Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
  • Citizen Action Center
  • Online Payments
  • Online Forms
  • Subscribe to News
  • Send Us Comments
  • Contacts Directory
  • Projects & Initiatives
  • Community Links
  • Village Code
 
 
ZBA March 13, 2002
VILLAGE OF CROTON-ON-HUDSON, NEW YORK
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 13, 2002  


MEMBERS PRESENT:        
                                             Rhoda Stephens, Acting Chairman
                                             Ruth Waitkins
                                             Paul Rolnick
                                             Tom Szoboszlai

MEMBERS ABSENT:        Don Sapir, Chairman


ALSO PRESENT:               Joseph Sperber, Code Enforcement Officer



The meeting came to order at 8:00 P.M.


The Acting Chairman of the Board announced the location of fire exists to all in attendance of the meeting.



HEARINGS:

Christina Ranjan, Warren Road.  Section 67.10 Block 1 Lot 14.01.  Located in a RA-40 District.  Request for a total side yard variance with respect to the construction of a new one-family dwelling.  (Adj. on 3/13/02)


The Board stated that they were in receipt of a letter from Norman Sheer, Attorney for the Ranjan's, requesting an adjournment.




                                                                Page -2-
                                                                ZBA Minutes
                                                                3/13/02

Mrs. Corry and Mr. Lieberman, Warren Road, neighbors who object to the application, expressed their objections to the Board granting a second request for adjournment.  They felt that the applicant had a sufficient amount of time to provide the Board with the plans and information that was requested by the Board at the January 9, 2002 meeting.   Mrs. Corry and Mr. Leiberman, stated that they felt two months was a sufficient amount of time to provide the necessary material to the Board.

Lieberman - Stated that he felt it was disrespectful to other people interested in the hearing and some of whom come from as far as Connecticut and to be noticed the last minute (one day prior to the meeting) of their request for an adjournment.  This is inconsiderate of the applicant.  

Corry -  What is the reason for the applicant's request for an adjournment?

Szoboszlai -  When were you notified?

Corry - Yesterday.

Szoboszlai -  Are the people from Connecticut here today?

Lieberman - No

Corry -  How many times can they request to adjourn.?   The amount of time they gave us is not respectable or responsible.

Stephens -  This is their second request for an adjournment.

Waitkins - Were you notified in advance the last time they requested to adjourn?

Corry - We were noticed one day before the meeting and both times they never  mentioned why they were requesting an adjournment.

Discussion followed with the Board Members as to the proper procedure with respect to adjournment requests.

The ZBA Secretary stated that she had received a call from Norman Sheer, Attorney for Mr. Ranjan, requesting the adjournment on 3/12/02, stating he was waiting for his client to obtain additional information.

Corry -  I would also like to say that the Board  ordered balloons to be flown by professionals to determine the height of the proposed construction and detriment to


                                                                                Page -3-
                                                                                ZBA Minutes
                                                                                3/13/02

nearby properties.  This was not done by professionals,   They were not staked in the proper places.  I would like the
                                                                        
applicant to be notified of this so they can have it done properly and prior to the next meeting.

Leiberman -  This was requested  for something that is critical.  It has to do with proposed plans, height, and changes they are making to the original site plans.   

Stephens -  This should not be discussed, if we are going to grant the applicant's request for adjournment.


The Board agreed to grant the applicant's request for adjournment and requested Joseph Sperber, Code Enforcement Officer, to contact the Village Attorney, Seymour Waldman, to see if there is a State Code, etc., that limits the amount of adjournments requested and to see if the ZBA has the right to impose restrictions on the applicant with respect to adjournments.

Hearing adjourned until April 10, 2002.


Catherine Reidel, 11 Lounsbury Road, Section 67.20 Block 1 Lot 22.  Located in a RA-9 District.  Request for a rear yard variance with respect to a proposed second story addition.
 
Reidel -  The initial application had a concern of privacy mentioned by Mr. Bill Morrison and the Board granted an adjournment to give us time to discuss options.  We have discussed the issue and I am here to concur what we discussed.  The southwest side of my property abuts Mr. Morrison's property and his concern was that the proposed construction would overlook his pool and back yard.  It will not obscure his total privacy.  There will also be shrubs and some kind of fence that will be maintained.  The existing hedge is on my property.  The southwest corner of the property is approximately 8 ? ft. at the highest point and then lowers to approximately 7 ft.

Stephens -  Are you requesting a seven foot variance?

Reidel - Yes .  The northwest property is where the house sits on the property line.   There will be a two foot cantilevered roof.   

Stephens - Anyone else like to be heard?



                                                                Page -4-
                                                                ZBA Minutes
                                                                3/13/02


Morrison -  6 Mt. Green Road, (After a private discussion with Mr. Reidel).   We have a little misunderstanding.   The screening will be a dense screening at a height of twelve ft.    We cannot use the patio or pool and have privacy.  That is basically the only issue I have with that. If the shrubs could be green all year round that would be wonderful.

Reidel - On his clarification we are both clear that we do not want a solid fence, so when he says shrubbery that would be ok.  

Rolnick -  A 12 ft. height screening of dense evergreen is your agreement?

Reidel - Yes and we would add plants to that to help.  But, I do not believe he is expecting that tomorrow.

Morrison - I do not expect that.

Morrison -  If he plants hedges that will grow, such as something that is 8' 6" high then they can grow to a height of 12 ft.


Rolnick - The question is, if Mr. Reidel can live with the open ended conditions.   It will have to be twelve feet one way or the other.   If we came up with an amount of time this would need to be done by, he will need to comply.


Reidel -  In the early summer the existing hedge will come up.  We  are talking approximately 10 ft. in height.   Is this a variety that will grow to 12 ft.?  I do not know with respect to the existing plantings.  If we came up a condition that after a period of time the screening would have to be twelve ft. high one way or the other would that be OK with both of you?  I am sorry I did not understand our conversation earlier.  Ten feet would be easy, but 12 ft. I am not sure.  I do not have the information I need to gage this.


Szoboszlai - I am also concerned if it grows to 11' 6 " will there be a problem and what if the existing hedge only grows to 10 ft?


Morrison - If it only grows to l0 ft. and the view is not as private as I want it to be I would like to see something taller.  Twelve feet would screen the view.

                                                                        Page -5-
                                                                        ZBA Minutes
                                                                        3/13/02




Stephens  - We cannot do that.  You can purchase two of the exact same tree and each one will not grow at the same rate.

Reidel -  From the top of the window that faces his property to the base of his property that should be the hedge requirement.  Maybe that is the wording we should use.  From the top of the second floor window to the base of Mr. Morrisons patio.

The Board agreed on the wording.


Sperber -  I would also like to point out that the Code would not allow him to have a fence that tall without a variance.

Morrison -  A fence would feel like a wall.

Reidel -  (To Mr. Sperber, Code Enforcement Officer)  When you make a field visit you will see if it provides the privacy .

Szoboszlai - What we are about to do is create a sentence (condition) that says the height has to be a certain height.

Rolnick -  Mr. Sperber is not going to go up to the second floor and look through the window.  That is not the kind of enforcement that will take place.

Rolnick - Does the property slope from the north to the south looking from your backyard to his?

Reidel - Yes.    So there will be less screening on the right than on the left.   The left gets more screening.


Reidel -  With respect to the variance request changing the character of the neighborhood, there are other two story houses that I have marked on a copy of the tax map of the area (copy submitted to the board).





                                                                        Page - 6-
                                                                        ZBA Minutes
                                                                        3/13/02


Hearing closed.


Rolnick - Made Motion to Grant a rear yard variance of up to seven feet and with the following conditions:

1.      Construction must be according to plans submitted.

2.      The hedge currently there be allowed to grow to a level height adequate to screen the sight line from the top of the windows on the second floor to the base of the patio on the property abutting the south west of the rear yard (6 Mt. Green Road, Section 67.20 Block 1 Lot 23) and screening must be maintained.

3.      In the event that the screening proves to be inadequate to its purpose, it will be replanted and grown with adequate evergreen plantings and maintained.


Stephens - Second the Motion
Vote:    4-0 In Favor - Rolnick, Stephens, Waitkins Szoboszlai



Raymond Calore -  15 Whalen Avenue.  Section 79.13 Block 3 Lot 41.  Located in a RA-5 District.  Request for a side yard and total side yard variance with respect to an existing one-family dwelling and detached garage.


Calore -   I  don't have a copy of anything with me.   The original structure was built 1943 and does not meet the current or the l931 zoning ordinance that was in effect at the time it was constructed.    I am requesting a 2.55 ft. total side yard and .55 ft. side yard. one side yard.

Sperber -  The .55 ft. side yard variance requested is on the south side.  You take the smallest dimension at the rear of the house.   


Discussion followed over survey



                                                                Page -7-
                                                                ZBA Minutes
                                                                3/13/02


Rolnick - When did you purchase?

Calore - 1966

Rolnick - What improvements have you done?

Calore - The dormer and back porch.  We have a sale pending.  I had no idea I needed a variance until we had the title search.

Stephens -  You are not the original owner?

Rolnick -  They also need a variance for the garage?

Sperber - Yes.  The side yard needs .21 ft. and the side yard needs .49 ft.

Stephens - Any other questions?


Hearing closed.


Rolnick - Made Motion to grant a side yard variance on the northwest side of .55 ft. and a total side yard variance on the south east side of 2.55 ft. for the existing house and a southeast side yard variance of 2.1 ft. and a rear yard variance of .49 ft. with respect to the existing detached garage.

Waitkins - Second the Motion

Vote:   4-0  In Favor - Rolnick, Waitkins, Stephens, Szoboszlai



Gregg Dollinger, 29 Devon Avenue, Section 79.13 Block 3 Lot 78.  Request for a side yard and total side yard variance with respect to a proposed addition.


Dollinger - I have a letter from my neighbors stating they have no objection to my variance request.



                                                                Page -8-
                                                                ZBA Minutes
                                                                3/13/02


Rolnick -  Are these all abutting properties?

Dollinger - All but one and the house to our left the owner past away and they are now renovating.  The rest are across the street.  We purchased in l992.  We would  like to put an addition in the back and along the left  side  and back to backyard  The width is l8 ft.    There is a drawing on the survey that shows the proposed addition.

Stephens - How high will it be?

Dollinger - One story - a new kitchen.

Stephens -  The roof line will be in perspective with the original. It will be like a shed roof and it will be even with the first floor of the house.


Stephens - How large is the house now?

Dollinger - It is approximately 1,400 sq. ft.  We are adding another 200 sq. ft.

Szoboszlai -  What type of room?

Dollinger - Kitchen.

Waitkins - Is it a one floor house?

Dollinger - It is two stories with two bedrooms upstairs and one bedroom down.

Stephen - Is it going straight back and no further out than the seven ft.?

Dollinger - Yes.  It is flush with the house not at an angle. The plot is 50 ft. by 125 ft. (owner)

Szoboszlai- I am confused by the floor plan.  How does this fit with the rest of the drawings submitted and the survey?


Discussion followed over plans



Stephens - Any other questions?
                                                                        Page -9-
                                                                        ZBA Minutes
                                                                        3/13/02



Hulit Taylor - 1 Penfield Ave.  The side of our house opens up to Devon Ave. and I am in favor of the application.  

The Board also noted that Ms. Taylor also signed the petition that was submitted by the applicant this evening in favor of the application.

Stephens -  Any other questions?



Hearing closed



Rolnick -Made Motion to grant a 1.2 ft. variance on the northeast and a 1 ft. side yard on the southwest and a total side yard variance of 6.2ft..

Waitkins - Second the Motion.

Vote:  4-0 - In Favor - Rolnick, Waitkins, Stephens, Szoboszlai






Susan & Mark Smith - 60 Thompson Ave.  Section 79.09 Block 2 Lot 11.  Request for a side yard variance with respect to a proposed addition.


Mark Smith -   We are proposing a two story addition.  It is a l923 farmhouse style house.  We want to keep the architectural integrity.  The original plans  show we are going straight back towards the rear of the property.   We will be going back twelve feet and the first floor will be a kitchen and dining room and the second floor will be a master bedroom.  

Susan Smith -  It will not go beyond the original footprint.  The deed was recorded in l923, but we have no idea when it was actually built.  



                                                                        Page -10-
                                                                        ZBA Minutes
                                                                        3/13/02


Rolnick - You are building a patio area beyond the addition?

Yes -  That will be within the requirements.    The kitchen area is a couple of feet higher and the patio will go out directly from the living room area.

Stephens -  The roof line on the second floor what will the height be?.

Smith -It will be the same.   We are trying to keep the same architecture.


Rolnick -  Have your neighbors on the right expressed any opinion one way or the other?

Smith - Some are here.


Szoboszlai -  Requested an explanation of the plans.


Discussion followed over plans.



Rolnick - Is there a requirement about having lights on a patio?


Sperber - They can not have lights that will reflect beyond their property line.


Stephens - You are requesting 3.5 ft. for one side yard variance?


Smith - Yes.  


Stephens - Any other questions?


John Correnti -  I live next door at 58 Thompson Ave.  We have no objections to the application.  We are located on the side where the variance will be.   

                                                                        Page -11-
                                                                        ZBA Minutes
                                                                        3/13/02


John Giglio - 50 Emerson Ave.   -  I can see the house from mine.  The house is at least 75 years or older.  I have lived at 50 Emerson for 50 years.  Helen Daily lived there previously.   When the house was originally built there was no zoning regulations.  The applicant should not be stuck with something they had no control over.
.


Hearing closed.


Szoboszlai - Made Motion to grant a side yard variance of 3.5 ft. with respect to a proposed addition.

Rolnick - Second the Motion

Vote:  4-0 - In Favor - Szoboszlai, Rolnick, Waitkins, Stephens




  

Respectfully submitted,


Janice Fuentes
ZBA Secretary
3/13/02












                                

RESOLUTION


Raymond Calore, has applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, to request a side yard and total side yard variance with respect to an existing one-family dwelling and detached garage.

The property, at 15 Whalen Avenue, is located in a RA-5 District and is designated on the Tax Maps of the Village as Section 79.13 Block 3 Lot 41.

A public hearing having been held after due notice, this Board from the application and after viewing the premises and neighborhood concerned, finds:


There will be no undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties.

The proposed variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district.


The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by any other method.

The conditions have existed for 60 years


NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the application is hereby Granted as follows:

Rolnick - Made Motion to grant a side yard variance on the north west side of .55 ft. and a total side yard variance on south east side of 2.55 for the existing house and a south east side yard variance of 2.1 ft. and a rear yard variance of .49 ft. with respect to the existing detached garage.


Waitkins - Second the Motion

Vote:  4-0  - In Favor - Rolnick, Waitkins, Stephens, Szoboszlai -   
                   

3/13/02




                                RESOLUTION


Catherine Reidel, has applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, to request a rear yard variance with respect to a proposed second story addition.  

The property, at 11 Lounsbury Road, is located in a RA-9 District and is designated on the Tax Maps of the Village as Section 67.20 Block 1 Lot 22.

A public hearing having been held after due notice, this Board from the application and after viewing the premises and neighborhood concerned, finds:

There will be no undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties.

The proposed variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district.


The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by any other method.


NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the application is hereby Granted as follows:

Rolnick - Made Motion to grant a rear yard variance of up to seven ft. and with the following conditions.

1.      Construction must be according to plans submitted.
2.      The hedge currently there be allowed to grow to a level height adequate to screen the sight line from the top of the windows on the second floor to the base of the patio on the property abutting the south west of the rear yard (6 Mt. Green Road, Section 67.20 Block 1 Lot 23) and screening must be maintained.

3,   In the event that the screening proves to be inadequate to its purpose, it
      will be replanted and grown with adequate evergreen plantings and
      maintained.

Stephens - Second the Motion

Vote:   4-0  In Favor -   Rolnick, Stephens, Rolnick, Szoboszlai

3/13/02

                                RESOLUTION


Gregg Dollinger, has applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, to request a side yard and total side yard variance with respect to a proposed addition.

The property, at 29 Devon Avenue, is located in a RA-5 District and is designated on the Tax Maps of the Village as Section 79.13 Block 3 Lot 78.

A public hearing having been held after due notice, this Board from the application and after viewing the premises and neighborhood concerned, finds:


There will be no undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties.

The proposed variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district.


The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by any other method.


NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the application is hereby Granted as follows:

Rolnick - Made Motion to grant  a northeast side yard of 1.2 ft. and a southeast side yard variance of 1 ft. and a total side yard variance of 6.2 ft.

Waitkins - Second the Motion

Vote:  4-0  - In Favor - Rolnick, Waitkins, Stephens, Szoboszlai -   
                   

3/13/02










                                RESOLUTION


Susan & Mark Smith, has applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, to request a side yard variance with respect to a proposed addition.

The property, at 60 Thompson Avenue, is located in a RA-5 District and is designated on the Tax Maps of the Village as Section 79.09 Block 2 Lot 11.

A public hearing having been held after due notice, this Board from the application and after viewing the premises and neighborhood concerned, finds:


There will be no undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties.

The proposed variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district.


The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by any other method.


NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the application is hereby Granted as follows:

Szoboszlai - Made Motion to grant a side yard variance of 3.5 ft. with respect to a proposed addition.

Rolnick - Second the Motion

Vote:  4-0  - In Favor - Szoboszlai, Rolnick, Waitkins, Stephens                   

3/13/02