Zoning Board of Appeals
Village of Tarrytown
Regular Meeting
August 13, 2012; 8:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Chairwoman Lawrence; Members Maloney, Jolly, Brown, Weisel; Counsel Shumejda; Secretary Bellantoni
ABSENT: Member
In the absence of Chairwoman Lawrence, Mr. Maloney chaired the meeting.
APPROVAL OF THE MINTUES – July 9, 2012
Mr. Jolly moved, seconded by Ms. Brown, and unanimously carried, that the minutes of July 9, 2012, be approved as submitted. Motion carried
PUBLIC HEARING – Almahdi & Lyman – 60 Benedict Avenue
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 13, 2012, 2012 in the Municipal Building, One Depot Plaza, Tarrytown, New York to hear and consider an application by:
Fawzi M. Almahdi and Ann Louise Lyman
60 Benedict Avenue
Tarrytown, New York
for a variance to convert an existing one-family residence in an R7.5 Zone to a two-family residence.
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 1.110, Block 78, Lot 9 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”
Board members visited the property.
Ms. Lyman explained that when they bought the house 4 ½ years ago it was a two-family house, but since they owned it, it has only been a one family house. They are doing this as they approach retirement because of the increase taxes. She said it will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood in any way and that there will be no changes made inside or to the outside appearance of the property. There is a separate entrance for the apartment and there is off-street parking. Ms. Lyman said two adjacent neighbors have legal two-family homes, plus there is a condominium complex in the neighborhood. She said they have attached to their application three letters from neighbors in support of this conversion.
Mr. Maloney asked her to explain the parking. Ms. Lyman said they have two driveways. The original driveway on the left side of the house can hold about 4 cars and that is the driveway that the tenant will use. In 2004, the previous owner had a two-car asphalt driveway installed on the other side of the house. She said there was a permit issued to install that driveway and she also had the Certificate of Compliance for the driveway.
Ms. Lyman explained when they originally looked at the house, the previous owner had a tenant; but when they bought the house, the stove in the second kitchen had been taken out. It was always a one-family house for them and that is how it has always been used.
Ms. Weisel asked about the garage and whether it was used for a car or storage. Ms. Lyman said it’s used for storage.
Mr. Jolly asked if the asphalt driveway has a curb cut. Ms. Lyman said yes it does.
Counsel Shumejda said that as he understands it, this is a single-family zone. Ms. Lyman said yes it is. Ms. Lyman said when they purchased the house the former owner removed the stove and had the gas capped. So it is a single-family home in a single-family zone, correct? Ms. Lyman said yes. Counsel Shumejda said this application is a Use Variance not an Area Variance. Mr. Maloney said that in order to support a Use Variance they would need financial information. Ms. Lyman said she met with Michael McGarvey twice and he said they did not need that information. She said when she spoke with Ms. Lawrence yesterday at the site visit she said what she told her yesterday was all she needed to say tonight. Counsel Shumejda said that does not mean that you have met the criteria. Ms. Lyman asked what the criteria are. Counsel Shumejda explained that under the Zoning Code of the Village or any municipality in the State of New York, you have to show that under the zoning code you
are deprived of all reasonable economic use or benefit from your property under the uses allowed in the zone. In other words, it’s a single family home and you would have to show the rental value of that home and the cost of the carrying charges: taxes, maintenance, utilities, etc. He said this is not an area variance and explained what an area variance is. This is a change of use from a single-family residential structure to a two-family residential structure. The analysis is State required. So you would have to show, the amount of money a single-family home on Benedict Avenue in the Village of Tarrytown could be rented for and the costs to carry it, that you get no reasonable economic return. Ms. Lyman asked if that was for the rental of the whole house. Counsel Shumejda said yes, the whole house which is a single unit under the zoning code. Ms. Lyman said so we have to prove that the market will not enable us to rent
the entire house to cover our carrying costs. Counsel Shumejda said that you have to take into consideration tax code depreciation and potential appreciation; there are a lot of factors involved; it is an extraordinarily high standard.
Ms. Lyman said so the basis for this Use Variance is for us not to live there anymore. Counsel Shumejda said he is only telling her what the law is.
Ms. Brown asked if that is just one of the criteria or is it the one criterion that has to be met. Counsel Shumejda said it is the main one and it is a very difficult standard.
Ms. Lyman said why I would have two meetings with Michael McGarvey and with Dan Pennella and never hear of this. Counsel Shumejda said he was not present at the meetings and did not know what was discussed. Ms. Lyman said the Village Code was not provided on the application. She asked who could sit down with her and explain this further. Counsel Shumejda said it is in the Village Code. He said the Code gives the criteria for a Use Variance. Mr. Almahdi asked if it specifically says what Counsel Shumejda was saying or was that just his interpretation. Counsel Shumejda said he is only telling them what the law is, he is not interpreting it. He said it is up to the Board to grant or not grant the variance. Counsel Shumejda said there is the code section and there is case law. A Use Variance
in the Village of Tarrytown is no different than a Use Variance anywhere else in New York State.
Mr. Maloney explained that the Board could table the application for a couple of months to give them time to gather the required information or they could vote on it tonight.
Ms. Lyman asked if her neighbor's information is available and when did the Zoning Code go into effect. Counsel Shumejda said the Building Department will have the information if it is available and that the code went into effect in 1926.
Ms. Lyman asked who can assist them with the application.
Ms. Brown said that Mrs. Bellantoni could e-mail her the code section and she suggested they speak with a professional who is an expert in interpreting village codes and who may be able to help her.
Counsel Shumejda said this conversation is based on this being a single-family zone. He asked Ms. Lyman what zone it is and she said a single-family zone and her application says the same.
Mr. Maloney suggested they check to see if there are minutes from earlier meeting when the house was used as a two-family dwelling.
Mr. Maloney asked if anyone would like to speak.
Ellen Baker of 72 Benedict Avenue and he husband, James Sweeney who have lived there 14 years said when they moved into their house, number 60 had a tenant. It was talked about very openly.
Mr. Maloney moved, seconded by Ms. Brown to adjourn this application for a few months to give the applicant time to research and collect the required information.
PUBLIC HEARING – Schochet – 6 Tarryhill 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, August 13, 2012, 2012 in the Municipal Building, One Depot Plaza, Tarrytown, New York to hear and consider an application by:
Ira Schochet
6 Tarryhill Road
Tarrytown, New York
for the following variances from the Zoning Code of the Village of Tarrytown for property located at the above address regarding the following variances to increase the existing non-conformity by constructing a one-story addition on the rear of the house:
Permitted Existing Proposed Variance
- Prin. Bldg. Cover. (%): 20.0% 19.57% 21.43% 1.43%
- Total Gross FAR: 3718 s.f. 5008 s.f. 5217 s.f. 1499 s.f.*
*Note: 209 s.f. more than existing
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 1.220, Block 128, Lot 26 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 and the sign was posted
Board members visited the property.
Mr. Maloney read the following Environmental Review from Michael Blau, Environmental Review Officer, dated August 13, 2012:
“I have reviewed this application regarding the construction of a one-story addition on the rear of the house and determined the proposal appears to pose no significant adverse environmental impact.”
Tom Haynes, Jr. of Thomas E. Haynes Architect, representing the Schochets stated that the property is a legal non-conforming site which is 11,000 + square feet where 15,000 is required. They are proposing a 209 square foot addition to the rear of the house in order to extend their master bedroom. They would also like to increase their master bathroom, which is very small by reconfiguring the existing space. The proposed addition does not add any bedrooms to the house. It is just an extension of the existing master bedroom. We do not feel that it has any adverse impacts to the neighbors because it will be screened except for one neighbor who has no objection to the addition.
Mr. Maloney asked how many bedrooms and bathrooms are in the house. Mr. Haynes said there are 6 bedrooms and they are not increasing the number of bathrooms, only enlarging the master bathroom.
Ms. Brown said the pre-existing condition is the 11,000 s.f. where 15,000 s.f. is required, but what about the FAR. She asked if there were any previous variance given to this home. Mr. Haynes said not that he is aware of. He stated that this house was the model home for the development. He did not feel that it is any larger than the rest of the houses in the development, even with the addition.
Ms. Brown asked if the rest of the houses are the same size. Mrs. Schochet said they are the same or larger.
Mr. Jolly asked if the house was ever added onto in the past and how old it is. Mrs. Schochet said that there have been no previous additions and it was built in 1968.
Ms. Brown asked if the HOA needed to weigh in on this.
Mr. Schochet said they thought they should get the approval from the Village first before approaching the HOA. If they are approved, they will present it to the HOA.
Ms. Brown asked Counsel Shumejda if that is how it is normally done. Mr. Shumejda said no, they must get approval of the HOA first.
Mr. Haynes asked if they could get a conditional approval. Counsel Shumejda said the Board could do that if they choose to.
Mr. Maloney asked if anyone would like to speak. No one present came forward.
Mr. Maloney moved, seconded by Ms. Brown to close the hearing. All in favor; motion carried.
Mr. Maloney moved, seconded by Mr. Jolly, that the Board determines there will be no significant adverse environmental impact as a result of granting the requested variances for 6 Tarryhill Road. All in favor; motion carried.
Mr. Jolly moved, seconded by Ms. Brown, subject to the written approval by the HOA and the approval of 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 6 Tarryhill Road.
All in favor; motion carried.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Maloney moved, seconded by Mr. Jolly, and unanimously carried, that the meeting be adjourned – 8:45 p.m.
Dale Bellantoni
Secretary
| 
