Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Use Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Owner of 67 Dobbs Ferry seeks multifamily recognition; board presses on parking, sprinklers and documentation
Summary
Applicant for 67 Dobbs Ferry Road presented financial records, occupancy certificates and a fire-department inspection to support a use variance to legalize multifamily units; board members questioned parking layout, state sprinkler requirements for a three-family conversion and requested supporting records and clearer parking dimensions.
At a public hearing, Aidan Ruane presented evidence and financial statements to support a use-variance request for 67 Dobbs Ferry Road, where he seeks recognition of multifamily use for the property.
Ruane told the Zoning Board he supplied tax returns, an accountant's expense-income breakdown and certificates of occupancy for nearby multi-family houses to show the proposal would not be out of character for the block. He also submitted a fire-department inspection and said he hoped to pursue a state-level variance to avoid installing sprinklers if the state would permit it; Zoning and building staff noted that the town's building department will not support a state variance that omits sprinklers on the third floor.
Board members pressed on parking and design feasibility. The applicant's submitted plan showed six parking spaces on a constrained lot; the board's technical reviewer and members noted minimum required parking-space dimensions (9 by 20 feet under local code) and questioned whether five stacked spaces would be operable and whether two additional spaces could be located elsewhere on the parcel. Discussion ranged from curb-cut limits on the state road to impervious-surface calculations, and several members said that additional site measurements or a revised parking layout would likely be necessary.
Members discussed an alternative outcome: granting recognition of two units (a duplex) if the applicant accepts that option; that outcome would reduce parking and building-safety requirements (for example, sprinklers for a full three-unit conversion). The board did not close the hearing and directed the applicant to supply clearer parking measurements and any further documentation the building department needs; the case was adjourned to the ZBA's June 12 meeting for additional materials and possible reconfiguration of the application.
The board emphasized that a final decision will depend on verified documentation of lot dimensions, exact parking geometry and confirmation from building and fire officials whether a third-unit conversion can be supported without sprinklers.
