Zoning Board of Appeals
Village of Tarrytown
Regular Meeting
April 12, 2010 8:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Chairwoman Lawrence; Members Brown, Jolly, Merrill Verma, Maloney; Counsel Shumejda; Assistant Village Engineer Pennella; Secretary Bellantoni
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES – March 8, 2010
Mr. Maloney moved, seconded by Mr. Jolly; and unanimously carried that the minutes of March 8, 2010 be approved as submitted. Motion carried.
CONTINUATION PUBLIC HEARINGS
FORDHAM UNIVERSITY – PROPERTIES AT: 100 MARYMOUNT AVENUE; 25 IRVING AVENUE; 93 IRVING AVENUE; 77 IRVING AVENUE; 71 IRVING AVENUE; 73 IRVING AVENUE (SAMOYEDNY)
Mr. Shumedja stated that he spoke with Kristen Wilson, attorney for EF Schools, who requested an adjournment to the May 10, 2010 meeting so that they could further discuss the subdivision with the Village. The Village had a meeting with the representatives of EF. At the meeting they were told that the proper remedy would be to go forward with the subdivision application. A conference call was to take place on Wednesday, April14, 2010 to further discuss what action they would be taking. At this point in time, the Village has all of the necessary paperwork to proceed with the application and grant the variances.
Mr. Lugari addressed his concerns about the delay because of the $8,000 rebate he would be entitled to if he closed on his property by the end of the month. Mr. Maloney stated to Mr. Lugari that it was his understanding that the only thing necessary for the rebate was for Mr. Lugari to have a signed contract. Mr. Shumejda stated that he understood the same. Ms. Lawrence suggested that Mr. Lugari contact his bank for the details.
Mr. Jolly moved, seconded by Ms. Brown, and unanimously carried that the application be adjourned to the May 10, 2010 meeting.
NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS
96 CREST DRIVE – PATSCH RESIDENCE
The secretary read the following Public Hearing notice:
“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, April 12, 2010 in the Municipal Building, One Depot Plaza, Tarrytown, New York to hear and consider an application by:
Geoffrey and Kristina Patsch
96 Crest Drive
Tarrytown, NY 10591
for a variance from the Zoning Code of the Village of Tarrytown for property located at the above address regarding the construction of a new second story addition over an existing one-story addition requiring the following variances:
1. A variance from Section 305-47 of the Zoning Code entitled Yards; setbacks as follows:
a. One required side yard setback: 10’, existing: 7.4’
b. Second required side yard setback: 12’, existing 8.1’
c. Where a total of 22’ is required; 15.5’ is proposed.
2. A variance from section 305-62.A.2, Nonconforming Buildings.
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 104, Lot(s): 20 and is located in an R7.5 (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.
By Order of the Zoning Board of Appeals”
Certified mailing receipts received.
Sign was posted
Board members visited the site
Kristina Patsch, homeowner introduced herself and her architect, Kier Levesque. Mr. Levesque explained their purpose was to obtain variances to increase the square footage of an existing non-conforming building as well as the approval of variances for the existing side yard setbacks. Mr. Levesque explained the proposed scope of the work which is to add a second floor addition over the north side of an existing one-story addition and they are proposing to add a bathroom and closets to an existing second story bedroom. They will be increasing the square footage by approximately 240 square feet of livable area. They do not feel that this will change the character of the neighborhood nor will it create a detriment to the community.
Ms. Lawrence asked what was on the second floor now. Mrs. Patsch stated that presently there is a master bedroom, two other bedrooms and one bath. Ms. Lawrence asked how many bathrooms are on the first floor, to which Mrs. Patsch stated only one small powder room.
Ms. Lawrence questioned the air conditioning unit which they noticed during the site visit. She wanted to know if it was on the property line. Mrs. Patsch said it was as far back from the property line as it could be. Ms. Lawrence wasn’t sure if it was even an issue. Mr. Shumejda said if it is in the setback, when the Building Department goes out to do any inspections, they will look at it and request it be moved out of the setback. Mrs. Patsch and Mr. Levesque said they could move it during the construction of the new addition. Mr. Shumejda said it could be a condition of the approval. Ms. Brown explained that if they decide there is no other place to put it, they could come back before the Zoning Board for a variance to leave it encroaching in the setback.
Ms. Lawrence asked if there is anyone here who would like to speak on the project. No one present spoke. She asked Mrs. Patsch if she spoke with her neighbors about the project. Mrs. Patsch said she spoke with them and they are all fine with it.
Ms. Lawrence read the following Environmental Review from Michael Blau, Environmental Review Officer, dated April 12, 2010:
“I have reviewed this application regarding the construction of a new second story addition over an existing one-story addition and determined the proposal appears to pose no significant adverse environmental impact.”
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 96 Crest Drive.
Mr. Maloney moved, seconded by Ms. Brown, and unanimously carried that the hearing be closed and that the Board having arrived at the findings required by the ordinance:
1. That no undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties will be created by granting of the area variance;
2. That the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance;
3. That the requested area variance is not substantial;
4. That the proposed variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and
5. That the alleged difficulty was not self-created, which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the Board of Appeals but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance.
grants the following variances for 96 Crest Drive with the condition that the air conditioning condenser unit be moved out of the side yard setback:
1. A variance from Section 305-47 of the Zoning Code entitled Yards; setbacks as follows:
a. One required side yard setback: 10’, existing: 7.4’
b. Second required side yard setback: 12’, existing 8.1’
c. Where a total of 22’ is required; 15.5’ is proposed.
2. A variance from section 305-62.A.2, Nonconforming Buildings.
Motion carried.
21 HALF MOON LANE – LEVINE RESIDENCE
The secretary read the following Public Hearing notice:
“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, April 12, 2010 in the Municipal Building, One Depot Plaza, Tarrytown, New York to hear and consider an application by
Michael and Sara Levine
21 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 the conversion of the garage into habitable space and the construction of a deck in the rear of the house requiring the following variances:
1. 305-47 (B) (5); Rear open wood deck is proposed to be 16.2 ft. from the rear lot line where 20 ft. is required.
2. 305-63 (C)(3)(a); Two parking spaces are proposed to be located in the required front yard with a distance of 3 ft to the front and 4.5 ft. to the side, where 20 ft. to the front and 5 ft. to the side are required.
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: 0119, Lot(s): 15 and is located in an R7.5 (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.
By Order of the Zoning Board of Appeals”
Certified mailing receipts received.
Sign was posted
Board members visited the site
Sam Vieira introduced himself and Michael Levine, the homeowner. Mr. Vieira explained the project and why variances are needed. He explained that the project consisted of gaining more livable space by converting the existing single-car garage into a mud room, bathroom and storage pantry; and to construct a 14’ x 22’ rear deck.
Regarding the parking, the Levine’s have never parked their car in the garage; it has been used primarily for storage. Legally they would be losing that parking space; but since they have enough room for parking in their driveway and have always parked there, losing the space is not a problem.
Regarding the deck, the topo of the property is such that it drops off toward the rear of the house which makes it difficult to have any outdoor dining area. The proposed deck will be right off the kitchen in the rear corner of the house. After some deliberation of location and size, it was felt that this size and location works best for the family use and for the variance requested.
Ms. Lawrence asked about the present layout of the house. Mr. Vieira explained that the present kitchen is very, very tiny and the existing bathroom is also very small and outdated. They are proposing to gain a larger kitchen and more living space by moving things around in the existing footprint of the house.
Ms. Lawrence asked if they consulted with their neighbors and if any were there. Alice Blood of 15 Half Moon Lane asked if they planned on putting a staircase on the deck. Mr. Vieira said they probably would and it would be located very close to the house on the south side within the required setback.
Ms. Brown asked how high the deck would be. Mr. Vieira said it would only be about 5’ high at the most. The staircase would be a very small one because it not a very high off the ground.
Mr. Vieira assured the board that the driveway would not change. The only change would be that the garage door would be removed and there would be an entrance door directly into the house.
Debbie Kolb, another neighbor, stated that Sara Levine mentioned the deck may not be built until next year. Her question was whether it would be built just like the plan submitted tonight or could the plan change? If they do decide to change the design of the deck, will they have to go back before the Zoning Board? Mr. Shumejda explained that if they change the deck and the dimensions are smaller, they do not have to come back before the Zoning Board; but if they are larger, they will have to come back. Ms. Kolb said she is accepting it now; but if the total design changes (lattice work, etc), she would want to know about it. She wants her privacy and she’s sure they want theirs. Mr. Shumejda explained the plan before us does not show lattice work. If in the future they want to add to the
design, they will need to get a building permit; and if it does not meet the code, they will have to come before the board.
Ms. Brown asked if they had to go before the ARB. Mr. Vieira said they do not have to go before the ARB for the deck, only for the front of the house.
Mr. Jolly asked how much further they are coming out toward the street. Mr. Vieira explained that they are not coming out any further. They are maintaining the original footprint of the garage and the existing footage of 29.4’ from the front of the house to the property line is not changing.
Ms. Lawrence said one reason she does not have a problem with this is because the driveway is so large. She asked if they planned on re-blacktopping it. Mr. Levine said it was part of the plan.
Ms. Lawrence spoke about the installation of a large swing set, which appears to be right on the lot line. Mr. Shumejda asked if it was permanently fixed on the property. Mr. Levine said it is not. Mr. Pennella said it is considered a structure. Mr. Vieira said they will review it and either move it or come back to the Zoning Board for permission to leave it where it presently is located. Ms. Lawrence agreed.
Ms. Lawrence read the following Environmental Review from Michael Blau, Environmental Review Officer, dated April 12, 2010:
“I have reviewed this application regarding the conversion of the garage into habitable space and the construction of a deck in the rear of the house. Parking in the front yard is never desirable; however, the Board will have to review the circumstances involving this applicant and the neighborhood. Should the Board be able to determine the findings required by the code can be met and the variances should be granted, you will be able to make a determination that the proposal poses no significant adverse environmental impact.”
Ms. Brown 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 21 Half Moon Lane.
Ms. Brown moved, seconded by Mr. Jolly, and unanimously carried that the hearing be closed and that the Board having arrived at the findings required by the ordinance:
1. That no undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties will be created by granting of the area variance;
2. That the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance;
3. That the requested area variance is not substantial;
4. That the proposed variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and
5. That the alleged difficulty was not self-created, which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the Board of Appeals but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance.
grants the following variances, with the condition that they look at the existing play structure regarding its location in relation to the property line and setbacks, for 21 Half Moon Lane:
1. 305-47 (B) (5); Rear open wood deck is proposed to be 16.2 ft. from the rear lot line where 20 ft. is required.
2. 305-63 (C)(3)(a); Two parking spaces are proposed to be located in the required front yard with a distance of 3 ft to the front and 4.5 ft. to the side, where 20 ft. to the front and 5 ft. to the side are required.
Motion carried.
Meeting adjourned – 9:00 p.m.
Dale Bellantoni
Secretary
| 
