|
Zoning Issues
Zoning Change for Dana Cole Hair Salon
12/11/2007 (work session)
Property is on Rte 6, near Charlie Brown. Owner wants to buy and renovate the
old London Apartments building across the street and relocate business.
Problem is that while the zone is currently commercial and would allow hair
salons, under new comprehensive plan (still to be enacted),
the area will be rezoned to an “office” classification which
currently does not permit hair salons.
After viewing text of the office zone, it was determined that a hair salon
would be compatible with the existing permitted uses (dance club, health
salon, etc) so board will amend zoning ordinance adding “hair
salons” in office zone.
1/15/2008
Public hearing on amendment to Zoning Ordinance
Purpose of the hearing was the amend zoning
ordinance to permit “personal service establishments,” e.g., hair
salons, in planned new office zone.
Tegeder explained that under proposed new zoning
ordinance that has been held up due to the litigation and need to redo the
master plan, the board created an “O” office zone that would
focus more on office use and less on retail as a way to reduce traffic impact
in the Route 6/Mohegan corridor. As currently written, the zone would not
permit a hair salon. The owner of an existing salon on Route 6 would like to
relocate across the street – hence the need for the change.
Tegeder explained that personal service
establishments typically generate less traffic, are smaller, serve fewer
people and in general are in keeping with the goals of the proposed office
zone.
The hearing was closed but decision was reserved pending the adoption of the
revised zoning . Once the new zoning is adopted, the
board will vote to permit the “personal use” in the zone.
Metz asked if
town already had an office zone that would have permitted personal uses. Tegeder explained that current “OB”
zone was more for office-campus type development and that existing industrial
zones may have also allowed personal use. But the focus for Route 6 was the
need to reduce potential traffic impact – hence the new office zone
instead of the existing commercial zone that permitted more retail.
There was no public comment or any significant discussion from the board.
(For a discussion of the new Dana Hair Salon site plan, see Route 6
Developments. As of September 22, 2008 the Town Board had not issued a
decision on the zoning change. The delay was based on the belief that the
revised Comprehensive Plan would be ready before the site plan was presented
to the Planning Board so it was not necessary for formally revise the
"outgoing" zoning ordinance.)
Storage Deluxe, Route
202
June 10, 2008, Town Board work session
Rick DeCcola, owner of the property explained that
the management company wants to increase the size of the residential unit
provided for the facility's on site manager. The
current space is 1,500 square feet and has two bedrooms. The management
company wants to hire someone with four children and needs more space. Mr. DeCola explained that he is currently in violation of his
management contract because the site doesn't have an on site manager.
Mr. DeCola explained that when the site was rezoned
to permit the self storage facility, he stipulated that the site would have a
zero impact on the school system and that only a retired couple would be
hired to manage the site. He was requesting a letter from the board that he
could use in his dispute with the management company.
No action was taken.
Business use of residence and number of permitted
commercial vehicles on residential property
August 5, 2008
During Courtesy of the Floor two residents from Maple Court expressed their concern that loopholes in the
town's zoning code were allowing commercial uses in residentially zoned
neighborhoods and that the loopholes needed to be addressed. They said that
residential properties on their street were being used for commercial
purposes creating noise and an abundance of cars for sale. One property has
been before the Zoning Board of Appeals since April for variances dealing
with front and side yard setbacks. They noted that if the property was in a
commercial zone, the property owner would have to go before the Planning
Board for site approval. One resident gave the board a DVD illustrating the
noise level on the street.
In response, Supervisor Peters said that he would attend the upcoming ZBA
meeting to learn what was happening. Councilman Bianco
said that provisions in the zoning code relating to commercial uses in
residentially zoned neighborhoods needed to be tightened. He noted that there
were vacant stores in town for commercial uses and that there was a
difference between having one commercial vehicle parked in a neighborhood that
was used by the property owner as part of his job and seven or eight vehicles
associated with a business.
October 14, 2008, work session
Thomas Witkowich of Maple Court addressed the board about a
problem involving a homeowner on his street who, he charged, is using his
residential property for business use and is currently before the Zoning
Board of Appeals (ZBA) for a variance that would increase the amount of space
that could be used for business purposes. According to Mr. Witkowich, the height variance would permit the homeowner
to build a garage for 24 cars on the half acre lot.
At issue was an interpretation of the town's code, amended in 2003, that
regulates the number and type of vehicles that can be parked on a residential
lot and also the types of business activities that are permitted in a
residentially zoned area. Also at issue is the ability to differentiate
between a car repair “hobby” or “business.”
Board members also expressed concern over whether the ZBA was aware of the
existing restrictions in the town code. On the suggestion of town resident
Ray Arnold, the board will send a letter to the ZBA expressing its concerns.
Town Attorney John Buckley said that he will also speak to the town's outside
counsel who is assigned to the ZBA and will also look into possible revisions
of the existing law governing the number and type of vehicles that can be
parked on a residential lot..
Regarding the existing level of activity on the site, Councilman Metz said
that there needed to be some discussions with Joe Hughes, the town's code
enforcement officer regarding applying the current language in the code.
Director of Labor Operations Eric DiBartolo also
wondered why, given the location of the site, the NYC DEP hadn't weighed in
on the variance application and said that he would bring the issue to the
attention of Mary Galasso, the DEP person he is
working with on a daily basis on the legacy ballfields.
October 28, 2008, work
session
Councilman Bianco noted that the issue of the
oversized garage on Maple Court
appeared to be resolved as the ZBA had denied the applicant's request for
variances. However, it was noted that the applicant's attorney indicated that
he might reapply to the ZBA based on a recent court case that distinguished
between accessory and incidental uses. Town Attorney Buckley said that he
would confer with the ZBA's attorney on the issue. Director of Labor
Operations Eric DiBartolo said that Mary Galasso of the DEP indicated to him that DEP would not
permit the issuance of any permit that would increase the amount of
impervious surface on the site.
As for regulating commercial vans, the board discussed two issues: how to
define a commercial van and how many should be allowed. The town's current
ordinance allows “suburbans” but does
not address “vans.” Councilman Campisi
suggested that a van that didn't have commercial plates and only used a
magnetic business sign that could be removed when the owner returned home (as
distinct from permanent painting on the van advertising a business) was
acceptable. The board appeared to reach a consensus that two such vans would
be acceptable and that three or more would require a special permit from the
ZBA.
Mr. Buckley will prepare draft legislation for a future work session.
December 9, 2008, work
session
The board reviewed the draft of a local law that would limit the parking of
commercial vans in residential areas.
As in previous discussions, the key issues were.
1) what vehicles to include in the legislation, e.g, the difference between a van, suburban and SUV. At
times during the discussion, there did not appear to be a clear distinction
between the terms. It was also pointed out that some homeowners use pick up
trucks as passenger vehicles.(see next point)
2) the license plates. All agreed that if a vehicle had commercial plates,
then it would come under the ban. However, Supervisor Peters raised the issue
of a pick up truck, which could have passenger plates.
3) signage on the trucks. Most of the board had no
problem with removable commercial signs, or even possibly painted signs that
might just have the owner's name but not any additional wording indicating a
business. Building Inspector Bill Gregory raised the issue of fairness
explaining that a van with lettering could be permitted while the same
vehicle without would be prohibited.
4) number of vehicles to be permitted. After
initially reaching consensus on a two vehicle limit, the board upped the
number to three. Homeowners who wanted to park more than three vehicles on
their premises would have to get a special permit from the Zoning Board of
Appeals. Town Attorney John Buckley said that the legislation included a
provision that the vehicle had to be under the “control” of the
homeowner, e.g., a homeowner who was on call during the night for his
employer would be allowed to park a company vehicle.
In general, the board was concerned about striking a balance between the
concerns of homeowners who wanted to protect the residential character of
their neighborhood and the needs of homeowners who might run a small business
out of their home and needed a place to park vehicles used in their business,
such as electricians or plumbers. Mr. Gregory explained that when the current
law was passed in 1992, it recognized the character of Yorktown
and the needs of many of its homeowners. The law, he said, was permissive,
and gave the ZBA authority to issue special permits providing the homeowner
installed proper screening and met other appropriate parking conditions.
Mr. Buckley will make some additional revisions in the draft law which will
be discussed again at a future work session.
Size of garage and accessory structures
On the related issue of the permitted size of a garage or other accessory
structures (sheds, pools, etc) on lots, the Maple Court homeowners continued to
express their concern about the plans of one of their neighbors to build a
3,200 sq ft garage on his half acre lot that could accommodate 24 cars. (See
above discussion.) His neighbors allege that the cars are a business and that
revs the motors during the day creating an unacceptable noise level. While
the ZBA turned down the requested height variance, the homeowner can still
build an oversize garage as long as he is within 10 ft of the side lot lines
and maintains a 30 ft front and rear set back.
Councilman Matt Metz noted that the issue was not limited to a garage but
covered all possible accessory uses on a lot. He said that the zoning
ordinance had to be applied town wide. Councilman Jim Martorano
noted that there were large garages elsewhere in town, some belonging to car
collectors. We don't want to prohibit that, he said. There were
general agreement that the town's noise ordinance was ineffective in
terms of controlling the reving of the car engines.
The town attorney will look at the existing code to see if modifications
should be considered.
February 24, 2009, work session
Explaining that changes in the code regulating the parking of commercial
vehicles in residential zones has been “banged around” many
times, Councilman Nick Bianco proposed amending the law to limit the number of
commercial vans to no more than two vans. (Parking more than two such
vehicles would require a special permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals.) He
defined “commercial” as having commercial plates and lettering.
On the suggestion of Councilman Lou Campisi, the
board agreed to substitute the word “vehicle” for
“van” so that the law would be more inclusive of other types of
commercial vehicles. (A pick-up truck, for example, that had both commercial
plates and lettering would be covered by the law.)
Mr. Campisi also suggested that the law include a
prohibition on the overnight parking of trailers on public streets. He was
particularly concerned about trailers used to tow items like boats. He noted
that the current law just prohibits parking on public streets during the
winter months. This led to a further discussion of the definition of the word
“trailer,” particularly as differentiated from recreational
vehicles.
After a brief discussion of exactly what it was that the board wanted the
proposed amendments to accomplish, and the need to clarify language that some
councilmen found confusing, it was decided that Town Attorney John Buckley
would review Mr. Bianco's draft and make any
necessary changes. The revised draft will be circulated via email to the
board members, and if acceptable, will be advertised for a public hearing at
the March 3rd meeting rather than being put off for discussion at another
work session.
March 17, 2009
The scheduled public hearing on the parking of commercial vehicles was
canceled because the proposed law is being rewritten and will need to be readvertised. The changes include new definitions and the
addition of provisions governing construction and special use equipment and
trailers. (At the pre session meeting, it was noted that the building
inspector and code enforcement officer had some concerns about the initial
legislation.)
April 7, 2009
Public Hearing: Prohibiting trailers on public streets
The board approved this law which bans parking trailers (such as those with
boats) on public streets from April through November. The law does not affect
trailers parked on driveways. Highway Superintendent Eric DiBartolo noted that under certain temporary circumstances,
there could be some flexibility in enforcing the law.
Public Hearing: Relating to commercial vehicles in residential zones.
In response to a situation that was broughto to the
board's attention several months ago that involved a homeowner who was using
his residence to conduct a business and objections from neighbors that there
were often 8-9 commercial vehicles parked on the property, the town added two
new sections to the existing law.
The first new section defined what constituted a commercial vehicle and a
construction vehicle. The second one limited to two the number of commercial
vehicles bearing commercial plates and a sign advertising a commercial
business, or trailer, with or without trailer registration, that could be
stored, parked or left standing in a residential zone. Anything in excess of
two would require a special permit from the Zoning Board.
Councilman Bianco noted that the previous language,
which had been adopted many years ago, did not include vans which were not in
use at the time.
July 28, 2009, work session
Councilman Nick Bianco explained that the law, amended in April, 2009,
had to be amended again as the code enforcement staff had an issue with how
to interpret the latest language dealing with the storing, parking and
standing of construction type equipment such as backhoes.
The new amendment will delete the phase permitting no more than two pieces of
construction equipment and replace it with language requiring that any
construction equipment would require a special use permit. The current law
includes definitions of “parking, storing and standing” so that
this should not be a problem for homeowners having work done on their
property that would require the temporary parking of such vehicles on their
property.
The proposed amendment will be referred out to various town departments and
boards for review before being advertised for a public hearing.
GlobeOp
Financial Services (1565 Front Street )
August 12, 2008, work session
The property is located in a light industrial zone which does not currently
allow office use. However, when the building was initially constructed many
years ago, the town board made an exception to allow Prodigy to use the
building for back office use. Prodigy vacated the premises in February, 2007
and the building has been vacant since then.
A new buyer, a hedge fund, is ready to purchase the building for the same
back office use, but because the previous use lapsed, Building Inspector Bill
Gregory advised the board that it was now necessary for the board to amend
the zoning ordinance to allow the office use in the light industrial zone.
Under the town's pending new zoning code, office use will be allowed in a
light industrial zone. However, the town will not be ready to adopt the new
changes until sometime in the fall and the new buyer needs the zoning changed
before completing the purchase. The board unanimously supported the new use
and told the lawyer representing the buyer that it would expedite the zoning
change. A public hearing on the change will probably be scheduled for
September 2nd.
September 2, 2008
After a public hearing, the board unanimously approved the change in language
in the zoning code to permit office and data uses in an M-2 (light
industrial) zone. Planning Director John Tegeder
explained that the change was a clarification as the new projected use was
the same as previous uses. The new owner of the building will employ about 75
people.
April 27, 2009, Planning Board work
session
Referral Building Inspector
Contact: David Petro of Architrave Designs, John Marwell, attorney
Description: Proposed new building entry construction.
This building is the original Pennysaver building,
which was then occupied by Prodigy. GlobeOp
Financial Services help financial institutions retrieve lost financial
data. It will occupy the lower level with offices and a large amount of
computer space. The mezzanine will be leased to clients in the process
of recovering lost financial data. The applicant wants to redesign the
building's front entrance to make it a showcase facade to impressive
clients. This will involve moving the front entrance wall to within 65
ft of the property line where currently there is 75 ft. The main part
of the building will be 69 ft from the property line. Variances are
required for these distances. Even after the proposed changes, the
building will still be further from Front
St. than neighboring buildings. The
building use will not change.
There was an extensive discussion of parking on the site. There are not
enough parking spaces on the site, but there is street parking on Front St.
Mr. Flynn asked if the site's dumpster will be adequate. Yes, since
this is truly a paperless operation. There will be no paper shredding
and no physical transport of product.
Mr. Tegeder suggested the application be handled
administratively, conditional on the Fire Marshal's approval of the building
rear access. It might be necessary to remove some diagonal parking
spaces to provide a fire lane. The Planning Board agreed. The Planning
Board will recommend that the ZBA approve the required variances.
Old Yorktown
Village
September 22, 2008, work sesion
Section 15.09 Block 1 Lot 31
Location: Lexington Avenue
Description: Request to increase existing decks from 3 ft x 12 ft to 6 ft x
12 st and encroach on side yard setback.
The board briefly reviewed this referral from the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Seeing no problem with the plan, Mr. Klaus said it would be set for a public
hearing. The reason for the request is that the owners want larger decks.
Dunning Drive: Referral from Zoning Board of Appeals
May 11, 2009, Planning Board work session
SBL: 27.14-1-49.1
This is an application for a variance to legalize a lot with 100 ft of
frontage where 150 ft is required in a R1-40 zone. Mr. Tegeder reported that there are actually two lots under one ownership that were combined by the assessor for
tax purposes. There is the question of whether this negated the
subdivision. Nevertheless in 2006 the assessor re-separated them.
The Planning Board observed that when Dunning Dr. was up-zoned to R1-40, it
left many of the lots with insufficient frontage, so this proposed lot is not
out of character with the rest of the street. Therefore the Planning
Board has no planning objection.
May 19, 2009
Fence height limitations
During Courtesy of the Floor, Howard Frank called the board's attention to
several applications before the Zoning Board for variances that would permit
the installation of 6' fences. He cited a specific variance application in
his neighborhood that he said would create site distance problems.
June 23, 2009, work session
Adding new use in M2 or I-2 zone at 1761 Front St.
The owners of Funtime Amusements and their
attorney, Al Capellini, appeared before the board
requesting that a new use be added to the M2 or I-2 zone for 1761 Front St
(the former Pennysaver building that more recently
had been leased to a fitness center.) When the owners signed a lease for the
property, they did not realize that the zoning ordinance, which allows for
“health clubs,” did not include their proposed use.
The company runs party events, both in clients' homes and in its own
facility. It currently operates a facility in Pleasantville which it has
outgrown. The new location would enable the company to offer its services
independent of weather conditions and also for clients whose homes are not
adequate.
In response to questions from board members, the owner, John Iorio, explained that the facility would only be used on
a pre-planned basis and would not be available for “walk-ins”
that might encourage it to become a teenage hangout type of place. It would
not be, he said, like a “Chucky Cheese.” The facility would not
provide any food catering facilities although the clients would be able to
bring in their own food. The owners would not have their own liquor license
and would check with clients that they had obtained the required temporary
license from the NYS Liquor Authority before any alcohol was brought in.
Mr. Iorio explained that about 4,000 sq. ft. would
be designated for events (e.g., inflatable games and arcade type amusements)
and the remaining space would be devoted to office use and for storage for
the equipment he uses for home events. He added that the facility would help
the Yorktown economy by providing as many as
30 jobs, many for youth, who would work weekends at the parties.
Some board members expressed an interest in visiting the Pleasantville
facility. In the meantime, Mr. Capellini will
submit draft language for the zoning change to the town attorney for review.
August 4, 2009
Public Hearing on zoning change
In a 3-0 vote, the board approved the new language in the zoning code that
paved the way for the new tenant in the former Pennysaver Building.
Supervisor Peters reported that both the town engineer and zoning board had
reviewed the proposed change and had no problem with it. Robert Giordano, a
member of the planning board, asked if the proposed change had been referred
to the planning board. In response, Town Clerk Alice Roker
said it had been referred to the planning director; Mr. Giordando
responded that the board was a different entity and that the matter had not
been raised with the planning board. Councilman Campisi
initially suggested that the town board withhold voting on the change pending
comments from the planning board but decided to vote in favor of the change.
Howard Frank expressed concern about noise from bands that might emanate from
the facility, noting past problems on Front St fromUPS
trucks. Supervisor Peters said that the town had a noise ordinance and didn't
foresee a problem.
August 11,
2009, work session
Gambrel Country
Village (E. Main St, Shrub Oak) Rezoning request
The owner of the property had an informal discussion with the board to rezone
the property from C2 to 2CR so that the existing ssecond
floor of the two buildings on the site can be used for residential units.
They are proposing 12-13 units, comprised of studios (300-400 sq ft) and one
bedroom units (500-600 sq ft). No rental prices were discussed, although
Supervisor Don Peters asked if they would be affordable units. The second
floor space is currently used for storage.
The applicant pointed out that the site has all the amenities that typically
go along with apartment usage such as the ability to walk to stores,
transportation and sewer and water infrastructure. Also, the apartments would
be beneficial to town residents, she said, as it would provide housing for
their grown children would be able to stay in the area.
The applicant's initial parking for the residential units was to be located
across the street, but Councilman Nick Bianco
pointed out that the site the applicant had in mind was wetlands. Councilman
Jim Martorano also questioned whether potential
renters would want to park across the street and walk to their units. In
response, the property owner said that he could reconfigure the existing
parking on the site to accommodate the additional residential units.
Councilman Bianco opposed the plan, noting that it
would increase density in the area where residents were looking to reduce
density. He pointed out that the proposed plan was similar to a controversial
1991 Shrub Oak Implementation Plan and also that the proposed Comprehensive
Plan eliminated apartments over stores in Shrub Oak, permitting them only in
the Yorktown Heights hamlet. He added that the units would be in the Lakeland School District which was already
coping with additional students and that there was no guarantee that there
would not be children in a one bedroom unit.
Councilman Martorano said he saw a need for
apartments but was also concerned about the issue of reducing density and
questioned whether this was the best site for additional apartments.
The town's Housing Board submitted a memorandum in support of the rezoning
and Ken Belfer, the chairman of the board,
explained that the town could set up a preference list for Yorktown
residents, similar to the preference list that currently exists for
affordable homes. Councilman Bianco noted that the
town couldn't restrict who rented the units and he was also concerned about
the number of people who might live in the units.
The board decided that because the issue was part of the Comprehensive Plan
discussion, they would not try to reach a consensus on the proposal that
evening but would look into the issue as part of the review of the Comp Plan.
Councilman Lou Campisi said that this was not the
proper time to consider a zoning change. Attorney Al Capellini,
representing the applicant, said that if the Comp Plan is not expedited, his
client would likely return to the board to request the rezoning. He said he
didn't want to feel as if his client's request was being brushed off.
Parking of unplated vehicles
September 1, 2009
During Courtesy of the Floor, a resident of the Sparkle Lake
neighborhood raised the issue of parked vehicles without plates on
residential property. She said that in her neighborhood where the lots were
small, these vehicles created an eyesore.
In response, Councilman Bianco explained that the
current law allows one vehicle without plates on residential property. This
allows the property owner to service a car and/or have a car available for a
college student living at home only part of the year. He added, though, that
the board might want to take a look at the zoning ordinance and take into
consideration the size of the lot in addition to the number of permitted vehicles .
Doggy Daycare on Front Street/Zoning
change
September 8, 2009, work session
The Westchester representatives of Camp Bow Wow, a national chain of
franchised dog daycare centers and their local attorney, Al Capellini, appeared before the board to request a change in
the uses permitted in an M2 (industrial) zone that would permit their
proposed dog care center.
The facility would be located in the basement of the existing
“Weber” building at the end of Front Street and would include 75
indoor “cabins” for dogs as well as an outdoor “play”
area. The concept of the camp is that dogs would be able to socialize with
each other (they would be grouped by size). The facility would also offer
overnight kennel services.
The board's major concern was the potential of barking noise. Mr. Capellini explained that the closest residence was 500
feet, but that there was also concern for the nearby businesses, including
the Pennysaver, the DeVito
building and UPS. The camp's representatives explained that based on
experience in other locations (Stamford,
CT is the closes one), when the
dogs are “engaged” in playing they don't typically bark. Dogs, as
well as owners, are “interviewed” so that dogs likely to create
problems are not accepted.
In response to Councilman Campisi's question about
how many other M2 zones there were in town to which the zone change would
apply, Assistant Planner Lorraine DeSisto said
there was only one other location: Navajo St on Route 6.
The facility would have one staff person for every 15 dogs. Based on full
occupancy, that would mean five staffers plus one full time manager. No one
would be on site at night, although there would be monitors.
The board was in support of the idea as long the proposed language governing
the new use would include sufficient conditions relating to the potential
noise issue. The town attorney will draft proposed language and circulate it
for review.
October 13, 2009, work session
The board reviewed draft language to be added to the M-2 zone that would
permit this use. Councilman Campisi said his only
concern was the noise issue, and both he and Councilman Martorano
mentioned the noise issue at Guiding Eyes. The applicant explained that the
dogs are “interviewed” before being accepted into the program and
that because they are grouped by size and temperment,
there usually isn't much barking.
Councilman Matt Metz wanted to know how the situation could be changed in the
event that barking became a problem and what the mechanics for enforcement
would be. Mr. Capellini suggested that a new
hearing could be held and Town attorney John Buckely
questioned what the threshold for a problem would be, e.g., how many
complaints had to be received.
The draft will be reviewed again before a public hearing is scheduled.
|