Zoning Board of Appeals
Village of Tarrytown
Regular Meeting
June 14, 2010 8:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Chairwoman Lawrence; Members Brown, Jolly, Merrill Verma; Counsel Shumejda; Secretary Bellantoni
ABSENT: Member Maloney, Assistant Village Engineer Pennella
APPROVAL OF THE MINTUES – May 10, 2010
Mr. Jolly moved, seconded by Ms. Brown, and unanimously carried, that the minutes of May 10, 2010, be approved as submitted. Motion carried.
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
FORDHAM UNIVERSITY – PROPERTIES AT: 100 MARYMOUNT AVENUE (New Public Hearing Notice); 25 IRVING AVENUE; 69 & 71IRVING AVENUE; 77 IRVING AVENUE; 93 IRVING AVENUE; 73 IRVING AVENUE (SAMOYEDNY)
The secretary read the new public hearing notice for 100 Marymount Avenue as follows:
"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, June 14, 2010 in the Municipal Building, One Depot Plaza, Tarrytown, New York to hear and consider an application by
Fordham University
113 West 60th Street
New York, NY 10023
For variances from the Zoning Code of the Village of Tarrytown for property located at 100 Marymount Avenue, Tarrytown, New York regarding the subdivision of property (proposed lot 1P) and property located on Sheet 12, P-73 requiring the following variances:
1. Minimum Front Yard (feet): Permitted: 35 (100) / Proposed: 55
2. Minimum Each Side Yard (feet): Permitted: 18 (100) / Proposed: 45
3. Maximum Height Indoor Recreation/Athletic Facility (Feet/Stories): Permitted: 50 feet/ 2 ½ stories / Proposed: 60 feet/4 stories)
4. Maximum Height Residential and Instruction and all other (Feet/Stories): Permitted: 30 feet/ 2 ½ stories / Proposed: 155 feet/7 stories
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, Parcels 73, 75, 77, 79, 83, 85 and is located in an R-20 (One-Family Residence) 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”
The return receipts were received and the sign was posted.
Kristen Wilson, attorney for Fordham, introduced herself as well as John Kirkpatrick, attorney for EF Schools. She stated that the Board is familiar with the application for variances, based on the Planning Board approval, and from previous presentations. What they have before them are modified variances based on John Kirkpatrick’s assessment of what buildings needed the variances for front yard, side yard and height. Nothing is being changed to the existing buildings; they are only legalizing what is there.
John Kirkpatrick introduced himself and stated that they are completely in favor of the original subdivision. He stated that there is a note in the zoning code regarding educational use which states that the Planning Board shall set additional setbacks which must be at least 100’ either from the lot line or from accessory buildings to the main buildings. He asked the Zoning Board for an interpretation or agreement that they do not have any accessory buildings; they are all principal buildings.
Mr. Kirkpatrick further stated that EF Schools would be coming before the Planning Board sometime in the near future for the construction of an additional building where there is now an existing parking lot.
Mr. Kirkpatrick then explained that a condition of the Planning Board for the subdivision was that all lots are subject to a right of first offer, which means that EF School could eventually own the entire lot. Mr. Samoyedny’s site has a small garage on it that belongs to EF School. They have been in negotiations with Mr. Samoyedny to sell the garage to him. They have reduced the price, offered to hold a mortgage, agreed to take monthly payments, agreed to forego the right of first refusal and accept instead a right of first offer. EF School insists that we file this offer with the County Clerk so that it is of record should anything happen to Mr. Samoyedny his heirs or purchasers will know that they have to obey it. He also stated that they have an alternate proposal: instead of transferring
the garage to Mr. Samoyedny, they will attached it to the small strip of land and it then becomes part of the entire EF School property; but it is designed so that it can still be split off once the issues are resolved, but it does require a different set of variances in order to accomplish that. The garage is an accessory building with a 25’ frontage and a 0’ side lot line and about 5’ on the other side with 2’ on the rear – all of which are existing conditions. They would need the following variances:
• Width of front of building: 35’
• Street frontage: 35’
• Front and side yards: 0
• 2 sides: 5’
• Distance from accessory
building to side lot line: 0
He asked the board to considering these tonight.
Ms. Lawrence said she did not feel they could address this tonight because it was not part of the current notice. Mr. Shumejda said they could not be considered until it was submitted to the Village, analyzed and published.
Ms. Lawrence asked what the address of the property is and was the garage on a separate lot. Mr. Shumejda said it is 93 Irving Avenue. Mr. Kirkpatrick said it was on a separate tax lot. He explained that an accessory building could not be on a separate lot, but the strip that they are proposing could be attached either to Mr. Samoyedny’s lot or to the large property. Mr. Shumejda and Ms. Lawrence stated that was a matter for the Planning Board.
Mr. Shumejda explained that the lot at 73 Irving Avenue was property noticed in March and the Board should vote on that lot.
Ms. Lawrence asked Mr. Samoyedny if he would like to speak on the garage issue.
Mr. Samoyedny said that he was in negations with EF, they had an agreement before the Planning Board voted on it; and when their contact came in, it had conditions that he did not agree with; he would not put someone else’s name on the deed of his house to buy a $10,000 garage or have a $400,000 damage clause to buy a $10,000 garage.
Mr. Jolly asked Mr. Samoyedny if he had any other concerns aside from the garage. Mr. Samoyedny said he does not know if his property lines are changing. Mr. Shumejda stated that on March 8th he gave Mr. Samoyedny a survey. Nothing has changed that is relevant to this proceeding, that survey is the one that was used for the recommendation by the Planning Board. Mr. Samoyedny said he did not understand and wanted to know if his property was being changed. Mr. Shumejda explained that the Zoning Board does not have the jurisdiction to move/change any property lines; they are here to deal with the variances. There have been no changes to that survey. Mr. Samoyedny then asked about the path that runs along the side of his house.
Ms. Brown asked to clarify who owns the strip of land Mr. Kirkpatrick spoke of. Mr. Kirkpatrick explained that it now belongs to EF School and the concrete path belongs Fordham. Mr. Samoyedny asked for a clarification of what his property line would be. Mr. Shumejda reiterated that nothing has changed and that the proposal between EF School and Mr. Samoyedny is not a matter for this Board.
Ms. Lawrence stated that the subdivision lines have changed slightly. Ms. Wilson explained that the subdivision map was approved based upon Mr. Samoyedny purchasing the garage.
After the board had a discussion among itself, Ms. Lawrence stated that what the Board is approving or not approving is what is now on record; and if they want to make any changes, they will have to come back before the Board. Mr. Samoyedny asked what happened to the garage as shown on the subdivision map. Mr. Kirkpatrick explained that the Planning Board has to approve changing his lot to add 5’ on the south side and the garage. That proposal is before the Planning Board now; and if this Board grants the variances, the subdivision becomes legal. Mr. Shumejda further explained that the Planning Board approved it conditioned upon the Zoning Board’s approval of the variances.
Ms. Lawrence asked if anyone else wished to speak. No one else chose to speak.
Mr. Shumejda stated for the record that the Planning Board was the lead agency on this project and it made its findings and their findings apply to this Board.
Ms. Lawrence 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 will a detriment to nearby properties 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:
1. Mr. Jolly moved, seconded by Ms. Brown, and all in favor of granting the following variances for 100 Marymount Avenue (lot 1P) - original proposal, presented March 2010:
• Accessory Building Coverage (%): Permitted: 4.5 / Proposed: 8.7
• Maximum Height (Stories): Permitted: 2.5 / Proposed: >2.5 (1)
• Maximum Height (Feet): Permitted: 30 / Proposed >30 (1)
Motion carried.
2. Mr. Jolly moved, seconded by Ms. Verma, and all in favor of granting the following variances for 100 Marymount Avenue – new proposal, presented tonight:
• Minimum Front Yard (feet): Permitted: 35 (100) / Proposed: 55
• Minimum Each Side Yard (feet): Permitted: 18 (100) / Proposed: 45
• Maximum Height Indoor Recreation/Athletic Facility (Feet/Stories): Permitted: 50 feet/ 2 ½ stories / Proposed: 60 feet/4 stories)
• Maximum Height Residential and Instruction and all other (Feet/Stories): Permitted: 30 feet/ 2 ½ stories / Proposed: 155 feet/7 stories
Motion carried.
3. Mr. Jolly moved, seconded by Ms. Brown, and all in favor of granting the following variance for 25 Irving Avenue – proposed lot 2P:
• Minimum Lot Size (S.F.): Permitted: 20,000 / Proposed: 10,452
• Width at front of Building (FT): Permitted: 120 / Proposed: 117.0
• Minimum Street Frontage (FT): Permitted: 120 / Proposed: 117.0
• Minimum Rear Yard (FT): Permitted: 32 / Proposed: 11.0
Motion carried.
4. Ms. Brown moved, seconded by Ms. Brown, and all in favor of granting the following variances for 93 Irving Avenue – proposed lot 3P:
• Minimum Lot Size (S.F.): Permitted: 20,000 / Proposed: 10,018
• Minimum Front Yard (FT): Permitted: 30 / Proposed: 12.9
• Minimum Rear Yard (FT): Permitted: 32 / Proposed: 20
Motion carried.
5. Ms. Verma moved, seconded by Mr. Jolly, and all in favor of granting the following variances for 77 Irving Avenue – proposed lot 4P:
• Minimum Lot Size (S.F.): Permitted: 20,000 / Proposed: 10,814
• Principal Building Coverage (%): Permitted: 18 / Proposed: 18.2
• Minimum Front Yard (FT): Permitted: 30 / Proposed: 23.2
• Minimum Rear Yard (FT): Permitted: 32 / Proposed: 10.9
Motion carried.
6. Mr. Jolly moved, seconded by Ms. Brown, and all in favor of granting the following variances for 69-71 Irving Avenue – proposed lot 6P:
• Minimum Lot Size (S.F.): Permitted: 20,000 / Proposed: 6,000
• Width at Front of Building (FT): Permitted: 120 / Proposed: 60
• Minimum Street Frontage (FT): Permitted: 120 / Proposed: 60
• Principal Building Coverage (%): Permitted: 18 / Proposed: 25.5
• Total Coverage (All Buildings %): Permitted: 22.5 / Proposed: 25.5
• Minimum Front Yard (FT): Permitted: 30 / Proposed: 21.1
• Minimum Side Yard (FT): Permitted: 16 / Proposed: 0.8
• Minimum 2 Side Yards (FT): Permitted: 34 / Proposed 21.6
• Minimum Rear Yard (FT): Permitted: 32 / Proposed: 3.6
Motion carried.
7. Mr. Jolly moved, seconded by Ms. Brown, and all in favor of granting the following variances 73 Irving Avenue – proposed lot 5P:
• Minimum Lot Size (S.F.): Permitted: 20,000 / Proposed: 4,062
• Width at front of Building (FT): Permitted: 120 / Proposed: 40.9
• Minimum Street Frontage (FT): Permitted: 120 / Proposed 41.22
• Principal Building Coverage (%): Permitted: 18 / Proposed: 28.1
• Accessory Building Coverage (%): Permitted: 4.5 / Proposed: (4) 12.6
• Total Coverage (All Buildings %): Permitted: 22.5 / Proposed: 40.7
• Minimum Front Yard (FT): Permitted: 30 / Proposed: 45.0
• Minimum Side Yard (FT): Permitted: 16 / Proposed: 2.6
• Minimum 2 Side yards (FT): Permitted: 34 / Proposed: 10.3
• Minimum Rear Yard (FT): Permitted: 32 / Proposed: 11.1
• Minimum distance from Accessory Building to Side Lot Line (FT): Permitted: 16 / Proposed: 5.6
Motion carried.
NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS
119 Cobb Lane – Blumin Residence
The secretary read the public hearing notice as follows:
“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, June 14, 2010 in the Municipal Building, One Depot Plaza, Tarrytown, New York to hear and consider an application by:
Stuart M. & Deborah A. Blumin
119 Cobb Lane
Tarrytown, NY 10591
for a variance from the Zoning Code of the Village of Tarrytown for property at the above address regarding the installation of an invisible deer fence, requiring the following variances:
5. A variance from Section 305-47B(7) of the Zoning Code entitled Yards; setbacks as follows:
• Maximum height of fence allowed: 6’; proposed: 8’.
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: 4, Lot(s): 191A and is located in an R30 (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”
The mailing receipts were received.
The sign was posted.
Board members visited the site.
Ms. Lawrence read the following Environmental Review from Michael Blau, Environmental Review Officer, dated June 12, 2010:
“I have reviewed this application to allow for the installation of an 8 ft. deer fence and determined the proposal appears to pose no significant adverse environmental impact.”
Mr. Stuart Blumin, the homeowner, explained that he and his wife would like to have the 6’ stockade fence that is presently on their property removed and replaced with an 8’ deer fence, referring to the map presented to the Board, to protect their garden. The fence would be put along or well within their property, mainly through the wooded area on their property where no one traverses, except the deer.
Ms. Lawrence asked if it would be along or cross over a deer path. She recently read that if a fence is put across a deer path, the deer will eventually break through it, which will require quite a bit of maintenance. Mr. Blumin said he thought there might be a deer path back there but wasn’t sure where; and if that occurred he would take care of it. He said he plans to plant a Blue Spruce in the jog where they go so that they will go around it.
Ms. Lawrence asked about the fence material. Mr. Blumin thought they would go with the black plastic which was less expensive and easier to handle.
Ms. Lawrence asked if he knew of any other deer fences in Tarrytown. Mr. Blumin said that there was one in the Wilson Park area, the Dobsons.
Ms. Brown asked why the deer would jump over a 6’ fence and not an 8’ fence and wasn’t it invisible to them. Mr. Blumin said that you have to put markers every so often about 4’ high; and when they see them, they back away from it. The deer won’t jump over.
Ms. Lawrence asked why they wanted to put the fence only on the southern side of the property. Mr. Blumin said they wanted to eliminate the stockade fence so that they can take advantage of their beautiful property. They also plan to do some landscaping.
Ms. Lawrence asked if it had any detrimental characteristics for birds. Mr. Blumin said that the birds would be able to fly right through it.
Ms. Brown asked Mr. Shumejda if there were any regulations regarding fences in Tarrytown. Mr. Shumejda explained that the maximum height is 6’; and they can be placed close to the property line.
Mr. Shumejda asked Mr. Blumin if he spoke with his neighbors. Mr. Blumin said he spoke with the Gelmans of 91 Cobb Lane and their only concern was that the deer would be able to get where they wanted to go.
Dale Bellantoni stated that Michael McGarvey, the building inspector, wanted it put on the record how far the fence would go from the neighbor below. Mr. Blumin said it would go approximately 20’ from the property line. It would go approximately 20-30’ from the road and there are a lot of bushes and foliage between the road and the fence. Mr. Blumin said that you probably would not be able to see the fence from the road.
Mr. David Hick, 111 Cobb Lane, which is west of 119 Cobb, explained that when he bought his house there was an existing 10’ driveway, which is partially on the Blumin’s property and approximately 2’ from his house. His concern was that he would not be able to use the driveway with the fence. Mr. Blumin stated that he would be keeping the fence about 20’ back from his driveway and stated that he does not have a problem with Mr. Hick’s driveway.
Ms. Lawrence stated that board members went out to the site on Sunday, June 13th, but no one was present. She would like to see the site again with the Blumin’s present to get a better idea of the site and where the fence will be placed. The Blumin’s said they would be present on Sunday, July 11, 2010. Ms. Lawrence also suggested, if possible, for him to obtain a sample of the fencing and possibly a full survey.
Ms. Lawrence adjourned the hearing until the July 12, 2010 meeting.
93 Altamont Avenue – Guman and Figler Residence
The secretary read the public hearing as follows:
“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, June 14, 2010 in the Municipal Building, One Depot Plaza, Tarrytown, New York to hear and consider an application by:
Gloria Guman and Philip Figler
93 Altamont Avenue
Tarrytown, NY 10591
for a variance from the Zoning Code of the Village of Tarrytown for property at the above address regarding the construction of a first floor mud room addition, second floor master bedroom addition, and a new deck requiring the following variances:
1. Increase in the degree of non-conformity: (§305-62A(2))
• Minimum single side yard setback is required to be 10’ & 8.31’ 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: 15; Block: 59; Lot(s): 2 & 5 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”
The mailing receipts were received.
The sign was posted.
Board members visited the site.
Ms. Lawrence read the following Environmental Review from Michael Blau, Environmental Review Officer, dated June 14, 2010:
“I have reviewed this application for a side line variance to allow construction of a first floor mudroom and second floor master bedroom and determined the proposals appear to pose no significant adverse environmental impact.”
Dorota Swemz, the owner’s architect, introduced herself and explained what they would like to do. They are demolishing a very small staircase and landing in the rear of the house and will replace it with a tiny bit bigger mudroom and they are adding a second floor master bedroom and deck. They comply with everything except for the accessory building, which is the garage. A 10’ setback is required where an existing 8.31’ exists.
Ms. Lawrence asked if the stairs go right up to the deck and asked if there is just a half bath on the second floor. Mr. Figler responded that the stair will go up to the deck and that there was a very small bathroom on the second floor.
Ms. Lawrence asked if anyone would like to speak. Laura Copeland of 70 Fairview Avenue just came to see what is being proposed. Her only concern is that the lower part of Fairview has spent a lot of money to keep the water out of their basements. She only asks that her concern be a part of their planning. Ms. Swemz responded that they are quite far away and doubted that this construction would affect them especially because the present back landing has a full foundation and what they are proposing does not have a foundation, it will be on peers, which will actually decrease the impervious surface. Mr. Figler stated that there is no grass area being taken away.
Mr. Jolly asked how far out the new addition would come. Ms. Swemz said it would come about approximately 2’-8”. They are keeping the same line and not coming any closer to the neighbors.
Mr. Jolly moved, seconded by Ms. Verma, and all in favor that the hearing be closed.
Ms. Verma moved, seconded by Mr. Jolly, and unanimously carried 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 variance:
Increase in the degree of non-conformity: (§305-62A(2))
• Minimum single side yard setback is required to be 10’ & 8.31’ is proposed
Motion carried.
Adjournment – 9:10 p.m.
Dale Bellantoni
Secretary
| 
