Tarrytown NY - Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes 1/12/2015

Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes 1/12/2015

Zoning Board of Appeals

Village of Tarrytown

Regular Meeting

January 12, 2015 8:00 p.m.

PRESENT: Chairwoman Lawrence; Members Maloney, Jolly, Brown; Counsel Shumejda; Village Engineer McGarvey; Secretary Bellantoni

ABSENT: Member Weisel

APPROVAL OF THE MINTUES – December 8, 2014

Mr. Maloney moved, seconded by Mr. Jolly, and unanimously carried, that the minutes of December 8, 2014, be approved as submitted. Motion carried

PUBLIC HEARING – Myers – 57 Tappan Landing

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, January 12, 2015, in the Municipal Building, One Depot Plaza, Tarrytown, New York to hear and consider an application by:

Kevin and Wanda Myers

57 Tappan Landing Road

For variances to allow for the construction of a second-story addition, a new front porch, and the expansion of the rear deck. The variances required are:

Permitted: Existing Proposed

Minimum Each Side Yard: 12 feet 5.16’ & 10.8’ 5.16’ & 10.5’
Minimum 2 Side Yards: 26 feet 15.96 feet 15.96 feet

Documents are available for inspection in the Planning and Zoning Office at Tarrytown Village Hall. The property is located at 57 Tappan Landing Road, Tarrytown, New York and is shown on the Tax Maps of the Village of Tarrytown as Sheet 1.100, Block 70, Lot 14 and is in the R10 Zoning District.

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.

Board members visited the property.

Sid Scholomann, Architect on behalf of the owners explained that it is an existing 1½ story home and the west side is legal non-conforming because of the side yard setback. The proposed addition will not increase the footprint but would increase the non-conformity. He stated that the front and back porches are conforming. He said a 26% variance is required; they are not going beyond the existing footprint; it will be in line with the existing structure. It will not have any impact upon the neighbors in terms of sun blockage, shadow, or drainage.

Chairwoman Lawrence commented about the air conditioner compressor stating that it has to be pushed back to the west on the rear and it will not interfere. Mr. Scholomann said that is correct.

Secondly, Chairwoman Lawrence asked about the large tree in the front of the property and if it would interfere with the front porch. Mr. Scholomann said it will be trimmed, but it will not interfere with the foundation or the porch.

Ms. Brown asked where they are expanding on the side yard. Mr. Scholomann said they are not expanding into the side yard, they are only going up; but because it is existing non-conforming, they are increasing the non-conformity.

Chairwoman Lawrence said they are changing the garage to living space. Mr. Scholomann said they are not going over the garage.

Chairwoman Lawrence read the following Environmental Review from Michael Blau, Environmental Review Officer dated January 12, 2015:

I have reviewed this application for variances for a house addition, new front porch and expansion of rear deck and determined the proposals appear to pose no significant adverse environmental impact.

Mr. Maloney moved, seconded by Ms. Brown that the Board determines there will be no significant adverse environmental impact as a result of granting the requested variances for 57 Tappan Landing Road. All in favor; motion carried.

Mr. Maloney moved, seconded by Mr. Jolly, and unanimously carried, that the hearing be closed and the Board having arrived at the 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 above-referenced variances for 57 Tappan Landing Road. All in favor; motion carried.

NEW PUBLIC HEARING – Gilpin – 88 Benedict Avenue

The secretary read the following public hearing notice:

Robert and Susan Gilpin

88 Benedict Avenue

For variances to allow for the construction of an addition which will include a two-car garage on the basement level with an open roof deck over the new garage and a one-story addition over the existing garage consisting of a dining area and family room. The variances required are:

Permitted: Existing Proposed

Minimum Rear Yard: 26 feet 17.1 feet 5 feet
Total FAR: 2,915 s.f. 3,149 s.f. 3,580 s.f.

Documents are available for inspection in the Planning and Zoning Office at Tarrytown Village Hall. The property is located at 88 Benedict Avenue, Tarrytown, New York and is shown on the Tax Maps of the Village of Tarrytown as Sheet 1.110, Block 78, Lot 3 and is in the R7.5 Zoning District.

By Order of the Zoning Board of Appeals

Dale Bellantoni, Secretary to the Zoning Board

Dated: December 30, 2014

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

Board members visited the property.

Sam Vieira, Architect, on behalf of the applicant explained the project stating that the property is a corner lot on Benedict Avenue and Loh Avenue. It is a single-family, two story house; but because the site is slope, the full basement is exposed at the rear which creates a three-story elevation. Presently there is a garage facing Loh Avenue at the basement level with a sunroom and covered porch above. The proposed addition includes a second garage attached to the first one with a dining area and family room in place of the existing sunroom and covered porch and an open deck above the new garage.

Mr. Vieira said because this house is located on a corner lot, there are two front yards, which creates some challenges to comply with the zoning regulations, and he also discussed the challenge with the FAR because of the amount of exposed basement (see Mr. Vieira’s attached explanation letter).

Mr. Maloney asked the square footage of the basement. Mr. Vieira said 1,364 actual space plus the single garage. He said the new garage addition will increase it by 422 s.f. but not all is part of the FAR calculations; only the exposed part of the basement is used for FAR calculations.

Chairwoman Lawrence asked where the second story addition will be. Mr. Vieira said the space over the new garage which will be used for a dining area and family room.

Mr. Jolly asked how wide the second garage will be. Mr. Vieira said the standard is approximately 12’ but it may be 11’-9” or 11’-10”.

Mr. McGarvey asked if they are disturbing any steep slopes. Mr. Vieira said no but they are increasing the amount of green area by reducing the paved areas on the property.

Ms. Brown asked if the basement is finished. Mr. Vieira said not now but maybe eventually.

Mr. McGarvey asked if there is a curb cut on Benedict. Mr. Vieira said if it’s approved and there is a curb cut on Benedict, you will have to close it up.

Chairwoman Lawrence asked if anyone would like to speak.

Ezekiel Vermillion, 9 Loh Avenue, said he and his wife support this addition and are excited about the addition of green space. He thinks it will be a benefit to the neighborhood.

Thomas Tumino, 100 Benedict Avenue, also agrees and feels it will approve the neighborhood.

Mr. Vieira gave Chairwoman Lawrence a letter from a neighbor in support of the project.

Chairwoman Lawrence said you are proposing a fence that will be for the back yard, correct? Mr. Vieira said that is correct.

Mr. McGarvey said the existing fence shown on the plans is on Village property. Mr. Vieira said that fence has been there forever. Mr. McGarvey said he knows but you can’t have a fence on Village property and now that we are all here legalizing this, it is a good time to remove it.

Chairwoman Lawrence read the following Environmental Review from Michael Blau, Environmental Review Officer dated January 12, 2015:

I have reviewed this application for variances for a house addition and determined the proposal appears to pose no significant adverse environmental impact.

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 variances for 88 Benedict Avenue. All in favor; motion carried.

Mr. Jolly moved, seconded by Ms. Brown, that the hearing be closed and the Board having arrived at the 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 above-referenced variances for 88 Benedict Avenue, conditioned upon the removal/relocation of the fence on Village property. All in favor; motion carried.

NEW PUBLIC HEARING – Crescent Associates – 155 White Plains Road

The secretary read the following public hearing notice:

Crescent Associates LLC

237 Mamaroneck Avenue

White Plains, NY 10605

To allow medical office use of an existing, 22,000 square foot space that has been long-vacant in an office building that is already predominately medical use.

Documents are available for inspection in the Planning and Zoning Office at Tarrytown Village Hall. The property is located at 155 White Plains Road, Tarrytown, New York and is shown on the Tax Maps of the Village of Tarrytown as Sheet 1.201, Block 121, Lots 5.11 & 5.12 and is in the OB Zoning District.

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.

Board members visited the property.

Don Walsh of Development Strategies, White Plains, New York, on behalf of the owner of the office building at 155 White Plains Road explained that they received approval for a new building, but they gave up the approval this year so that Columbia could rent the vacant space in that building. Columbia requires more parking than what is presently available and that is what the space will be used for. Before Columbia makes the investment in this building, they want to be sure that the use is allowed by the Village of Tarrytown.

John Kirkpatrick of Oxman Tulis Kirkpatrick Whyatt & Geiger LLP, White Plains, New York said the proposed is zoned OB which allows many office but not a medical office. For a long time, the entire building has mainly been medical offices which pre-date the zoning conformance. This 22,000 s.f. space has lost the legal use of medical office because of its vacancy for such a long time. They are seeking an area variance. If you do not agree, we are asking for a use variance; there is no other possible use for this space. From 2011 this building has been losing money.

Ms. Brown asked if the offices that are grandfathered in have variances for medical use. Mr. Kirkpatrick said no the use was there before today’s zoning regulations. Most of the building is legal non-conforming use; but this space, since it was used for other uses, lost is legal non-conformity.

Chairwoman Lawrence asked if it is legally permitted in our code. Mr. McGarvey said it is legally permitted as an accessory use. Mr. Kirkpatrick said we want a variance stating that the amount of space (1/3 of the building) is allowed for medical use.

Ms. Brown said our code says accessory not principle use, can you explain what an accessory use is. Mr. McGarvey said the building code says about 10% of the building that is used for something other than the principle use is an accessory use; but this building since 1981 has been used predominately for medical use. They just want to make sure that we will allow this use before they spend any money on it.

Counsel Shumejda said it’s incidental or subordinate to permitted use but we don’t have a percentage in our code. At one time that office was virtually all medical uses.

Howard Greenberg, President of Howard Properties, Ltd. spoke about today’s rental market stating that it is a very soft market for leasing commercial space. He said over the last 12 months spaces have been vacated (given back). Today when a space goes vacant, no one knows how long it will take to fill that space. The medical market has been growing; they are coveted tenants, good tenants, long standing tenants. Mr. Greenberg stated that in the 14 years that Silverman Realty Group has owned this property, it has been vacant for about 7 years (1/2 the time owned). He said this 22,000 s.f. space cannot be divided; about 50% is non-window space. Natural light is very important for most tenants, as well as amenities which this space does not have. Medical offices do not want the windows. (attached is a detailed narrative from Mr. Greenberg).

Mr. Jolly asked why Montefiore did not need approval for medical offices. Mr. McGarvey said because it is only used as clerical/billing office space, not a medical use.

Joel Sachs, Keane and Beane in White Plains, representative for Columbia University said this space will be used for three main types of specialties: orthopedics, cardiology and radiology; by appointment only. It is not a walk-in clinic or an urgent care facility. He said Columbia wants to make their presence in Tarrytown which will be good for Tarrytown and Columbia as well. They are asking for an area variance because they will be using 22,000 s.f. of the building, not 10% which is the norm for an accessory use. They want to be sure the space can be used for a medical use before they make a multi-million dollar investment in the building.

Ms. Brown said what about those other medical uses in the Village that pre-date the zoning. If we approve this, do all the other medical offices in that zone become non-conforming? Mr. Kirkpatrick said this is a very unusual building with a large portion of it underground. He does not feel they will be setting precedence if they make that part of their approval. Counsel Shumejda said he does not think that will be a factor. This building was built many years ago for Olivetti a single-business office space. For thirty years or so it has be used for medical offices and it pre-dates the OB District. He doesn’t feel you will find many building the pre-date the OB District and have had this type of use for so many years. We have never had a complaint or a problem with parking. He said keep in mind that Mr. Silverman gave up his approval to building another building there and in its place he will putting in a pervious parking area for his tenants. There are no other buildings in the Village that meet these criteria.

Counsel Shumejda said if the board is comfortable with approving this, you can direct me to draft an approval resolution for the next meeting.

Mr. Walsh said there is a financing deadline to building the parking lot before next meeting.

Mr. Sachs said Columbia is eager to start work in the building and would like some kind of a vote from the board this evening.

Counsel Shumejda said the board could take a straw vote and he would draft the approval resolution for the next meeting based on their vote. Chairwoman Lawrence agreed with Counsel Shumejda in order to give them some direction.

Chairwoman Lawrence read the following Environment Review from Michael Blau, Environmental Review Officer dated December 12, 2015:

I have reviewed this application to allow medical use for an existing 22,000 sq. ft. vacant space and determined the proposal appears to pose no significant adverse environmental impact.

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 variance for 155 White Plains Road.

The board took a straw vote as follows:

Mr. Maloney: Yes

Chairwoman Lawrence: Yes

Mr. Jolly: Yes

Ms. Brown: Yes

Mr. Maloney moved, seconded by Chairwoman Lawrence to direct Counsel Shumejda to draft a resolution of approval for the requested area variance stating that the 22,000 s.f. out of the 63,988 s.f. of the building is an accessory use for that building and can house medical offices. All in favor; motion carried.

Mr. Jolly moved, seconded by Mr. Maloney that the hearing be closed. All in favor; motion carried.

The application was adjourned to the February 9, 2015 meeting.

ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Maloney moved, seconded by Chairwoman Lawrence that the meeting be adjourned. All in favor, motion carried. Adjournment – 9:10 p.m.

Dale Bellantoni

Secretary