Zoning Board of Appeals
Village of Tarrytown
Regular Meeting
April 9, 2012; 8:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Chairwoman Lawrence; Members Maloney, Jolly, Brown; Counsel Shumejda; Secretary Bellantoni
ABSENT: Victoria Weisel
APPROVAL OF THE MINTUES – January 9, 2012
Ms. Brown moved, seconded by Mr. Maloney, and unanimously carried, that the minutes of January 9, 2012, be approved as submitted. Motion carried.
NEW PUBLIC HEARING – Jolly - 68 Main Street
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, February 13, 2012 in the Municipal Building, One Depot Plaza, Tarrytown, New York to hear and consider an application by
John R. and Bernardine H. Jolly
68 Main Street
Tarrytown, NY 10591
for a variance from the Zoning Code of the Village of Tarrytown for property located at 68 Main Street to legalize and existing shed as follows:
• 305 Attachment 10 – Minimum Side Yard (FT):
o Required: 16’
o Existing: .1’
o Proposed: N/C
o Variance Requested: 15.9’
• 305 Attachment 10 – Minimum Rear Yard (FT):
o Required: 16’
o Existing: 4’
o Proposed: N/C
o Variance Requested: 12’
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 10, Lot 34 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”
The certified mailing receipts were submitted.
Sign was posted.
Board members visited the site
Mr. Jolly, as a Zoning Board member, has rescued himself from this application since he is the applicant.
Mr. Maloney asked if this application should be heard by the Board of Trustees or another Board instead of the Zoning Board since Mr. Jolly is a member of the Zoning Board. Mr. Shumejda explained that the Attorney General has stated in cases like this where it involves a member of the Board that government must go on, government must function. You state the situation for the record and go on with the application.
Mr. Jolly explained that his house at 68 Main Street does not have a driveway or a garage; and many years ago, not realizing that a variance was required, he installed a shed to house his lawnmower and other yard supplies. Now that he is aware of the code, he would like to legalize this shed, which encroaches on the side and rear yard setbacks.
Ms. Lawrence and Mr. Maloney asked if any of his neighbors have complained about the shed or have any problems with it. Mr. Jolly said
Ms. Brown asked how many years it has been there. Mr. Jolly said 20 years.
Mr. Maloney stated that it could not be seen by the neighbors.
Ms. Lawrence asked if anyone else would like to comment on this application. No one responded.
Ms. Lawrence read the following Environmental Review from Michael Blau, Environmental Review Officer, dated January 9, 2012:
“I have reviewed this application to replace an existing non-conforming shed with a larger shed which will encroach into the rear and side yard setbacks and determined the proposal appears to pose no significant adverse environmental impact.”
Ms. Brown moved, seconded by Mr. Maloney, 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 granting 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 68 Main Street.
Motion Carried.
NEW PUBLIC HEARING - Nyarady - 109 Sheldon Avenue
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, April 9, 2012 in the Municipal Building, One Depot Plaza, Tarrytown, New York to hear and consider an application by:
Jon Nyarady
109 Sheldon Avenue
Tarrytown, NY 10591
for the following variances from the Zoning Code of the Village of Tarrytown for property located at 109 Sheldon Avenue to increase the existing non-conformity to construct a new dining room where a deck presently exists and to enlarge the second floor to full story:
• 305 Attachment 10 – Minimum Side Yard (FT):
East Side: West Side:
o Required: 14’ 16’
o Existing: 8.5’ 15.2’
o Proposed: N/C 6.2’
o Variance Requested: N/C 9.8’
• 305 Attachment 10 – Minimum two side yards (FT):
o Required: 30’
o Existing: 23.7’
o Proposed: 14.7’
o Variance Requested: 15.3’
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 10, Lot 34 and is located in an R15 (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”
The certified mailing receipts were submitted.
Sign was posted.
Board members visited the site.
John Nyarady, the homeowner, introduced himself and his engineer's representative, Nicholas Mascia.
Ms. Lawrence asked Mr. Nyarady to explain the project.
Mr. Nyarady said they presently have one bedroom downstairs and two upstairs. They would like to move their downstairs bedroom to the second floor so that all bedrooms on are on the second floor, and they would like to create a full bath. Presently there is a half bath on the second floor.
Ms. Lawrence asked if the dimensions of the first level are going to be changed. Mr. Nyarady said they would change with the addition of a dining room where the deck now exists.
Mr. Mascia said there already is a new addition on the side of the house.
Mr. Maloney stated that they would like to make the existing deck on the side of the house into a dining room, correct? Mr. Mascia said yes, a dining room, part of the kitchen and a small play area for their children.
Mr. Maloney asked about the roof and Mr. Mascia said it would be similar to the roof on the rest of the house.
Ms. Brown asked that since the houses were all so close, are they still going to be far enough away from the setbacks.
Mr. Shumejda explained that they are asking for a variance from the current code as well as the increase in non-conformity.
Mr. Mascia said the side yard to the left of the house still has about 20' and the other side yard has about 40'.
Mr. Maloney asked if the there are any windows on the west side of the house that will impact the neighbors. Mr. Nyarady said no there are no windows on that side.
Mr. Jolly asked if they were flush up against the property line like some of the houses down further. Mr. Nyarady said no they are not.
Ms. Lawrence asked if he spoke to his neighbors about the proposed project. Mr. Nyarady said that he did and he presented letters from the neighbors to the west and east. Ms. Lawrence read into the minutes a letter from Sadie and Patricia Ryan of 107 Sheldon Avenue and one from Kenneth and Holly Mastropietro of 115 Sheldon Avenue, both endorsing the proposed addition to the Nyarady house (copies attached).
Ms. Lawrence said they have a large back yard. Mr. Nyarady said they back the Thruway. Ms. Lawrence mentioned that there appeared to be sufficient room for the construction equipment and fire equipment, if necessary.
Mr. Jolly asked if they were going any higher than it already is. Mr. Nyarady said no, they are doing exactly what their neighbor did, adding two dormers.
Ms. Brown said they are going up 10' because the existing is 18' and the proposed is 28'. Ms. Mascia explained that it appears that way because you have to measure from the average grade. Ms. Brown said from the side it may look taller but not from the front.
Mr. Maloney asked if it would have the same peak. Mr. Mascia said it would be similar to what is there now, just moved forward.
Mr. Jolly said looking at it he thought it would not be quite as tall as the house next door. Mr. Mascia said it’s difficult to judge because the house next door is much higher out of the ground the Nyarady’s house.
Ms. Lawrence asked if there were any more questions.
Ms. Brown said she was fine as long as they are not encroaching onto the neighbor’s setbacks.
Mr. Maloney asked if there will be an increase in the footprint. Ms. Lawrence said they were going to construct the dining room where the deck is now, which will increase the footprint.
Ms. Lawrence read the following Environmental Review from Michael Blau, Environmental Review Officer, dated January 9, 2012:
“I have reviewed this application for a dining room addition and enlarged second floor to a full story and determined the proposals appear to pose no significant adverse environmental impact.”
Mr. Maloney moved, seconded by Mr. Jolly, 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 granting 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 109 Sheldon Avenue.
Motion Carried.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Maloney moved, seconded by Mr. Jolly, and unanimously carried, that the meeting be adjourned – 8:30 p.m.
Dale Bellantoni
Secretary
| 
