Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
Welcome to the website for the Village of Croton on Hudson, New York

Contact Us
Subscribe to News
Spacer
On Our Site

Click to Search
Village Seal

Village of Croton-on-Hudson
1 Van Wyck Street
Croton-on-Hudson, NY 10520

Phone: 914-271-4781
Fax: 914-271-2836


Hours: Mon. - Fri., 8:30 am - 4 pm
 
ZBA October 8, 2003
VILLAGE OF CROTON-ON-HUDSON, NEW YORK ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 8, 2003



Members Present:   Rhoda Stephens, Acting Chairman
                                Ruth Waitkins
                                Witt Barlow
                                 Paul  Rolnick

Members Absent:    Donald Sapir, Chairman       



Meeting came to order at 8:00 P.M.


Announcement of location of fire exists.


HEARINGS:

Cabrera – 14 Melrose Ave.  Section 67.20 Block 2 Lot 35.  Located in a RA-5 District.  Request for a front yard variance with respect to a proposed unenclosed porch.

Cabrera – Just to recapture the last meeting; I was before the Board last month.  I am interested in constructing a non-enclosed porch that will be 28 ft. wide and 8 ft. deep. I will need a front yard variance.  At the last meeting the Board requested elevation plans, which I am submitting this evening.  I have also submitted pictures of the house that show the existing porch and elevation plans that show the proposed porch.  

Stephens – The roof over the porch, what will the height be?

Cabrera - 10 ft. 4 in from the porch to the windows on the second floor.

Watikins – From the roof or from the base of the porch?

        



                                                                        Page –2-
                                                                        ZBA Minutes
                                                                        10/8/03



Cabrera - From the base of the porch to the roof.  It will not be closed in, it will be totally open.

Waitkins – How much frontage will you have left if you build the porch to these dimensions?

Cabrera – 12 ft. one inch from the end of the porch to the end of the sidewalk as opposed to 15 ft. that is required.

Rolnick – What would your hardship be if a variance is not granted?   

Cabrera - I would probably keep the depth the same as the existing stoop is now.  But, if I had to construct it according to the size it is now I would not construct it.  We want to be able to sit on the porch and watch the kids play and watch the kids get on the school bus and enjoy watching them ride their bikes.

Stephens - I see you have lattice in your elevation plans are you planning on storing anything under there?
        
Cabrera - No the lattice is strictly esthetic.

Stephens – Do you understand that “no storage” could be a condition to the variance, if granted? no

Cabrera – Yes.  You can also put a stipulation that the porch will never be enclosed.  I have no intention of enclosing it.

Sperber - Variances go with the house.  Someone else in the future may decide to enclose it.

Barlow – Would you have any objections if we stipulated in the Resolution that the porch is not to be enclosed?

Cabrera – No.

Rolnick - Have you spoken to your neighbors about your application?

Cabrera Yes.  

                                                                Page –3-
                                                                ZBA Minutes
                                                                10/8/03



Stephens – Anyone here to speak for or against this application?

There was no reply.


Hearing closed.



Rolnick – Made Motion to grant the application as submitted with the following condition:

        In no future time shall the porch be enclosed

Stephens – Second the Motion

Vote – 4-0  In Favor – Rolnick, Stephens, Waitkins. Barlow


Peggy D. Weiss – 60 Young Avenue, Section 79.13 Block 1 Lot 42.  Request for a rear yard variance with respect to a proposed addition.

The applicant stated in her application that she was planning on making a small addition to the kitchen, which will extend approximately 12.5 ft. towards the rear yard.  The existing footprint will be maintained on the north side of the existing structure.  The south and west walls will be unaffected.

The applicant submitted a letter that was signed by three of the neighbors who will be affected by the applicant’ proposal stating, that they had no objections to the application.

The applicant also submitted with the application a copy of a previous variance that was granted on 12/10/86

After reviewing the application and copy of previous variance granted on 12/10/86 the Board made the following determination:

A Variance is not required.

The Board also recommended that the applicant’s application fee be refunded.

                                                                Page –4-
                                                                ZBA Minutes
                                                                10/8/03



Antonia Murphy for Rose Larsen, 70 Old Post Rd. South., Section79.05 Block 4 Lot 15.  Request for a side yard and total side yard variance with respect to an existing deck/ramp. (Adj. on 9/10/03).

Murphy – I did not bring anything with me.  You can ask me what you like.

Stephens – This is a public hearing you have to present your case.

Murphy - I am Antonia Murphy.  I am a friend of Mrs. Larsen.  She is eighty something years old and she has no living relatives.  She broke her hip and is now living in a nursing home.  The ramp was originally installed for her use.  It was not until the house was put on the market that we found that no application was made for the deck or the ramp.

Waitkins – The prospective purchasers do not object to the ramp being there?

Murphy - No

Stephens – Mrs. Larsen will not be returning to the house?


Murphy - No.  We were preparing to sell, but we could not close because the variance was outstanding.  

Rolnick – What would the hardship be if the variance were denied?


Murphy - She would probably lose the house sale.  I think the purchasers are going to rip down the ramp.


Rolnick – The hardship would be the cost of taking the ramp down?

Stephens – What would the hardship be if you removed the porch and left the rest of the ramp?

Sperber - The original house was built in 1931 according to a survey we have on record. The original improvements would be grand fathered.  The deck and ramp would need the side yard and total side yard variances.

                                                                
                                                                Page –5-
                                                                ZBA Meeting
                                                                10/8/03


Barlow - I thought it was only a side yard variance that was being requested?

Sperber - One side yard and a total side variance.  

Barlow – But, it could be made into a smaller deck.

Rolnick – But, it would still need a variance.

Sperber - They are not looking at the rear yard they are looking at the side yard.  

Barlow – I understand.

Rolnick - The deck is all-new?  Nothing was there before?  You said the new owners want to take the ramp down, but leave the deck?

Murphy – Yes.

Stephens - Any other questions?

There was no reply.


Hearing closed.


Rolnick – Made Motion to grant the application as submitted with the following condition:

Any future alterations (other than removal) to the deck/handicap ramp will require a variance.

Stephens – Second the Motion

Vote:  4-0 In Favor - Rolnick, Stephens, Sapir, Barlow






                                                                        Page –6-
                                                                        ZBA Minutes
                                                                        10/8/03


Richard Albert, 2 Croton Point Ave.  Section 79.17 Block 1 Lot 6.  Located in a LI District.  Request for a variance from Section 193-1(A) of the Village Code with respect to sprinkler systems and a proposed site plan dated 6/7/01.


Michael Norton – I am Michael Norton, Real Estate & Project Manager for Richard Albert Real Estate. I am here on behalf of Richard Albert.  We received a determination from the Village Engineer that according to the Village Code, Section 193-1(A), we would need to install sprinklers with respect to our proposed addition and site plan dated 6/7/01.  We are asking that the Board reconsider.  The Village Code is stricter than the State Code, which considers it a “Group B” designation.  In order for us to comply with the Village Code, it would cost us approximately $200,000.00 to build and approximately an additional $40,000.00 to install the sprinklers.

Stephens – What will the use be?

Norton – It will be for a small office, administrative, such as real estate.

Stephens – Does the existing building have a sprinkler system?

Norton – No.

Discussion followed over the Village Code with respect to sprinklers.


Waitkins – I wonder if we (ZBA) have the authority to vote against State or Village Code.

Norton - According to the New York Fire Prevention Act, that is currently in effect, Section 30 puts us in a “Group A”.   There are ten classifications and the State Code tells which classifications would require sprinklers.  “Group A” is not mentioned at all.  It does not mention the number of people.

Rolnick - The use defines what is needed.     

Norton - Movie houses , etc, is classified as “Group B” which is business, but in the Village Code it is not.   

Rolnick – So, you are saying there is a contradiction of the State Code?


                                                                        Page –7-
                                                                        ZBA Minutes
                                                                        10/8/03


Norton - I think the Village Code is being more restrictive than the State Code

Stephens – Which they have a right to do.

Norton – Yes and we have a right to appeal.

Rolnick - If the building had two hundred people working there, it would not fall under the State Code either?

Norton, According to their definition of business; a “B” Occupancy, includes uses such as Assembly, storage of records, dry cleaning business, professions such as law, etc.  Number of employees will fall under industrial or institutions.

Stephens – The existing building on the other side does not have sprinklers?

Norton – No.

Stephens – How many employees do they have?

Norton – There are three part time realtors ….a total of 22, but not in the new building.  The new building will have approximately 5 or 6 employees.

Rolinck - Depending on the requirements with respect to county sewage which, is based on the number of people.  It is located in a LI Zoning District.  Would you still be governed by the Code that classifies you as a “B” Occupancy?

Norton - Yes.

Stephens– Will you be sharing the exiting parking?

Norton - Yes.

Stephens– Will you be adding more parking?   No.

Barlow – Your filing of the appeal….you are listed as a LI District?

Norton – We are also willing to agree to alternatives.   We have hydrants across the street and we would install alarms that would dispatch to the police station.

Stephens - The actual excavation has not been started or granted, correct?
                                                                Page –8-
                                                                ZBA Minutes
                                                                10/8/03


Norton – Yes, it has, but we agreed not to continue until we receive your approval.

Rolnick – Did the application come before the Planning Board.? There is Site Plan approval, correct?

Rolnick – Would the Planning Board look at sprinklers?

Sperber – No.

Stephens - We should also see how the Fire Dept. and Police Dept. feel about this.

Rolnick - What would be the hardship if we adjourn this hearing until next month?

Norton – I would cause a big delay in the construction, since winter is coming and we would not be able to construct the new building until spring.  I am not sure how much that would cost us.

Rolnick - Would it be less than $40,000.00?

Norton – Yes.

Rolnick – But, you would be willing to adjourn until the next meeting?

Norton – Yes, if the Board feels it is necessary.  The cost of crew and equipment will be approx $40,000.00.  The connection of tapping into the water main will be another $4,800.00 and the construction of the building will be approximately $140,000.00.

Rolnick - What affect will the installation of the water line have on the traffic?

Barlow - This requirement is stipulated in the building permit.

Stephens - Was the state noticed for this hearing?

The Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary stated that the New York State Dept. of Transportation had been noticed.

Sperber - The Planning Board has also noticed the state.

Norton – Mr. Delaney from Westchester County and Mr. O’Connor the Village Engineer reviewed this application from the beginning.  The original application was given
                                                                        
Page –9-
                                                                        ZBA Minutes
                                                                        10/8/03


approval for a permit by the previous engineer without the special approvals.  Mr. O’Connor requested I go for the special approvals.

Stephens - I feel I would like to adjourn this hearing in order to get more answers regarding the Village and State Code with respect to sprinklers.

Barlow - This is the Village Code.

Sperber – This is not a state issue.

Barlow - This is a safety issue, so I would be reluctant to change the Village Code.  I would like to wait a month to review this.

Rolnick – I do not feel safe to vote this evening.


Norton - There are three ingresses and egresses in this building.  Is there any additional information you would like for the next meeting?

Stephens – Yes, the Fire Dept. comments.


Hearing adjourned until next month.



David Jarc, 1 Observatory Drive.  Section 79.09 Block 7 Lot 54.  Located in a RA-9 District.  Request for a lot depth and rear yard variance with respect to a proposed addition.

David Jarc – We are seeking a lot depth variance according to Section 230-4.  We are required to have a depth of 125 ft.   Due to the layout of our lot the longest line is 113 ft. and the side yard is short.  To be truthful, I am not certain on the degree of variance I am asking for.  We are also asking for a rear yard variance to construct a two-story rear addition.  It is predisposed as to which, is the side yard and which, is the rear yard.  My Architect, wife and myself worked very hard to minimize the impact on the neighbors on Sunset and Observatory Dr.  

Stephens – How may rooms in the existing house?

Jarc - five.
                                                                        Page –10-       
                                                                        ZBA Minutes
                                                                        10/8/03

Rolnick – What will the difference in square footage be compared to what you have now and what you will have after construction?

Jarc - Now it is approximately 1,000 sq. ft., it will be approximately 3,000 sq. ft. when completed.

Barlow - It looks a lot like a three-story house.

Jarc - That is the first and second floor you are looking at.  I have no garage and I can only store in the basement.  I need the storage space.

Stephens – Has this been submitted to the Planning Board?

Rolnick – Are you building over the entire footprint of the house?  Your benefits will obviously be more space, but could you elaborate on that a little more.

Jarc -  I am attempting to create usable square footage and room sizes of approximately 14 ft. x 14 ft. on the second floor and rooms on the first floor 14 ft. x 16ft. x 20 ft.  I currently have 1-? bedrooms.  I will end up with 4 bedrooms.  The current bedrooms are approximately 10 ft. x 10 ft. or 10 ft. x 11 ft.  I have spent the time to consult with my neighbors that are immediately touching my property.  One of who is here tonight and has expressed that what we are proposing to do is beneficial to the neighborhood and has not suggested any objections.

Stephens - You basic reason for the improvements is that you need more living space?  Is there any other way to achieve what you want?

Jarc – Yes.  My wife is expecting and hopefully this will not be our last child.  We are not looking to take advantage of the real estate market.  We are planning on staying here.  If you reference the site plan you will see a dotted line, which shows where my rights are to build.  I have space to build toward Sunset Dr. but by doing so, I would encroach on the park and there will be no privacy for me, or the park.  This proposed plan fits more to my needs and the least amount of impact on my neighbors.   As a corner lot, it is more constrained and as a result I am deficient with the lot depth requirement.  That is why I am here.

Rolnick - If you did not have a rear yard, you would not need a variance is that what you are saying?

Jarc – Yes.  If what I am now calling the rear yard were considered the side yard, I would not need a variance.

                                                                Page –11-
                                                                ZBA Minutes
                                                                10/8/03
                                                                        
Stephens – You are seeking a 5.21 ft. rear yard setback variance?

Jarc – Correct.  But the first variance is lot depth.

Rolnick – What is the siding going to be?  Wood clap board, gable wood and cedar shakes

Stephens – Any other questions?

Rolnick -  This is very large and I am wondering how you could seek the benefit you desire without creating such a large structure.

Jarc - Is your objection to the height of the roof as opposed to a big structure?

Rolnick - You are tripling the size and it is going from a small structure to a large one. Have you considered building a house with less sq. ft.?

Jarc – There will be a stairwell access or small narrow staircase from the master bedroom’s front left corner.


Discussion followed over plans.

Stephens - That will not be habitable space.

Barlow – It seems to be a three-story house.  Is big and it appears to be 4,000 sq. ft.

Jarc - If you noticed during your site visit there is a house on the corner of Sunset Dr. and Lexington where there is a large manor house that is approximately the same height and across the street.  I was trying to find a design I keeping with the capes in the area and instead of having a massive roofline continuous across I wanted to add architectural style.

Barlow - I still think it is a big house and quite a change.

Stephens – Anyone else like to be heard?

Robert & Charlotte Cole – 54 Lexington Dr.:

Mr. Cole – When the applicant first discussed this application with me I had no objections.  But, now I object because the house seems to be bigger than what they told me.  The houses across the street were there when I was before the board to build a

                                                                        Page – 12–
                                                                        ZBA Minutes
                                                                        10/8/03

house.  You gave me permission to build a much smaller house.  Now, it looks like Mr. Jarc is going to put my mansion on his property facing the rear of my property.   It seems too big for that property and my benefit. I hope you will take a look at my side of it too.  I have lived here sixty-three years and I want to protect my privacy too.  Mr. Jarc came to me and explained what he was doing, but what he told me was nothing like what he is saying here tonight.  It should be a benefit for me too as well as him.  He says he needs the attic for storage.  I have been here sixty-three years and I do not need an attic for storing things.

Stephens – Anyone else like to be heard?

Frank Jarc – 15 Observatory - I have an invested interest.  This is my son.  I have lived here thirty-five years and my son has lived here all his life.  My son David was accurate on how small the current house is.  It is a four-room house.  Obviously he needs to expand.  It is better to expand all at once than by piece meal.  The character of the village is changing, which makes it difficult for you too as a Board.  There are houses located all around my house that have been built and given variances.  The key issue in the past has been the building envelope and how it will look as proposed.  Mr. Cole has a point, but it depends on your perspective.  With respect to the character of Observatory Drive there have been a lot of additions.  I do not see this house out of character that much. Some of them may or may not have been granted variances.  The house around the corner is large as well.  Of course I am biased, because he is my son and they are raising a family, but the village encourages families to stay.

Cole - He is looking for the future and expanding the family.  Well, we had to say are we going to expand the family?  I say it is too big, never mind Observatory Drive, I am on Lexington Drive and between all these big houses and I have to worry about everyone at the playground and across the street.  I have a little shack for garden tools.  I do not see where he will have that many tools to need to have them in the attic.  I did not originally come here to oppose this application, but what I am hearing here tonight is a different story.

Jarc - I would like to submit a survey that shows all of the current conditions with respect to Mr. Cole’s last statement.

Rolnick - The three thousand feet is the first and second story combined?

Jarc – Yes.

Stephens – Anyone else like to be heard?


                                                                Page –13-
                                                                ZBA Minutes
                                                                10/8/03


There was no reply.

Hearing Closed.


Rolnick – Made Motion to grant the application as submitted with the following conditions:

The applicant must plant one evergreen or similar tree, which at maturity will provide the equivalent screening as the existing blue spruce.  The tree must be no less than eight feet (8 ft.) in height at the time of planting.  The applicant will be responsible for maintaining the trees.

Stephens – Second the Motion

Vote - 4-0 – In Favor – Rolnick, Stephens, Waitkins,  Barlow



Donna Jacob, 38 Farrington Road.  Section 78.08 Block 3 Lot 50.  Located in a RA-5 District.  Request for a lot width, side yard and front yard variance with respect to a proposed construction of an enclosed vestibule and front porch, which will connect to an existing wood deck located at the side of the existing house.

Donna Jacob – My husband Bill and I are looking for a variance for a proposed porch and enclosed vestibule.  Our house needs curb appeal and to bring it more in conformance with the rest of the houses.  Most of the houses have closed or open porches.  A neighbor to the west is closer to their front property line than what my proposal will be and they have a portico.

Stephens - Tell us why you want to do this.

Jacob - As you can see there is no curb appeal to this house.  There is no other way to improve it.  It will make it more conforming to the other houses in the neighborhood.  We have steep slopes and it will allow a way out to the front that is more level.  We now walk directly into the living room.  There is no foyer.

Stephens - The house was built in the early 1900’s?

Jacob – Yes.  

                                                                Page –14-
                                                                ZBA Minutes
                                                                10/8/03



Discussion followed over plans and setback regulations.

Jacob – I have neighbors that do not oppose.  My house is the little white shack, so they do not oppose to the improvements.  We will have cedar shingles.  A house that is two houses over from mine has the same.

Barlow - Mainly you are requesting this variance because you want to improve the appearance.  Does the house to the west have an enclosed portico?

Jacob – No.  It is the same as ours it is a little more defined with two pillars on it.  They have more character to their house.  Ours is basically a box.  They put the portico on our house after it was built it does nothing for the house.

Barlow – You are going to be right up against the sidewalk or less than a foot, it will be very close.

Rolnick - There will be .7 ft. of grass that is approximately six inches of grass.

Barlow – It is a small yard.

Discussion followed over the area of grass that will be left.

Jacob – If you look at the neighbor’s houses, it has brickwork rather than grass.

Rolnick – Do you have anything that shows the current porch with respect to the side yard?  The plans say 5 ft.

Discussion followed over plans.


Sperber - This property falls under Existing Small Lots.  You are exempt from some of the setback requirements, if you have a lot size that is a minimum of 0 ft. to 50 ft. in width and a minimum side yard of 5 ft.  That is what the architect was referring to when he put 5 ft. for the side yard.  

Discussion followed over plans.

Rolnick – What will the use of the porch be?

Jacob – We have a dog and he would stay on that porch.
                                                                Page –15-
                                                                ZBA Minutes
                                                                10/8/03



Jacob - If you look at the existing house and then look at the plans the new plans conform more to the neighborhood.  It does no justice as is.

Stephens - There will be no storage under the house?

Jacob – No.  You couldn’t walk under there or store anything anyway.

Stephens –Any other questions?


Jacob – My neighbors said they would write a letter of approval if needed.  Many of them have children and were not able to attend the hearing tonight.


Stephens – Anyone else like to be heard.



Hearing Closed.



Stephens – Made Motion to grant a lot width variance of .02 ft., a side yard variance of 1.46 ft., and a front yard variance of 14.28 ft. according to plans submitted, and with the following condition:

The siding for the new improvement will match the entire house.

Barlow – Second the Motion

Vote:  4-0 – In Favor – Stephens, Barlow, Waitkins, Rolnick













                                                                Page –16-
                                                                ZBA Minutes
                                                                10/8/03


Danny Oks, 138 Maple Street, Section 79.05 Block 1 Lot 39/  Discussion only, with respect to a School Proposal/Request for Variance.
Barbara Sarbin - “Something Good In The World”.  We own and operate a group family daycare home.  Donald Nicholson is the tenant and provider daycare.  I am only speaking because I wrote the letter.  The group daycare we run is fine.  We have all the appropriate licenses, etc., but we need a variance, because we applied to be a certified pre-school and kindergarten and non-public schools are growing grade by grade.  We found that the house could only have a parochial school or day care.   We are not looking to become a day care center.  We are asking the village to amend their Code (Section 230-9A(4).  We were told that we first need the Zoning Boards approval; before we can get a Special Use Permit.  The Zoning provisions regarding a “school” are different from those regarding a “day-care center”.  We are seeking to operate a “school”.  The Zoning variances that we think we might require per the Village Engineers letter dated, August 21, 2003 are (item  2( c ) The “school” must occupy a lot width and area of not less than 3 acres (the property at 138 Maple Street is 7,500 sq. ft. or 0.18 acres), item 2(d) No building or part thereof shall be erected nearer than 100 feet to any street or property line (the existing building does not meet this requirement), and item 2(e)  The sum of all area covered by all principal and accessory buildings shall not exceed 20 % of the area of the lot (the existing coverage will need to be calculated, it is limited to (7500 x 0.2) = 1,500 sq. ft.).
With respect to parking I am not sure if we need to meet the requirements for the number of parking spaces.  I do not know how many parking spaces are on the “paper street” that we use.  I believe their needs to be one parking space per thirty-six children and we have twelve.  We cannot have more than 14 children according to the State.  We have three off-street parking on the “paper street”.
Rolnick – Are you going to need more parking?
Sarbin – Definitely not.
Oks – The house is not big enough for 36 children so that is way more than what we need for parking.



                                                                Page –17-
                                                                                               ZBA Minutes
                                                                10/8/03


Sperber – With respect to parking, they are fine with parking.
Sarbin – We have twenty (20) kids enrolled, but we do not have more than 14 at one time.
Barlow – Do they have a play area?
Sarbin – We take them to Dobbs Park.
Stephens – Do you have a copy of what the State requires of you?
Oks – When the Code was put in place they were thinking there was 150 students per school and they required three acres, but because our school is so small we do not need three acres.
Stephens – Do you have what the state said you needed?
Sarbin – No, but there is 21 items.  The state wants to see that all or our approvals with our local government are in place first.
Stephens – Requested to have a list of those items.
The applicant agreed to provide the Board with the list.
Rolnick – As far as you know are you in compliance with all the Village Codes?
Sarbin – As far as I know.
Waitkins – But, you are now asking to change from a day-care to a pre-school kindergarten.
Sarbin – Yes and New York State has to give you a provision charter.
Waitkins – So, the school you are proposing would compare to the Montessori School?
Sarbin – Yes.
Stephens – What are the hours?
                                                                        Page –18-
                                                                        ZBA Minutes
                                                                        10/8/03

Sarbin – 9 A.M. to 3: P.M. and after school 3:00 P.M. to 5:00 P.M.  I sent the village a letter, but they never responded.  Amending the Code has to be looked at, but it might be a big deal.
Sperber – The probably did not respond, because they feel you need to obtain a variance first.
Rolnick – To Mr. Sperber, Code Enforcement Officer – Do they need an area variance?
Sperber – Yes, they fall slightly below the required percentage.
Discussion followed over survey
Sperber – According to this survey it appears to be slightly under twenty percent.  But, I would have to calculate it.  The will need an area variance and a use variance.
Stephens – Before this Board goes any further on this I would like to know where the Village Board stands on this and how they are going to proceed with this.  We will need to research the Codes, etc, and we will also need the State’s requirements.
Sarbin - The school is non-sectarian.  To only allow parochial schools as it states in the Village Code, is not constitutional.  That is why we are asking for a change in the Code.
The Board and applicant agreed to adjourn the “discussion” until the next meeting on November 12, 2003, in order to give the Board and applicant time to obtain the necessary information the Board will need in order to determine how to proceed further with the applicant’s request.
Discussion held over until November 12, 2003.

Respectfully submitted,

Janice Fuentes
ZBA Secretary
10/8/03

                                RESOLUTION


Cesar Cabrera, has applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, request for a front yard variance with respect to a proposed unenclosed porch.

The property, at 14 Melrose Ave., is located in a RA-5 District and is designated on the Tax Maps of the Village as Section 67.20 Block 2 Lot 35.

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

The proposed construction will not be a detriment to the environment or nearby properties.  There were no objections to the application.

The improvements will improve the appearance of the house.



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

Rolnick – Made Motion to grant the application as submitted with the following condition:

In no future time shall the porch be enclosed.

Stephens – Second the Motion

Vote – 4-0 – In Favor – Rolnick, Stephens, Waitkins, Barlow.


According to Section 230-76 (D), “Unless work is commenced and diligently prosecuted within one (1) year of the date of the granting of a variance or special permit, such variance or special permit shall become null and void.”




10/8/03




                                RESOLUTION


Antonia Murphy for Rose Larsen, has applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, request for a side yard and total side yard variance with respect to an existing deck/handicap ramp.

The property, at 70 Old Post Road South, is located in a RA-5, District and is designated on the Tax Maps of the Village as Section 79.05 Block 4 Lot 15.

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. It has been existing for several years with no complaints.

The neighbors who will be affected did not object to the application.

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 requested with the following condition:

Rolnick – Made Motion to grant the application as submitted with the following conditions:

Any future alterations (other than removal) to the deck/handicap ramp will  require a variance.

Stephens – Second the Motion

Vote:  4-0  In Favor Rolnick, Stephens, Sapir, Barlow


According to Section 230-76 (D), “Unless work is commenced and diligently prosecuted within one (1) year of the date of the granting of a variance or special permit, such variance or special permit shall become null and void.”




10/8/03

                                RESOLUTION


David Jarc , has applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, request for a lot depth and rear yard variance with respect to a proposed addition.

The property, at 1 Observatory Drive is located in a RA-9, District and is designated on the Tax Maps of the Village as Section 79.09 Block 7 Lot 54.

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

The variance requested is not substantial

The alleged difficulty was self-created

The existing house is small and the new addition is necessary for the growing family.

The applicant has agreed to provide screening.


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

Rolnick – Made Motion to grant the application as submitted with the following condition:

The applicant must plant one evergreen or similar tree, which at maturity will provide the equivalent screening as the existing blue spruce., to aid in screening the property at 54 Lexington Dr. The tree must be no less than eight feet (8 ft.) in height at the time of planting. The applicant will be responsible for maintaining the trees.


Stephens – Second the Motion
Vote – 4-0 – In Favor – Rolnick, Stephens, Waitkins, Barlow.


According to Section 230-76 (D), “Unless work is commenced and diligently prosecuted within one (1) year of the date of the granting of a variance or special permit, such variance or special permit shall become null and void.”



10/8/03
                                RESOLUTION


Donna Jacob , has applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, request for a Lot width, side yard, and front yard variance with respect to a proposed construction of an enclosed vestibule and front porch which will connect to an existing wood deck located at the side of the existing house.

The property, at 38 Farrington Road is located in a RA-5 District and is designated on the Tax Maps of the Village as Section 78.08 Block 3 Lot 50.

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 a detriment to nearby properties.

The proposed variance will have no 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 a Lot width variance of .02 ft., side yard variance of 1.46 ft. and a front yard variance of 14.28 ft. according to plans submitted and with the following condition:

The siding for the new improvement will match the entire house.

Barlow – Second the Motion

Vote:  4-0 – In Favor – Stephens, Barlow, Waitkins, Rolnick


According to Section 230-76 (D), “Unless work is commenced and diligently prosecuted within one (1) year of the date of the granting of a variance or special permit, such variance or special permit shall become null and void.”




10/8/03