing Receipts were submitted.
Board members visited the property.
Mr. Jerome Dunbar stated he and his wife purchased the house ten years ago. When they bought the house it was a legal three family. They converted it to a single-family house. The house has no off street parking and they considered creating a parking space in the front yard but felt it did not fit in with the character of the neighborhood. The erected a stone wall and received compliments when that was done.
Mr. Bill Spade, architect, stated the house was build in the 1920s as a single-family residence. It has about 2,000 sq. ft – 1,200 sq. ft. on the first floor and 800 sq. ft. on the second floor. There are four family members but there is no family room and this addition would create that. The zone is Restricted Retail so there are substantial restrictions in terms of setback that apply to this property. The existing house is non-complying in all respects to the existing requirements. He stated they did not feel it was unreasonable to propose some addition to the property. The basement of this house must be included in the FAR but it is unusable for living space. The other structures on the street are all built out to the street. “We believe we are proposing
something in context with the existing landscaping.”
Mr. Dunbar noted there is a tree in front of his property, which hides the house.
Ms. James questioned the additional square footage in the house that would be obtained from this proposal. Mr. Spade stated it would be 372 sq. ft. He noted the livable area with the addition would be about 2,400 sq. ft. yet they are being counted as 3,838 sq. ft. because of the way the Village’s FAR regulations are written.
Chairwoman Lawrence questioned whether anyone wished to address the Board on this matter. No one appeared.
Mr. Dunbar submitted the following letter dated June 9, 2007, from Daniel and Blakeley McGuire:
“We are the owners of the single family home located at 104 Main Street and writing to you in order to support the variances proposed by Mr. and Mrs. Jerome Dunbar of 94 Main Street. Our home directly faces the Dunbar Family property and we are in full support of the proposed changes to their home.”
Zoning Board of Appeals -17- June 11, 2007
Mr. Jolly noted the window of an adjacent owner will be directly affected. Mr. Dunbar stated that home is owned by Mrs. DeRosa and he has reviewed the plans with her and she had no objections. He stated he could provide that in writing.
Ms. James questioned how far out the addition would come. Mr. Spade stated it is 18 ft. 7 in. Ms. James questioned how many of the neighbors windows would be blocked. Mr. Spade stated there would be two. Chairman Shumejda stated the adjacent owner would also have their porch blocked.
Mr. Spade stated the Dunbars are trying to have a single-family home in this neighborhood and a 2,000 sq. ft. home for a four-person family is small.
Chairwoman Lawrence reported receipt of the following memo, dated June 11, 2007, from Kathleen D’Eufemia, Designated Environmental Review Officer:
“Dunbar – 94 Main Street - This is an application for a family room addition at the front of the house. The front yard setback would be reduced from 2l.1 ft. to 3.5 ft. where 30 ft. is required, which is a significant variance. In addition the Floor Area Ratio would be increased from 3,094 sq. ft. to 3,838 sq. ft. where only 1,308 sq. ft. is permitted. This also is a significant variance. In order to make a determination that this application will pose no significant adverse environmental impact, the Board will have to be shown evidence as to the need for variances of this nature.”
Board members reviewed the plans noting the front setback and FAR variances are significant. Ms. Brown questioned whether there would be a way to not have the addition come straight across. Chairwoman Lawrence stated the appearance would be improved by something that would not take up the entire front yard and block the view down Main Street or not having it 16 ft. tall. They requested Mr. Spade look into ways of breaking the bulk of the proposed addition.
The Board unanimously agreed to continue this hearing at their next meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Jolly moved, seconded by Ms. James, and unanimously carried, that the meeting be adjourned – 10:40 p.m.
Kathleen D’Eufemia
Secretary
| 
