ZBA November 10, 2004

                                                DRAFT FILED: 11/23/04
                                                FINAL APPROVAL: 12/8/04

VILLAGE OF CROTON-ON-HUDSON, N.Y. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 10, 2004



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


MEMBERS ABSENT:       Paul Rolnick

ALSO PRESENT:              Joseph Sperber, Code Enforcement Officer



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


Sapir – Announced the location of fire exits to all in attendance of the meeting.


APPROVAL OF MINUTES:


10/13/04 – Stephens – Motion to accept the minutes as amended:

                                       Resolution/Adler- 12 Franklin Ave., additional finding added to
                                        the Resolution:   “The original structure predated Zoning.”

Waitkins – Second the Motion

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








                                                                        Page – 2 –
                                                                        ZBA Minutes
                                                                        11/10/04



HEARINGS:


Walter Palacios, 29 Wells Ave.  Located in a RA-5 District and designated on the Tax Maps of the Village as Section 78.08 Block 8 Lot 8.  Request for a rear yard and side yard setback variance with respect to a proposed shed.

Walter Palacios – I would like to apply for a variance for shed in back my back yard.  The required setback is five ft from the property lines. I would like to apply for a variance that would allow it to be 3 ft. from the property line.  My house does not have a garage and ? of my property is not usable.

Sapir – How close are you going to come to the property lines?

Palacios – Two feet.

Sapir – So you need a two foot variance in order to achieve the requirement.

Palacios – Correct.  It will sit on top of footings.  It is not a concrete foundation, it can be moved.  I have a petition from my neighbors in support of the application that I would like to submit to the Board.  (Petition submitted for the record).

Sapir -  These signatures are from all of the neighbors?

Palacios – Yes the neighbors that will be mostly affected.

Sapir – Will it have vinyl siding to match the house?

Palacios – Yes.  The shed will be light gray and the roof will be black.

Barlow – What is the length of the shed?

Palacios – 8 ft. x 16 ft.  

Sapir -  In order to comply to the setback requirements how close to the house would you need to move the shed.  How many feet towards the house would you need to go to meet the setback?

Palacios -  The consideration to move it to that side is due to the level of the property.  I could not place it somewhere else without major excavating.
                                                                        Page – 3 –
                                                                        ZBA Minutes
                                                                        11/10/04


Barlow -  How close to the house would you be able to put it?

Sapir – You mean how far from the property line?

Palacios – It would be closer to my house by two feet.

Waitkins – Would the shed be much taller than the fence?

Palacios – I have a cherry tree that shields almost the whole back yard.  It is very hard to see in my back yard because of the cheery tree.

Barlow – Two of your three neighbors have sheds, correct?

Palacios – Yes.

Barlow – Is yours bigger or the same size?

Palacios – A little bigger.  The consideration for the size is the snow blower would need storage.  I do consider this a necessity, since I do not have a garage.

Sapir – What are the dimensions?

Palacios – 8 ft. x 16 ft.

Sapir – Could you get by with something smaller?

Palacios – Yes, possibly.

Sapir - That size is not that large.

Palacio - I mapped it out with string and wood and it looked like it would be ok.  The regulations said as long as it does not take up 30%.

Sperber -  That is not a very large shed.

Sapir -  Anyone else like to be heard?

There was no reply.


Hearing Closed.
                                                                        Page – 4 –
                                                                        ZBA Minutes
                                                                        11/10/04


Jason and Kimberly Bigman, 12 Dailey Drive.  Located in a RA-9 District and designated on the Tax Maps of the Villages as Section 68.14 Block 6 Lot 2.  Request for a side yard and rear yard variance with respect to a deck expansion.


Kimberly Bigman – 12 Dailey Drive – Thank you for taking the time to review our application.

Jason Bigman – 12 Dailey Drive  -We are requesting a 2 ft. 10 in. and a side yard of 2 ft. 7 in.  Being first time homeowners we were not aware of the requirements, so upon listing our house for sale, we found that a variance was required for our deck.  We have a letter from our side yard neighbor and our neighbor across the street and down the road and our neighbor who lives next door “Gillespie” of 14 Daily Drive, who lives directly next door.

Letter submitted for the record.

Sapir –You say you are under contract ,when, December?

Bigman – Yes.

Stephens – You have fencing on the side yards?

Bigman - Yes.

Pictures were submitted for the record.

Discussion followed over pictures


Sapir – When did the construction take place?

Mrs. Bigman – Last summer.

Sapir – Did you hire a contractor or did you build it yourselves?

Bigman -Ourselves.

Sapir – What would the hardship be if the variance is denied?

Mrs. Bigman – The deck would have to be removed.
                                                                Page – 5 –
                                                                ZBA Minutes
                                                                11/10/04


Sapir – Do you know what the cost would be to tear it down?

Bigman - No

Bigman -What about the cost to build it?

Bigman - Over $4,000.00

Sapir – Are there any other questions?


There was no reply


Hearing closed.


Robert Klurfeld, 90 Truesdale Drive.  Located in a RA-9 District and designated on the Tax Maps of the Village as Section 79.09 Bock 5 Lot 10.  Request for a lot size area variance, side yard and front yard variance, with respect to a proposed addition (Adj. on 9/8/04 & 10/13/04).

Klurfeld – I was here on September 8, 2004, for permission to add an extension.  I was shocked to see two ladies voice their concerns with respect to this proposal, when five immediate neighbors had no objections.  We would like to enclose the porch to accommodate my Mother In-Law with a walker.  I would like to address the concerns; one concern was that my house would become much larger.  Next door to me is a seven family apartment house; that is what I call large.  Section 230-40(e) (3) of the Village Code, that talks about exceptions to yard requirements and states:  “Existing setback.  No proposed one-family or two-family dwelling need have a front yard greater than the average setback of two or more existing dwellings located within 300 ft. on each side of said proposed dwelling, on the same side of the street and within the same block and the same district.

Sapir – What do you say the relevancy to that is?

Klurfeld – On the other side of my house is a seven family house that is right on the boundary line,  so my position is, if there is no setback on either side of me it is a mute question.
 

                                                        Page – 6 –
                                                        ZBA Minutes
                                                        11/10/04



Sapir – The Code states  “A front yard greater than the average setback of two or more existing dwellings located within 300 ft. on each side of proposed dwelling”.  So, I do not think this section of the Code applies to your.

Sapir – Did you meet with your neighbors that had concerns and have they seen the new drawings?


Klurfeld - Well I could not track them down.  One issue they had was privacy and I would like to go into that.  Mrs. Shannasy lives six houses away and she extended her house from forty five to seventy five feet and we wanted seventy two feet.

Sapir – But maybe she didn’t need any variances.  Is her lot size the same as yours?

Klurfeld -Maybe less, it just struck me odd that my request is for less than what she had.  The other neighbor said she lived directly across from us.   We don’t actually.  Our extension would face each other, but our house sits a little down from hers.  I would like to submit photos showing our house and her house.  She also said something about she would go along with the project, but she is concerned about the length. The distance between the two houses with the extension is over 100 ft.   I have other pictures for the record.

Additional pictures submitted for the record.

Klurfeld -  Also, as far as them complaining about the length, there are pictures I submitted that show houses that are 70 ft. and 80 ft. and there are at least five structures the same length as my house, so that does not hold water.

One  neighbor said she felt very exposed, it seems strange that someone who removed a fence, trees and shrubs from her property so that and any passerby, jogger, or dog walker can look into her house, and then say she feels exposed, when my house is at least 100 feet away.  Before this fence was taken down I could hardly see her house.  There were so much shrubs and trees and now she has removed them, so I do not understand her point about feeling exposed, because of my proposal.

Sapir – How far is the addition from the garage?




                                                                        Page – 7 –
                                                                        ZBA Minutes
                                                                        11/10/04



Klurfeld– I took a couple of pictures within the last two months.   Here is a shot of this house.  It shows the windows of the Kennedy house where there is no privacy.  Here are  windows lit up but you can’t see any furniture or people so I do not see what the objection is (referring to pictures).  Here is another picture that was taken from Nordica Drive.  You cannot see into the house.  The distance is too great.  Here is a picture taken from Nordica drive you can’t see into that house the distance is too great.   Here is a view from my bedroom window.

Sapir – Where were you standing?  Did you use a telephoto lens?

Klurfeld – No.


Discussion followed over plans.


Klurfeld – You can see other photos that were taken from my bedroom window.  But, I am not clear as to what she was talking about as far as privacy.

Pictures were made part of the record.


Klurfeld – Another thing that was said is that my house is perched high above hers and looks down on others.  My house actually sits five or six feet below the street level on Truesdale Drive.  It is not like I am sitting way up on top looking down on her property.  My final point is that from the end of my house to the corner there it is over one hundred feet and we are only adding thirty feet., that is the apex of the land that they actually see.  It is natural land and they do not see us coming and going.  Our proposed addition will be attractive and in keeping with the neighborhood.  Our architect is here with us tonight to answer any questions, you may have.

Sapir – What will the siding be?   

Klurfeld – At first I thought it would be vinyl, but I am not sure yet exactly what kind of vinyl. It would not be two separate types.  The existing house has dark blue cedar,

Stephens – Are you also asking us to amend your application,?  You want to close the  porch now too?


                                                                        Page – 8 –
                                                                        ZBA Minutes
                                                                        11/10/04


Klurfeld – Yes.  We now have a third adult in the house and one uses a walker.  We would like to enlarge the dinning room.

Stephens – So that would become part of a room and there will not be a porch anymore and there will be heating and lighting?

Sapir – That will be on the “Shanesy’s side of the house

Klurfeld - Correct.

Barlow – At the first meeting you mentioned that you wanted to make a room for your mother in-law.  Now you are coming before us with different plans.

Klurfeld - No that is where she will live and we also will have a laundry room to make life easier for her.  We changed the plans after my wife and my architect discussed the plans and he suggested that to address the neighbors concerns, they may prefer an elongated house and the current drawings look better.

Barlow – Have you shown the drawings to the neighbors that were concerned?

Sapir – (To the Code Enforcement Officer – Joseph Sperber)  Joe, have you seen these new drawings?

Sperber – They are enclosing an existing porch.

Sapir – But, the plans say deck and it shows a four foot side yard variance.

Discussion followed over plans and the location of the side yard and exactly what variances the applicant actually needs.

Sperber – That area would be considered a side yard.  That is part of the existing construction, but since they want a variance for the front yard the Board also needs to look to see if it meets all of the other requirements.  The stairs do not need a variance, but the existing open porch does require a variance, which was part of the public notice.

Discussion followed over the location of the side yards.


Stephens – This will end up being a four bedroom home?

                                                                        Page – 9 –
                                                                        ZBA Minutes
                                                                        11/10/04

Klurfeld - Correct.

Stephens – The bay windows will not extend further and need a variance?

Klurfeld - No

Barlow – You moved the addition plans closer to the front than before.

Roger Blight, Architect, Cortlandt Manor, - Yes the wall is six inches out further.   The map would need to be updated.

Discussion followed over the bay window.
Sperber - They are following the line of the existing house.  On that side of the property, instead of needing a ten ft. variance they would need a ten foot six inch variance on the east side.
Sapir –It is still a long narrow house.

Blight - Yes – it will look bigger but it is not very deep.

Sapir – Can anything be done to break up the roof line?

Architect – There is a break in the roof line.  One is a little higher than the other.

Discussion followed over plans.

Stephens – Will it require the removal of trees?
Mrs. Klurfeld –Yes one.

Stephens – But, that is the only one
                                        
Klurfeld - Yes.

Sapir – Any other questions.

Mrs. Klurfeld – I can’t understand this.  Almost all the houses on Nordica have stockade fences.  There are summer visitors going down to silver lake all the time.  It is a lovely street. Mrs. Kennedy has removed her fence, shrubs, and trees, so it is surprising to me that she says she is concerned with privacy.  It leads one to wonder why she is removing all her screening ………
                                                                        Page – 10 –
                                                                        ZBA Minutes
           11/10/04

Sapir -  That has already been mentioned and made part of the record.  Is there anything else that anyone would like to add to the record?


There was no reply


Hearing closed.




DISCUSSION:

Oks/Something Good In The World/The Garden Road School
138 Maple Street


Sapir – The Board is in receipt of a letter dated 10/31/04, from Barbara Sarbin, requesting a re-opening of the deliberations related to a ZBA Resolution dated 3/10/04.  Ms. Sarbin states in her letter that the ZBA neglected to take into consideration side yard, total side yard, rear yard and front yard variances that were also needed.  Mrs. Sarbin is requesting the Board to reconsider its decision.  The applicant’s application to the Board referred to Section 230-9A 4(d) of the Village Code.  In considering this section of the Code, Ms. Sarbin states in her letter that the Board addressed the issue of the Street Line setbacks, but never addressed the other setbacks that were required for the property lines.

Discussion followed over survey that was submitted with the original application.
                                        
Sapir -  It is my understanding that the Village Attorney has been notified to determine if a Hearing needs to be scheduled.  I suggest we wait for the Village Attorney’s decision and this will also give the applicant time to submit the measurements needed for the variances.

The Board agreed.  

Ms. Sarbin – Stated that she had come to the meeting to answer any questions the Board may have and hoped to resolve the issue as soon as possible.  Ms. Sarbin stated that they were not responsible for the ZBA’s error and they have spent much time before the Zoning Board  & Village Boards trying to get their approvals.  Ms. Sarbin stated that she felt this was a simple oversight on the part of the ZBA who gave a variance for the street line, but failed to give variances for the property line setbacks.   
                                                                Page – 11 –
                                                                ZBA Minutes
                                                                11/10/04


After discussion the Board decided to Draft a Resolution and vote on it (See attached Resolution).

Sapir – Made Motion to grant the following variances with respect to Section 230-9A-4 (d) of the Village Code, according to plans originally submitted, and with the following conditions:

Variances:
        
        96.8 ft. Easterly side yard variance
        86.4 ft. Westerly side yard variance
            10 ft.      Southerly rear yard variance

CONDITIONS:

1.      For School use ingress and egress will be thru the rear door.
2.      Fencing around the rear of the property will be maintained
3.      The self-latching gate that is used for school ingress and egress will be maintained.

Barlow – Second the Motion

Vote:  2-2 – Sapir & Barlow – In Favor
                   Stephens & Waitkins – Against

APPLICATION DENIED


Due to the absence of one Board Member, the Board invited the applicant to re-apply for a new hearing...


Respectfully submitted



Janice Fuentes
ZBA Secretary
11/10/04



                                     RESOLUTION


Danny Oks, has applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, requesting The Zoning Board to re-open deliberations regarding a ZBA Resolution granted on 3/10/04, with respect to Section 230-9A-4(d) of the Village Code and a proposed school.

The property, at 138 Maple Street, is located in a RB District and is designated on the Tax Maps of the Village as Section 79.05 Block 1 Lot 39.

After the Boards agreement to re-open the deliberations, the Board from the application and after viewing the premises and neighborhood concerned, finds:

Due to an inadvertent oversight on the part of the Zoning Board of Appeals, the Board failed to consider a portion of Section 230-9A-4(d) of the Village Code which states “No building or part thereof shall be erected nearer than 100 ft. to any street or property line.” On 3/10/04, the Board granted a variance for the Street Line requirements, but failed to address the variances needed for the required 100 ft. side yard, total side yard, and rear yard setbacks that are also required for a school.

The Board expressed concern with respect to safety Issues and evacuation plans in case of fire.  The Board also expressed concern over the fact that the proposed school is a wooden structure and provides inadequate space for a school.

Concern with respect to privacy for neighbor(s) abutting the property.

The variances requested were more than substantial.

The hardship was self-created.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Boards decision is as follows:

Sapir – Made Motion to grant the following variances with respect to Section 230-9A-4(d) of the Village Code, according to plans originally submitted, and with the following conditions.

VARIANCES:              96.8 ft. Easterly side yard variance
                        86.4 ft. Westerly side yard variance
                                10 ft.  Southerly rear yard variance

CONDITIONS:    1.  For School use, ingress and egress will be thru the rear door.
2.  Fencing around the rear of the property will be maintained.
3. The self latching gate that is used for school ingress and
    egress will be maintained.

Barlow – Second the Motion

Vote:   2-2 - Sapir & Barlow – In Favor
                   Stephens & Waitkins – Against

VARIANCE DENIED
11/10/04


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

_Jason & Kimberly Bigman, has applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, request for a side yard and rear yard variance with respect to a proposed deck.

The property, at 12 Dailey Drive, is located in a RA-9, District and is designated on the Tax Maps of the Village as Section 68.14 Block 6 Lot 2.

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.

The hardship is self created, but the variances requested are insubstantial considering the size of the property.

The neighbors who will be affected supported the application.

The benefit sought cannot be achieved by any other method.  If the variance were not granted the applicant would need to go to the expense of removing the deck.

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 – Motion to grant the application as requested according to plans submitted and as follows:

                   2 ft. 10 in. rear yard variance and a 2 ft. 7 in. side yard variance for the
                    existing deck and according to plans submitted, and with the following
        condition:

                  Lattice work is to be installed and natural screening is to be installed and
                   maintained to the satisfaction of the Village Engineer.

Waitkins – Second the motion.
Vote:  4-0  In Favor  Stephens, Waitkins, Sapir, Barlow

11/10/04

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


_Walter Palacios_, has applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, request for a rear yard and side yard variances with respect to a proposed shed

The property, at 29 Wells Ave., is located in a RA-5, District and is designated on the Tax Maps of the Village as Section 78.08 Block 8 Lot 8.

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.

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 follows:

Waitkins – Made Motion to grant the application for a 2 ft. side yard and 2 ft. rear yard variance according to plans submitted.

Stephens – Second the motion.

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


11/10/04



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


_Robert Klurfeld__, has applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, request for a lot size area variance, side yard and front yard variance, with respect to a proposed addition.

The property, at  90 Truesdale Drive  is located in a RA-9 District and is designated on the Tax Maps of the Village as Section 79.09 Block 5 Lot 10.

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

The Board feels the expansion requested is to large for the lot size and more than necessary for the need expressed.

The variances sought are substantial.

The variance can be achieved by some other method with lesser variances.  

The requested variance will be a detriment to nearby properties.  The applicant failed to adequately address the privacy issues the neighbors had and exacerbated the problem by the placement of large windows.


NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, as follows:

Sapir – Made Motion to grant the following variances:
               Lot area of 663 sq. ft.
               Rear yard variance of 10.5 ft.
               Two front yard variances:    9 ft. – Front yard on No. West. Side/Truesdale
                                                           10.5 ft. – Front yard on So. East side/Nordica
Barlow– Second the motion.
Vote:  3-1 – Sapir, Barlow, Waitkins – Against the application
                  Stephens – Abstained
DENIED


Sapir – Made Motion to amend the application to grant a side yard variance of 4 ft. to enclose the existing deck, according to plans submitted

Barlow – Second the Motion

Vote:  3-1  - Sapir, Barlow, Waitkins – In Favor
                   Stephens – Abstained
GRANTED


11/10/04

               

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.”