Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
  • Citizen Action Center
  • Online Payments
  • Online Forms
  • Subscribe to News
  • Send Us Comments
  • Contacts Directory
  • Projects & Initiatives
  • Community Links
  • Village Code
 
 
ZBA May 11, 2005
                                                        DRAFT FILED: 5/24/05
                                                        FINAL APPROVAL: 9/14/05

VILLAGE OF CROTON-ON-HUDSON, N.Y. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 11, 2005


MEMBERS PRESENT:        Kathleen Riedy, Chairman
Paul Rolnick
Witt Barlow

MEMBERS ABSENT: Rhoda Stephens
                                               Ruth Waitkins

ALSO PRESENT:           Joseph Sperber, Code Enforcement Officer



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

APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

Minutes held over until next month

Announcement of Fire Exists

Kathleen Riedy, ZBA Chairman, informed the applicants that there are only three members of the Board present this evening.  In order for the applicant to prevail in obtaining their variance request all three members must vote in favor of the application.  If any applicant would like to request an adjournment until next month when there may be a full Board present the request will be granted.

None of the applicants present at the meeting chose to request an adjournment.


HEARINGS:

Susan Reardon, Architect for Thomas Peyton & Janet Mainiero, 33 Grand Street.  Section 78.08 Block 5 Lot 4.  Located in a RA-5 District.  Request for a variance and/or special permit to allow for an accessory structure to project beyond the front of a primary structure.

Kathleen Riedy, ZBA Chairman, stated that the Board was in receipt of a letter requesting to adjourn the hearing until the next meeting in June.

Adjournment request granted.

                                                        Page – 2-
                                                        ZBA Minutes
                                                                                   5/11/05




Nancy Kennedy – Broker for Harold and Robert Waters, 41 Farrington Rd., Section 78.08 Block 3 Lot 32.  Request for a variance from Section 230-40(A)&(B) and Section 230-33 of the Village Code, with respect to an existing garage and retaining wall for existing off-street parking.

Nancy Kennedy – I am a real estate broker and I represent Harold and Robert Waters, 41 Farrington Rd.   We were in the process of selling the property when we learned the existing garage that was built within a hillside located in the front of the main structure never received a Building Permit.  A permit was issued in 1968. but was never closed out.  We are not looking to make alterations or improvements.  We are only looking for a Certificate of Occupancy for the existing garage.  It was built into a hillside, it has no door, electricity, or water, and it just provides off-street parking with covered shelter.  William Jones the previous owner lost the property by foreclosure to Harold and Robert Waters.  At the time it was not known that a Certificate of Occupancy was never issued for the garage.  It was not until we prepared to close that the lack of a Certificate of Occupancy was discovered.

Rolnick – The problem is when something slips by, it unfortunately, is passed on to the next owner, if it is not picked up during a title search.  Why?

Kennedy – Because, this permit from 1968 was never closed out according to the files and a letter from Mr. Tully, the Village Engineer at the time.

Barlow – Mr. Tully’s correspondence that is in file shows that it was brought to the owners attention that the permit was granted, but the work was not diligently prosecuted and was abandoned.  It stated in the letter that he wanted the existing violations cleared and it may be subject to penalties.  It was then sold with a clear title and then sold to Harold and Robert Waters.  

Kennedy – It was not until February 22, 2005 when we received an offer and contract when the open permit issue was discovered.  The Waters have owned the property since 1970 and they had no knowledge of this letter.

Barlow – Have you had any discussion with the neighbor Mr. Campbell?

Kennedy – Only fifteen minutes ago.  I noticed from the Draft Minutes of April that he (Mr. Campbell) stated that he owns a vacant parcel next to the applicant’s property, which might be a buildable lot.  However, he was concerned that if the variance is

                                                        Page – 3-
                                                        ZBA Minutes
                                                                                   5/11/05

granted to the applicant, it may prevent him (Mr. Campbell) from obtaining any necessary variances that he may need in the future, if he were to build.

Rolnick – That is not really the matter that is before this Board tonight.  What are the variances that are required for this application?

Sperber – He needs two variances not including if the garage projects into the adjoining property.  It is an accessory structure that projects beyond the primary structure. It would also need to meet the setback requirements for an accessory structure, which is five feet minimum.  I am not sure if there is a height issue with respect to the State Building Code but, as far as Local Zoning Regulations, that would be the two variances he would need.

Rolnick – How can we determine if it is protruding into Mr. Campbell’s lot?

Sperber – According to the survey Nancy Kennedy supplied there is approximately 0.2ft. encroaching, but it is not clear.  I am certainly not going to say whether or not it encroaches.


Discussion followed over survey.

Barlow – There is an indication that 2.69 ft. that does encroach on the Village Right-of-Way, but not on the neighbor’s property.  The retaining wall also projects onto the right-of-way.

Sperber -  The Board needs to focus on the structure itself.  At the time the permit is reviewed and processed is when we would deal with the issue of the encroachment onto the village right-of-way.  If the applicant gets a building permit and it passes inspections, a Certificate of Occupancy will be issued.

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

Kennedy -  There would be no off-street parking.  There is little or no parking in that neighborhood.  Also, the value of the property would go down without a garage.

Sperber – If they do not get the variance they could dismantle the garage and use the space for off-street parking as long as they do not enclose it.

Rolnick – They would have to construct a space for two cars.

Kennedy – There is only thirty feet of frontage on this property.


                                                        Page – 4-
                                                        ZBA Minutes
                                                                                   5/11/05

Rolnick – If it ultimately received a Certificate of Occupancy the fact is it cannot be used for two cars, means what?

Sperber – I am not prepared to answer that question.  We are talking about just the structure.  It would be legally non-conforming if it was part of the original construction and it was built prior to 1931 Zoning Regulation, and there were no changes made from the time it was originally built until now.  Off street parking would not have been an issue.  They would need a special permit from the village for off street parking.

Rolnick – What would the estimated financial hardship be?

Kennedy – At least a $25,000.00 to $35,000.00 difference and also the buyer would not want on street parking.  There are several structures like this one up the street at 45 Farrington Rd., there was a permit to demolish and to construct and 51 Farrington Road there is no mention of a garage on the property record file, but yet it exists and 35 Farrington Rd. has a letter in the file that states the permit was null and void.  There also appears to be a two car garage that was built in the front of 25 Farrington Rd., but I did not do any research on that.  They have the exact same parking as this property with it built into a hillside.

Rolnick – Are you suggesting they do not have building permits?

Kennedy – There is nothing in the files.

Riedy – The top of the garage, is that a patio?

Kennedy – It has a membrane roof for safety reasons with a railing.  I would not call it a patio.  You get to a landing before the steps to the front porch.

Riedy – What is the height of the garage?

Kennedy – 9ft. 9 in. and a 15in platform on top of grade.

Barlow – So it is 11 ft.

Rolnick – Is the stairway flush with the wall of the garage.

Kennedy – It is wider at the bottom and there is a stone pier and when you get to the top of the landing it is flush.


                                                        Page – 5-
                                                        ZBA Minutes
                                                                                   5/11/05



Rolnick – Is there a way to screen that or put plantings?

Kennedy – I do not think it is possible to put plantings.


Discussion followed over plans.

Riedy – When was the garage actually completed?  I am looking at a letter by Mr. Tully, Village Engineer at the time the letter was written in 1968.

Kennedy – It does not say it was actually erected at that point.  I guess it was between that time and when the “Waters” acquired the property.

Rolnick – The “Waters” made no alterations.

Kennedy – No.

Rolnick – The house is in contract?

Kennedy – Yes.

Riedy – Any other questions?

Mark Campbell – I am here to represent myself and my wife Barbara.  We spoke at the last meeting.  We are adjoining property owners and our address is 35 Farrington Rd.  We spoke at last months meeting.  I would like to reiterate and address points that were brought up tonight.  As you are aware we do have a survey that indicates the garage does encroach.  We presented a survey at the last meeting.  It seems we are moving from an encroachment issue to a setback issue that may prevent us from getting full use of our property.  It appears that we may have a buildable lot in the area where the applicant’s garage encroaches.  If the variance is granted it may create a hardship for us.  We may be required to obtain a minor variance if we were to build, considering how close we would be to the encroaching structure on the adjacent property.  That issue was raised at the last meeting when the homeowners addressed their concerns at length.  So, if we were in that position it would have an adverse impact on our application.  If that were to prevent us from having the lot deemed buildable, that would certainly diminish our attempt to get full value of our property.  For example, if I were to go there and do any landscaping, I would actually be scraping against their garage wall.  A new owner would not take a

                                                        Page – 6-
                                                        ZBA Minutes
                                                                                   5/11/05


liking to that.  If they were to do maintenance work on their garage, it would also create a problem.   This creates a potential problem for conflict.

Barlow – But, wasn’t that garage there when you purchased the property?

Campbell – Yes, in 1977.

Rolnick – You have been there twenty eight years with this situation.

Rolnick – (To Joseph Sperber, Code Enforcement Officer)  Can you look at that survey to see if it is buildable?

Sperber – They do not have lot width or depth.  It may or may not fall under the existing small lot category.  There may or may not be steep slope issue, depending on how the house is cited.

Riedy – At the time you purchased the property did anyone tell you that was a buildable lot?

Campbell – No.  Good neighbors are the issue here and I understand they are looking to close out an issue of an open building permit.

Sperber – No.  They are looking for a variance so they can apply for a permit.

Barlow – I take it from your comments that you are opposing the granting of any variance from this Board?

Campbell – Yes.  We need to protect our interest.  I would like it on the record that I am opposing this application.  As Mrs. Kennedy stated, we were not approached at all by the applicant with respect to this application.  As a matter of fact I approached the applicant to ask what their application was for.

Barlow -  For twenty eight years this has not been a problem.

Campbell – No absolutely not

Rolnick – Can you think of any solutions?

Campbell – I do not know.  I guess if  there were an encroachment it would be a civil matter that would have to be resolved somehow.  I honestly don’t know.

                                                        Page – 7-
                                                        ZBA Minutes
                                                                                   5/11/05

Barlow – It might be easier if there was some resolution by the parties.

Campbell – We haven’t even had a discussion at this point and we were not approached since the last meeting, even after it was on record that we were concerned about not being approached by the applicant.

Riedy – Anyone else like to be heard?

There was no reply.

Hearing Closed.

Rolnick – Made Motion to grant a variance according to survey submitted, from Section 230-40(A)&(B) with respect to an existing garage situated in front of the primary structure  and a 5 ft. side yard setback variance for the setback requirements for an accessory structure and a variance from Section 230-33 with respect to a retaining wall for existing off-street parking.

Riedy – Second the Motion
Vote:  3-0  Rolnick, Riedy, Barlow


Kathryn Morgan, 17 Thompson Ave., Section 79.09 Block 2 Lot 61.  Located in a RA-5 District.  Request for a side yard variance with respect to an existing shed.

Tracy Campagna – 13 Country Place, Mohegan Lake.  – Mrs. Morgan is in Florida on  an emergency trip.  I have come here just in case you have any problems with the application.  I have a hearing problem and it may be difficult for me to hear.

Riedy – Did you have the opportunity to review the application?

Campagna – No.  I was just told to come in case you had  a problem with the shed.

Rolnick – Do you know when the Morgan’s built the shed?

Campagna – Yes, 1998 or 1999.

Riedy – When did they purchase the property?

Campagna – 1976 or 1977.

Rolnick – Was there a shed there before?

Page – 8-
                                                        ZBA Minutes
5/11/05


Campagna – Yes.  It was deteriorated and they built it slightly bigger for lawn mowers and chemicals.

Kathy – Any electricity

Rolnick – Is house under contract?

Campagna – Yes and the buyers would like to keep the shed.

Rolnick – Will the pool remain?

Campagna – Yes.

Mrs. Susan DeAngelo – 19 Thompson Ave. – I received a notice. I heard you had a letter from the neighbors in favor of the application.

Sperber – Yes, there is a letter from the neighbors in the file.

Riedy – We have a survey, but I can’t tell from my copy what year the survey was completed.  It does not show a shed on the property prior to the Morgan’s purchase.

Rolnick – (To Campagna and DeAngelo) Are you saying that you both remember the shed?

DeAngelo – Yes.  It has always been in that same spot.  We moved in one year after the Morgan’s did.  There was the old shed and one year later they built this one.

Barlow – You have no problems with the application?

DeAngelo – No.

Barlow – When did you move to the neighborhood?

DeAngelo – 1978 or 1979

Riedy – Is it possible for them to move the shed?

DeAngelo – If they had to move it to the other side you would basically have it in the middle of the yard.  There is no garage so it is the only storage area that exists.  Because


Page – 9-
                                                        ZBA Minutes
                                                                                   5/11/05
        
of the pool you need to keep the chemicals locked up and then there is the pool ladder, etc.

Riedy – Are there any other questions?

There was no reply.


Hearing Closed.

Riedy – Made Motion to Grant a 4 ft. side yard variance according to plans submitted.
Barlow – Second the Motion
Vote:  3-0  - In Favor – Riedy, Barlow, Rolnick

                                                        
Amy Rosato, 103 Maple Street.  Section 78.08 Block 7 Lot 15.  Located in a RB District.  Request for a lot width, one side yard, total side yard and front yard variance with respect to a proposed addition to one-family dwelling in a RB Zone.

Amy Rosato and Robert Johansen of 103 Maple Street attended the hearing.

Johansen – I have prepared the application.  We are looking for the variance you have before you.  I tried my best to show the structure and the elevations.

Sperber -  They are in a two-family zone and have a single family house.  They are applying to do work for the first and second floor for the primary residence and also to build an apartment in the downstairs basement area that the Zoning Laws allow.  They will meet the State Code Requirements, if they receive the variances they are requesting.  They are looking for a side yard variance according to the two-family requirements as opposed to the one-family requirements.  They will still need to meet all the state requirements including off-street parking, which they can accommodate.  Their main difficulty is that they want to expand out to the side.

Rolnick – So they need to legalize the whole envelope?

Sperber – As far as a two-family.

Barlow – They already have a permit in the window.  What is that for.

Sperber -  They already have a building permit for interior renovations.  That will be closed out soon.  That is all legal.

                                                                        Page – 10-
                                                                        ZBA Minutes
                                                                                               5/11/05


Riedy – There is a trench there now.  How does that fit in with these plans?

Johansen – I was starting to dig for the footing in my anticipation to build.  If I do not receive the variance I will fill it in.  That is where the addition will be.

Rosato – On the pictures we submitted, I colored in the addition part and noted the existing.

Rolnick – What is the benefit you are seeking other than the apartment.

Johansen – Our dining room is not big enough and the bedroom upstairs is awkward.  We now have two bedrooms and with our plans we will have three.

Barlow – Who is living in the house now?

Johansen – Us and our daughters.  Right now, if we have guests, they end up in the living room.

Rolnick – Will you add a bathroom?

Johansen – There will be half a bath on first floor and full bath in basement.

Rosato – The half bath in the basement is part of the basement renovations, not this addition

Riedy – What will the dimensions be?

Johansen – 20 x 24, approximately 480 sq. ft.  I have plans from the architect.

Barlow – What would the exterior be?

Johansen – It will mach the existing shingles and clapboard.

Rolnick – Do you intend to use the same siding on the entire house?

Johansen- Yes.

Barlow – If you did not enclose the porch in the front that would be one less variance you would need to apply for.


                                                                Page – 11-
                                                                ZBA Minutes
                                                                                       5/11/05

Rosato – The existing porch is the portion that sticks out.  It is the addition that will not have enough footage if it becomes a two family.

Sperber – They are still increasing the degree of non-conformity, if they go out from the porch to enclose it.

Rolnick – Is the porch included in the setback?

Sperber – Yes.  You are taking an open portion and enclosing it.  Otherwise, it would need to conform to the requirements for a portico.

Rolnick – Are there other neighbor’s properties that are that close to the street?

Johansen – Yes.
                                                        
Sperber -  They are clearly set back farther than any neighboring property.  We decided to include it in their notice just to play it safe.

Barlow – Is this according to the new floor area ratio requirements?

Sperber – It is well beneath the requirements.

Barlow – What material will be used for the roof?

Johansen – Asphalt shingles.

Rolnick – And Mr. Goldfarb lives on the left?

Rosato – No.  Mr. Goldfarb lives one house down.  The one right next to us is 101 Maple Street, Mrs. Goldstein.

Barlow – And on the other side, who is that?

Rosato – Mr. Americo.

Barlow – They have no objections and you have spoken to them about this application.

Johansen – Oh yes and I have given them plans.

Riedy – The home at 101 Maple Street, is that a two-family?


                                                        Page – 12-
                                                        ZBA Minutes
                                                                                   5/11/05



Johansen – Four family.

Riedy – 99 Maple Street is a one family?

Johansen – The one on the other side is the four family owned by Mr. Americo.

Sperber – They did get a public notice for tonight’s meeting.

Riedy – How many cars can you fit in your driveway?

Rosato – Three.

Riedy – Are you extending the width of the front porch?

Johansen – To the side like a wrap around.

Riedy – How far to the side?

Johansen – Six feet in width.

Riedy – So, you will be making you house six feet wider by bumping out the porch?

Johansen – Yes and I made it a point that I will not have windows on that side.  It is at an angle so the windows will not look into the neighbor’s yard.

Riedy – Any other questions?

Mark Goldfarb – 99 Maple Street – I speak unreservedly in support of their application.  They have been exemplary neighbors and I have lived here since nineteen eighty nine.  They have made many improvements and I am familiar with the state of the house prior to them having it and they in a very short time have created a beautiful garden in the back and Mr. Johansen has primarily been responsible for the master work he has done.  He is a master craftsman.  For example, we all should have copper gutters.  When this house is finished it will be the most beautiful house on the block.  I support this application.





                                                        Page – 13-
                                                        ZBA Minutes
                                                                                   5/11/05

Riedy – Any other questions?

There was no reply.


Hearing closed.

Rolnick – Made Motion to Grant a Width variance of 25 ft., Side yard variance of 9 ft., Total Side yard variance of 12 Ft., and a front yard variance of 14 ft. according to plans submitted and according to requested measurements that are required for a RB Zone/Two-Family Residence on the presumption the house may be used as a two-family dwelling which is allowed in the RB/Two-Family District in which it is located.  Approval is also based on the following conditions:

The siding will be uniform with the entire house.

Barlow – Second the Motion
Vote:  3-0  - In Favor – Rolnick, Barlow, Riedy


Ivanka Olcott, Architect for Jose and Margarida Pedrosa, 40 Elmore Ave.  Section 79.09 Block 9 Lot 31.   Located in a RA-5 District.  Request for a side yard and total side yard variance with respect to a second story addition.

Ivanka Olcott, Architect, 1 Terrace Place.  – I am here to represent the Pedrosa’s.  They are here with me tonight.  We are proposing a second story addition for a two bedroom home.  We are asking for a side yard and/or total side yard of one and one half inches. I need to check with you to see if it is true that we need a total side yard. There was a previous side yard variance that was granted for an addition so we were not sure if we needed a total side yard variance. I want to check with you.

Sperber – We were not sure if the Board would also request a total side yard variance.  The smallest dimension on the south west side yard is .08 ft. and the smallest dimension on the north east side yard is .89 ft.  If you are taking it from the smallest dimension the one variance would be 3.92 ft.

Rolnick – But didn’t you say we granted a variance a year ago?

Olcott – Yes in 2002.

Rolnick – Is the proposed construction going to change the footprint at all?

                                                        Page – 14-
                                                        ZBA Minutes
                                                                                   5/11/05


Olcott – There will be an overhang, but that does not have an issue with the variance.  The footprint is not changing.

Rolnick – But, if we already granted a variance for that footprint and you are just going up you are not increasing the non-conformity.

Sperber – Unless the variance was granted “based on the plans as submitted”.

Olcott -  I asked for the variance.  I knew we needed one 1 ? inches.  I did not think I needed a total side yard variance.  But, maybe we don’t need either.  It will end up with two bedrooms and three bathrooms.  The second floor will be 938 sq. ft.  They have ailing parents and they may need to live with them.  They also have a daughter who lives with them.

Riedy – Have any neighbors voiced any concerns?

Olcott – No.  In the past I had come to you for another application for a different property on Elmore Ave. and their variance request was much closer to the property line and they were granted the variance.  I have photos.

Photos were shown to the Board, but not made part of the record.

Rolnick – How is the height?

Olcott – Maybe a little taller.

Rolnick – What are your plans for the siding?

Olcott – Asphalt shingle roofing and stucco all around.

Discussion followed over photos.

Barlow – What is the floor area ratio?

Sperber – It is well below what is allowed.  If it was an issue it would also need Planning Board approval for a Minor Site Plan Review.

Rolnick – Is there a way to get 933 sq. ft. on this property without a variance?

Olcott – Yes.

                                                        Page – 15-
                                                        ZBA Minutes
                                                                                   5/11/05


Rolnick – But, if the prior variance that was granted said “according to plans submitted” that variance would not be covered.  Could you build out the back?

Olcott – It would be a very deep house and would block light from the middle sections.

Discussion followed over plans.

Sperber -  They were given a variance and they are proposing to make it like all the other houses on the block.  They are increasing the degree of non-conformity and the previous variance was granted “according to plans submitted.

Olcott – But, that is why I think we do not need a total side yard variance, because we are not disturbing that side yard.  There will be no change to the side where the previous variance was granted.

Discussion followed over plans.


Riedy – Anyone else like to be heard?


There was no reply.


Hearing Closed.


Barlow – Made Motion to grant a 0.11 ft. Side Yard variance and Total Side Yard variance of 8.03 ft. according to plans submitted.
Rolnick – Second the Motion

Vote:  3-0  - In Favor – Barlow, Rolnick, Riedy

                
                                                        





                                                Page – 16-
                                                        ZBA Minutes
                                                                                   5/11/05


Maria Latrenta on behalf of Michael Crisci, 39 Olcott Ave.  Section 79.09 Block 9 Lot 11.  Located in a RA-5 district.  Request for a rear yard and side yard variance with respect to an existing shed.

Maria Latrenta, I am the applicant’s broker we are applying for a variance for an existing shed and are requesting a rear and side yard variance.   

Riedy – When did you build the shed?

Crisci – Last spring or summer

Latrenta – They built it on the same footprint as the previous shed.

Riedy – Do we have a copy of the survey in file?

Sperber – We have a plot plan that was drawn by Gemmola and McWilliams.  I do not think we have an original survey.

Crisci – The original title company has the original survey from 1950.  the survey in our file shows the neighbors property, but also to the left is our property, but you can’t tell on that.

Rolnick – When did you purchase the property?

Crisci – 1999

Rolnick – When was the original shed built

Crisci – I don’t know.  It was built by the previous owner.  It was an old metal shed on concrete blocks.

Barlow – How can we grant a variance for a shed when the picture you submitted does not show what the shed looks like?

Crisci – It is just a square shed.  With a simple roof and door.

Barlow -  The roof line is different than the picture that you submitted.  It does not show a peak the picture shows a point.


                                                        Page – 17-
                                                                ZBA Minutes
                                                                                       5/11/05

Crisci – Yes from the side is the correct view and the front would be straight across the top.  Yes, there is an error on that.

Rolnick – Is there a closing scheduled?

Crisci – Yes next week on the eighteenth.

Rolnick – Will it have electricity?

Crisci – No electric or water.

Riedy – Was it built on a slab?

Crisci – No.

Riedy – So you have footings?

Crisci – It is sitting on four by four blocks.

Riedy – And you built that with railroad ties?

Crisci – Yes and we set the structure on top of them.

The Board stated that they were in receipt of a letter from his neighbor at 35 Olcott Ave. and a copy was given to Mr. Crisci.

Barlow – If you did not get the variance what hardship would there be?

Crisci – The house is going on the market next week, it would delay the closing.

Riedy – You could not remove the shed?

Crisci – It does add a certain amount of value.

Barlow – What if you constructed a new shed that did not need a variance?

Riedy – Did you build it yourself or did a contractor build it?

Crisci – Ourselves.

Rolnick – Without a permit obviously.
                                                        Page – 18-
                                                                ZBA Minutes
                                                                5/11/05

                                                
Sperber – If the variance is granted they would still need to apply for a permit and supply plans that would need to be reviewed and comply.  I would not sign off for a rusty shed.

Barlow – What if we requested painting it the same color as the house?

Crisci – Yes, but we are sort of strapped for time.  We have one week to move. I like the color and as far as structurally it is fine.

Riedy – Measurements from plot plan and by our calculations the measurements are accurate.

Crisci – Yes.  The architect did the plot plan and the other survey from the file shows the same chain link fence that is on the property line and the existing metal shed was there when we purchased it in ninety nine.

Barlow – Do you think you should ask for a greater variance to be safe?

Crisci – Do you mean I should ask for a greater variance?

Sperber -  That is what we have done in the past to be on the safe side.  No matter how accurate you are with a fresh survey you could be off a few inches.

Riedy – Are there any other questions?

Peter Skyler – 41 Olcott Ave., - I support the application.  It is a nice shed.  It is the best looking shed on the street.  I do not know if the other sheds on the block are legal.  I took my shed down after moving in.  This shed is well constructed and the color matches the décor of the house.  My only concern is that we really do not know the exact distance from the back of the property line.  I am waiting for surveyors to come so I can install a fence.  There is a chain link fence that is not shown on the survey that Mr. Sperber has.  The last survey we have was done in the 1960’s.  I would suggest that even if it were only one foot off the property line I would have no problem.  But, for you calculation for the variance I cannot say if the chain link fence is on the property line or not.  It would be a hardship for him to relocate it on the property.

Riedy – Anyone else like to be heard?




                                                                Page -19 –
                                                                ZBA Minutes
                                                                5/11/05


There was no reply.

Hearing Closed.

Rolnick -  Made Motion to Grant a 4 ft. rear yard variance and a 4 ft. side yard variance for an existing shed.

Riedy - Second the Motion

Vote:   3-0   Rolnick, Riedy, Barlow


NEW BUSINESS:

Riedy – The Board is in receipt of a letter from Mrs. Adrian Rice of 196 Cleveland Drive who came before the Board last month for a rear yard and front yard variance for a sunroom and deck.  Mrs. Rice stated in her letter that she has decided to proceed with her plans for the sunroom, but has changed her mind about constructing the deck.  Therefore, she is requesting that the conditions in the Resolution that requirements for screening of the deck be eliminated since there will not be a need for screening for a non-existing deck.

Rolnick – I would agree to amend the Resolution to omit the requirements that were specific to the deck.  We did grant according to plans submitted.


Rolnick – Made Motion to amend the Resolution dated April 13, 2005, to eliminate the
    condition which required screening of the deck & Lattice under the deck.

Barlow – Second the Motion
Vote:  3-0  In Favor – Rolnick, Barlow, Riedy



Respectfully Submitted


Janice Fuentes
ZBA Secretary
5/18/05



                                RESOLUTION

Harold and Robert Waters, has applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, request for a variance from Section 230-40(A) & (B) and Section 230-33 of the Village Code, with respect to an existing garage and retaining wall for an existing off street parking.

The property, at 41 Farrington Rd.., is located in a RA-5, District and is designated on the Tax Maps of the Village as Section 78.08 Block 3 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 neighbor who objected to the application purchased his property with this encroachment and it has never been an issue.

When the applicant purchased his property he was not aware of the illegal garage although there is a long standing pre-existing history to this garage.  There will be a hardship to the applicant to remove the garage.

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

Rolnick – Made Motion to grant a variance according to survey submitted, from Section 230-40(A)&(B) with respect to an existing garage situated in front of the primary structure  and a 5 ft. side yard setback variance for the setback requirements for an accessory structure and a variance from Section 230-33 with respect to a retaining wall for existing off-street parking.


Riedy – Second the Motion

Vote:  3-0  Rolnick, Riedy, Barlow

5/11/05











RESOLUTION


Deborah Rice, has applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, request for an amendment to Resolution dated April 13, 2005, with respect to the construction of a deck.



The property, at 196 Cleveland Dr., is located in a RA-25, District and is designated on the Tax Maps of the Village as Section 68.17 Block 3 Lot 17.

Findings:

The applicant has decided to eliminate the deck therefore there is no need for the screening of trees around the deck or lattice under the deck.


NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the request to amend the Resolution dated April 13, 2005, is hereby GRANTED as follows:

Rolnick – Made Motion to amend the Resolution dated April 13, 2005, to eliminate the
    condition which required screening of the deck & Lattice under the deck.

    

Barlow – Second the Motion
Vote:  3-0  In Favor – Rolnick, Barlow, Riedy

5/11/05


















                                RESOLUTION


Kathryn Morgan, has applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, requesting a side yard variance with respect to an existing shed.

The property, at 17 Thompson Ave., is located in a RA-5, District and is designated on the Tax Maps of the Village as Section 79.09 Block 2 Lot 61.

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 neighbor 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:

Riedy – Made Motion to Grant a 4 ft. side yard variance according to plans submitted.
Barlow – Second the Motion
Vote:  3-0  - In Favor – Riedy, Barlow, Rolnick

5/11/05













                                RESOLUTION


Amy Rosato, has applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, requesting a Width, Side Yard, Total Side Yard and Front Yard variance with respect to a proposed addition to a  one-family dwelling in a RB Zone.

The property, at 103 Maple Street, is located in a RB District and is designated on the Tax Maps of the Village as Section 78.08 Block 7 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:

The applicant satisfies all of the factors except benefit can be achieved by some other method.  However, the benefit  that the applicant seeks is reasonable due to the size of the house.

There will be no undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood.  The applicant’s proposal is in keeping with the neighborhood and will be an improvement to the neighborhood.  The Board wishes to encourage this type of improvement not discourage it.

The neighbors who will be most 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:

Rolnick – Made Motion to Grant a Width variance of 25 ft., Side yard variance of 9 ft., Total Side yard variance of 12 Ft., and a front yard variance of 14 ft. according to plans submitted and according to requested measurements that are required for a RB Zone/Two-Family Residence on the presumption the house may be used as a two-family dwelling which is allowed in the RB/Two-Family District in which it is located.  Approval is also based on the following conditions:

The siding will be uniform with the entire house.

Barlow – Second the Motion
Vote:  3-0  - In Favor – Rolnick, Barlow, Riedy
5/11/05



                                RESOLUTION


_Jose & Margarida Pedrosa, 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 a proposed second story addition.

The property, at 40 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 31.

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 applicants purchased the property with the shed.

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:

Barlow – Made Motion to grant a 0.11 ft. Side Yard variance and Total Side Yard variance of 8.03 ft. according to plans submitted.
Rolnick – Second the Motion

Vote:  3-0  - In Favor – Barlow, Rolnick, Riedy

5/11/05












                                                         RESOLUTION


Michael Crisci, has applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a rear yard and side yard variance with respect to an existing shed.

The property at 39 Olcott 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 11.

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

The applicant purchased the property with a shed.

There will be no undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood.

The neighbors did not complain.

There will be a hardship to the applicant if he were requested to remove the shed.


NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the application is hereby Granted.

Rolnick -  Made Motion to Grant a 4 ft. rear yard variance and a 4 ft. side yard variance for an existing shed.

Riedy - Second the Motion

Vote:   3-0   Rolnick, Riedy, Barlow

5/11/05