Zoning Board of Appeals
Village of Tarrytown
January 9, 2012; 8:00 p.m.
Present: Chairman Lawrence, Members Maloney, Jolly, Brown, Weisel, Counsel Shumejda, Secretary Bellantoni
Absent: Assistant Village Engineer Pennella
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES - December 12, 2011
Mr. Jolly moved, seconded by Ms. Weisel, all in favor with Mr. Maloney abstaining, that the minutes of December 12, 2011, be approved as submitted. Motion carried.
CONTINUATION OF A PUBLIC HEARING - JERIS - 17 BAYLIS COURT GARAGE
Ms. Lawrence stated that this application has been considered at some length. She explained that the entire Board was not present for the December meeting and suggested that they come back to the January meeting so that all Board members could vote. She asked if anyone would like to speak on the application.
Ms. Brown asked if they were given permission for the garage, would their taxes be increased.
Mr. Vieira said he would assume so because it is an additional structure, but not at the same rate as living space.
Mr. Shumejda said it would be increased, but not a lot.
Ms. Lawrence moved, seconded by Mr. Maloney, to close the public hearing; all in favor. Motion carried.
Mr. Maloney moved, seconded by Ms. Lawrence that the Board votes on the approval of the lot line adjustment. The Board voted as follows:
Ms. Lawrence Yes
Mr. Maloney Yes
Ms. Brown Yes
Ms. Weisel Yes
Mr. Jolly Rescued
Motion carried.
Mr. Maloney moved, seconded by Ms. Weisel that since the applicant met the substantial requirements by law that the Board vote on the approval of the variances for the 2-car garage. The Board voted as follows:
Ms. Lawrence No
Mr. Maloney Yes
Ms. Weisel Yes
Ms. Brown No
Mr. Jolly Rescued
With a 2/2 vote, there is no action. It was noted that under the Zoning Code they could re-apply for a variance after six months unless there is a substantial change; in which case they can re-apply immediately.
NEW PUBLIC HEARING - FOX/KRIDER - 42 NORTH WASHINGTON STREET
The return receipts were received.
The sign was posted.
Board members 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, January 9, 2012 in the Municipal Building, One Depot Plaza, Tarrytown, New York to hear and consider an application by
Douglas Fox
42 North Washington Street
Tarrytown, NY 10591
for a variance from the Zoning Code of the Village of Tarrytown for property located at 42 North Washington Street to construct a new dormer. The new roofline will increase the existing non-conformity as follows:
• 305-31 Attachment 5:1 - Minimum For Each Side Yard (FT):
o Required: 12’
o Existing: 2.7’
o Proposed: 2.7’
o Variance Requested: 9.3’
• 305 Attachment 5:1 – Minimum Two Side Yards (FT):
o Required: 26’
o Existing: 9.11’
o Proposed: 9.11’
o Variance Requested: 14.2’
• 305 Attachment 5:1 – Encroaches into Light Exposure Plane:
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 7, Block 23, Lot 44 and is located in an M-2 (Multi-Family) 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: December 29, 2011"
Ms. Lawrence read the following Environmental Review from Michael Blau, Environmental Review Officer, dated January 9, 2012:
“I have reviewed this application for construction of a new dormer which increases the existing non-conformity and determined the proposal appears to pose no significant adverse environmental impact.”
Kathryn Krider, homeowner, explained the project. She and her husband Douglas Fox would like change the shape off the roof to make it an A-frame, which is more in line with what is in the neighborhood. They to put a dormer the north side and install solar panels on the south side of the roof. The roof will then extend over the foundation of the existing porch.
Ms. Lawrence asked what is the attic is now. Ms. Krider said it is a finished attic.
Ms. Lawrence asked why it is necessary to raise the roof. Mr. Fox said for one reason so that they can access the attic without bumping their head.
Ms. Lawrence asked what they will be using the space for. Ms. Krider said they would just leave it as finished attic space. Mr. Fox said it is heated and fire alarmed.
Mr. Lawrence asked if it was a finished space when the bought the house. Both Ms. Krider and Mr. Fox said yes.
Ms. Weisel asked if the space had fire sprinklers system. Ms. Krider said no but they are going to add one.
Ms. Lawrence stated that they spoke to the neighbor closest to them and he are OK with the addition.
Ms. Krider said he even is ok with them coming on to his property if needed during the construction.
Mr. Jolly asked if the dormer will run along the whole width of the roof. Ms. Krider said it will extend several feet on both ends to get the dormer affect.
Ms. Brown asked if it would take space away from a neighbor, since the houses are so close together. Mr. Fox said on the house to the south of the property has no windows at all and the house to the north of the property has windows and their house has only two windows, but that house is lower than their and the dormer will come to their roof line.
Ms. Weisel asked if the weight of the solar panels will affect the roof. Mr. Fox asked said they spoke to several solar companies and their architect has taken the weight of the solar panels into consideration in his design. Mr. Fox said the side of the roof with the solar panels will have support all the way down to the foundation.
Ms. Lawrence stated that no one was there to speak.
Ms. Lawrence moved, seconded by Mr. Jolly, to close the meeting; all in favor. Motion carried.
Mr. Jolly moved, seconded by Ms. Brown and all in favor to close the hearing.
Mr. Jolly moved, seconded by Ms. Weisel, 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 42 North Washington Street.
Mr. Maloney moved, seconded by Ms. Weisel, with the condition of approval by the Building Inspector and having arrived at the following 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 the gr anting 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 requested variances as stated above for 42 North Washington Street.
Motion Carried.
ADJOURNMENT - 8:30 p.m.
Dale Bellantoni
Secretary
| 
