Zoning Board of Appeals
Village of Tarrytown
Regular Meeting
September 8, 2008 ~~~8 p.m.
PRESENT: Chairwoman Lawrence; Members Jolly, Maloney; Merrill-Verma, Brown; Counsel Shumejda; Assistant Village Engineer Pennella; Secretaries D’Eufemia, Bellantoni
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Ms. Brown moved, seconded by Mr. Maloney, and unanimously carried, that the minutes of July 14, 2008, be approved as submitted.
PUBLIC HEARING – MARVIN – 3 HALF MOON LANE
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, September 8, 2008 in the Municipal Building, One Depot Plaza, Tarrytown, New York to hear and consider an application by
Eric and Susan Marvin
3 Half Moon Lane
Tarrytown, NY 10591
for a variance from the Zoning Code of the Village of Tarrytown for property located at the above address regarding a rear yard deck addition requiring the following variances:
- Increase in the degree of non-conformity: (§305-18A(1))
- Minimum lot size is required to be 7,500 sq. ft. and 6,684 sq. ft. exists.
- Minimum front yard setback is required to be 20 ft. and 19.4 ft. exists
- Minimum single side yard setback is required to be 10 ft. and 6.7ft. exists.
- Minimum rear yard setback is required to be 26 ft. and 25.1 ft exists.
- Minimum rear deck rear yard setback is required to be 20 ft. and 8.5 ft. exists.
- Minimum front yard setback for off street parking is required to be 20 ft. and 0 ft. exists.
- Minimum front yard setback is required to be 20 ft. and 13.8 ft. is proposed. (§305-9).
- Ridge of new roof breaks light plane to the south. (§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
Page 2 – Minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting of September 8, 2008
Tarrytown as Sheet 17A, Block 119, Lot 18 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.
Board members visited the property.
Chairwoman Lawrence noted this matter went before the Planning Board for site plan review and she read the approval of the Planning Board as follows:
Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Aukland, and unanimously carried, that the Planning Board approves the additions to the home at 3 Half Moon Lane subject to:
- Approval by the Building Inspector/Village Engineer.
- Approval by the Architectural Review Board.
- Approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals for any variances including the variance needed for the increase in the non-conformity of the front yard setback. The Planning Board recommends this variance be granted as the addition of the front porch significantly improves the overall aesthetics of the house. The Planning Board approves the slight protrusion of the 2nd floor into the 45~degree light plane. This small amount should not have any significant effect on the neighbors and flattening the roof would be unfavorable to the appearance of the house. The Planning Board recommends the variance for the parking in the front yard since this is a situation that has existed at this home for many years as the garage was too small for a car, and expansion of the garage is not feasible.
- Compliance with the four recommendations made by the Village’s Landscape Consultant based on his site visit of August 5, 2008.
- Signing of the final site plan by the Planning Board Chair.
Mr. Sam Vieira, Architect, began his presentation with a brief history of the project. He stated that when the project began the Marvin family consisted of three members, but in the very near future that family would increase to five members; thus the need for the additional space. He then stated that the house is presently a two bedroom, one bathroom, single-story house; and they would like to convert the house into a two-story more traditional layout with three bedrooms and two bathrooms upstairs, and convert the first floor into living
Page 3 – Minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting of September 8, 2008
space: a sun porch, living room, small den, maybe nursery. The garage is only 9’ by 19’, very tiny and difficult to squeeze a car into. Neither the Marvins nor the previous owners have ever parked a car in the garage, so the expansion of living
space into the garage should not adversely affect the parking since the two cars have always been parked in the driveway.
A new front porch is also proposed to add some architectural appeal to an otherwise boxy-looking house. The porch is a one-story open porch, which is only 6’ deep and runs the width of the main part of the house. Because the porch has a roof on it, it must meet the required setbacks for the main structure. The rest of the project will maintain the same footprint as existing house, with the exception of a small overhang in the rear.
Mr. Vieira stated that excavation would be minor because there would not be a full foundation for the porch, but rather small piers to support the porch and there would be tree protection, as requested by Mr. Yarabek.
Mr. Vieira addressed the last requested variance regarding the light plane on the roof. He stated that he made the roof at a 7:12 pitch because any lower would make the house look more like a ranch and that it was on the south side of the house which would not affect the sunlight for the neighbor on the south side of the house. He stated that the neighbor on the north side was at least 100’ away and, in his opinion, would not be affected as far as their sunlight is concerned.
Chairwoman Lawrence asked about a big tree in the back of the house, which she observed at the site visit. She asked if it would be taken down since it overhung the house. Mr. Vieira said it would only be pruned, as well as other trees on the property.
Chairwoman Lawrence asked Mr. Marvin if he spoke with his neighbors. Mr. Marvin stated he had spoken to all of the neighbors and they had no problems with the project.
Ms. Merrill-Verma asked about the tree on the south side of the house which was recently taken down. Mr. Marvin said it was taken down because it was rotted and his neighbor feared it would fall on his house. He also stated that he planned to plant a replacement once the construction was complete.
Chairwoman Lawrence mentioned that she was concerned about the porch coming out so far, but stated that it looked fine on the drawing and will enhance the aesthetics of the house.
Page 4 – Minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting of September 8, 2008
Mr. Vieira stated that it is an odd-shaped lot, and with the property lines being much farther away from the street than other houses in the Village, it makes the structure seem less obtrusive to the street. He also stated that if the property were square, they probably would not need any variances.
Mr. Jolly asked if the construction process would create any disruption to the neighbors because of debris, etc. Mr. Vieira explained that a dumpster would be placed in the driveway; and as old materials were taken down and new ones brought in, the old material would be carted away, which new materials would be placed in the driveway, not on the lawn. He also noted that the house next door was presently under construction.
Ms. Brown asked Mr. Marvin if they would be able to stay in the house while the construction took place. Mr. Marvin said he would be able to, but his wife and daughter would probably go to her mother’s.
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 September 9, 2008 from Michael Blau, Environmental Review Officer:
I have reviewed this application for a new second story addition above existing first floor and new 6 ft. x 34 ft. front porch. I have determined the proposals appear to pose no significant adverse environmental impact. Should the Board agree, you may make a negative declaration under SEQRA.
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 granting the requested variances for 3 Half Moon Lane.
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:
- That the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood
- That the proposed variance will not create an undesirable change to the neighborhood or detriment to the neighborhood
- That the benefit the applicant seeks to achieve cannot be achieved by any other feasible method
- That the variance is not substantial in the Board’s judgment
Page 5 – Minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting of September 8, 2008
- That the variance would not have an adverse environmental impact on the neighborhood
- 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 for 3 Half Moon Lane
subject to:
- Approval of plans by the Building Inspector.
- Approval of plans by the Architectural Review Board.
- Compliance with conditions of site plan approval by the Planning Board.
- Obtaining a building permit within two years.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Maloney moved, seconded by Mr. Jolly, and unanimously carried, that the meeting be adjourned – 8:15 p.m.
Dale Bellantoni
Secretary
| 
