Zoning Board of Appeals
Village of Tarrytown
Regular Meeting
February 14, 2011 - 8:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Chairwoman Lawrence; Members Jolly; Maloney; Brown; Weisel; Counsel Shumejda; Secretary, Bellantoni
WELCOME VICTORIA WEISEL – The Zoning Board welcomed a new member, Victoria Weisel.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES – September 13,2010
Ms. Brown moved, seconded by Mr. Jolly, and unanimously carried, that the minutes of September 13, 2010, be approved as submitted. Motion carried
NEW PUBLIC HEARING - 1 Archer Place – Wagner
Mrs. Bellantoni read the following Pubic 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, December 13, 2010 in the Municipal Building, One Depot Plaza, Tarrytown, New York to hear and consider an application by:
Eric and Nicole Wagner
1 Archer Place
Tarrytown, NY 10591
for variances from the Zoning Code of the Village of Tarrytown for property located at the above address to construct a one-story addition to rear of the home requiring the following variances:
1. The following variances are for an increase in the existing non-conformity:
Permitted Existing Proposed
• Minimum lot size (sf): 10,000 2,909.07 No change
• Req’d. min. street frontage (ft): 100’ 35’ No change
• Minimum each side yard (ft.): 12’ 3.4’/7’.3”± No change
2. The following variances increase the pre-existing non-conforming conditions:
Permitted Existing Proposed
• Principal building coverage (%): 22.0% 29.6% 35.88%
• Total coverage (all buildings-%) 27.5% 29.26% 35.88%
• Minimum 2 side yards (ft.): 26’ 10’-7¾”± 13’
• Minimum rear yard (ft.): 28’ 25’-10¼”± 19’-4¾”±
• Total gross F.A.R. 1,290’ (0.43) 1,487.62’ (0.51) 1,680.28’ (0.58)
• Max. impervious surface (%) 37.25% 52.06% 59.05%
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: 11, Block: 42, Lot: 5 and is located in an R10 (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 mailings were done (certified receipts received).
The sign was posted.
By Ms. Lawrence read the following Environmental Review from Michael Blau, Environmental Review Officer, dated December 2010:
“This application for a one-story house addition has been reviewed by the Planning Board and a determination has been made that the proposal poses no adverse environmental impacts.”
Nicole Wagner, homeowner, introduced herself and gave an overview of the project. She explained that the application process was started over a year ago for a two-story addition at the rear of their house, which was eventually denied by the Planning Board. A one-story addition was then presented; and after several meetings, it was approved by the Planning Board at the November 22, 2010 meeting. The latest revision is a reduction on the south side of the addition, which is closest to the neighbor’s home (Singmans). It was brought in 2’ away from their house. This latest revision has reduced the pitch of the roof. None of these reductions have changed the square footage of the addition.
(Note: The January 10, 2011 meeting was cancelled due to the lack of a quorum because only two members were present; however, a discussion followed between Mrs. Singman and Mr. Tancredi concerning the pitch of the roof.)
Mr. Frank Tancredi, Architect for the Wagner’s, further explained the revisions. The changes were made as a result of the concerns of the Singmans’ regarding the height of the structure and the sight lines. On the south side of the structure, the walls were moved in a few feet and he played with the back corner and made that part of the kitchen smaller in width which brought the roof ridge down about 2’. No footprint was increased, but the impervious service area was decreased a small amount. All other dimensions and setbacks remain the same. On the north side the addition is now flush with the existing building.
Mr. Tancredi then showed the Board the original plan for the two-story addition so that the Board could see how much they actually did cut back with this latest revision. He noted that the Wagners have been in contact with the Historic Society and the Aqueduct people, and both were in favor of the two-story proposal.
Ms. Lawrence clarified that essentially all they did with this revision was move it over a little bit. Mr. Tancredi concurred but explained that in doing so it brought the pitch of the roof down as well.
Mr. Nick Singman of 3 Archer Place read a statement from his wife. He stated that they never opposed extra space for the Wagners, but they are opposed to their obstructing their view. He asked that the Board visit their house to see for themselves how their view will be obstructed.
Mrs. Lawrence asked Mr. Tancredi what the height of the addition will be. Mr. Tancredi said he did not have a scale but the measurement to the top of the window is approximately 80” high on the second floor and the revision has brought the top of the roof down 2’ from there and it is approximately 20’ away from the Singmans’ house.
Mr. Singman said the roof extends to the second floor of the house. Ms. Lawrence said she cannot visualize that it will obstruct their view, even if it were a level roof.
Ms. Brown asked Mr. Singman if it will block sunlight and what is the view of? Mr. Singman said the only way to answer that is for the Board to come and see for themselves.
Ms. Lawrence said the Board could do a site visit and asked if the Wagners or Mr. Tancredi could put a pole showing the height of the new roof and the distance from 3 Archer Place.
Mrs. Wagner asked to address the Board. She stated that the Planning Board did a site visit as well as the Zoning Board. To delay further would incur more expenses. They have been doing this for over a year and have made many accommodations to meet their neighbors’ needs. She asked that they not delay the decision to the next meeting.
Ms. Lawrence agreed that they did do a tremendous amount of compromise but felt it was only fair to do a site visit to the Singmans’, if the rest of the Board agreed.
Ms. Brown asked Mr. Singman what would be acceptable for them to see. Is it that they don’t want to see the roof at all? When you look out that window, what do you expect to see? She asked if the Board were to go and see the view and find that they would be able to see the roof, is that acceptable to him. He did not answer her questions.
Mr. Jolly asked if there would be an open cathedral ceiling or would they put a ceiling on the top of the room. Mrs. Wagner said that they have toyed with both ideas, but thought they would leave it open to give the room a more open airy feel which will make the smaller room feel larger and also to bring in some sunlight. She stated that it will also make it look more appealing and more in keeping with the feel of the neighborhood.
Mrs. Wagner asked Mr. Singman what would be acceptable. He responded that they showed them what would be acceptable to them. Mrs. Wagner said that is why they gave up an entire floor to accommodate them, what more did they want.
Mr. Tancredi pointed out that if it was a shed roof, from the Singmans’ view they would see the wall rising up and become taller and taller; but with the designed roof, they will be looking at the lower eave on both sides. That design was intentional. We also put the larger mass further away so that the taller house is looking down on it – it’s a design element.
Mrs. Wagner said that their second floor windows are pretty much where the Singmans’ second floor windows are; so if you are in their home, you can see that the roof comes down and doesn’t cover the whole window. There will be light and a view over the roof we have been talking about. Mr. Tancredi said that it will not block light or ventilation; and when looking out of the bedroom window, you don’t just look straight ahead, you look around and up and there will be some view.
Ms. Lawrence asked if the backs of the houses were parallel. Mr. Tancredi said that they are staggered but the same height. Ms. Lawrence asked if the Singmans’ house is farther back. Mrs. Wagner and Mr. Tancredi said it is a lot further back because Archer Place is on an angle. The windows are also staggered.
Ms. Lawrence asked Mr. Singman to clarify why the proposed roof, of which 50% is practically a shed roof and the other half is now about half of what was originally proposed, will be a problem for him. Mr. Singman said he is simply requesting a site visit.
Mrs. Wagner said that to her that just feels a little bit like we are playing a game. She said that the Singmans did not request a site visit with the last design which was larger than this one. She did not feel that another site visit was necessary and that it would just hold things up even longer, causing more delays and costs for her and her family.
Ms. Lawrence said that she understood and that they would make a decision at the March 14th meeting.
The Board agreed to a site visit, which they scheduled for Sunday, March 13, 2011 at 9:00 a.m.
Adjournment: 8:35 p.m.
| 
