Zoning Board of Appeals
Village of Tarrytown
Regular Meeting
July 9, 2007 8 p.m.
PRESENT: Chairwoman Lawrence; Members *Jolly (late), Brown, Maloney; Counsel
Shumejda; Building Inspector/Engineer McGarvey; Secretary D’Eufemia
ABSENT: Ms. James
WELCOME TO MS. KARA MERRILL VERMA
Chairwoman Lawrence announced the recent appointment of Ms. Kara Merrill Verma as an Alternate Member of Zoning Board of Appeals and welcomed her. Ms. Merrill Verma observed tonight’s meeting but did not participate.
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING – CASE – 77 CREST DRIVE
No one appeared on behalf of the applicant. No one appeared to address the Board on the application.
Mr. McGarvey stated he has met with Ms. Case and she is considering moving the parking space in front of the house, which would put it in compliance with the zoning ordinance. She is also looking into having the fire hydrant relocated. Her plans have not been finalized.
Board members unanimously agreed to continue this hearing at their next meeting.
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING – RENHA – 3 WINDLE PARK
No one appeared on behalf of the applicant. No one appeared to address the Board on the application.
The Secretary reported that no new information has been submitted by the applicant, as had been requested by the Board.
Board members unanimously agreed to continue this hearing at their next meeting.
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING – C. M. PATEMAN & ASSOCIATES – FAIRVIEW AVENUE/ALTAMONT AVENUE
Mr. Chuck Pateman stated this is an application from Section 305-22, Steep Slopes. Since the last meeting, they had the topography re-done. It was so close to the steep slope requirements that they actually took points. A new topo map has been submitted that shows no steep slopes in the area of the house or stone wall. There are some steep slopes, which are less than 200 sq. ft. and are thus exempt from the code. There is a 426 sq. ft. area of steep slopes in the rear, which is 2.07% above the zoning code. They
would like to be able to grade that area, which is why they would need a variance. At the last Planning Board meeting, the Planning Board stated that the steep slopes are very minimal.
Ms. Brown questioned why a variance is needed. Mr. Pateman stated he wants to be able to grade the area.
Chairwoman Lawrence stated the Zoning Board was waiting for a recommendation from the Planning Board and they have not received that as yet. Mr. Pateman stated this variance is very minimal and if the Board does not act, it will delay him. Chairwoman Lawrence stated she understood that but the ZBA never acts without a recommendation from the Planning Board when a site plan application is before them. Mr. Pateman stated on other applications of that nature, the variances required are much greater. This is merely to grade 426 ft. in the rear yard. That is a totally separate issue from the site plan review. Chairwoman Lawrence stated, “It is my feeling we should have some recommendation from the Planning Board, which is what we said the last time.” Mr. Pateman stated it
is expensive to keep this going on and he has a contract.
Counsel Shumejda stated the Planning Board is the Lead Agency and they have not made a determination whether there would be any significant adverse environmental impacts. “This Board cannot act without that determination.” Mr. Pateman stated the Planning Board declared themselves Lead Agency with regard to a site plan application, not a variance application. There are many other issues involved in a site plan. Counsel Shumejda stated the variance application intertwines with the variance application. If there are changes to the site plan, that could affect the variance application. Mr. Pateman stated there will be no changes to the site plan application. Counsel Shumejda stated that still doesn’t deal with the issue that the environmental determination has not
been done.
*Mr. Jolly arrived.
Mr. Pateman stated he believes this is exempt from SEQR. The ZBA can determine it to be a Type II action and no further determination is needed. Counsel Shumejda stated he understood Mr. Pateman’s position.
Chairwoman Lawrence stated she would not act without the recommendation from the Planning Board. Mr. Pateman stated the ZBA could grant the variance subject to site plan approval. Chairwoman Lawrence stated things could change. Mr. Pateman stated if changes occur he would have to come back. He could have come to the ZBA before going to the Planning Board for site plan review. “I would rather you deny it and I will build the house with a little bump in the back.”
Ms. Brown stated she felt the Board could at this point go either way – make a determination tonight or hold it over so they could receive a recommendation from the Planning Board.
Counsel Shumejda stated the ZBA has asked for input from the Planning Board and they have not yet received that input.
Mr. Pateman questioned whether there could be a deadline. Chairwoman Lawrence stated she would agree to that. The ZBA will make a determination – with or without a recommendation from the Planning Board – at their August meeting.
Mr. Pateman requested the Chairwoman poll the Board as to whether they felt a decision could be rendered this evening, since he did not feel it was reasonable that he must wait another month. He stated it appears the Attorney and the Chairperson are making the decision to hold it over. Counsel Shumejda stated there was no requirement to poll.
The Board unanimously agreed to continue the hearing at their August meeting.
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING – PUTNAM AVENUE HOMES, INC. – HILLSIDE STREET – NEW NOTICE
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, July 9, 2007, in the Municipal Building, 21 Wildey Street, Tarrytown, New York to hear and consider an application by
Putnam Avenue Homes, Inc.
Hillside Street
Tarrytown, NY 10591
For the construction of two new single-family houses on newly re-subdivided Lots 3A and 4A on Hillside Street requiring the following variances:
1. Variance from steep slopes requirements (§305-22)
Lot 3A: Gross Area 16,994 square feet
Net Area After Steep Slope Deduction 13,213 square feet
Amount of Steep Slopes Disturbed: 3,258 square feet
Percentage of Lot Area 19.2%
Lot 4A: Gross Area 11,379 square feet
Net Area After Steep Slope Deduction 10,003 square feet
Amount of Steep Slopes Disturbed 1,909 square feet
Percentage of Lot Area 16.8%
2. For Lot 3A:
(a) Front yard setback is required to be 25 ft. and 20 ft. is proposed (§305-9)
(b) Side yard setback is required to be 12 ft. and 8.55 ft. is proposed (§305-9)
3. For Lot 4A:
(a) Floor Area Ratio is permitted to be 3,522 sq. ft. and 3,683 sq. ft. is
proposed (§305-9)
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 21, Block 71, Part of Lots 1, 3, 4, 5 & 6 – Filed Map Lot 3 and Lot 7 and Part of Lot 6 – Filed Map Lot 4 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.
Mr. Richard Blancato, attorney for the applicant, stated at the last meeting they stated they had to re-notice this application, which has been done. They were before the Planning Board for at least a year and they recommended these variances be granted. In regard to the F.A.R. variance, that is being requested because the Planning Board requested they move the lot line over and do a re-subdivision which they did and that has been approved. As a result of moving the lot line, they impacted the F.A.R. Prior to that, they had complied. Because of the configuration of the lots, there is no way to place the houses without disturbing some of the steep slopes. The Village had consultants and the applicant had consultants. They tried to stay away as much as possible from steep slopes
disturbance. There was a lot of compromise and what is being proposed is the result.
Chairwoman Lawrence reported receipt of the following memo dated July 9, 2007, from Kathleen D’Eufemia, Designated Environmental Review Officer:
“Putnam Avenue Homes, Inc. – Hillside Street - This application for the construction of two new single-family homes requires a number of minor variances. The Planning Board declared itself Lead Agency on this application and determined there was no significant adverse environmental impact.”
Chairwoman Lawrence questioned whether anyone wished to address the Board on this application. No one appeared.
Mr. Maloney moved, seconded by Mr. Jolly, and unanimously carried, that the Board accepts the determination by the Planning Board that the application poses no signification adverse environmental impact.
Mr. Maloney moved, seconded by Mr. Jolly, that the hearing be closed and the Board having arrived at the 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 requested variances subject to:
1. Approval of plans by the Building Inspector/Village Engineer
2. Obtaining a building permit for the project within two years.
The Board was polled. Ms. Brown voted no. Messrs. Jolly, Maloney, and Chairwoman Lawrence assented. Motion carried.
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING – DUNBAR – 94 MAIN STREET
Mr. Bill Spade, architect, submitted revised plans to the Board. He stated at the last meeting the Board asked them to look at the impact on the next door neighbor’s property and secondly that they consider a change in the building plan to reduce the bulk of the building, which they have done. They have pulled the proposed addition 3 ft. farther back from the street line. Mr. Spade submitted a drawing showing the house next door and showed the Board how the proposed addition would line up with that house with the 3 ft. reduction. He stated the neighbor’s window for the most part is now uncovered. It affords the view that currently exists from that window, although that window has a year-round air-conditioner and a shade. The other window is a bathroom window.
Mr. Spade submitted additional photographs, which were taken from the porch of the neighboring house. He noted the end of that porch has a solid wall so the view is to northwest. To the south of these properties is a house, which blocks any view directly west.
Mr. Spade submitted a letter from Diana Rosa Sorrentino, owner of the neighboring house at 92 Main Street, stating she has no objection to the requested variances. He also submitted a letter from the owner of 1 White Street expressing support for the granting of the variances.
Mr. Spade stated the original proposal was for a single room with a 15 ft. high ceiling. In scaling back the dimension they realized they could do it as a two-story addition. The second floor will be at the same level as the main floor of the house. There will be an access from the main room in the existing house. The lower floor will have access off the vestibule. There is a doorway that continues through the basement to an interior stair. The circular staircase has been removed.
Upon inquiry, Mr. Spade stated they originally proposed a 372 sq. ft. addition and that has now been scaled down to 305 sq. ft.
Mr. McGarvey questioned what the basement consists of. Mr. Spade stated it is only a partial basement and currently it is storage.
Counsel Shumejda requested the Board defer this application until the plans submitted tonight can be reviewed. The light plane is also not shown on the plans and that must be done.
Board members stated they would like to re-visit the property next month after they have had an opportunity to review the revised plans.
The Board unanimously agreed to continue the hearing at their August meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING – SOMERSON/DOANE – 114 NEPERAN ROAD
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, July 9, 2007, in the Municipal Building, 21 Wildey Street, Tarrytown, New York to hear and consider an application by
Knalid Somerson and Maureen Doane
114 Neperan Road
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 new dormer on second floor; addition of bay window on first floor front; addition of new portico and front door; addition of new retaining wall; and legalization of porch requiring the following variance:
Increase in the degree of non-conformity: (§305-18A(1))
1. Rear yard is required to be 32 ft. and 29 ft. exists
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 125, Lot 20 and is located in an R-20 (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.
Mr. Nick Mascia, an employee of Larry Nardecchia, engineer, stated they are proposing to put a dormer and portico and a small retaining wall in the back. They need a variance because the existing rear yard setback is non-conforming.
Counsel Shumejda stated it is difficult to determine the setbacks for each proposed item from the plans submitted. He stated the applicant should take each of the items listed in the notice and indicate on a zoning schedule whether any of those need a variance. If additional variances are needed, that would have to be reflected on new plans and a new public notice would be necessary.
Chairwoman Lawrence reported receipt of the following memo, dated July 9, 2007, from Kathleen D’Eufemia, Designated Environmental Review Officer:
“Somerson/Doane – 114 Neperan Road - This application for a second floor dormer, addition of bay window on first floor, new portico and front door, and legalization of porch requires a variance because of an existing situation where the rear yard is 29 ft. rather than the required 32 ft. This existing situation does not pose any significant adverse environmental impact and the Board can issue a negative declaration under SEQR.
Chairwoman Lawrence questioned whether anyone wished to address the Board on this matter. No one appeared.
The Board unanimously agreed to continue the hearing at their August meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING – MOSA – 163 RIVERVIEW 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, July 9, 2007, in the Municipal Building, 21 Wildey Street, Tarrytown, New York to hear and consider an application by
Ray and Suellen Mosa
163 Riverview Avenue
Tarrytown, New York 10591
for a variance from the Zoning Code of the Village of Tarrytown for property located at the above address regarding a one-story addition at the rear of the residence requiring the following variance:
1. Increase in the degree of non-conformity: (§305-18A(1))
(a) Lot size is required to be 7,500 sq. ft. and 6,001 sq. ft. exists
2. Rear yard is required to be 26 ft. and 16.33 ft. is proposed (§305-9)
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 17A, Block 120, Lot 9 and is located in an R-7.5 (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.
Ms. Suellen Mosa stated they would like to put a sunroom on the back of the house. It would go out 10 ft. and be in the back of their kitchen and living room.
Upon inquiry from Ms. Brown, Ms. Mosa stated the rear yard setback currently is 26 ft.
Chairwoman Lawrence stated this is a significant variance. She questioned whether it could be scaled back. Ms. Brown stated it is compounded because this is a small lot.
Chairwoman Lawrence questioned whether anyone wished to address the Board on this matter.
Mr. Ronald Palmer, 86 Tappan Landing Road, stated he is the house to the right (south) diagonally across. He stated this lot is undersized and the current house is large for the
lot. The variance requested is huge and not in character with the neighborhood. “I am looking up at this and I object.”
Counsel Shumejda noted this variance represents about 40% more than what is permitted by code. Chairwoman Lawrence stated the Board is concerned about significant increases, which this is.
Mr. Mosa stated he appreciates his neighbor’s concern; however, he felt he would have to look hard to see it. Mr. Palmer stated the current house is already large for the property.
Chairwoman Lawrence reported receipt of the following memo, dated July 9, 2007, from Kathleen D’Eufemia, Designated Environmental Review Officer:
“Mosa – 163 Riverview Avenue - This application for a one-story addition at the rear of the residence requires a variance for an existing situation whereby the lot size is 6,001 sq. ft. in an area requiring 7,500 sq. ft. This variance is not significant since it exists. The second variance is for a rear yard setback of 16.33 ft. where 26 ft. is required. This variance is significant and the Board will need to determine that there are circumstances that warrant granting the variance. If that can be done, the Board can make a negative declaration under SEQR.”
Mr. McGarvey stated the architect should look at the F.A.R. since the addition might need to be made slightly smaller or an additional variance may be needed.
Chairwoman Lawrence stated the architect should review this again and the Board should revisit the property.
The Board unanimously agreed to continue the hearing at their August meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING – BORITZ – 10 POWDERHORN WAY
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, July 9, 2007, in the Municipal Building, 21 Wildey Street, Tarrytown, New York to hear and consider an application by
Hillari and Peter Boritz, Contract Vendees
10 Powder Horn Way
Tarrytown, New York 10591
for a variance from the Zoning Code of the Village of Tarrytown for property located at the above address regarding a partial second floor addition requiring the following variances:
Increase in the degree of non-conformity: (§305-18A(1))
1.Minimum lot size is required to be 15,000 sq. ft. and 11,846 sq. ft. exists
2. Width at the front of building is required to be 115 ft. and 97.5 ft. exists
3. Required minimum street frontage is required to be 115 ft. and 95 ft. exists
4. Minimum combined side yard setbacks is 30 ft. and 29.83 ft. exists
5. Maximum height permitted is 2.5 stories and 3 stories exist
6. Total gross floor area (F.A.R.) permitted is .328 ft., .373 exists, and .436 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 29C, Block 131, Lot 17 and is located in an R-15 (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.
Mr. Peter Boritz stated they are no longer contract vendees since they closed on the property today. He stated the project is to build a bedroom and bathroom. All their neighbors were notified and he has personally spoken to the surrounding neighbors. This is not the biggest house on the block.
Upon inquiries from the chair, Mr. Boritz stated the house has three bedrooms upstairs and a guest bedroom downstairs. He and his wife have two children and are expecting their third. Currently the bedroom they would be using is several steps down from the children’s bedrooms. The proposed addition would allow a master bedroom and bath on the same level as the children’s bedrooms.
Chairwoman Lawrence stated the F.A.R. is currently over the allowable and this would be an additional significant increase. Mr. Boritz stated this house is not the biggest house in the neighborhood and they would not be obstructing anyone’s views. He showed the Board on a drawing how the addition is proposed. The Board also reviewed photographs of this house and other houses in the neighborhood. Chairwoman Lawrence stated it appears many of the houses in the neighborhood are also non-conforming.
Chairwoman Lawrence reported receipt of the following memo, dated July 9, 2007, from Kathleen D’Eufemia, Designated Environmental Review Officer:
“Boritz – 10 Powderhorn Way - This application for a partial second floor addition requires a number of variances for pre-existing non-conforming situations. The one variance which is increasing a non-conformity is for the increase in Floor Area Ratio.
The F.A.R. is currently larger than permitted and it is being increased. The Board will need to determine there are circumstances that warrant granting that increased variance. If that can be done, the Board can make a negative declaration under SEQR”
Chairwoman Lawrence questioned whether anyone wished to address the Board on this matter. No one appeared.
Counsel Shumejda stated the variance being requested is about 35% above what is allowed.
Chairwoman Lawrence stated she understood the desire to have the master bedroom on the same level as the children’s rooms; however, the Board’s hesitancy is due to the large increase in the F.A.R. She suggested the applicant research to determine whether a number of homes in the area exceed the F.A.R. and if so, by how much. She noted the Town of Greenburgh has all the property cards on line and that would provide information on how large neighboring lots are and square footage of the homes.
Board members stated they would like to re-visit this property.
The Board unanimously agreed to continue the hearing at their August meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING – MCINTYRE – 73 MEADOW 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, July 9, 2007, in the Municipal Building, 21 Wildey Street, Tarrytown, New York to hear and consider an application by
Charles and Elizabeth McIntyre
73 Meadow 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 a two-story addition to rear of existing single-family residence and one-story addition to side requiring the following variances:
1. Increase in the degree of non-conformity: (§305-18A(1))
(a) Minimum lot size is required to be 10,000 sq. ft. and 8,825 sq. ft. exists
(b) Width at front of building is required to be 100 ft. and 51 ft. exists
(c) Minimum street frontage is required to be 100 ft. and 51.22 ft. exists
(d) Minimum side yard is required to be 12 ft.; 5.5 ft. and 14 ft. exist; and 5.5 ft.
and 7.4 ft. are proposed
(e) Combined side yards are required to be 26 ft.; 19.5 ft. exists and 12.9 ft. is proposed
2. Two off-street parking spaces are required and one will be provided (§305-19)
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 21, Block 70, Lot 28 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.
Mr. Charles McIntyre stated they have a substandard lot and one side yard that is not code compliant. They are proposing a two-story addition at the rear of the house and a one-story addition on the side (which is currently code compliant.) The side addition would provide them with a rear entrance to the house. Currently the only entrance is in the front. The driveway would allow for two cars to park; however, only one space would be code compliant which is why they are requesting the variance for the one parking space. Mr. McIntyre stated he and his wife have two children with a third expected shortly. The house is currently about 1,500 sq. ft. and the proposed additions would add about 750 sq. ft.
Upon review, it was noted if the proposed side porch were made about 2.3 ft. smaller, it might be possible to have the two parking spaces code compliant. Mr. McIntyre stated if that were done the porch would cover only a portion of the kitchen window. It was done this way to make it look appropriate.
Mrs. McIntyre stated this is a tight area and the architect did the best he could to meet their needs and yet make the project architecturally pleasing.
Chairwoman Lawrence reported receipt of the following memo dated July 9, 2007, from Kathleen D’Eufemia, Designated Environmental Review Officer:
“McIntyre – 73 Meadow Street - This application for a two-story addition to the rear and a one-story addition to the side of a single-family home requires a number of variances for pre-existing non-conforming situations. The variances, which are being increased are for the side yard setback. A new variance is needed for a reduction in off-street parking from the existing required two spaces to one space. The Board will need to determine there are circumstances that warrant granting these variances. If that can be done, the Board can make a negative declaration under SEQR.
The Board noted the house is small and the family needs additional space. The variances being requested are not significant in light of the pre-existing non-conforming nature of this property.
Chairwoman Lawrence questioned whether anyone wished to address the Board on this matter. No one appeared.
Mr. Maloney moved, seconded by Mr. Jolly, and unanimously carried, that the Board determines the requested variances pose no significant adverse environmental impact.
Mr. Maloney moved, seconded by Mr. Jolly, and unanimously carried, that the hearing be closed and the Board having arrived at the 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 requested variances subject to:
1. Approval of plans by the Building Inspector/Village Engineer
2. Obtaining a building permit for the project within two years.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Ms. Brown moved, seconded by Mr. Jolly, that the minutes of June 11, 2007, be approved as submitted. Mr. Maloney abstained. Mr. Jolly, Ms. Brown and Chairwoman Lawrence assented. Motion carried.
MEETING ADJOURNED – 10:05 p.m.
Kathleen D’Eufemia, Secretary
| 
