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 June 9, 2004
                                                DRAFT FILED:  6/22/04
                                                FINAL APPROVAL: 7/14/04





VILLAGE OF CROTON-ON-HUDSON MEETING MINUTES OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ON JUNE 9, 2004


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




Meeting came to order at 8:00 P.M



HEARINGS:


Hans VanNes, 25 Grand Street, Located in a RA-5 District and is designated on the Tax Maps of the Village as Section 78.08 Block 5 Lot 65.  Request to amend his original application (adj. on 4/14/04) and request a determination with respect to the definition of Lot Corner, Section 230-4 of the Zoning Regulations and for rear and side yard variances with respect to Section 230-33 and for a determination with respect to 230-4 of the Zoning Regulations and for rear and side yard variances with respect tot Section 230-33 and for a determination with respect to 230-40 (E) (1) Exceptions to Yard Requirements.  Should the Zoning Board of Appeals determine that this is a corner lot having three front yards and one side yard, then the applicant requests front yard variances with respect to Section 230-33, Section 230-40(E)(2) Entries and Porticos and Section 230-53 ( C ) Extending non-conforming front yard. (Adj. on 4/14/04 and 5/12/04).

Hans VanNes – 25 Grand Street – I am the applicant.  The hearing was adjourned from the last meeting on May 12, 2004.    I apologize for not being present at the last meeting there was a miscommunication between my engineer and myself.  We are proposing to build a second story and a kitchen extension.  I must confess that I am not well versed in the exact terminology of the Sections of the Codes I am asking for.  I am proposing to construct an addition for a kitchen.  This addition will be to the north of my property and
                                                                Page – 2-
                                                                ZBA Minutes
                                                                669/04


will not affect anyone other than myself.  If you stand on Grand Street and look to the west you do not see my kitchen, it is below eyesight.  The terrain drops after Grand Street.  No one has objected and everyone has been notified.

Sapir - The second story will be above street level?

VanNes - Yes, but the Peyton’s live to the North of me.  They do not see my second story and there is a beautiful maple tree that separates it.  I do not think anyone else has a view across my lot.  There is a drop that leads to a car dealership.  I do not see where the proposed construction will interfere with the western view.

Rolnick – How much higher will it be?

VanNes – It will be a 10 ft. addition.

Rolnick – I am concerned about the visibility for cars coming up and down Grand Street.  

VanNes -  The existing house is south of where the kitchen will be.  The house already blocks the visibility.  The engineer told me he did not want plantings in certain areas for traffic visibility.

Rolnick – Your position is that it is not an issue, because the visibility will not be blocked any more than what exists already?

VanNes -  Yes.  Up until 1998 the house had no water, it was just a tiny little box.  I have an extended family and would like to entertain my family and grandchild, etc.

Stephens – How many rooms do you have?

VanNes – A kitchen area that is not even 10 ft. x 10 ft., living room, and bedroom.  I plan to have another bedroom and bath on the second floor.

Sapir – Who resides there now?

VanNes – Myself

Sapir – Are there any other questions?

Rolnick -  There will be no change to the crawl space?


                                                                        Page – 3
                                                                        ZBA Minutes
                                                                                                           6/9/04


VanNes – No. There will be no change to the existing crawl space that is in part of the dining room and living room.

Discussion followed over plans regarding window locations.

The applicant stated that the windows they were referring to on the plans are existing windows in the basement area.

Sapir – Is the basement a finished basement?

VanNes – No, it is unfinished.  

The applicant asked the Board if they were in receipt of a memo from his engineer, Philip Tully, dated May 14, 2004.   The Board replied yes.

Sapir – Are there any other questions from the Board or the public?

There was no reply.


Hearing Closed.



Rolnick – Made Motion to Grant the application according to plans submitted and as follows:

1.      Based on the Boards interpretation of the Code the Board has       
      determined that the property has two side yards on the west and east
      side of the property and one front yard and one rear yard.

2.      Based on the interpretation above the following variances are granted as follows:

One side yard variance of 1.25 ft. and a rear yard variance of 3.67 ft.   

                  According to Plans submitted

Stephens – Second the Motion
Vote:  4-1 In Favor – Rolnick, Stephens, Sapir, Barlow
                                  Waitkins – Against
                                                                        Page – 4-
                                                                        ZBA Minutes
                                                                        6/9/04




Susan Shepler, 72 Young Ave., Located in a RA-5 District and is designated on the tax maps of the village as Section 79.13 Block 1 Lot 37.  Request for a side yard, total side yard, front yard and rear yard variance with respect to a proposed addition (Adj. on 5/12/04)


Susan & Robert Shepler the applicants were present with their architect John Walsh, 27 Harvard Drive, Lake Carmel.

Shepler – Our hearing was adjourned last month.  There were questions as to the proper size and how many people are living in the house.  There are two at present.  We will be going from two people living in the house to six. My son and his wife and grandson will be moving in with us.  That is the reason fro the addition.

Walsh – The Board also had an issue with the height of the building.

Mr. Walsh presented an overlay plan of the existing house and the proposed.

Walsh -  68 Thompson Ave. is approximately 27 ft. in height and 76 Thompson is approximately 32 ft.

Discussion followed over drawings.
Walsh – In the area I found several houses the same height as my client’s proposal.  Two on Hastings Ave., two on Oneida Ave., and one on Penfield Ave.
Barlow – None on Young Ave.?

Walsh – No.  All the others on Young Ave. are about thirty feet or lower. The proposed structure is thirty four ft. and five inches.

Walsh – I need to know how the village determines the average height.

Sperber – From average grade level from the front wall of the house.


Walsh – So, actually it will be thirty four feet and changes.


                                                                        Page – 5 –
                                                                        ZBA Minutes
                                                                        6/9/04


Discussion followed over plans regarding the roof line and overhang.


Sapir –The house will be a little farther back with a stockade fence, but the second story will be above the stockade fence. Will there be windows looking into the other yard?

Walsh - One window on that side (referring to plans) will overlook the neighbor’s property.  There are also windows in the existing structure that overlook the neighbor’s property.

Sapir – Is there any way to eliminate the windows?

Walsh – Maybe two, but one window on the side I cannot eliminate.

Susan Shepler – We had to make the windows on the second story larger to meet Code restrictions for ingress and egress.

Discussion followed over plans

Sapir – How would you describe the window that is farther back, if I should want to eliminate the window on the driveway side.

Sperber – Means of egress is part of the Code requirements and light is also part of the requirement per square footage.  

Walsh – I far exceed the requirement with the artificial light that we are also including.

Mrs. Shepler– Would you know if that window is going to cause us problems?

Sperber  – Not without knowing what these glass areas are serving.


Discussion followed over window plans and the possibility to eliminate some of them.


Sapir – If anyone is interested in viewing these plans you may come forward and look.

Sapir – Will the entire roof be replaced?

Walsh – Yes with thirty year shingles.

                                                                        Page – 6 –
                                                                        ZBA Minutes
                                                                        6/9/04


Sapir – Any other questions?

Barlow – What will the siding be?

Walsh - Vinyl

Mrs. Shepler – White or Cream, we did not make a determination yet.  The whole house will match, because the room in the back of the house will need to be removed, so we will put siding on the whole house.

Walsh – There will be some architectural changes, but the siding will be the same.

Stephens – It will not exceed thirty four feet five inches in height?

Walsh - No

Walsh – One possibility is to remove the overhang.

Sapir – What would that do to the side of the roof?

Walsh – Structurally it will be ok and according to Code.

Barlow – The attic is used for what?
Mrs. Shepler - Storage.


Discussion followed over snow load, etc., for roof Codes.


Discussion followed over plans


Barlow– So you would lower the peak by two or three feet?

Walsh – I do not feel comfortable going less than that.


Discussion followed over plans for the overhang.


                                                                        Page – 7 –
                                                                        ZBA Minutes
                                                                        6/9/04




Rolnick – Reducing the roof height would mean a shorter peak.

Walsh – It would lower the peak.  If you read the New York State Residential Building Code, I need to stay around 6 ft. or 12 ft. .

Barlow – I know there are structural considerations you need to take into account.  The height would be more consistent, if you bring it down two or three feet.

Walsh – I like to stay away from 4 ft. and 12 ft.

Mrs. Shepler – The attic will be used solely for storage.  There is a lot of storage with six people.

Rolnick – How much will it reduce the depth of the bedroom?

Walsh – Two feet.


Discussion followed over plans.

                                
Stephens – What would the size of the room be if you reduced it?

Walsh – Seventeen feet seven inches or fourteen feet seven inches.


Discussion followed over plans.


Walsh – My suggestion is to keep the pitch at six and twelve and narrow the width instead.


Discussion followed over plans.


Barlow – What about having roof members going front to back rather than have them go from left to right.

                                                                Page – 8 –
                                                                ZBA Minutes
                                                                6/9/04

Walsh – I need to discuss that with my clients. That was not discussed with them.   

Sapir – How are some houses allowed to have the second stories?

Walsh – Because they are allowed to use the attic.

We do not have a full attic.

Barlow – Do you have a basement?

Shepler – Yes, it is finished.  It is on the tax rolls as finished. I am paying for a finished basement.  I would like to use it for a rumpus room for the children, workshop equipment storage and holiday storage.

Anyone else like to be heard?


There was no reply.


Mrs. Shepler – I would like to thank the Board Members for taking the time to come out and look at the house.


Hearing closed.

Stephens – Made Motion to Grant the application with the following conditions:

1.      Front yard variance of 1 ft.
2.      Side yard variance of 6 in.
3.      Total side yard of 4 ft. 5 in.
4.      Remove from plans submitted the rear south east bedroom window on second floor.

Waitkins – Second the Motion

Vote:  3-2  - In Favor – Sapir, Stephens, Waitkins
                    Against – Barlow, Rolnick




                                                                Page – 9 –
                                                                ZBA Minutes
                                                                6/9/04




Richard Kinghan, 38 Elmore Ave., Located in a RA-5 District and designated on the Tax Maps of the Village as Section 78.09 Block 9 Lot 32.  Request for a total side yard variance with respect to a proposed addition.
Kinghan – I Live at 38 Elmore Ave., with my wife and nine year old son.  We are seeking a total side yard variance for a proposed second story addition.  It will be three bedrooms and additional bath. Currently it is a brick structure with five feet of head space in the attic.  I will not be going beyond  the existing footprint of the house.

Rolnick – What is the square footage of the new structure?

Kinghan – Approximately 1,000 Sq. ft.

Rolnick– It will be 1,000 sq. ft. for the new addition and 900 sq. ft. for the existing, with a total square footage of 1,900 sq. ft.?

Kinghan – Yes.

Waitkins – It appears that you have started to build.  Have you started construction yet?

Kinghan - I had a drainage problem.  I catch a lot of water off of Olcott Ave.  During any rain, especially the hurricane we had a couple of years ago it was very bad.  No, I have not started construction.

Sapir– What will the rooms on the first floor be used for after the addition is built?

Kinghan – There will be a connection to the existing living room to the dining room and a connection of the kitchen to the existing bedroom.  The bathroom will stay as is on the first floor.

Waitkins - You have two bedrooms now on that floor?

Kinghan - Yes.

Sapir – How much of a total side yard are you requesting?

Sperber – According to the plans he submitted and according to the plot plan submitted, he needs a total side yard variance of 2.99 ft.

                                                        Page – 10 –
                                                        ZBA Minutes
                                                        6/9/04


Sapir – The reason they do not have a variance already is because it was built prior to zoning?

Sperber – Maybe it wasn’t built prior to zoning, but it complies with the zoning regulations in effect at the time it was built.

Rolnick – How long have you lived there?

Kinghan – I just moved in on the 15th of May.

Rolnick – There will be three bedrooms?

Kinghan - Yes and one on the first floor that will be used as an office.

Waitkins – We recently gave the house on the right of this property a variance.

Rolnick – My concern is this will be so much larger, but according to my understanding the house to the right will be approximately 2,200 sq. ft.


Sperber – He is correct .  They took down the existing house and built on the existing footprint with a slightly larger foundation.  It is a larger lot than his because of a larger depth rather than width.  

Rolnick – So they do not have the proper setbacks.  

Sperber  – No it was built  prior to present zoning and meets the zoning requirements at the time of construction.

Kinghan – Closer to Oneida there are quite a few houses, at least four, towards that end of the street.   Some technically had their address on Cleveland.  They were allowed to build.


Sapir – Have you discussed your plans with your neighbors?

Kinghan - Yes and they are very supportive.  People for obvious reasons are building second stories.  The house that is being referred to is on the right and under construction.  One house to the right of that one is relatively new and that is also a much larger house.


                                                        Page – 11 –
                                                        ZBA Minutes
                                                        6/9/04


Rolnick – What is the height of the current house and what will the difference be with the new addition?
Barlow – Thirty one feet is the new house.  The old house is under twenty feet or approximately eighteen feet.

Sperber – Can you stand up in your attic?

Kinghan – Barely

Sperber- So, Mr. Barlow is right with his calculations.


Sapir - Any other questions?


Rolnick –What is the siding going to be?

Kinghan - Vinyl on whole house.  There is brick on the existing floor that we plan on leaving.

Rolnick – So you are doing that for economy, or what?

Kinghan - It is much more appealing.

Stephens -  He just needs a total side yard?

Sperber – If you look at the first page of the plot plans on the right side he needs a side yard and total side yard variance.


Rolnick – But he already has more than eight feet on one side yard.  

Sperber - He has to have at least eight feet on one side and a total of twenty.

Sapir – He covers the total side yard, but does not cover the side yard that is one?

Sperber -  I would like to look at these in the future and get some guidance from the Board as to how you want us to look at them.


                Page – 12 –
                ZBA Minutes
                6/9/04

The Board determined that the applicant needs a .21 ft. side yard 2.9 ft. for east side total side yard.


Sapir - Anyone else like to be heard?



Hearing closed.




Cindy Plater , 9 Cleveland Drive, Located in a RA-9 District and designated on the Tax Maps of the Village as Section 79.09 Block 1 Lot 37.  Request for a side yard, total side yard, front yard and rear yard variance with respect to a proposed addition (Adj. on 5/12/04)


Cindy Playter – I live at 9 Cleveland Drive.  I am here with my husband Bill .  We were adjourned on 5/12/04.  We have a corner lot on the corner of Cleveland Drive and Franklin Ave.  We have a small deck 4 ft. x 21 ft. and would like to enlarge it to 12 ft. x 21 ft.  It will be considered the second front yard that is really the side yard.

Stephens – Right now it does not extend to Franklin Ave. at all?

Playter - No.

Rolnick  – So there is an existing variance for the deck that is there now?

Playter – Yes, for the existing deck and an addition in 1989 or 1990.

Stephens - There is no sliding door in the back now?

Playter - Yes.  The picture supplied shows how it looks now and it comes out more


Discussion followed over plans.




                Page – 13 –
                ZBA Minutes
                6/9/04



Waitkins – So Franklin Ave is considered your front yard?

Rolnick – They have two front yards.

Playter - We need to get the variance for the extension.

Sapir –  It is in a RA-9 Zone that requires a twenty five foot setback that is what I was told.

Sapir –What setbacks are you requesting?


Discussion followed over plans.


Playter - We received one variance for a smaller addition and then we got a variance for a family room and now I need a variance for the deck.

Sperber – The application says they will need 10.08 ft.

Sapir – The desire for the deck is why?

Playter - To enhance the enjoyment of my yard.


Sapir – The plantings on the side of the house are they yours or your neighbors?

Mr. Playter – They are ours.

Sapir – How high will they grow?

Mr. Playter - They can grow eight feet or more.

Rolnick – Will there be lighting on the new deck?

Mr. Plater - No

Rolnick – There already are lighting fixtures

Mr. Playter - Yes
                Page – 14 –
                ZBA Minutes
                6/9/04


Sapir – Will there be space under the deck for some kind of storage?

Mrs. Playter - The current deck you can see under.  I will be putting lattice work under it, so it will be more attractive and same height as the existing deck.  It will not be used for storage.

Sperber – It appears from the drawing that the bottom of the deck will be 14 inches above grade.

Mrs. Playter– We will use a material called “trex” for the deck, it looks like wood and then there will be railings.

Sapir – Any other questions?

Rolnick – Have you spoken to the neighbors in the back?

Playter – Yes.  They liked the idea.


Sapir - Anyone else like to be heard?

There was no reply.


Hearing closed.


Stephens – Made Motion to Grant a 10.08 ft. side yard variance according to plans
                   submitted and according to the following conditions:

1.      Lattice will be installed beneath the deck.
2.      There will be no storage beneath the deck.
3.      There will be no additional lighting fixtures other than those shown on the application.

Barlow – Second the Motion

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



                        Page – 15 –
                        ZBA Minutes
                        6/9/04


Elton Robinson, Nordica Drive, Located in a RA_25 District and designated on the Tax Maps of the Village as Section 79.14 Block 2 Lot 88 & 88.01.  Request for a front yard variance with respect to a proposed extension of a deck.

Elton Robinson – 15 Nordica Drive – The property we are discussing is 16 Nordica Drive.

Sapir – Why do our records show that the property does not have a number yet?

Note to the minutes:  16 Nordica Drive is a number given by the applicant.  The village has not yet assigned a house number to the vacant lot, because the house is not built yet.  Once the house is built and a C.O. is issued, a house number will be assigned by the “Village”).

Robinson – I was told because it was not built yet.  I do not want to build a driveway or garage.  

Sapir – How come?

Robinson – Because I want to disturb the lot as little as possible.  It is common practice on Nordica Drive to use parking spaces.
Rolnick – Whose cars are there now?

Robinson - Mine.

Rolnick– How long have you used that space?

Robinson - 42 years.

Stephens – Are you and your wife  planning on living there.  Yes and my son will move in our house.

Robinson– The plans and elevations are not final, but the plot plan is.

Stephens – How deep is the drop from where you will be parking the car?

Robinson – 12 ft., it would be a steep grading for a driveway.

Rolnick – Why is there a variance requirement?

                        Page – 16 –
                        ZBA Minutes
                        6/9/04



Robinson – I am supposed to park one car behind the setback of the house and one in front according to the code.

Sperber  – Only one parking space is allowed in the front yard.  

Barlow – will this be paved?

Robinson – It will be Gravel

Rolnick – I do not see in the Code 51(B) that it has to be behind the setback of the house.

Discussion followed over code.


Stephens – But it refers to one.  He is asking for two. for one he is asking for two .

Rolnick – Is there a definition of off-street parking?

Sperber – Referred to Section 230-51 (B) of the Zoning Ordinance where it states “However, a driveway within a required front yard for a one-family or two-family residence may count as one parking space”.  Mr. Sperber also stated that the other parking space could be on the driveway.


Discussion followed over code.


Rolnick – If you just have a driveway you have off street parking for one car period.

Stephens – Yes, but no room for a car.

Sapir – What would your hardship be if not granted.


Robinson– My option would be to build a driveway and build a garage and battle with the Water Control Commission.

Sapir – Are you in the proximity of the Croton River?

Robinson - Yes.  That is why I want to keep the disturbance to a minimum.
                        Page – 17 –
                        ZBA Minutes
                        6/9/04


Sapir – What will the size of the house be?

Robinson – 2,500 sq. ft.  The second story will be open space that could be converted to bedrooms, but I do not want to do that.


Sapir – But I am concerned that someone down the line might want to do that and it may lead to the need for more than two cars for the family.  I am just thinking of what is coming down the road.

Robinson  – I am not thinking of that.  I want this for myself.

Sapir – But in some point in time I am concerned there will be the need for more than two cars.  Where will they park?  Maybe we would be better off allowing  you to build a driveway.  Is there anyplace  else to put a car?

Robinson - Not without putting a garage and driveway.  It will involve grading, steep slopes, which we avoided with proposed plan as it is.

Sapir – You do not intend to put a carport?

Robinson - No.

Sapir - You presently use this space for your two cars?  

Robinson – Yes.  I am getting old and I can’t cope with too many steps or stairs.

Sapir – Does your son have a family and how old are his kids?

Robinson - Two years old and one on the way.   

Sapir - His family has two cars?

Robinson - One car.

Sapir – Where will that car be parked?

Robinson - On the other side of the street.

Sapir – The area will be 20 ft. x 20 ft. twenty by twenty ft. the same area you are using now.?
                                Page – 18 –
                                ZBA Minutes
                                6/9/04


Robinson - Yes.
        
Rolnick – I do not think he needs a variance.

Rolnick - Referring to a Section of the Code -    It is not a street and not a driveway.

Robinson - I got these Code numbers from the engineer

Sperber  – I do not know if that is the appropriate Code Section.  I do recall seeing a section that says off-street parking for one vehicle in front.  But, he is requesting to have two off street parking areas in the front and according to the Code two is not allowed in the front.


Discussion followed over Code.


Sperber - You need to accommodate two off-street parking spaces according to the Code that was cited.
Rolnick – So the Code is saying that it only want one car visibly parked in the front of your house?

Sperber – Correct.

Sapir – Is it your preference that there not be a garage there?  

Robinson - My concern is not to disturb the view and the lot.  I would rather have ground than a garage.  To stay within the zoning restriction it would have to be one of the bedrooms that would have to go.  The whole footprint is in a limited disturbance area for wetlands.  It is within 120 ft. of the croton river.

Sapir - Why not build a garage and get the cars off the street so they are not visible to people going by?


Robinson - I think it would be more offensive to see a garage in the front than to see two cars.

Sapir – I am not talking about putting a driveway that is steep.  I am talking  about putting  a garage up by the road.
                                Page – 19 –
                                ZBA Minutes
                                6/9/04


Robinson – It obscures a lot more view than the cars do.  It would cause a lot more disturbance to trees that need to be removed when the current plan does not call for any trees to be removed.   I am trying to have the least amount of disturbance to the wetland area.  I am 120 ft. from a wetland.

Sapir - Anyone else like to be heard?

There was no reply.


Hearing closed
.
After deliberations the Board stated that the Code was still not clear and requested to adjourn the decision until next month in order to give the Board time to discuss the Code with the Village Attorney.


Decision adjourned




Respectfully submitted,




Janice Fuentes
ZBA Secretary
6/9/04











                                RESOLUTION


Susan Shepler, Morningside Drive, has applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, requesting a side yard, total side yard, front yard and rear yard variances with respect to a proposed addition.

The property, 72 Young Ave. is located in a RA-5 District and is designated on the Tax Maps of the Village as Section 79.13 Block 1 Lot 37.

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

Variances requested are not substantial.

There will be no change or detriment to the neighborhood or environment.

The proposed construction will substantially improve what is existing.


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

Stephens – Made a Motion to grant the application for a front yard variance of One foot, a side yard variance of six inches and a total side yard variance of four feet five inches and the second floor, rear south east window shown on plans submitted will be eliminated.

Waitkins– Second the Motion

Vote – 3-2 – In Favor – Stephens, Waitkins, Sapir
                   Against - Rolnick, Barlow
                   


6/9/04
 
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.”






                                RESOLUTION


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

The property, at 38 Elmore Ave., is located in a RA-5 District and is designated on the Tax Maps of the Village as Section  79.09 Block 9 Lot 32.

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 addition is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood and not detrimental to the environment or neighbors.

The granting of the variance will increase the enjoyment of the property.

The variance is not substantial.


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

Sapir – Made Motion to Grant the application as amended, seeking a side yard variance of 2.99 ft. and a total side yard variance 0f .21 ft. on the east side.

Rolnick – Second the Motion

Vote – 5-0 – all in Favor – Sapir, Stephens, Waitkins, Rolnick, Barlow



6/9/04


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.”




7/9/03


                                RESOLUTION

Cindy Plater, 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 extension of a deck.

The property, at 9 Cleveland Dr., is located in a RA-9, District and is designated on the Tax Maps of the Village as Section 79.13 Block 2 Lot 88 & 88.01.

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


There will be no detriment to the safety or character of the neighborhood.

The proposed variance will not have an adverse affect on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood.

There was no opposition to the application


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


Stephens -  Made Motion to Grant a 10.08 ft. side yard variance according to plans
                  submitted and with the following conditions:

1.      Lattice will be installed beneath the deck.
2.      There will be no storage beneath the deck.
3.      There will be no additional lighting fixtures other than those shown on the application.


Barlow – Second the Motion


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


6/9/04

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.


                                RESOLUTION

Hans VanNes, has applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, request to amend his original application (adj. On 4/14/04) and request a determination with respect to the definition of Lot Corner, Section 230-4 of the Zoning Regulations and for rear and side yard variances with respect to Section 230-33 and for a determination with respect to  230-40(E)(1) exception to yard requirements.   Should the Zoning Board of Appeals determine that this is a corner lot having three front yards and one side yard, then the applicant requests front yard variances with respect to Section 230-33, Section 230-40(E)(2) (Entries and Porticos) and Section 230-53(C)(extending non-conforming front yard.

The property, at 25 Grand Street, is located in a RA-5 District and is designated on the Tax Maps of the Village as Section  78.08 Block 5 Lot 65.

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

The applicants need for the improvements is evident

There will be no detriment to the neighborhood or environment.

The variances requested are not substantial.


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

Rolnick – Made Motion to GRANT the variances based on the Boards interpretation that this is a property with two side yards and one front yard and one rear yard.  The two side yards being the west and east sides in which the following variances are granted:

              1.25 ft. side yard variance and a rear yard variance of 3.67 ft.

   This variance is also granted according to plans submitted.

Stephens – Second the Motion

Vote – 5-0 – all in Favor – Rolnick, Stephens, Sapir, Waitkins, Barlow

6/9/04


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.