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 November 13, 2002
VILLAGE OF CROTON-ON-HUDSON, NEW YORK
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 13, 2002

MEMBERS PRESENT:  Donald Sapir, Chairman
                                        Rhoda Stephens
                                        Ruth Waitkins
                                        Paul Rolnick
                                        Witt Barlow

ABSENT:                         Joseph Sperber, Code Enforcement Officer


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

Donald Sapir, Chairman, announced the location of fire exists to all in attendance of the meeting.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

10/16/02 - Rolnick - Made Motion to accept the minutes as corrected
               Stephens - Second the Motion
               Vote:  4-1  Rolnick, Stephens, Sapir, Barlow
                                 Waitkins - Abstained


HEARINGS:     

Jose and Dawn Martinez, 140 Hastings Avenue.  Section 79.09 Block 10 Lot 48.  Located in a RA-5 District.  Request for a lot area, lot width, side yard and total side yard variance with respect to a proposed second story addition to a one-family dwelling.
                  
Sam Viera, Architect, and Jose and Dawn Martinez, were present for the hearing.

Viera - We come before you to request four variances.  The proposed project is to take the existing second story that is occupied is a gable roof and lift the exterior walls and put a gable roof on top of that.  The proposed height measurements will meet the requirements.  

Sapir -  Who presently resides there?

Viera - Mr. & Mrs. Martinez and they will be having a new addition to their family that is what precipitated the additional need for the space.


                                                                        Page - 2 -
                                                                        ZBA Minutes                     
                                                                                                           11/13/02


Stephens - How old is the house?

Mrs. Martinez - It was built 1951

Waitkins - How long have you owned the house?

Mrs. Martinez - Two years.

Sapir -  How many bedrooms do you have?

Mrs. Martinez -  Three bedrooms, two full baths, living room, dining room, kitchen.

Sapir -  Is it an eat-in kitchen?

Mrs. Martinez - No.

Viera - Only two of the bedrooms have reasonable ceiling heights.  One bedroom is tucked into the eaves.

Pictures were presented to the Board for their review and to be made part of the record.

Discussion followed over pictures.

Rolnick -  The house was built approximately 1950.  Has the house or lot changed in any way since then?

Mrs. Martinez - I assume there has been no change.

Stephens -  In terms of getting the title, when purchasing, did you have any problems?

Viera - The title companies generally look for open building permits, etc., we have never seen title not being given because of insufficient setbacks.

The board stated that the title companies, when conducting a search, also look for insufficient setbacks.

Rolnick -  I think you fall under "Existing Small Lots" that would eliminate your need for a variance.  

                                                                        Page - 3-
                                                                                                           ZBA Minutes
                                                                        11/13/02


The chairman stated that the Board was not in receipt of enough evidence that the lot was owned individually and separately since l962, in order to comply with the requirements for an "Existing Small Lot".  The applicant stated the house was in existence since "approximately 1950's.

Viera - The house next door has a steeper roof.  I tried to make it architecturally pleasing.

Discussion followed over plans.

Rolnick - Has the neighbor to the right of your property made any comments to you with respect to the proposed construction?

Mrs. Martinez - The people we purchased from live across the street from us.  They had no comments.

Discussion followed over plans and the height of the house.

Sapir - Facing the house on the right side, where the improvements will be, will the proposed windows be looking into the windows of the next-door neighbor?

Mrs. Martinez - I do not know if it is an actual floor or an attic that the proposed windows will be facing.

Discussion followed over plans.

Rolnick -Have the neighbors that will be most affected by your proposal seen the plans?

Mrs. Martinez - No, but we spoke to them about our plans and explained that it will be similar to the house down the street that was just built.

Sapir -  What would the hardship be if the variance is denied.

Mrs. Martinez - We are hoping to be able to maximize the space upstairs for when we have another child.

Sapir - What are your plans for the use of the house?

Mrs. Martinez - One side of the house is so slanted that we can't even use the closets.  This is on the second story.  We do not get to utilize the whole second floor.


                                                                    Page - 4-
                                                                ZBA Minutes
                                                                                               11/13/02

                                        
       
Sapir -  What rooms do you have downstairs?

Martinez - Living-room, dining room, kitchen, bedroom. Upstairs we have two bedrooms, but one is not very usable.

Viera- The second bedroom is not even Code compliant, as far as ceiling height, etc.

Martinez -  The ceilings are so low we can't even have ceiling fans.  The other room is used as a catch-all room.

Sapir - Have you considered adding on from the first floor level?

Viera - For economic reasons, it is more economical to build up.  Most of the variances are existing non-conformities and we would still need to come for variances.  Also, it would cover more square footage of the lot area that would also be affected and would take away the use of the land.  This proposal we submitted to you has the least amount of impact.  The drawing that best represents this is the front elevation.  

Sapir - What would the cost be to add out as opposed to adding upward.  Include removing the deck and installing it again.


Viera - The need is for bedroom space and it makes no sense having the children on one floor and the parents on another.  If I had to put a number on it would be $100.00 per sq. foot as opposed to $50.00 or $60.00 for this one.

Waitkins - Do you have a full basement?

Martinez - Yes.

Waitkins - Does it have a full bath, etc.?

Viera -No, just utilities and a single car garage.  It is a very compact house.  There is not a lot of room area.

Sapir - Do many of the houses on that street already have second stories?

Viera - Yes, it is a mixture of architecture and there are homes that are large compared to this scale.  Many have an average distance of ten or fifteen feet.

                                                                        Page -5-
                                                                        ZBA Minutes
                                                                        11/13/02


Sapir - The side of the proposed addition that will be facing your neighbor, is that the south side elevation?

Viera -Correct.

Sapir - My concern is there are three windows.  Is there any way you can complete this by eliminating the windows or making them smaller to minimize the impact on the neighbors?

Viera - I have always been a proponent of cross ventilation.  As far as the size, the Building Code requires we have a minimum amount of light and ventilation.  If that is going to be a condition of yours, than I would have to explore ways to meet your requirement as well as meeting the requirement of the State.


Sapir - Do the Board Members want to give the applicant time to consult with their neighbors to see if they have any objections?

Stephens - If you eliminated those windows, there would only be one small window on the other side for that room, that is not much light at all.

Mrs. Martinez - We asked our neighbors if they wanted to come.

Viera - If making the windows small is a condition, my question is how small is good enough, and how do I meet the minimum requirement for State Code with respect to light?

Sapir - Is this something you want to do immediately or in the spring?


Rolnick - I agree that we should wait to vote, in order to give the applicant time to consult with their neighbors; there is an enormous impact.

Stephens - I feel that the neighbors have already been notified, and if they were concerned and wanted to know more, they should have been here.  I am ready to vote.

Viera - I feel it is unfair for a tenant to have a say.

Rolnick - Are the southern neighbor's renters or owners?

Viera - Owners
                                                                        Page - 6 -
                                                                        ZBA Minutes
                                                                        11/13/02


Sapir - Did they understand that the house would be right next to their house and the windows would be on that side?

Mrs. Martinez - They understand what we are doing.

Sapir -  Are they an older couple or do they have children?

Mrs. Martinez - They were happy for us.

Sapir - Any member of the public like to be heard?

There was no reply.



Hearing Closed.


Stephens - Made Motion to Grant the Application as requested and according to plans submitted.  The applicant is further granted the option of eliminating or decreasing the number of windows on the south side of the house, or to add windows to the side where the chimney is located, instead of placing them on the south side.

Rolnick - Second the Motion

Vote:   5-0 - In Favor -  Stephens, Rolnick, Sapir, Waitkins, Barlow



Raymond D'Alvia, Agent for General Splice Corp., Niles Road & Route 129, Section 68.14 Block 5 Lot 4.  Located in a RA-25 District.  Request for an amendment of condition #5 of a previous ZBA Resolution granted on 7/10/02.  Condition #5 pertains to the number of employees allowed. (Adj. on 10/9/02)


The applicant Ralph Milano and his agent Raymond D'Alvia, were not present.

The Chairman proceeded with the hearing that was adjourned on October 9, 2002.  

Sapir - I spoke to Ralph Milano/General Splice Corp.  He stated that he would never have more than eight (8) employees. Three office employees and five for the assembly
                                                                Page -7-
                                                                ZBA Minutes
                                                                11/13/02




line. At the time of my site visit there were three people working on assembly and one person (Ralph Milano, Owner), in the office.  It is my concern that this business will eventually be sold.  I am concerned about giving a variance unless it can be specifically for as long as he conducts this business.  The old Resolution was specifically for this business.

Barlow -  I also went for a site visit and he also stated to me that the business will be conducted as it is now and they do not need fourteen (14) employees.

Waitkins -  If they sell, it may go back to residential.

Sapir -  I would say it is more than twenty four thousand square feet.

Rolnick -  With the last Resolution, we granted a variance for five years from the time the first Resolution expired and we put a limit on the number of employees.

Waitkins - Will the employees be temporary employees and only be there when needed? What will they do when they find they need extra people?

Sapir -  Mr. Milano told me there were his wife, himself, and one other employee and five other employees.  That equals eight employees all together.  I suggest we limit it to eight employees and I am not inclined to extend the time limit.

Sapir -  Are there any members of the public that would like to be heard?


There was no reply.


Hearing Closed.









                                                                Page -8 -
                                                                ZBA Minutes
                                                                11/13/02



Decision:  D'Alvia/General Splice
                68.14-5-4


Sapir -  Made Motion to both, Deny the applicants requests, and to Grant as follows with conditions:

1.       To Deny  the Applicant's request to amend Condition #5 of ZBA  
       Resolution Dated 7/10/02.  The applicant requested that an "unlimited" number
       of employees be allowed.  Request Denied.

The Board further agreed to Grant an Amendment of Condition #5 to read as  
 follows:

            No more than eight (8)employees on the premises.

2.       To Deny the applicant's request that the Special Use Permit be extended for a
        period of ten (10) years.   Request Denied.  

 3.    The Special Use Permit will expire on December 31, 2004 as stated in the ZBA
         Resolution dated, 7/10/02 and the Special Use Permit is limited to the
        "business" and not the "owner".

 4.    All other provisions mentioned in the Resolution dated 7/10/02, shall still apply.


Stephens - Second the Motion

Vote:  4-1 - In Favor  -  Sapir, Stephens, Rolnick Barlow
                  Abstained - Waitkins



Respectfully submitted,


Janice Fuentes
ZBA Secretary
11/13/02

                                RESOLUTION


Jose' and Dawn Martinez,  has applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, requesting a lot area, lot width, side yard and total side yard variance with respect to a proposed second story addition to a one-family dwelling.

The property, at 140 Hastings Avenue, is located in a RA-5 District and is designated on the Tax Maps of the Village as Section 79.09 Block 10 Lot 48.

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 variance request is significant, but there is a hardship and it will not be out of character with the rest of the neighborhood.

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


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

Stephens - Made Motion to grant the application as requested and according to plans submitted, and with the following condition:

1.      It will be the option of the applicant to eliminate or decrease the number and size of windows proposed on the South side of the house and/or add windows to the side where the chimney is located.

Rolnick - Second the Motion

Vote:  5-0   In Favor -   Stephens, Rolnick, Sapir, Waitkins, Barlow


11/13/02

                 
                                         

                                RESOLUTION


Raymond D'Alvia/General Splice, has applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, request for an Amendment of Condition #5 of a previous ZBA Resolution granted on 7/10/02.  Condition #5 pertains to the number of employees allowed.

The property, at Niles Road & Route 129, is located in a RA-25 District and is designated on the Tax Maps of the Village as Section 68.14 Block 5 Lot 4.

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


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

Sapir - Made Motion to both, deny the applicant's requests and to Grant as follows with conditions:

1.      To Deny  the applicants request to Amend Condition #5 of ZBA
              Resolution, dated 7/10/02.  The applicant requested that an "unlimited"
              number of employees be allowed.  Request Denied.
        
                        The Board further agreed to Grant an Amendment of Condition #5 to
                         read as follows:
        
                         "No more than eight (8) employees on the premises.
        
2.      To Deny the applicant's request that the Special Use Permit be
              extended for a period of ten (10) years.  Request Denied.
        
3.      The "Special Use Permit" will expire on December 31, 2004, as stated in
             the ZBA Resolution dated, 7/10/02 and the Special Use Permit is limited  
             to the "Business" and not the "owner".
        
4.      All other provisions mentioned in the Resolution dated 7/10/02, shall still
      apply.


Stephens - Second the Motion
Vote - 4-1 In Favor - Sapir, Stephens, Rolnick, Barlow
                               Abstained - Waitkins

11/13/02