Zoning Board of Appeals
Village of Tarrytown
Regular Meeting
September 13, 2010 - 8:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Chairwoman Lawrence; Members Maloney, Jolly, Brown; Counsel Shumejda; Assistant Village Engineer Pennella; Secretary, Bellantoni
GOODBYE MS. KARA MERRILL VERMA
Ms. Lawrence announced the Kara Merril Verma has resigned from the Zoning Board of Appeals because she and her family have moved to Irvington. Kara has been on the Zoning Board since July of 2007 and will be missed. We all wish her well.
APPROVAL OF THE MINTUES – August 9, 2010
Ms. Brown moved, seconded by Mr. Jolly, and unanimously carried, that the minutes of August 9, 2010 be approved as submitted. Motion carried
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING – 86 Roundabend Road - Sollecito
A second site visit was held on September 12, 2010 and it was attended by Ms. Lawrence and Ms. Brown.
Ms. Lawrence asked if the Homeowner Association presented comments. Mr. Pennella stated that the Building Department received a call from the Homeowners Association stating that they had no objections. Mr. Robert Riley, the homeowners’ architect, confirmed that he heard from the homeowner that his neighbor, who is a member of the Homeowners Association Board, said the board had voted and there was no objection to the proposed addition.
Ms. Lawrence asked about the impervious surface. Mr. Riley said he spoke with Dan Pennella, Assistant Village Engineer, regarding the run-off from the impervious surface area. Mr. Pennella said they discussed the alternatives to mitigate the run-off generated by the present impervious area, as well as what will be created, in order to bring it down close to the allowed 29%. Mr. Riley said they would undertake mitigation procedures to bring it down to the allowable coverage. Ms. Lawrence stated that if they approve this addition, it will be subject to the engineer’s approval.
Ms. Lawrence said this is a very unusual lot, a flag lot; and asked Mr. Shumejda to state the conditions for a variance. Mr. Shumejda stated the conditions as follows:
1. Does it impact the environment of the community?
2. Can the results be obtained by some means other than a variance?
3. Are the variances substantial?
4. Does it impact the surrounding property in terms of property value, aesthetics, view, run-off, impervious surface?
Mr. Shumejda further explained that this site impacts the environment due to the run-off which should be mitigated properly; and the variances are substantial in the rear yard (about 50%).
Mr. Riley felt it was not a problem because the rear yard is very large and explained that if you were to do a triangular building, the set-back starts at the tip of the triangle; it isn’t how big it is, it’s the distance. When you look at the shape of this addition, it doesn’t appear substantial. Mr. Shumejda stated that by law it is substantial because it is approximately a 47% variance.
Ms. Lawrence said that typically we look at variances which conform to the houses in the neighborhood. This one does not conform because there are no other houses in the neighborhood that have a 4-car garage. This house is different because of its location. Because it is a flag lot, it will not be seen nor will not impact any of the neighbors. She does not feel that the neighborhood would be impacted either.
Ms. Lawrence asked if anyone else had any questions.
Mr. Shumejda clarified that in addition to the approval of the Village Engineer it has to meet the current threshold of the impervious surface; in other words, you may have to remove some of the current impervious surface or add some drywells or other means to obtain on-site retention.
Mr. Jolly asked if these homeowners were intending to stay there a long time. Mr. Riley said he felt that they will. They have 3 children in the school system.
Mr. Riley stated that there is another house in the old section that has a 4-car garage.
Mr. Jolly moved, seconded by Ms. Brown, and unanimously carried, that the Board determines there will be no significant adverse environmental impact as a result of granting the requested variances for 86 Roundabend Road.
Ms. Brown moved, seconded by Mr. Maloney, and unanimously carried, that the hearing be closed and 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.
grants the following variances for 86 Roundabend Road:
1. A variance from Section 305-47 of the Zoning Code entitled Yards; setbacks as follows:
305 Attachment 5:1, Column 14, Minimum Rear Yard (feet)
Required: 32 feet / Existing: 36.3 feet / Proposed: 17 feet
2. A variance, to increase the existing non-conformity, from Section 305-49 of the Zoning Code entitled Impervious coverage as follows:
Permitted: 5,843 s.f. (29%)
Existing: 6,250 s.f. (31.02%)
Proposed: 6,880 s.f. (34.2%)
With the condition, regarding the variance subject to the increase of the impervious surface, that the stormwater be mitigated to meet the required 29% of coverage, and it must be approved by the Village Engineer.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Maloney moved, seconded by Mr. Jolly, and unanimously carried, that the meeting be adjourned – 8:15 p.m.
Dale Bellantoni
Secretary
| 
