Zoning Board of Appeals
Village of Tarrytown
September 12, 2011 8:00 p.m.
Present: Chairperson Lawrence, Members Jolly, Maloney, Brown, Weisel, Counsel Shumejda, Assistant Village Engineer Pennella, Secretary Bellantoni
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES – June 13, July 11 and August 8, 2011
Mr. Maloney moved, seconded by Mr. Jolly, and unanimously carried, that the minutes of June 13, 2011, be approved as submitted. Motion carried.
Mr. Jolly moved, seconded by Ms. Brown, and unanimously carried, that the minutes of July 11, 2011, be approved as submitted. Motion carried.
Ms. Weisel moved, seconded by Mr. Maloney, and unanimously carried, that the minutes of August 8, 2011, be approved as submitted. Motion carried.
CONTINUATION OF A PUBLIC HEARING – Jeris -17 Baylis Court
Ms. Lawrence stated that this is a continuation of a public hearing to construct a a two-car garage in front of the existing house and to construct a new three-family house on the adjacent property and a lot line adjustment.
Sam Vieira, architect introduced himself and Paul Jeris, property owner. Mr. Vieira reported that he met with Fire Chief McGee at the site and stated that Chief McGee understood what was planned with the garage and the curb cut for it and the new house. Chief McGee felt it would not be congesting the street any more than it already is; and, in fact, he felt it would be opening it up at the end which would allow fire apparatus a little more space to maneuver. He felt that the planned landscape buffer of small evergreens might hinder the fire departments ability to access the building. He also felt that the embers from a fire could spread to the trees and asked that they not put in the trees. Mr. Jeris has not objection.
Mr. Vieira said he spoke with Mr. Pennella about the specific type of water sprinkler system, which they will make part of the plans.
Ms. Lawrence said that she spoke to the Fire Chief and agreed with his concerns.
Mr. Maloney asked if the evergreen buffer was planned between the two buildings and why the Fire Chief had concerns. Mr. Vieira said that there is only a five foot side yard from the property line to the buildings and once they matured they could cause a hindrance when fighting a fire.
Ms. Lawrence asked what the distance is between the buildings to which Mr. Vieira stated 10 – 11 feet.
Mr. Maloney asked how many parking spaces would be coming off the street and how many would they be creating. Mr. Vieira said approximately three spaces would be coming off the street and they would be creating nine off-street parking for the new house and Mr. Jeris garage would be taking two spaces off the street and creating the possibility to park one.
Ms. Brown said that they will also be adding a lot more people/cars into the neighborhood. Mr. Vieira said that the new house would be providing six spaces for the residents with three additional for guests.
Ms. Lawrence felt they were providing enough parking for the new house and felt the off-street parking was a plus.
Mr. Jolly said that taking any spaces off the street is his concern because since there is no parking on Main Street, others, beside Baylis Court residents, park on that street. He asked about the neighbor who has no off-street parking. Mr. Vieira said the owner is aware of what they plan to do and does not have a problem with it.
Mr. Vieira stated that they went through a lengthy Planning Board process where they reduced the original house significantly, they are providing more than the required parking, as well as improving fire protection conditions and a better snow removal situation. What they are asking for are area variances which consist of a couple of setbacks for the new building and variances for the front yard and side yard for the garage. He said Mr. Jeris owns a piece of property and what needs to be considered is whether the building can be built with the proposed side yard and whether the garage will have any detrimental effect on the neighborhood. This property is in the inner Village where these issues are always a concern.
Ms. Lawrence said she understands but the Zoning Board does not just rubber stamp everything that the Planning Board approves. This is the very first time that this application has come before the Zoning Board and it is their responsibility to look at from a Zoning Board point of view. This Board has genuine concerns which need to be addressed. She has more concern for the garage than the house. There will be no front yard setback and it takes additional parking off the street. The Zoning Board has always been concerned about taking parking off the street.
Ms. Brown asked if variances have already been granted for the new house to allow a three-family house.
Mr. Vieira said a three-family house is allowed as of right.
Mr. Shumejda explained that they must have had variances before for other issues but not for a three-family house. It is in an M-1 Zoning which allows a three family house.
Mr. Jeris said that the parking situation affects his family just as it affects the neighbors. They’ve had to park on Main Street and other surrounding streets as well as the rest of the neighbors. He cannot give any guarantees, but he has been fortunate to have renters with one or no car because he is conscience of the parking situation. He has only accepted single renters.
Ms. Brown asked who would be using the garage. Mr. Jeris replied that it will be used for his car and his wife’s car. The tenant in his existing house will still park on the street.
Ms. Brown said that even though the projects are different, together they create a significant impact.
Mr. Vieira said that they are only taking one parking space off the street and they are accommodating 11 cars.
Ms. Weisel asked why the garage has to be so close to the street. Mr. Vieira said because they can’t get too close to the house for fear of undermining it.
Ms. Brown asked what’s to stop anyone anywhere in the Village from taking a space off the street by creating a driveway onto their property. Mr. Vieira said if they have the proper distance and proper location they could do it as of right because you cannot be denied access to your property. Ms. Brown said but what if they don’t have the distance and location. They would need to come before the Zoning Board; and if we say yes to you, why wouldn’t we say yes to everyone else.
Mr. Jolly asked about sticker/permit parking on the street.
Mr. Shumejda said that is a State law that allows the Village to allow the permit parking. There is a list of streets and Baylis Court is not one of them. He explained that the State has certain criteria to allow the permit parking and does not like to expand the district because the streets are public streets which are open to everyone.
Ms. Lawrence moved to close the hearing, seconded by Mr. Maloney
The Board voted separately on each application as follows:
For the 3-Family House and Lot Line Adjustment:
Ms. Brown voted yes.
Mr. Jolly rescued himself.
Ms. Lawrence votes yes, with the condition of the approval that the garages be used only for the tenants in the house.
Mr. Maloney voted yes, with the same condition.
Ms. Weisel voted yes
Mr. Maloney 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 the three-family house at 17 Baylis
Court.
Ms. Brown moved, seconded by Mr. Maloney, and unanimously carried that the hearing be closed and that 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
Unanimously voted in favor of granting the following variances for the new three-family house and a lot line adjustment at 17 (15) Baylis Court:
1. 305-44 - Existing Non-conforming lot width at front of building is 46.68 ft. where 50 ft. is required.
2. 305-11- Minimum side yard requires 15 ft. and 5 ft. is proposed.
Minimum two side yards requires 30 ft. and 14.5 ft. is required.
Motion carried.
For the 2-Car Garage and Lot Line Adjustment:
Ms. Brown voted no.
Mr. Jolly rescued himself.
Ms. Lawrence voted no.
Mr. Maloney voted yes.
Ms. Weisel voted yes.
No Action.
Mr. Vieira asked if they could come back to the November meeting with more information. Ms. Lawrence said yes.
NEW PUBLIC HEARING – Bruel - 73 Tappan Landing Road
Certified mailing receipts received, sign was posted and the Board visited the site.
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, September 12, 2011 in the Municipal Building, One Depot Plaza, Tarrytown, New York to hear and consider an application by:
Carina and Nick Bruel
73 Tappan Landing Road
Tarrytown, NY 10591
for a variance from the Zoning Code of the Village of Tarrytown to increase the existing non-conformity for property located at the above address requiring the following:
1. 305-44 Existing Non conformities of existing lot:
a. Lot width at street frontage is 56.15 ft. where 75 ft. is required.
b. Minimum for each side yard is 8.76 ft. where 10 ft. is required.
c. Minimum for two side yards is 19.94 ft. where 22 ft. is required.
2. 305-63-C-(3) (a):
a. Parking space front year setback required 20 ft. and 9 ft. 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 17A, Block 120, Lot: 37 and is located in an R-7.5 (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
Dale Bellantoni
Secretary
Dated: August 3, 2011”
Ms. Lawrence read the following Environmental Review from Michael Blau, Environment Review Officer, dated September 9, 3022:
“I have reviewed this application for a front yard variance for parking. Other houses in this neighborhood have similar situations, and the Board should review this house as it relates to the neighborhood. If you feel what is being proposed is compatible with the neighborhood, you may determine the proposal poses no significant adverse environmental impact.”
Louis Demas, architect, introduced himself and the homeowner, Nick Bruel and explained that his clients would like to convert their garage to living space and continue to park in the front yard.
Ms. Lawrence asked what is on the first floor of the house. Mr. Bruel said there is a living room, kitchen, two bedrooms and a bathroom.
Mr. Demas said they would like to turn the garage into a playroom with sliding glass doors out the back.
Ms. Brown asked if the look of the house would remain the same and would they change the entrance.
Mr. Bruel said the look would remain the same as well as the entrance.
Mr. Jolly asked if they are going to change the windows. Mr. Bruel said yes.
Ms. Brown asked if they were going to remove the garage door and side the front of the house with the same siding as the rest of the house. Mr. Bruel said yes.
Ms. Lawrence asked if they heard from their neighbors. Mr. Bruel said he spoke to his neighbors and they are fine with it.
Ms. Lawrence commented that the driveway is certainly long enough to park in.
Ms. Lawrence asked if there were any questions.
Mr. Maloney moved, seconded by Mr. Jolly, and all in favor to close the hearing.
Mr. Maloney moved, seconded by Ms. Brown, and all in favor, that the Board determines there will be no significant adverse environmental impact as a result of granting the requested variances for 73 Tappan Landing Road.
Mr. Jolly moved, seconded by Ms. Weisel, and all in favor that 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 73 Tappan Landing Road:
1. 305-44 Existing Non conformities of existing lot:
a. Lot width at street frontage is 56.15 ft. where 75 ft. is required.
b. Minimum for each side yard is 8.76 ft. where 10 ft. is required.
c. Minimum for two side yards is 19.94 ft. where 22 ft. is required.
2. 305-63-C-(3) (a):
a. Parking space front year setback required 20 ft. and 9 ft. is proposed.
Motion carried.
NEW PUBLIC HEARING – EF School - 100 Marymount Avenue
Certified mailing receipts received, sign was posted.
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, September 12, 2011 in the Municipal Building, One Depot Plaza, Tarrytown, New York to hear and consider an application by:
EF International
100 Marymount Avenue
Tarrytown, NY 10591
for a variance from the Zoning Code of the Village of Tarrytown to increase the existing non-conformity by constructing an 8’ high brick retaining wall which will encroach into the front yard setback on property located at the above address requiring the following:
1. 305-47 Yards; setbacks:
a. Minimum Front Yard:
i. Permitted: 30’
ii. Existing: 61’
iii. Proposed: 29’-4”
b. 305-47B(7) Wall/Fence Height
i. Permitted: 6’
ii. 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 1, Block 12, Lot: P73 and is located in an R-20 (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: August 25, 2011”
Ms. Lawrence read the following Environmental Review from Michael Blau, Environment Review Officer, dated September 9, 2011:
“This application to construct a new brick wall which will encroach into the front yard setback was reviewed by the Planning Board and a determination was made that the proposal will pose no significant adverse environmental impact.”
Michael Molinelli, architect, introduced himself and Diana Garcia, representative for EF School.
Mr. Molinelli explained that they went before the Planning Board for the installation of a generator to service St. John’s and Ursula’s dormitories. The generator is presently in a temporary location and they would like to install it permanently. The initial screening design was a low retaining wall closer to the road. The Planning Board preferred a higher wall further back right at the generator. This taller wall will be 8’ tall, which requires a variance. It will be a brick wall that matches the existing building.
Ms. Lawrence asked if the wall was going along Neperan Road. Mr. Molinelli said no. He said it will extend about 7’ out from the existing retaining wall. It will encroach into the setback about 8”. This is required in order to achieve the minimum clearances for the generator. The generator will go near the electrical room. There will be a fence and gates in order to get in to service the generator. They plan to do a planting screen and they submitted a 5-year planting plan to the Planning Board. They will maintain all plantings.
Ms. Brown asked the height of the wall. Mr. Molinelli said because of the grade, it is about 8’ up against the existing building and goes down to 3-4’ as it gets closer to the street.
Mr. Molinelli said heading north on Marymount Avenue, coming down the hill, you will see the top of the retaining wall and the generator will be behind it. All that will be seen is the additional plantings.
Ms. Weisel asked the purpose of the wall and the sound that will be generated.
Mr. Molinelli said the purpose of the wall is to obscure the view of the generator and the wall will also divert a lot of the sound laterally back toward the generator. It will only be used in emergencies. It will be tested once a month on Mondays and Fridays from 9:00 a.m. 5:00 p.m. It will make noise when it’s operating.
Mr. Jolly asked if it can be enclosed.
Mr. Molinelli said no, it would require a much larger enclosure and it would have to have an exhaust. The one they plan to install has a built in exhaust in the unit and it will be placed perpendicular to the building so that the exhaust is a sufficient distance from the windows. The unit itself is encased in a steel box, which will help with the noise.
Ms. Lawrence asked if there is anywhere else it can be placed, perhaps behind the building.
Mr. Molinelli said one alternate location would block access to emergency vehicles, another is too close to the windows and that the exhaust would be sucked into the student’s rooms, and another location they considered is far up on the hill off of Neperan Road and it would be far more visible.
Ms. Lawrence clarified that it will be a wall, not a fence.
Mr. Molinelli said it is not holding anything up, it is merely decorative. It is not a retaining wall nor does it support any other structure.
Ms. Lawrence asked if anyone would like to speak. She asked the Board if they were comfortable making a decision since they were unable to do a site visit and see the location. They were comfortable deciding.
Ms. Brown asked if you would see it as you are driving by.
Mr. Molinelli said not very much of it because it is next to the existing retaining wall.
Mr. Jolly moved, seconded by Ms. Weisel, and all in favor to close the hearing.
Mr. Maloney moved, seconded by Ms. Brown, and all in favor, that the Board determines there will be no significant adverse environmental impact as a result of granting the requested variances for 100 Marymount Avenue.
Mr. Maloney moved, seconded by Ms. Weisel, and all in favor that 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 100 Marymount Avenue:
7. 305-47 Yards; setbacks:
a. Minimum Front Yard:
i. Permitted: 30’
ii. Existing: 61’
iii. Proposed: 29’-4”
b. 305-47B(7) Wall/Fence Height
i. Permitted: 6’
ii. Proposed: 8’
Motion carried.
NEW PUBLIC HEARING–Cannavo (Doggy Daycare)-15 N. Washington Street
The sign was posted
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, September 12, 2011 in the Municipal Building, One Depot Plaza, Tarrytown, New York to hear and consider an application by:
Carole Cannavo
16 Richmond Hill
Irvington, NY 10533
for an interpretation of § 305-39 A(a), Restricted Retail RR Zone, Permitted Principal Uses, of the Zoning Code of the Village of Tarrytown for property located at 15 North Washington Street, Tarrytown, New York.
The property is shown on the Tax Maps of the Village of Tarrytown as Sheet 6, Block 17, Lot: 50 and is located in an RR (Restricted Retail) 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: August 11, 2011”
Ms. Eileen Fleming and her business partner Susan Ekaireb would like to rent the space from Ms. Cannavo for a Doggy Daycare. Ms. Fleming explained that the location where they would like to open their business is in a zoning district that does not permit a Doggy Daycare. She explained that it is not a kennel, the dogs do not stay overnight, and they are there Monday through Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. She presently owns the same kind of business in Ardsley. They do not accept all dogs, they do not allow any bully breeds, they must be thoroughly vaccinated, and they must be spayed or neutered by 6 months old. All dogs are given an hour long interview to be sure that they are comfortable in their setting. All dogs get along beautifully. The staff forms a relationship with the owners. She stated that there is no excessive barking. They bark, for example, when the fire whistle goes off, but they stop them immediately. They bark when their mommy, daddy, or nanny comes to
pick them up.
Ms. Cannavo said she has left her dog with them in their Ardsley location and they do a wonderful.
Ms. Fleming said dogs that are left alone during the day cry because they are lonely. We teach them manners.
Ms. Lawrence asked where they are located in Ardsley.
Ms. Fleming said behind DeCicco’s.
Ms. Lawrence asked what they would have in their facility.
Ms. Fleming said they have a walled-in back yard where they would let the dogs out to do their business. They use a pooper-a-scooper and dispose of the waste as per the Westchester County regulations – it is put in a double bag until garbage day.
Ms. Lawrence asked where the dogs are during the day and do they walk them around town.
Ms. Fleming said they are inside with them during the day. They are only let out to do their business and they do not walk them around town because that would be too much of a liability.
Ms. Lawrence asked how many people are on site during the day and how many dogs do they typically have.
Ms. Ekaireb said they have 3 – 4 staff members.
Ms. Fleming said in Tarrytown in order to meet the rent, they would need 15-20 dogs a day.
Mr. Maloney asked if they are in cages.
Ms. Fleming said no, no, no cages – it is totally cage-free.
Ms. Brown asked if there is an area in the Village where this type of business would be allowed.
Mr. Shumejda said the Restricted Retail zone has the most restrictions. It might be allowed in a commercial area.
Ms. Lawrence explained that there are a lot of residences in that area and she believes the rationale behind the restriction in the code is because of the number of residences.
Ms. Fleming explained that the difference between them and a vet or pet shop is that the dogs stay overnight in cages alone all night in those businesses but they do not stay overnight in her business. She also said at the time the code was written there was no need for a doggy day care because there was no such thing as dog socialization.
Ms. Brown asked if they could get a variance. Mr. Shumejda said they could get a use variance.
Ms. Cannavo asked if the Board’s concern is that the people in the area can see the dogs.
Ms. Lawrence said no, it’s a noise issue. There are residences which may have people who work nights and sleep during the day and various other reasons why the noise may bother neighbors.
Ms. Lawrence asked if there was anyone present who would like to talk.
Angela Perverra, 66 Central Avenue, said from the back of her house you can see the location. She came because she is not sure how or if this will affect her. She doesn’t have enough information.
Ms. Cannavo talked to the neighbors and they had no objections. She suggested they could go to the Ardsley location to see how the business operates.
Ms. Fleming said they have several letters of recommendation, which are attached as part of these minutes.
Ms. Brown asked what they had to do in Ardsley in order to open the business. Ms. Fleming said they needed to get a change of use.
Ms. Lawrence said she is sure it is a great place; however, it is not allowed in the Restricted Retail Zone in the Village of Tarrytown.
Ms. Fleming felt this is a necessary service and the code says a necessary service is allowed.
Mr. Shumejda agreed that the code does say that but the prohibitions are much greater than what is allowed. The intent of the code is to prohibit businesses with multiple animals.
Ms. Lawrence moved, seconded by Mr. Maloney and all in favor to close the hearing.
Ms. Lawrence moved, seconded by Ms. Brown and all in favor to vote that a doggy daycare is not a legal use in a Restricted Retail Zone.
Ms. Lawrence voted yes, it is not a legal use.
Ms. Brown voted yes, it is not a legal use.
Ms. Weisel voted yes, it is not a legal use.
Mr. Maloney voted yes, it is not a legal use.
Mr. Jolly voted yes, it is not a legal use.
Motion Denied
Ms. Lawrence moved, seconded by Mr. Maloney, and all in favor, to close the meeting
Adjournment – 9: 35 p.m.
Dale Bellantoni
Secretary
| 
