Zoning Board of Appeals
Village of Tarrytown
Regular Meeting
November 13, 2007 8 p.m.
PRESENT: Chairwoman Lawrence; Members Jolly, Brown, Maloney,
Alternate Member Merrill-Verma; Counsel Shumejda;
Building Inspector/Village Engineer McGarvey; Secretary D’Eufemia
ABSENT: Member James
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Maloney moved, seconded by Mr. Jolly, and unanimously carried, that the minutes of October 9, 2007, be approved as submitted.
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING – O’SULLIVAN – 153 GROVE 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 Tuesday, November 13, 2007, in the Municipal Building, 21 Wildey Street, Tarrytown, New York to hear and consider an application by
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 .42 (2,474 sq. ft.) and .55 (3,244 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. (§305-9)
5. Maximum F.A.R. allowed is .42 (2,474 sq. ft.) and .72 (4,251 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 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 re-visited the property.
Chairwoman Lawrence read the following letter from Oksana and Joe Slywka, 151 Grove Street:
“We are opposed to the granting of the variance for 153 Grove Street for the following reasons.
· The proposed addition will have an adverse effect on our house and property physically and financially.
· The proposed addition will further increase the current non-conformance of 2980 sq. ft. (allowed 2474 sq. ft.) to 4251 sq. ft.
· The current FAR of 0.51 (allowed 0.41) will increase to 0.72.
· This addition will be 9 feet deep, 21 feet wide and 24.5 ft. tall. This size will loom over the South and West sides of our house and yard and extend 3 feet past our building line.
· It is not a 2-story addition but in actuality 2-1/2 stories since the 1st story will start 40 inches at the above ground foundation.
· The addition will be almost directly over our property line of 4.9 feet when the distance should be 12 feet according to codes as illustrated in the site plan.
· The current narrowness of the common alley will be extended by 9 feet and so the narrowness lengthened and accentuated.
· The addition will extend the time that our house and yard are in shadow.
· We will lose direct sunlight entering a dining room window and stained glass window on the 1st floor and a large bedroom window on the 2nd floor.
· It will take longer for the sun to clear over the addition and as a consequence our back yard will stay in shadow longer.
The 153 Grove Street home received a major variance in 1995 (home occupied by Daniel McCready) to allow change in building height from 29 feet to 30.6 feet. At that time Mr. McCready stated, ‘I don’t believe there is room in the yard for an extension on the house and it would obstruct the windows.’ Likewise, minutes from a Zoning Board hearing at that time noted a comment from a Board member, Mrs. Carol Plunkett, that ‘she felt the property was too small to permit an addition to the rear.’”
Mr. Sam Vieira, architect, stated, “We are here again simply because from the time of the original application and last month there was a modification in how you measure F.A.R. In essence the entire basement now has to be calculated in the F.A.R. If the house were 1-1/2 ft. lower, we would have eliminated about 1,300 sq. ft. from the F.A.R. We have a situation where Grove Street in this area is zoned multi-family and therefore the criteria for single-family homes is ¼ acre zoning but it sits on a lot more appropriate for R-5 zoning. We have a house built in an existing non-conforming manner. Anything proposed would require action by this Board. We are trying to achieve two areas that are essential for the O’Sullivans – an additional bathroom and a good size master
bedroom, and an eat-in kitchen. A lot of the things represented in the (Slywkas) letter are things that were discussed at the last meeting and site visit. The most affected neighbors are those to the north (Slywkas). Because of the nature of the requirements for the space, it is off those existing spaces we are adding on. To shift the addition to the south might make sense from a zoning perspective but it makes no sense from the existing flow and layout of the home. The addition measures 14 ft. by 21 ft. but it only protrudes out on the north property line by about 9 ft.”
Mr. Fergus O’Sullivan, owner of the house, stated they are looking for functionality and they are trying to minimize the impact to the property and the overall house. They have been living in the house six years but they need a second bathroom upstairs and they need an eat-in kitchen. They originally talked about keeping the existing property line and extending to the south but it didn’t work because they could not get enough space. It is a tall square house with a bump out. They are keeping it the same but the bump out gets bigger. They are trying to keep as much of the garden as they can. They are trying to keep the architecture consistent. One window facing north will be removed and they are losing the window in the upstairs bathroom. There is an impact on the
Slywkas but it is incremental. The impact on the view is marginal. There is some impact on light because the building is bigger but it is incremental. There was a huge Japanese maple in the back yard but it died and has been removed. That tree created a shadow but it is now
gone. They are outside the zoning but so is most of the block. The addition will give them the increased living space, which they need. They believe this is a reasonable proposal and he requested the Board support it.
Mr. Vieira stated one of the primary reasons for the F.A.R. regulation is so bulk is not created, which is inconsistent with the neighborhood. This addition will not have any impact visually to the neighborhood. From a F.A.R. standpoint, this doesn’t affect what the F.A.R. is trying to control. This addition is to the rear. The house will not look that much larger.
Mr. Joe Slywka, 151 Grove Street, stated what is incremental to the O’Sullivans is major to them. They are majorly affected by this. The architect said he wants it this way but it is less than 5 ft. from their property line. It is a huge structure. It is also not 2 stories but actually 2-1/2 stories because of the foundation being 40 inches above ground. Architects can do magic with how they create space and additions. There is space to propose an addition to accommodate the O’Sullivans’ need for space. They have three young sons and bathrooms are at a premium “but it should not be at a cost to us.” Mr. Slywka stated the whole block probably does not conform to the zoning; however, those are existing non-conformities and should not be increased. Even
if the basement is subtracted from the F.A.R., the F.A.R. still does not meet code. The F.A.R. is proposed to be more than 40% over what is allowed. The side yard setback will be 4.9 ft. and that is next to his property. There is a major impact on he and his wife. Mr. Slywka stated the addition will affect the flow of light and shadows across their house. They are particularly concerned about the southwest windows. The light plane is not in their favor and this will make things worse. The McCreadys received a major variance for this house in 1995 and prior to the McCreadys’ ownership, the Walsh family lived in the house and raised 5 children there. “We don’t have an opinion an addition should not be built. A design can be done to accommodate the addition without intrusion on our property.”
Chairwoman Lawrence questioned whether anyone further wished to address the Board. No one appeared.
Chairwoman Lawrence stated she is concerned about the extent of the variances requested. She also is concerned about the impact on the Slywkas. She asked if there would be a way to come up with something that is not so large but would be satisfactory to the O’Sullivans and the Slywkas.
Mr. Vieira stated there appear to be two major variances – the side yard setback and the F.A.R. Any modification will increase the F.A.R. He stated he needed guidance as to whether the Board would consider an addition with increased F.A.R. but reducing the impact to the north.
Ms. Brown stated the change in the F.A.R. regulations was not to only stop bulky new construction but also bulky additions. Mr. Vieira stated this addition would almost match in bulk the neighbor’s house. The O’Sullivans’ house will not be the oddball house in the neighborhood. Chairwoman Lawrence noted there are only a few houses as large as the O’Sullivans and the neighbors.
Ms. Brown stated if the drawings are redone the Board would have to agree that the F.A.R. is not the big issue. She stated for herself the big issue is the 4.9 ft. side yard setback.
Mr. Slywka stated, “Perhaps we emphasized the F.A.R. too much. We used the F.A.R. as an item to point out this is going to be big and 4.9 ft. to our property line. We are not fighting an addition. The F.A.R. is secondary to us.”
Ms. Merrill-Verma stated she felt a case for the need for an addition has been made but she felt it needs to be done in a different way.
Chairwoman Lawrence stated her concern is that this will be a structure 2 stories in height coming out 9 ft. and will be within 4.9 ft. of the neighbor.
Counsel Shumejda reviewed with the Board the criteria for the granting an area variance:
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
Chairwoman Lawrence stated the Board is very concerned and suggested that something be worked out that would be more amenable to everyone.
Ms. Arlene Lustyik, 150 Grove Street, stated her neighbor’s house is only about 3 ft. from the property line. Most of the houses are non-conforming. None of the other neighbors seem to mind.
Mr. Vieira requested the application be adjourned to next month. He will review the matter with the O’Sullivans and as long as any changes they propose do not increase the requested variances, they can continue next month on this present notice.
Board members unanimously agreed to continue the hearing at their December meeting.
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING – DUNBAR – 94 MAIN 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 Tuesday, November 13, 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 5.5 ft. is proposed.
H. Floor Area Ratio is permitted to be 0.43 (1,290 sq. ft.); 1.02 (3,094 sq. ft.) exists and 1.22 (3,704 sq. ft.) is proposed.
I. Light Exposure Plane cannot exceed 45º and 83º/51º 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 10, Block 33, Lot 3 and is located in an RR (Restricted Retail) 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. William Spade, architect, stated the dimensions for the proposed addition were changed as the Board had suggested. They have also added the light exposure plane. For both these reasons, the application was re-advertised.
Chairwoman Lawrence stated the Board visited the property on Sunday per the scheduled visitation but no one was home. Mr. Dunbar apologized to the Board stating he thought they were coming at 11 a.m. – not 9:30 a.m. and he was attending his son’s soccer game.
Ms. Lawrence questioned whether anyone wished to address the Board on this application. No one appeared.
Chairwoman Lawrence stated it is essential for the Board to visit the property before discussing the application further. She suggested the property be staked to show the addition and the Board would reschedule a visit for next month.
The Board unanimously agreed to continue the hearing at their December meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING – WHITE – 67 SHELDON 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 Tuesday, November 13, 2007, in the Municipal Building, 21 Wildey Street, Tarrytown, New York to hear and consider an application by
Vincent White
67 Sheldon Avenue
Tarrytown, New York 10591
for his property located at the above address to allow for construction of a portico at existing front entrance and installation of an above ground pool (18” diam.) of 254 sq. ft. and a new deck of 457 sq. ft. in the back yard 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 7,500 sq. ft. and 5,000 sq. ft. exists
B. Minimum lot width required is 75 ft. and 50 ft. exists
C. Minimum single side yard required is 10 ft. and 8.2 ft/9.6 ft. exist
D. Minimum two side yards required is 22 ft. and 17.8 ft. exists
2. Total buildings coverage allowed is 30% and 36% 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 25, Parcel 66J and is located in an R-7.5 (Single-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. Earl Ferguson, architect, stated the proposal is for a portico at the front over an existing stump and in the rear an above ground pool, 18 ft. in diameter, and a new 457 sq. ft. deck. The combined lot coverage would exceed the allowable coverage by 318 sq. ft. The lot is zoned R-7.5 but the lot is smaller – it is 5,000 sq. ft. The proposed coverage will be 36% instead of the allowable 30%.
Chairwoman Lawrence questioned whether Mr. White has heard from any of his neighbors on this application. Mr. White stated he has not. Mr. Ferguson noted the closest neighbor’s property is fenced.
Chairwoman Lawrence questioned whether anyone wished to address the Board on this matter. No one appeared.
The Board reported receipt of the following memo dated November 13, 2007, from Kathleen D’Eufemia, Designated Environmental Review Officer:
“White – 67 Sheldon Avenue - I have reviewed this application for construction of a portico at the front entrance, installation of an above-ground pool, and a new deck in the back yard and determined the proposals appear to pose no significant adverse environmental impacts. Should the Board concur, you may issue a negative SEQRA declaration.”
Ms. Brown stated she felt the decking would be more aesthetically pleasing if it went all around the pool even if it required a greater variance. Mr. Ferguson stated they had discussed this; however, it not only increases the coverage percentage but setback variances would also be needed. Board members stated they felt the proposed decking was adequate and they did not feel it would be desirable to consider the additional variances.
Mr. Maloney moved, seconded by Mr. Jolly, and unanimously carried, that the Board determines there will be no significant adverse environmental impact as a result of this proposal.
Mr. Maloney moved, seconded by Mr. Jolly, 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 the requested variances subject to:
1. Approval of plans by the Building Inspector/Village Engineer
2. Obtaining a building permit for the proposals within two years.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Maloney moved, seconded by Mr. Jolly, and unanimously carried, that the meeting be adjourned, 9:10 p.m.
Kathleen D’Eufemia
Secretary
| 
