Zoning Board of Appeals
Village of Tarrytown
Regular Meeting
October 9, 2007 8 p.m.
PRESENT: Chairwoman Lawrence; Members Jolly, Brown, Maloney, Alternate
Member Merrill-Verma; Counsel Shumejda; Secretary D’Eufemia
ABSENT: Member James
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Ms. Brown moved, seconded by Mr. Jolly, that the minutes of September 10, 2007, be approved as submitted. Mr. Maloney abstained. All others assented. Motion carried.
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING – DUNBAR – 94 MAIN STREET
Chairwoman Lawrence reported this application requires an additional variance and the matter will be re-noticed for public hearing.
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING – MOSA – 163 RIVERVIEW AVENUE
Mrs. Mosa submitted to the Board photographs of houses in the neighborhood and a GIS map of the neighborhood. She lined up three photographs with the map to show the Board the appearance of the houses in the area of her house. Mrs. Mosa stated her house is 1309300 on the map. Photograph 1 is 1301300; Photograph 2 is 1312300; Photograph 3 is 1308700. These photographs and the map are part of the official file. Mrs. Mosa submitted additional photographs of houses on North Tappan Landing Road.
Chairwoman Lawrence noted the photographs show there are houses in the area similar in size to the Mosas’ home. She noted the Board has visited the property and seen the proposed addition staked out.
Chairwoman Lawrence questioned whether anyone wished to address the Board on this matter. No one appeared.
Mr. Maloney moved, seconded by Ms. Brown, and unanimously carried, that the Board determines there will be no significant adverse environmental impact as a result of the proposed addition at 163 Riverview Avenue.
Mr. Maloney moved, seconded by Ms. Brown, and unanimously carried, that 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
Zoning Board of Appeals -2- October 9, 2007
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
therefore, grants the following variances for the house at 163 Riverview Avenue:
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 17.45 ft. will be provided (§305-9)
Subject to:
1. Approval of plans by the Building Inspector/Village Engineer including his approval of drainage for the property.
2. Obtaining a building permit for the project within two years.
PUBLIC HEARING – ACADIA TARRYTOWN, LLC – 135 WILDEY 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 Tuesday, October 9, 2007, in the Municipal Building, 21 Wildey Street, Tarrytown, New York to hear and consider an application by
Acadia Tarrytown, LLC
1311 Mamaroneck Avenue
Suite 260
White Plains, New York 10605
for property located at 135 Wildey Street, Tarrytown, New York (Walgreen’s Shopping Center) where a Dunkin Donuts store will be located requiring the following variance from the Tarrytown Zoning Code:
22 off street parking spaces are required; 14 spaces can be provided; and a variance for 8 spaces is requested (§305-19D)
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 2, Parcel 25 and is located in an RR (Restricted Retail) zone.
Zoning Board of Appeals -3- October 9, 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.
Mr. John Kirkpatrick, attorney for the applicant, stated Acadia owns everything in this shopping center except McDonalds, which is under separate ownership. There is a small space of approximately 5,000 sq. ft. between Walgreens and Chase Bank. Dunkin Donuts is proposing to lease approximately 1,800 sq. ft. of that space. The parking calculations for the shopping center were premised on retail use; however, Dunkin Donuts is proposing to have a few tables with seating, which requires additional parking. A certain number of parking spaces go with the retail space but the seating will require 12 more spaces. Since the parking lot already has 4 more spaces than needed for the retail uses, they are requesting a variance for 8 spaces. Mr. Kirkpatrick stated he has visited this shopping center
many times and parking is never a problem since most of the retail space has high turnover.
Upon inquiry from Ms. Brown, Mr. Kirkpatrick stated the remaining space of approximately 3,000 sq. ft. will be rented strictly for retail so a future parking variance for that space will not be needed.
Chairwoman Lawrence stated she also has been at this shopping center on frequent occasions and available parking is plentiful.
Chairwoman Lawrence questioned whether anyone wished to address the Board on this matter.
Ms. Connie Mulholland, representing McDonalds, questioned what would go into the remaining space. Mr. Kirkpatrick stated it would strictly be retail – a small store.
Counsel Shumejda stated when the Planning Board considered this site plan they determined the planting plan for this shopping center was not adhered to by the applicant. That planting plan was revised by the Village’s consultant, Steve Yarabek, and the applicant has agreed to implement that plan. Counsel Shumejda suggested the ZBA incorporate the maintenance of that planting into this approval. The Board is also considering this variance in anticipation the remaining space will not be for any use other than retail and there will not be a request for an additional parking variance so that too should be a condition.
The Board reported receipt of the following memo, dated October 9, 2007, from Kathleen D’Eufemia, Designated Environmental Review Officer:
Zoning Board of Appeals -4- October 9, 2007
“Acadia Tarrytown, LLC – 135 Wildey Street - This application is for a parking variance for eight spaces to allow a Dunkin Donuts store, with some seating, at the Walgreen’s shopping center. This parking lot always has quite a few empty spaces and I do not believe the granting of this variance will cause any parking difficulty at this shopping center. Should the Board concur, you may determine there will be no significant adverse environmental impact from granting the requested variance.”
Ms. Brown moved, seconded by Mr. Maloney, and unanimously carried, that the Board determines there will be no significant adverse environmental impact as a result of granting a variance for eight fewer parking spaces than required at the Walgreen’s shopping center at 135 Wildey Street.
Ms. Brown moved, seconded by Mr. Maloney, and unanimously carried, that 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
therefore grants a variance to allow 8 fewer parking spaces than required at the Walgreen’s shopping center at 135 Wildey Street subject to:
1. Landscaping as approved by the Village’s Landscape Consultant being maintained.
2. No additional parking variances for this property being requested.
PUBLIC HEARING – O’SULLIVAN – 153 GROVE 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 Tuesday, October 9, 2007, in the Municipal Building, 21 Wildey Street, Tarrytown, New York to hear and consider an application by
Zoning Board of Appeals -5- October 9, 2007
Louise & Fergus O’Sullivan
153 Grove Street
Tarrytown, New York 10591
for their property located at the above address to allow for construction of a two-story addition at the rear of the house requiring the following variances from the Tarrytown Zoning Code:
1. Increase in the degree of existing non-conformities: (§305-18A(1))
A. Minimum lot size required is 10,000 sq. ft. and 5,891 sq. ft. exists
B. Minimum lot width required is 100 ft. and 50 ft. exists
C. Maximum principal building coverage allowed is 22% and 22.7% exists
D. Minimum front yard required is 25 ft. and 5.7 ft. exists
E. Minimum single side yard required is 12 ft. and 4.4 ft. exists
F. Minimum two side yards required is 26 ft. and 16.6 ft. exists
G. Minimum distance of accessory building to side lot line is 12 ft. and 5.1 ft. exists
H. Minimum distance of accessory building to rear lot line is 12 ft. and 5.1 ft. exists
I. Maximum height in stories allowed is 2-1/2 and 3 stories exists
J. Maximum height allowed in feet is 25 ft. and 34 ft. exists
K. Maximum F.A.R. allowed is 2,474 sq. ft. and 2,980 sq. ft. exists.
2. Maximum principal building coverage allowed is 22% and 26.7% is proposed
(§305-9)
3. Maximum total coverage of all buildings allowed is 27.5% and 31.2% is proposed (§305-9)
4. Minimum single side yard required is 12 ft. and proposed addition is 4.9 ft.
5. Maximum F.A.R. allowed is 2,474 sq. ft. and 3,568 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 18A, Block 60, Lot 13 and is located in an M-2 (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.
Chairwoman Lawrence stated a few weeks ago the Board of Trustees initiated new regulations, which affect Floor Area Ratio and the effective date of that legislation is
Zoning Board of Appeals -6- October 9, 2007
October 1, 2007, unless an area variance from the ZBA is in existence. She questioned whether that new legislation would apply to this application. Counsel Shumejda stated it would. Mr. Sam Vieira, architect for the applicants, stated his calculations were based on the old legislation. He will have to redo the calculations based on the new legislation and if the F.A.R. increases, then the application will be re-noticed.
Mr. Vieira stated the family has three children. The proposed addition measures 16 feet deep by 21 feet wide. There are four bedrooms and one bathroom upstairs. The entire first half of the first floor is the living room. There is a dining room, small kitchen and powder room. There are only 1-1/2 baths for five people. They are trying to create a larger kitchen with a small side entrance with coat closets, which will allow the family to live in the rear of the house and enjoy the back yard. On the second floor there would be a large master bedroom with a master bathroom. There would still be four bedrooms but there would be an additional bathroom. The house is situated in an M-2 zone and a single-family house in that zone needs 10,000 sq. ft. and this lot is 5,891 sq. ft. The lot is small so it makes the house non-conforming. In this neighborhood many of the lots are undersized and have the same type of non-conformities. If this house were to sit on the required lot size,
most of the non-conformities would disappear and the F.A.R. would only be over by about 68 sq. ft.
Mr. Vieira submitted to the Board a light plane diagram to show how this affects the house to the north. He noted that because this house is not in an “R” single-family zone, it is not subject to the light exposure plane requirements. Mr. Vieira stated he also went on the Town of Greenburgh’s website and listed the lot sizes and house sizes for all the homes within 100 ft. of this house. He noted a house size on a tax card is the square footage of the house. It has nothing to do with the Floor Area Ratio but he was trying to give the Board a comparison of the lot sizes and house sizes.
Upon inquiry from Chairwoman Lawrence, Mr. Vieira stated the tax cards do not list basement space or 3rd level attic space. (Board members noted the subject house has livable third floor space but that is not included in the square footage space submitted by Mr. Vieira.)
Chairwoman Lawrence noted with the proposed addition, this house will be quite a bit larger than most houses on the street.
Chairwoman Lawrence questioned whether anyone wished to address the Board on this matter.
Mr. Joseph Slywka, 151 Grove Street, stated the attic space in this house underwent a major variance about 8 or 9 years ago and was made into living space so he was surprised to hear Mr. Vieira say it is not livable space. Mr. Vieira stated the tax cards don’t list this space and since he could not go into everyone’s home, the only comparison available was
Zoning Board of Appeals -7- October 9, 2007
the information on the website which doesn’t count attics and basements. All the calculations he submitted do reflect what is there and the drawings show it.
Mr. Slywka stated the proposed addition is sizeable and is looming in nature. They will have a huge surface area facing their house. It will change the light pattern into their house and backyard. It is a quality of life issue. The current distance between the applicant’s house and the property line is 4.8 ft. and that is proposed to be extended 9 ft. The existing home is non-conforming but they are proposing to extend that non-conformity another 9 ft. The addition is two stories but the stairs are 40 inches off the ground so the first floor begins 40 inches off the ground. It is not a normal 2 stories; it is basically 2-1/2 stories. Mr. Slywka stated he felt the proposal would have a financial impact on his home. It will be more crowded. He stated their
dining room has two windows. One looks at the O’Sullivans’ wall. The other window is free and clear and the major portion of the natural light comes through that window which will now be blocked by the proposed addition. It will also block light to one of their bedrooms. Mr. Slywka stated he felt the applicants had alternatives for additional square footage to their home, which would not impact his property and the property to the south.
Chairwoman Lawrence reported receipt of the following memo, dated October 9, 2007, from Kathleen D’Eufemia, Designated Environmental Review Officer:
“O’Sullivan – 153 Grove Street - this application for construction of a two-story addition at the rear of the house requires a great many variances, most of which are for existing non-conforming situations since this lot is in an M-2 zone which requires 10,000 sq. ft. lots but the said lot is only 5,891 sq. ft.. Most homes in this neighborhood are also on substandard lots. The proposed addition will, however, add considerably to the Floor Area Ratio. The Floor Area Ratio allowed is 2,474 sq. ft. and 2,980 sq. ft. already exists. The proposed addition will increase that to 3,568 sq. ft., which is significant. The Board will need to carefully examine the need for the proposed addition as well as existing neighborhood conditions. Should the Board determine the proposed
addition passes the findings required for granting area variances, you may determine there will be no significant adverse environmental impacts from granting the requested variances.”
Chairwoman Lawrence suggested another site visit be scheduled and the Board should visit the Slywkas’ property at that time as well. All agreed.
All agreed to continue the hearing at the Board’s next meeting and Mr. Vieira stated it would be re-advertised if determined necessary.
Zoning Board of Appeals -8- October 9, 2007
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Maloney moved, seconded by Ms. Brown, and unanimously carried, that the meeting be adjourned – 9:10 p.m.
Kathleen D’Eufemia
Secretary
| 
