Tarrytown NY - Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes 6/11/2012

Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes 6/11/2012

Zoning Board of Appeals

Village of Tarrytown

Regular Meeting

June 11, 2012; 8:00 p.m.

PRESENT: Chairwoman Lawrence; Members, Jolly, Brown, Weisel; Counsel Shumejda; Secretary Bellantoni

ABSENT: Member Maloney

APPROVAL OF THE MINTUES – May 14, 2012

Ms. Brown moved, seconded by Mr. Jolly, to approve the minutes of May 14, 2012 as presented.

NEW PUBLIC HEARING – Maceyak - 64 Sunnyside Avenue

The Chairman 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, June 11, 2012 in the Municipal Building, One Depot Plaza, Tarrytown, New York to hear and consider an application by:

Patricia Maceyak

64 Sunnyside Avenue

Tarrytown, NY 10591

for the following variances from the Zoning Code of the Village of Tarrytown for property located at the above address regarding the construction of a 2 story, 272 square foot, addition in the rear of the house as per the following zoning code:

§305 Attachment 5 (R-7.5 Zoning Table)

Variance

Required Existing Proposed Required

Minimum each side yard: 10’ 9.09’ 0.91’
Two side yards: 22’ 15.57’ 6.43’

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 1.90, Block 60, Lot 13 and is located in an R7.5 (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 to the Zoning Board”

The certified mailing receipts were submitted and the sign was posted.

The board members visited the site but no one was there. Ms. Lawrence agreed to discuss the application but stated that the board would not make a decision until the next meeting after they visited the site again with the homeowner and/or architect present.

Steven Maceyak, the homeowner, introduced himself and explained the reason for the request for variances. He stated that he and his wife purchased the house in December 2011 and that the house is very tiny with a 6' x 8' bedroom and a 6' x 8' kitchen. They would like to construct a 6' x 14' addition to the rear right corner of the house, which will square off the existing house. They would also like to extend the existing deck in the rear of the house across the 14'. Mr. Maceyak spoke with his neighbors and they have a few concerns which they are willing to address. The neighbor is concerned that the deck is too high which will allow the Maceyaks to look directly into their yard; and their second concern is the windows in the addition for the same reason, privacy. Mr. Maceyak said they are willing to lower the deck to the elevation of the existing deck and they will have the windows removed from the plan.

Ms. Lawrence stated that they would like the deck staked so that they can visualize where it will be. Mr. Maceyak said it will be staked before the next site visit.

Ms. Brown asked what the current and proposed square footage is. Mr. Maceyak said he is not sure but according to the plans the existing house is 676 square feet and with a 276 square foot addition, it will increase to 952 square feet.

Ms. Lawrence asked if they spoke with any of the other neighbors. Mr. Maceyak said yes they spoke to the neighbors on either side of them, and stated that there are no neighbors to the rear and that the Village owns the property in the front

Ms. Lawrence opened the meeting to public comments.

Tom Ruth, 66 Sunnyside Avenue, said they are very happy to have the Maceyaks move in because the property has been empty for some time. He said they seem like good neighbors and he understands the need to make the house larger. He has seen the plans and it looks like a really nice addition. Mr. Ruth does have some concerns, which were previously stated by Mr. Maceyak. One, the proposed deck is too high and they will be looking down into their back yard. He stated that the Maceyaks agreed to lower the deck to the elevation of the existing deck. Secondly, the window on the first floor of the addition that faces their house is a problem; for privacy for both of us, we would like that window removed. He asked where the water from the roof will go. Mr. Maceyak said new gutters will be installed which will lead to the existing gutter and the water will drain out where it now drains.

Tom Coughlin, 60 Sunnyside Avenue, asked if the roof line on the addition will be higher than the existing roof line. Mr. Maceyak said it will be the same as the existing. Mr. Coughlin’s stated that the runoff should go into the drywell on the property, not down the lane. Counsel Shumejda stated that the Village requires any additional runoff other than what is currently existing goes into a drywell.

Ms. Lawrence asked Counsel Shumejda since they Maceyaks agreed to the suggested changes to their plan, do they need to submit new plans. Counsel Shumejda said yes, they need new plans and the board cannot make a decision until they see the new plans. She stated that they must adjourn until next month.

Ms. Brown stated that there is a significant difference in the proposed deck. Was it proposed higher because of the design and will it be able to be put lower. Mr. Maceyak said if it is lower, we will have to step down onto the deck instead of walking straight out onto it.

Mr. Jolly asked what kind of fence is between the properties. Mr. Maceyak said the neighbors have a 6' high fence now.

Ms. Brown said they should also address the issue of where the additional water is going to go at the next meeting. Mr. Maceyak said there will only be 86 square feet of roof which they will tie into the drywell that is there now.

Counsel Shumejda asked that they have their architect fill out the zoning chart and submit it.

NEW PUBLIC HEARING – Gleit - 64 Barnes Road

The secretary read the following public hearing notice:

Jonathan L. Gleit

64 Barnes Road

Tarrytown, NY 10591

for the following variances from the Zoning Code of the Village of Tarrytown for property located at the above address regarding the expansion of the existing non-conforming driveway to provide the two required off-street parking spaces in front of the house to allow for the creation of habitable space (laundry room) in the garage as per the following zoning code:

§305-63C(3)(c) – Off-Street Parking and Loading (Front Yard Setback)

Required: 25’
Existing: 25.4’
Proposed: 17.6’
Variance Requested: 7.4’

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 1.80, Block 53, Lot 9 and is located in an R10 (Residential) zone.

By Order of the Zoning Board of Appeals

Dale Bellantoni

Secretary”

The certified mailing receipts were received and the sign was posted.

The board members visited the site.

Mr. Jonathan Gleit introduced himself and explained the project. Presently their laundry is in the kitchen and they would like to utilize the back portion of their garage as a laundry room. This laundry room will be accessed from the living room. As a result of this use in the garage, they will not be able to fit a car in the garage. We are before the board because we will need a variance to park in our driveway causing an encroachment into the front yard setback. In addition, our driveway is existing non-conforming. It was widened last year with a permit from the Building Department to build our wall.

Ms. Lawrence commented that a number of residents in that area have created livable space in their garages. Mr. Gleit said yes they have.

Mr. Jolly asked about the dormers. Mr. Gleit said that was their last project, done about a year ago.

Ms. Lawrence read the following Environmental Review from Michael Blau, Environmental Review Officer, dated June 11, 2012:

"I have reviewed this application to permit parking in the front and side yard setbacks and determined the proposal appears to pose no significant adverse environmental impact."

Ms. Brown moved, seconded by Ms. Weisel, having arrived at the following Findings required by the ordinance:

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;
That the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance;
That the requested area variance is not substantial;
That the proposed variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and
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.

To grant the requested variance as stated above for 64 Barnes Road. All in favor; motion carried.

NEW PUBLIC HEARING – Arduino - 75 Neperan Road

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, June, 11, 2012 in the Municipal Building, One Depot Plaza, Tarrytown, New York to hear and consider an application by

Eugene and Sosse Arduino, as Contract Vendee

29 Grove Street

Tarrytown, NY 10591

for a variance from the Zoning Code of the Village of Tarrytown for property located at 75 Neperan Road regarding the construction of a new 2 ½ story single-family residence requiring the following variance:

Article V. Chapter 305-25. A. Maximum Floor Area Cap.

The proposed residence is 4,392 square feet where 3,500 square feet maximum is permitted.

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 80, Block 41, Lot 23.2 and is located in an R-10 Residential zone.

By Order of the Zoning Board of Appeals

Dale Bellantoni

Secretary”

The certified mailing receipts were received and the sign was posted.

The board members visited the site.

Sean McCarthy, Architect for the project, introduced himself and stated that the Arduinos are in the process of purchasing the property from the Village. The project was already approved by the Planning Board last September and the Architectural Review in February. They are now coming before the Zoning Board for a variance for the maximum floor area cap. He gave a brief history of the situation. In March the Arduino meet with the Building Department; and at that time, it was realized that the square footage of the house exceeded the FAR cap, which was revised in 2008.

From a planning standpoint they are not manipulating the site, very little topographical changes will occur, and they are making every effort to preserve specimen trees on the property. From an architectural standpoint, the board raved about the design and are pleased that they are creating a historic house in that district. They are asking for a variance to construct a 4,392 square feet house where there is a 3,500 square foot cap. Prior to the revision in 2008, a 4,400 square foot house could be built there.

Ms. Lawrence complimented Mr. McCarthy on his presentation and plan. She said that it was done in a very clear manner, which the board appreciates.

Ms. Brown asked Mr. McCarthy if the Planning Board knew they needed a variance when they approved the project. Mr. McCarthy said no but they should have realize because we were very specific about the square footage of the house, even mentioning the steep slope reductions which was accounted for negatively on the amount of building that could be constructed. In the R-10 Zone the minimum lot size is 10,000 square feet. This lot is close to 16,000 square feet. Because of this cap, 6,000 square feet can't be counted; and with the steep slopes, even more is taken off of that. Before the 2008 revision we are actually under the area that we would have been able to build. The planning board knew; we gave them the plans for the house, we thoroughly went over the site plan square footages. No one said the house looked too big. Mr. McCarthy did an analysis of the square footage of the other homes in the same area and the Arduino’s proposed house is way under and only one of the properties meets the current FAR standards.

Ms. Lawrence clarified that the Planning Board approved the plan based on the prior 2008 FAR and the Building Department alerted every one of the change in the FAR. Ms. Brown asked how many Planning Board meetings they attended. Mr. McCarthy said two. He stated that this project was previous approved in 2007 for a larger house. We changed configuration of the house from the previously approved one, but things that related to the bulk of the building were discussed. We changed the driveway, and we changed the garage to grade level to make it look like a carriage house. If we left it under the house, we would have to excavate; and the space would not have been included in the FAR calculation. The attic is included in the FAR calculation because the ceiling is 7’; and the Arduinos need to use it as such.

Ms. Lawrence asked what is going to be in the attic. Mr. McCarthy said it will have a bedroom and a bathroom. Ms. Lawrence asked why they couldn’t put the 4^th bedroom on the second floor. Mr. McCarthy said they tried to keep the footprint of the house smaller. They preferred to use the attic space as usably living space rather than making the building larger. Ms. Lawrence asked if there is any way to bring the roof down so that you wouldn’t need a variance. Mr. McCarthy said if the ceiling was dropped down a foot, they would still need a variance and less than 8’ is not considered habitable space and it cannot be used.

Ms. Lawrence said the zoning ordinance was changed for a reason and after much public discussion. It is what we are working with now. There is a significant difference in the amount of living space in this house.

Ms. Brown said a 4,300 square foot, four bedroom house has very large bedrooms. Couldn’t the house size be a bit smaller and still have four bedrooms? Mr. McCarthy said if we have to reduce the house back to 3,500 square feet, we would have to eliminate the living space in the attic and would still need a variance because it would not bring it down far enough.

Ms. Lawrence asked if they put the garage under the house, would it be the same height. Mr. McCarthy said yes, but one of the main reasons not to consider it is because of the specimen trees on the property which they are bound by the Planning Board to excavate around so as not to endanger them.

Ms. Lawrence asked if there will be living space over the garage. Mr. McCarthy said no.

Mr. McCarthy stated that they did an extensive study of the houses in that area and beyond the required area to show the existing homes and their lot sizes that are below in floor area and building coverage. He did not even take into consideration steep slopes. Mr. McCarthy concluded that all 13 houses in that neighborhood will never be able to be worked on without coming before the Zoning Board.

Ms. Lawrence opened the meeting to the public.

Robert Bonvento, 42 Hamilton Place, had some questions for Mr. McCarthy and Counsel Shumejda. Does it put the Village in any kind of conflict as the owner of this property? It is his understanding that the sale of this property is contingent upon the approvals. Counsel Shumejda said the Village is not involved in this application.

Mr. Bonvento stated that the Board passed the law and it applies to this Board. Ms. Lawrence said the Board of Trustees passed the law and it applies to the Zoning Board because it is a law on the books which we have to consider when granting a variance.

Mr. Bonvento asked if they were putting a 3,500 square foot home on the property, would there be an issue. Ms. Lawrence said no, provided it meets all of the other zoning requirements.

Mr. Bonvento asked what the Zoning Board’s concern is. Ms. Lawrence said their concern is although the Planning Board and the Architectural Review Board approved the plan that is in front of us, they approved it based on the old zoning requirements. We are presented with it based on the new zoning requirements. Mr. Bonvento said if they realized the zoning change before they approved, would they have come to you first, correct? Ms. Lawrence said usually. Counsel Shumejda said many times the Planning Board gets the application first and makes a recommendation to the Zoning Board.

Mr. Bonvento said the plans are wonderful but when you walk the property you really get the perspective of the property. Has the Zoning Board walked the property? Ms. Lawrence said yes, they were there yesterday.

Mr. Bonvento asked, facing west, does the property line go to the ridge line or does it drop down into the steep slopes. Mr. Arduino said the property line goes to the huge tree. Mr. Bonvento said it would be a concern to denude that slope of any trees so as to have a river view. Ms. Lawrence said they discussed the trees at the Planning Board and most of the trees are staying; according to the building plan, only one is coming down.

Eugene Arduino, 29 Grove Street commented that laws are made so that we can all live together amicably. Zoning laws are created to stop overbuilding on small pieces of property. We went to great lengths to be sure that we did not overbuild on the property. I do not believe that what they are requesting affects the spirit of that law.

Ms. Lawrence asked the rest of the Board if they would like to hold off their decision until the entire board was present. Ms. Brown said she would like some time to look over the plans and think about it a bit. Ms. Lawrence said she feels the Board should go back to the property again and they should review the application as well as the old zoning law and the new zoning law. The Board agreed to adjourn until the July 2012 meeting.

Mr. McCarthy clarified that they are not going to increase the height of the house and secondly, they are well within all of the setbacks, building coverage, impervious surface requirements. Ms. Brown asked if everything else meets the requirements, how does this happen. Mr. McCarthy said it is because the property is 16,000 square feet but must meet the requirements of 10,000 square feet. He stated that the trees at the property line between this property line and the park will remain. There are some invasive species to be taken out, but the Arduinos have agreed to landscape in those areas.

Ms. Lawrence asked if any of the neighbors have comments. Mr. Arduino said he spoke personally with the neighbor and he is very happy with the plan.

Mr. McCarthy ended his presentation by asking the Board when they do deliberate this application to consider it case by case and that the 13 other houses in the area are closer to the front, closer to the property lines and taller and larger.

Mr. Arduino asked if they could meet at the site. Counsel Shumejda said it cannot be a meeting, but a site visit. It was agreed to meet on Sunday, July 8^th at the site for a longer visit than normal.

Mr. Jolly asked how the Planning Board or Architectural Review Board could not have realized this requirement. Ms. Shumejda said the Planning Board and the ARB does not get involved with the FAR; it was discovered by the Building Inspector.

ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Jolly moved, seconded by Ms. Weisel, and unanimously carried, that the meeting be adjourned – 9:15 p.m.

Dale Bellantoni

Secretary