[As received by the Mayor via the Yahoo Groups and Kathleen Russo direct email regarding the proposed height variance by changing the ground around the house or property owners owing back taxes and requesting site/building projects. -Ben ]
--------------------------
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 9:42 AM
As discussed with Kathleen Russo at the board meeting and previously, the Village code does not currently include any clause that connects tax arrears to applications for site or building projects or for certificates of occupancy. So far as I know, the issue hasn't come up in the past...so it was never considered.
We are now discussing adding such a clause, but want to proceed carefully to be sure that what we propose is legal...and does not produce any unintended consequences.
P-
Peter Scherer, Mayor
----------------------------------------
August 13, 2009
I am writing in response to the August 11th article in the Pleasantville Examiner regarding construction and variance applications for the Corey property at 119 Pierce Drive, Pleasantville.
The Past:
In April 2009 my husband and I received notice that Mr. and Mrs. Corey were requesting three variances.
A height variance because the present code for our district is thirty feet or 2 ½ stories, which ever is more restrictive.
A variance for a addition on west side of the property
A variance for a deck also on the west side of the property.
The reasons presented by Architect Frank Tancredi, for requesting the height variance were:
the proposed cost of up to $140,000 to make the necessary grade changes and construct retaining walls to change the present basement to a cellar. The reason for doing this is that a basement counts as a story, a cellar does not.
flooding concerns
aesthetic concerns, that the house which is on a hill, would appear to be on a pedestal.
There were discussions held with neighbors regarding planting trees to make the building less obtrusive but ultimately these discussions were unsuccessful.
At the May 28, 2009 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting an informal vote was taken and the height variance was denied . On July 20, 2009 I learned that the Corey’s have opted to change the grade and place retaining walls on their property.
There are three issues that need to be addressed.
1#1 Issue Height Variance
Mr. Testa , the Building Inspector has ruled that by changing the grade through bringing in dirt and building retaining walls, the Corey’s can change their basement to a cellar. As noted previously, a basement counts as a story, a cellar does not. It is my position that this ruling circumvents the zoning laws and that the next step in appealing this decision is to file an Article 78 with the Westchester County Court.
#2 Issue Failure to pay property taxes
Mr. and Mrs. Corey purchased their home in September 2005. As of July 30, 2009 they owed $11,000 in property taxes to the Village of Pleasantville. I contacted the Town of Mount Pleasant on July 28, 2009 and inquired about liens on 119 Pierce Drive. I was told that school taxes totaling approximately $11,000 were owed.
The Village Board and the Zoning Board of Appeals are aware of this situation. Presently, there is no law that prevents a property owner from applying for a variance, building permit and Certificate of Occupancy if they are delinquent in the payment of their property taxes.
Property owners who choose not to pay their taxes do so at the expense of their neighbors. Furthermore, I believe that it is fiscally irresponsible to allow persons who have not paid their property taxes to apply for building permits and variances to build additions. The proposed construction will result in an increased assessment for the Corey property. How can the village expect them to pay these increased taxes when they are delinquent in paying taxes from previous years?
#3 The future
It is my concern that, if this construction project proceeds as planned, my neighborhood will have a very large home on a flag lot with a very large tax bill. In the present real estate market such a property would be difficult, if impossible to sell.
Ultimately, properties with unpaid taxes are placed in foreclosure. In my opinion, a large, empty, unkempt house on Pierce Drive would not be an attractive addition to my neighborhood.
Kathleen C. Russo
54 Dogwood Lane
Pleasantville, New York 10570
Showing posts with label 119 Pierce Drive. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 119 Pierce Drive. Show all posts
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Monday, July 27, 2009
Resident Post Request - Concern over Proposed Construction at 119 Pierce Drive
[As received by Kathleen C Russo. Text change for "Sir" to "All". I am not familiar with the details around this issue, but I would agree it seems a bit suspect that simply by changing the surrounding grade, a home owner could get around a height variance issue. We should have rules in place that prevent this from happening or the Zoning Board of Appeals should clarify what was done. Kathleen Russo urges all PICHONDO neighbors to attend the 7/30/09 Village Hall meeting to learn more about this "grade modification". FYI: PICHONDO stands for Pierce Drive, Dogwood Lane, Onderdonk and Charlmont Drives. -Ben]
Dear All:
I am writing in reference to proposed construction and variance application for the Corey residence at 119 Pierce Drive. An application for three variances, including a height / story variance was filed earlier this year. This property is a flag lot and my property borders on to it. Several neighbors, including myself, oppose the proposed construction since this would make this house overwhelming in size and out of character with the neighborhood. Due to neighborhood opposition, this part of the variance was withdrawn. As per the 7-30-09 Zoning Board of Appeals Agenda: " Applicant has eliminated the need for a story height waiver by modifying the surrounding grade with on site retaining walls.
It is my understanding that this "grade modification" process involves bringing in and or moving around large amounts of dirt to raise the grade so that the 1st story of this high ranch will now be considered " below ground" and therefore is not considered a floor or building story.
Nothing in the plan design has changed . I will still have a building that will be three stories high and a great deal larger in my back yard. It is my opinion that the whole purpose of this grade change is to circumvent existing zoning laws. Why is this allowed to happen? The zoning law is clear that the building height should be no more than two and one half stories.
The property at 119 Pierce Drive is already at a higher elevation than many of its neighbors. I have been paying taxes to the Village of Pleasantville for thirty one years. As a village taxpayer, I want to know who will be responsible if flooding results as the result of this " grade modification" What recourse will residents have if the retaining wall fails and their is a mudslide onto their properties? Since the Village has approved this " grade modification " is it liable for damages?
Most of all, I want to know why applicants are allowed to circumvent existing zoning regulations when members of the community have already expressed their opposition to this plan.
Kathleen Russo,
Nicholas Russo
54 Dogwood Lane
Pleasantville, New York 10570
Dear All:
I am writing in reference to proposed construction and variance application for the Corey residence at 119 Pierce Drive. An application for three variances, including a height / story variance was filed earlier this year. This property is a flag lot and my property borders on to it. Several neighbors, including myself, oppose the proposed construction since this would make this house overwhelming in size and out of character with the neighborhood. Due to neighborhood opposition, this part of the variance was withdrawn. As per the 7-30-09 Zoning Board of Appeals Agenda: " Applicant has eliminated the need for a story height waiver by modifying the surrounding grade with on site retaining walls.
It is my understanding that this "grade modification" process involves bringing in and or moving around large amounts of dirt to raise the grade so that the 1st story of this high ranch will now be considered " below ground" and therefore is not considered a floor or building story.
Nothing in the plan design has changed . I will still have a building that will be three stories high and a great deal larger in my back yard. It is my opinion that the whole purpose of this grade change is to circumvent existing zoning laws. Why is this allowed to happen? The zoning law is clear that the building height should be no more than two and one half stories.
The property at 119 Pierce Drive is already at a higher elevation than many of its neighbors. I have been paying taxes to the Village of Pleasantville for thirty one years. As a village taxpayer, I want to know who will be responsible if flooding results as the result of this " grade modification" What recourse will residents have if the retaining wall fails and their is a mudslide onto their properties? Since the Village has approved this " grade modification " is it liable for damages?
Most of all, I want to know why applicants are allowed to circumvent existing zoning regulations when members of the community have already expressed their opposition to this plan.
Kathleen Russo,
Nicholas Russo
54 Dogwood Lane
Pleasantville, New York 10570
Zoning Board of Appeals Agenda 7/30/09
(As received by Village announcement. Made spelling corrections. -Ben)
Zoning Board of Appeals
Thursday July 30, 2009
8:15 P.M.
Village Hall
80 Wheeler Avenue
Pleasantville, New York
AGENDA
Case No. 2009-04– Mr. and Mrs. James Corey, 119 Pierce Drive, Pleasantville, New York- Proposal to construct new additions and associated improvements on-site in violation of section 185-36.B.(1) schedule I “bulk requirements”, regarding insufficient side yard setbacks - letter dated July 6, 2009 from Frank Tancredi, Architect – Letters from neighbors and associated drawing by Frank Tancredi, Architect (enclosed) NOTE: APPLICANT HAS ELIMINATED THE NEED FOR A STORY HEIGHT WAIVER BY MODIFYING THE SURROUNDING GRADE WITH ON-SITE RETAINING WALLS - Continued Public Hearing
Case No. 2009-09 – DP17, LLC – 141 Tompkins Avenue, Pleasantville, New York – Proposal to convert a previously approved warehouse space on the third floor to office space in violation of section(s)----------------- 185-36.B.(7) Schedule VII “Off Street Parking and Loading Requirements”, and Section 185-40 “Pre-existing Structures and Uses” regarding insufficient parking on-site
Zoning Board of Appeals
Thursday July 30, 2009
8:15 P.M.
Village Hall
80 Wheeler Avenue
Pleasantville, New York
AGENDA
Case No. 2009-04– Mr. and Mrs. James Corey, 119 Pierce Drive, Pleasantville, New York- Proposal to construct new additions and associated improvements on-site in violation of section 185-36.B.(1) schedule I “bulk requirements”, regarding insufficient side yard setbacks - letter dated July 6, 2009 from Frank Tancredi, Architect – Letters from neighbors and associated drawing by Frank Tancredi, Architect (enclosed) NOTE: APPLICANT HAS ELIMINATED THE NEED FOR A STORY HEIGHT WAIVER BY MODIFYING THE SURROUNDING GRADE WITH ON-SITE RETAINING WALLS - Continued Public Hearing
Case No. 2009-09 – DP17, LLC – 141 Tompkins Avenue, Pleasantville, New York – Proposal to convert a previously approved warehouse space on the third floor to office space in violation of section(s)----------------- 185-36.B.(7) Schedule VII “Off Street Parking and Loading Requirements”, and Section 185-40 “Pre-existing Structures and Uses” regarding insufficient parking on-site
Monday, June 1, 2009
Zoning Board of Appeals Agenda 5/28/09
[As received by Village administrator. -Ben]
Zoning Board of Appeals
Thursday May, 28 2009
8:15 P.M.
Village Hall
80 Wheeler Avenue
Pleasantville, New York
AGENDA
Case No. 2009-04– Mr. and Mrs. James Corey, 119 Pierce Drive, Pleasantville, New York- Proposal to construct new additions and associated improvements on-site in violation of section 185-36.B.(1) schedule I “bulk requirements” regarding insufficient side yard setbacks and excessive building story height-
Case No. 2009-06 – Kass Reality Company - 21 Paulding Street, Pleasantville, New York – Proposal to legalize the current use of the second floor office areas and associated improvements at 21 Paulding Street, Pleasantville NY done without obtaining Building permits and associated approvals on-site in violation of section(s) 185-36.B.(7) Schedule VII “Off Street parking and loading requirements” of the Zoning Ordinance regarding insufficient parking being provided on-site
Zoning Board of Appeals
Thursday May, 28 2009
8:15 P.M.
Village Hall
80 Wheeler Avenue
Pleasantville, New York
AGENDA
Case No. 2009-04– Mr. and Mrs. James Corey, 119 Pierce Drive, Pleasantville, New York- Proposal to construct new additions and associated improvements on-site in violation of section 185-36.B.(1) schedule I “bulk requirements” regarding insufficient side yard setbacks and excessive building story height-
Case No. 2009-06 – Kass Reality Company - 21 Paulding Street, Pleasantville, New York – Proposal to legalize the current use of the second floor office areas and associated improvements at 21 Paulding Street, Pleasantville NY done without obtaining Building permits and associated approvals on-site in violation of section(s) 185-36.B.(7) Schedule VII “Off Street parking and loading requirements” of the Zoning Ordinance regarding insufficient parking being provided on-site
Monday, April 27, 2009
Zoning Board of Appeals Amended Agenda 04/30/09
[As received from Village announcements. -Ben]
Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting
Thursday April 30, 2009
8:00 P.M.
Village Hall
80 Wheeler Avenue - 2nd floor
Pleasantville, New York.
AMENDED AGENDA
Case No. 2009-04– Mr. and Mrs. James Corey, 119 Pierce Drive, Pleasantville, New York- Proposal to construct new additions and associated improvements on-site in violation of section 185-36.B.(1) schedule I “bulk requirements”, regarding insufficient side yard setbacks and excessive building story height
*Case No. 2009-05 - Ms. Susan Manley - 45 Iroquois Road, Pleasantville, New York – Proposal to re-construct deteriorated retaining walls on-site in violation of section 185-36.B.(1) schedule I “bulk requirements” and 185-46.C.(2) “exceptions” regarding insufficient side yard setbacks and expansion of a pre-existing non-complying structure
Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting
Thursday April 30, 2009
8:00 P.M.
Village Hall
80 Wheeler Avenue - 2nd floor
Pleasantville, New York.
AMENDED AGENDA
Case No. 2009-04– Mr. and Mrs. James Corey, 119 Pierce Drive, Pleasantville, New York- Proposal to construct new additions and associated improvements on-site in violation of section 185-36.B.(1) schedule I “bulk requirements”, regarding insufficient side yard setbacks and excessive building story height
*Case No. 2009-05 - Ms. Susan Manley - 45 Iroquois Road, Pleasantville, New York – Proposal to re-construct deteriorated retaining walls on-site in violation of section 185-36.B.(1) schedule I “bulk requirements” and 185-46.C.(2) “exceptions” regarding insufficient side yard setbacks and expansion of a pre-existing non-complying structure
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
