Zoning Board of Appeals
Village of Tarrytown
Regular Meeting
September 10, 2012; 8:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Chairwoman Lawrence; Members Maloney, Jolly, Brown, Weisel; Counsel Shumejda; Secretary Bellantoni
APPROVAL OF THE MINTUES – August 13, 2012
Mr. Maloney moved, seconded by Ms. Weisel and unanimously carried, that the minutes of August 13, 2012, be approved as submitted. Motion carried.
NEW PUBLIC HEARING – Foti and Rudder - 36 Fairview 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, September 10, 2012 in the Municipal Building, One Depot Plaza, Tarrytown, New York to hear and consider an application by:
Catherine Foti and Steven Rudder
36 Fairview Avenue
Tarrytown, New York
for the following variance from the Zoning Code of the Village of Tarrytown for property located at the above address regarding the expansion of the kitchen by constructing a 77 s.f. addition, the alternation of an existing covered porch, and the removal of an existing elevator shaft. This property is existing non-conforming.
Permitted Existing Proposed Variance
• Total Gross FAR: 2925 s.f. 4589 s.f. 4666 s.f. 1741 s.f.*
*Note: 77 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 1.80, Block 56, Lot 8 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"
The certified mailing receipts were received
The sign was posted
The Board members visited the site
Catherine Foti, homeowner, introduced herself and Janet Tall, their architect for the project. Ms. Foti explained the proposed project. She said they presently have a very small service type kitchen which is often found in old houses like hers. They would like to enlarge the kitchen by removing a non-functioning elevator shaft, enclosing an existing covered porch and constructing a small addition of 77 square feet to the bay area of the house. All of this space would be combined to construct a new larger kitchen. Ms. Foti also said the new kitchen would bring in more natural light because of the new windows, and it will provide more privacy to the neighbor since they will be eliminating the one existing window that looks into the neighbor's yard.
Mr. Maloney asked if the existing house exceeds the allowable FAR. Ms. Tall said yes, the house is very old and is existing non-conforming. It is already over the allowable FAR. The house sits on two lots and the only addition will be the 77 square feet added to the bay area. The rest of the kitchen will be designed by rearranging the interior space.
Ms. Tall also said that the original plans showed the addition of a patio in the back yard, but her clients decided not to have the patio built. She passed out new plans reflecting this change.
Chairwoman Lawrence asked if they heard from their neighbors. Ms. Foti said several neighbors asked her about the project when they saw the sign outside the house. When she explained what they wanted to do, they were all fine with their plan.
Chairwoman Lawrence asked if the addition would be only one story. Ms. Foti said yes, only one story.
Chairwoman Lawrence asked if there were any other questions. Chairwoman Lawrence read the following Environmental Review from Michael Blau, Environmental Review Officer, dated September 10, 2012:
"I have reviewed this application regarding a kitchen expansion and determined the proposal appears to pose no significant adverse environmental impact."
Chairwoman Lawrence moved, seconded by Ms. Weisel, to close the hearing. All in favor; motion carried.
Mr. Jolly moved, seconded by Mr. Maloney that the Board determines there will be no significant adverse environmental impact as a result of granting the requested variance for 36 Fairview Avenue. All in favor; motion carried.
Mr. Maloney moved, seconded by Mr. Jolly, subject to 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 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 variance as stated above for 36 Fairview Avenue. All in favor; motion carried.
NEW PUBLIC HEARING – Zeitchick - 2 Eunice Court
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 10, 2012 in the Municipal Building, One Depot Plaza, Tarrytown, New York to hear and consider an application by:
Albert Zeitchick
2 Eunice Court
Tarrytown, NY 10591
for a variance from the Zoning Code of the Village of Tarrytown for property located at the above address for the placement of a storage shed in the rear yard as follows:
• 305 Attachment 5 – Minimum Side Yard (FT):
o Required: 12’
o Existing: 12’
o Proposed: 2’
o Variance Requested: 10’
• 305 Attachment 5 – Minimum Rear Yard (FT):
o Required: 28’
o Existing: 28’
o Proposed: 2’
o Variance Requested: 26’
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 1.150, Block 99, Lot 24 and is located in an R-10 (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 received
The sign was posted
The Board members visited the site
Mr. Zeitchick introduced himself and explained that he would like to put a shed in the back corner of his yard. If he placed the shed according to the required setbacks, it would sit in the middle of his yard; so he is asking for variances to allow it to encroach into the setbacks. Originally he was going to place it 2' from both property lines, but has now decided to place it 4' from each property line.
Chairwoman Lawrence asked if the doors will be facing the house and what material will it be made of. Mr. Zeitchick said the doors would be on the side and the shed will be vinyl.
Mr. Jolly asked Mr. Zeitchick if he would be putting it together himself. Mr. Zeitchick said it will be delivered already put together and placed on the property.
Chairwoman Lawrence asked if there was any screening from the neighbors. Mr. Zeitchick said the neighbors recently planted shrubs but they would take a few more years to grow large enough to screen the shed, but there are larger trees on the site.
Ms. Brown asked if there will be enough room around the shed to clean around it. Mr. Zeitchick said yes there will be, which is why he decided to place it farther from both property lines.
Counsel Shumedja asked how far in will he be moving it. Mr. Zeitchick said 4' from both property lines.
Chairwoman Lawrence asked if there were any other questions. Chairwoman Lawrence read the following Environmental Review from Michael Blau, Environmental Review Officer, dated September 10, 2012:
"I have reviewed this application regarding the placement of a storage shed and determined the proposal appears to pose no significant adverse environmental impact."
Chairwoman Lawrence moved, seconded by Ms. Brown, to close the hearing. All in favor; motion carried.
Mr. Jolly moved, seconded by Mr. Maloney that the Board determines there will be no significant adverse environmental impact as a result of granting the requested variance for 2 Eunice Court. All in favor; motion carried.
Mr. Maloney moved, seconded by Ms. Weisel, subject to 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 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 an 8' side yard variance and a 24' rear yard variance to place a shed 4' from the side property line and 4' from the back property line at 2 Eunice Court. All in favor; motion carried.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Jolly moved, seconded by Ms. Brown, and unanimously carried, that the meeting be adjourned – 8:30 p.m.
Dale Bellantoni
Secretary
| 
