Zoning Board of Appeals
Village of Tarrytown
Regular Meeting
August 8, 2011 8:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Chairwoman Lawrence; Members Maloney, Weisel; Counsel Shumejda; Assistant Village Engineer Pennella; Secretary Bellantoni
ABSENT: Members Jolly and Brown
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING – Barkley – 21 Warren Avenue
Christine Griffin, architect for homeowners, explained that the condenser unit is being put back where it originally was and the generator will be put in the southwest corner of the house, which will place it further from the neighbor. The neighbor, Sharon Tanzer Kirschner of 13 Warren Avenue, has provided an e-mail statement stating that it is acceptable to her (copy attached).
Ms. Griffin said they took a look at the Village Code regarding allowable decibel levels and it indicates that the allowable decibel level from 60’ away is 62 decibels in the evening. They received verbal information from the generator company technical representative who said that the decibel level for this generator from 60’ is in the 30’s.
Ms. Griffin stated that the condenser unit is about 74 decibels. She was unable to get any information from the company, but following the logic above; at 60’ away it should meet the code. This unit will be 40’ away from the neighbor’s property; and since today’s units are much quieter, it should meet the code. Also, having the condenser in the side yard is consistent with the neighborhood; the neighbor has theirs 14’ away.
Mr. Maloney asked what would be the difference in price if both units were moved to the backyard.
Mr. Barkley said it would cost them about $10,000 because of the piping for the gas as well as the additional electric.
Ms. Lawrence read Ms. Kirshner’s e-mail.
Ms. Lawrence asked if anyone had any questions.
Mr. Shumejda said they would have to provide the Building Inspector with some written information that the units meet the code.
Ms. Weisel moved, seconded by Mr. Maloney, and unanimously carried, that the Board determines there will be no significant adverse environmental impact as a result of granting the requested variance for 21 Warren Avenue.
Mr. Maloney moved, seconded by Ms, Weisel, 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, with a condition of approval by the Building Inspector, the following variances for 21 Warren Avenue:
1. 305-44 Existing Non conformities of existing lot:
a. Minimum 2 Side Yards is 19.48 ft. where 30 ft. is required
b. Minimum 1 side is 10.23 ft. where 14 ft. is required.
2. 305-47 (A) Yards; setbacks.
a. Side yard setback required is 16 ft. and 8ft. is proposed.
Motion Carried.
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING – Jeris – 17 Baylis Court (New House)
Sam Vieira, Architect, introduced himself and the homeowner, Paul Jeris. Mr. Vieira stated that this project consists of a proposed three-family house on the property adjacent to Mr. Jeris’ existing property; and the second application is for a proposed two-car garage in front of Mr. Jeris’ existing house. Mr. Vieira explained that the entire process went through a Planning Board review; and because they wanted to address each project separately, there are two applications.
What the Planning Board approved is the construction of a two-story, three-family house on the adjacent property which will be built into the hillside. It reads as a 3-story building from the street because they are proposing garages to be built under the building to meet the required parking. Basically variances are required for this building because it is an existing/non-conformity where the lot is going end up being 47.75’ and 50’ is required. To build this building the variance needed is for a minimum side yard of 6.08’ where 15’ is required and 22.73’ where 30’ is required. It is in an M-1 district but most of the lots on this street are this size. The zoning does not match the existing build-out on this street. Another consideration is the requirement of a
50’ minimum lot width with 15’ and 15’ setbacks, which only leaves 20’ to build on; not many buildings can be built in this narrow area. Mr. Vieira worked with the Planning Board to agree on a building that conforms to the rests of the buildings on the street. They requested that a study be done showing the comparisons with the other buildings in the neighborhood and the proposed house is within keeping with the rest of the homes in the neighborhood. The Planning Board was comfortable with the size, shape and location and approved it and moved it forward to the Zoning Board.
Ms. Lawrence questioned the lot line.
Mr. Vieira explained that it was just shifted to make the lot line parallel to the two buildings.
Mr. Vieira explained that they will be able to create 6 parking spaces in the garages; and because they set the building back farther than required to be in conformance with the adjacent houses, they will be able to create 3 additional parking spaces in front of the garages.
Ms. Lawrence asked if the garages will be only for the tenants and not rented out to others.
Mr. Vieira said they will be garages for the residents of the apartments only. The spaces in front of the garage would be available for guests.
Ms. Weisel asked what is the distance between the two houses.
Mr. Vieira stated 9-½’ between the new house and the neighbor’s house and 11’ between the existing house and the new house.
Ms. Weisel asked how many windows there would be.
Mr. Jeris explained that the layout is the living room in the front with 2 windows, the kitchen in the middle with 1 or 2 windows and the bedrooms in the back with 2 windows in each.
Mr. Vieira also pointed out that during the Planning Board process no neighbors came out to object.
Ms. Weisel asked how much higher the roof line is from the neighbor’s house.
Mr. Vieira said no more than a couple of feet. They could make it even by reducing the pitch; but because it is the north side, it would not be creating a shadow and architecturally it looks better a little lower.
Ms. Lawrence asked how many parking spaces it will take off the street.
Mr. Jeris explained that the maximum number of vehicles that could park from one end to the other end of the street is 8. In front of his house the maximum is 4 small cars or 3 larger cars.
Ms. Lawrence asked if just the new construction would take 2 parking spaces off the street.
Mr. Vieira said 1 ½ to 2 spaces.
All agreed to move on to the discussion of the second application for this property, the garage.
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING – Jeris – 17 Baylis Court (Garage)
Mr. Vieira explained that Mr. Jervis has lived there for 15 years and would like to build a 2-car garage into the hillside similar to the ones on South Grove Street. It’s the only reasonable solution to provide off-street parking for his property. Although this garage takes two parking spaces off the street, it also takes two cars off the street and allows for more room to make a safer turn at the dead-end. Guests will be able to park on the curb which will eliminate guests from taking parking spaces from the street.
Ms. Lawrence asked if anyone has any questions.
Ms. Lawrence read the following letter from the Fire Chief (copy attached):
“Dear Chairperson and Members of the Zoning Board:
After a review of the pans and a site visit to the above-referenced location, I have some concerns regarding fire protection. I would like to meet with the Architect to discuss my concerns before a final decision is made by this board.” Signed, John McGee, Fire Chief
Ms. Lawrence asked about the fire truck’s ability to get down the road.
Mr. Vieira said it is difficult for a truck to get down the street; but taking the cars off the street in front of the garage will widen the road which will make it easier for a fire truck to get down the street, set up and turn around. Also, New York State Code requires all new structures to have sprinklers and this house will be fully fire-sprinklered.
Ms. Lawrence said she has concerns about the garage because it is at street level right at the street. She has come concern about the aesthetics, but what she is most concerned about is that it will take parking spaces from the street. Presently the Jeris’ are looking for parking spaces on the street, but it is an even playing field because all of the neighbors are looking for spaces. It almost seems unfair to take two spaces off the street from the entire neighborhood so that the Jeris’ can have two parking spaces in a garage. She stated that the Zoning Board has the responsibility to make sure that on-street parking is not eliminate to put in curb cuts where they are not essential, and she is not sure it is essential in this case.
Mr. Jeris explained that cars are jammed all along the road so much so that they cannot get between them to enter their stairway into their house. Also, their property is at the dead-end, and what is happening is that cars are parking 3 abreast across the road in front of his house. We feel like we are living in a parking lot.
Mr. Vieira said they are also at a disadvantage because they are so close to Main Street and permit parking is not allowed that close to a commercial area.
Ms. Lawrence asked why they don’t ask the Police Department to delineate parking spots.
Mr. Vieira said there would be fewer parking spaces on the street if they did that.
Mr. Vieira commented about the garage being right on the street from an architectural and aesthetic point of view. He said there is already a retaining wall so it’s not like a big structure is going to just pop up. It is the last house on a dead-end street where very few people go to either like it or dislike it.
Mr. Jeris said there are no houses that look directly at it and there are very few people who go down the street because it is a dead end.
Mr. Maloney asked how it will eliminate the cars parking abreast across the road.
Mr. Vieira said that the curb cut will prevent them from parking across the road because they will block access to the garage.
Ms. Weisel wanted to know what is going to happen to the parking situation during construction.
Mr. Vieira said it will be temporary and there are set hours of construction when cars will be there. Also, we are looking into a modular, which will eliminate some construction vehicles.
Ms. Lawrence said she would speak with the fire chief, and Mr. Vieira said he would speak with him immediately.
All were in favor of adjournment of both applications for 17 Baylis Court until next month so that they could speak with the Fire Chief. Motion to adjourn.
NEW PUBLIC HEARING – Lee/Karkoff – 133 East Sunnyside 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, August 8, 2011 in the Municipal Building, One Depot Plaza, Tarrytown, New York to hear and consider an application by:
Hong Kee Lee
Erland Karkoff
133 East Sunnyside Lane
Irvington, NY 10533
for a variance from the Zoning Code of the Village of Tarrytown (305 Attachment 5:1) for the above address for a 23 s.f. increase for a new canopy as follows:
3. Principal Building Coverage and Total Building Coverage
a. Maximum Permitted: 22%
b. Existing: 42% (1,791 s.f.)
c. Proposed: 43% (1,814 s.f.)
4. Total Gross Floor Area (F.A.R.):
a. Permitted: 1,816 s.f.
b. Existing: 3,200 s.f.
c. Proposed: 3,224 s.f.
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 29B, Block 231, Parcel: 238 and is located in an R-10 (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
Dale Bellantoni
Secretary
Dated: July 25, 2011”
The certified mailing receipts were submitted and the sign was posted.
Board members visited the property.
Ms. Lawrence read the following environmental review from Michael Blau, Environmental Review Officer dated August 8, 2011:
“I have reviewed this application for variances for increase in building coverage and total gross floor area for a new canopy and determined the proposals appear to pose no significant adverse environmental impact.”
Earl Ferguson, architect for the homeowners, introduced himself and presented the proposed project as follows:
This residence was a former church. His client would like to restore the main entrance to the church as the entrance to their home. The existing steps are rather dangerous and what they would like to do is replace the existing hardscape for the current stairs, which bypasses the main entrance and leads to the secondary entrance; in doing so they will have to 3 add risers, for a total of 10 risers leading to the entrance. They would also like to install a canopy over the entrance. They will not be increasing the amount of the existing hard surface, but the canopy will increase the impervious surface by 23 s.f.
Ms. Lawrence asked if anyone present would like to speak. No one responded.
Ms. Lawrence moved, seconded by Mr. Maloney, and unanimously carried, that the Board determines there will be no significant adverse environmental impact as a result of granting the requested variance for 133 East Sunnyside Lane.
Mr. Maloney moved, seconded by Ms, Weisel, 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, with a condition of approval by the Building Inspector, the variances as stated above for 133 East Sunnyside Lane.
Motion Carried.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Maloney moved, seconded by Ms. Lawrence, and unanimously carried, that the meeting be adjourned – 9:00 p.m.
Dale Bellantoni
Secretary
| 
