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 June 8, 2005
                                                        DRAFT FILED: 6/21/05
                                                        FINAL APPROVAL: 9/14/05
                                                        

VIILLAGE OF CROTON-ON-HUDSON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 8, 2005.

MEMBERS PRESENT:        Kathleen Riedy, Chairman
                                               Rhoda Stephens
                                               Ruth Waitkins
                                               Paul Rolnick
                                               Witt Barlow

ALSO PRESENT;            Joseph Sperber, Code Enforcement Officer


Announcement of the location of fire exits.


APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

5/11/05 - Approval of Minutes held over until next month:




Laura Adler, 12 Franklin Ave. Section 79.13 Block 4 Lot 22.  Located in a RA-9 District.  Request for a Floor Area Ratio Variance with respect to a second story addition.

Mrs. Adler – Submitted to the Board a copy of the Code showing the new Floor Area Ratio (FAR) with respect to the revisions that were made to Section 230-33 of the Village Code.  

Mrs. Adler stated that she had received a rear yard variance in October of 2004, for the same proposed construction, but by the time she had applied for her building permit, revisions had been made to the Village Code with respect to floor area ratio and because her proposed construction does not meet the new requirements for floor area ratio, it is now necessary for her to go before the ZBA again for a new variance.

Riedy – Have you been before the Planning Board for the minor site plan approval?

Adler – Yes and they gave us a letter of recommendation and approval is contingent upon your approval (ZBA).


                                                                Page -2-
                                                                ZBA Minutes
                                                                6/8/05


Sperber – According to the revised Code, anytime the floor area ratio exceeds 80% a Minor Site Plan Approval by the Planning Board is required.

Mrs. Adler – We are located in a RA-9 District.  There are houses two blocks away from us that are located in a RA-5 District and they are allowed to have a larger floor area ratio.  Our floor area ratio is actually under the average floor area ratio of our neighbors, but we are located in a RA-9 District.  We are keeping with the character and integrity of the neighborhood.  The siding will be the same material and color as the existing house.

Discussion followed over pictures the applicant submitted.

Rolnick – Will there be changes to the roof height?

Adler – Yes, it is a hip roof, it does not have a stark point.

Discussion followed over pictures.

Riedy – What will be on the top story?

Adler -  Storage space and attic space.

Stephens – Did the floor area ratio include the basement or was it ruled out?

Adler – It falls under the definition of a cellar (10.5%)

Rolnick -  What is the square footage of the house now?

Adler – 1,134 sq. ft.

Riedy – When did you purchase the house?

Adler – 1998.  We have two small children and we have established roots in this community and we would like to continue to live here.  The first floor will be used for the stairs and computer room/office.

Riedy – How many bathrooms?

Adler – Two



                                                                Page -3-
                                                                ZBA Minutes
                                                                                               6/8/05


Stephens – You are converting one bedroom on the first floor into an office/computer room?

Adler -  Yes.  We will have three bedrooms upstairs.  When we are finished with the construction we will not have a bedroom downstairs.

Riedy – Anyone else like to be heard?

John Caccione, 7 Franklin Ave – I have no objections to their application.  They are lovely neighbors.


Hearing Closed.

Stephens – Made Motion to Grant a Floor Area Ratio Variance of 223 sq. ft. according to plans submitted.

Rolnick – Second the Motion

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


Joseph Streany, 9 High Street, Section 67.20 Block 4 Lot 41.  Located in a RA-25 District.  Request for a rear yard variance with respect to an existing deck.

Mr. Heincke – Owner of property on Hillside Ave. and High Street was present for the hearing.

Kathleen Riedy – Stated that the Board was in receipt of a request from the applicant to withdraw his application.


Application withdrawn.







                                                                        Page -4-
                                                                        ZBA Minutes
                                                                        6/8/05



Stephen Schecter, 47 Darby Ave., Section 79.09 Block 9 Lot 21.  Request for a side yard variance with respect to proposed alterations and addition to a one-family dwelling.


Mr. Schecter – Stated that he was asking for a side yard variance with respect to a chimney chase.

Mrs. Schecter – Stated that she had letters from neighbors who were in favor of the application.

Mr. Schecter – We want to move all the bedrooms upstairs.  There are three projects on Radnor Ave. that are doing the exact remodeling that we are proposing to do.  It will be a little over 2,600 sq. ft.

Stephens – How far from the property line will the chimney chase be?

Schecter – 7.1 ft.

Barlow – If you decided not to install the chimney you would not need a variance;  correct?

Schecter – Yes.  Correct.

Rolnick – (To Joseph Sperber, Code Enforcement Officer) Will he need a floor area ratio variance too?

Sperber – No.  He is well below what is allowed in the RA-5 District he is located in.  They have the same size lot as the Adler’s, but the Adler’s are in a RA-9 District and their floor area ratio requirement is smaller.

Rolnick – What will the new roof height be?

Mrs. Schecter - The peak will be 8 ? feet higher than the existing roof line.

Rolnick – At that point you will be taller than the houses on either side of you?

Mrs. Schecter – No, not so much on the left, but the one on the right will be five or six feet taller.  The attic space will be taller than theirs, but the next house down is a full two story with attic.
                                                                Page -5-
                                                                ZBA Minutes
                                                                6/8/05



Barlow – What would you do if we did not grant the variance and you had to eliminate the chimney?

Mrs. Schecter – It is for a fireplace in the living room to heat the house.  The problem with building it internally is that it would take up the bedroom space that we need.

Riedy -  The plans state zero clearance fireplace.  Can you explain what that means?

Schecter – Yes.  It is almost like a wood burning stove.  It fits in a wood frame opening and is boxed in with a non-combustible, non-masonry structure with wood or siding for the exterior.

Riedy – Will the exterior be cedar siding?

Schecter – The first floor would be cedar siding.  The other will be colored stain.

Riedy -  How close to your property is the neighbor on your left?

Schecter – Her driveway is on the other side and she is about eight feet from her property line.  She has seen our plans and has approved them.

Rolnick – One thing that pops out is the height, because you are so close to the other houses are you planning to construct it according to the plans we see here tonight?

Schecter – Yes.

Riedy – Anyone else like to be heard?


There was no reply.


Hearing Closed.

Rolnick – Made Motion to Grant the application for a side yard variance of 0.9 ft. and a total side yard variance of 2.1 ft. according to plans submitted.

Stephens – Second the Motion

Vote:  5-0 - In Favor – Rolnick, Stephens, Riedy, Waitkins, Barlow
                                                                        Page -6-
                                                                        ZBA Minutes
                                                                        6/8/05


John Gaccione, 7 Franklin Ave.  Section 79.13 Block 4 Lot 18.  Located in a RA-9 District.  Request for a rear yard variance with respect to a proposed addition and deck.


John Gaccione was present with his wife Carolyn Gaccione.

Mr. Gaccione -  We would like to expand our existing kitchen and add a dining room and family room area.  It is a single story ranch.  The proposed plan is the most appropriate way to add space and keep the integrity.  We are asking for a seven foot rear yard variance.  The required rear yard setback is 30 ft. and we have only 23 ft.  We checked with our neighbors behind us and on the side of us and they did not oppose.  One neighbor offered to come this evening, but I did not want to inconvenience her.  Her name is Marjorie Gilbert, Cleveland Drive.  She wants us to be able to continue to be her neighbor.  I had it roped off so she could see how much space the proposed addition would take.  She had no objections.

Stephens – How high from the ground will the deck be?

Gaccione – The deck will be approximately three feet from the ground to deck height.

Stephens - Will it be screened?

Gaccione – No.

Rolnick – Is it a walk out basement with like a hurricane door?

Goccione -  Yes.  The ground slopes down towards Cleveland Drive.  The existing foundation there is much smaller than the other end of the house where it slopes down.

Rolnick – Do you plan on having lighting for the deck?

Gaccione – Two spot lights that are not extensive.

Rolnick -  How will you use the deck?

Gaccione – Strictly for our leisure.

Sperber -  The way the deck is shown on the survey, it falls one half foot shy of what is required.  It is the enclosed space they are trying to get a variance for.

                                                                Page -7-
                                                                ZBA Minutes
                                                                6/8/05


Rolnick – I went to the sight and I walked the measurements off and I do not see where it is twenty three feet.

Gaccione - The property line actually ends behind the brush.  If you look at the survey the brush is inside the property line, but in reality there is several more feet behind that.

Rolnick -  Will you be removing any more foliage?

Gaccione – No.

Rolnick – Will you be storing anything under the deck?

Gaccione -  No.  I will have storage in the new basement area.

Rolnick -  We often ask for lattice to be installed under the deck.

Mrs. Gaccione – We do keep our yard neat.  That is one of the reasons our neighbor would like us to stay.

Mr. Gaccione – The lattice will be good to keep the animals out and we can landscape the area.

Riedy -  The new family room that you will be adding, how far will it extend past the deck?

Gaccione – The first page of plans shows the width of the doors, about six feet or so.  The whole expansion is 20 ft. x 15 ft. and the family room would be 10 ft. x 15 ft. wide.

Rolnick – What will the hardship be if not granted?


Gaccione – We have a thirteen year old and an eight year old and we need extra room.

Barlow – If you did not get the variance you would consider reconfiguring the allowed setbacks?

Gaccione – Yes.  We would consider it, but we would also have to consider what is more cost effective.

Rolnick – We always have to pursue this line of questioning.  What if you reduced the length of the extension by seven feet?
                                                                        Page – 8 –
                                                                        ZBA Minutes
                                                                        6/8/05

Mrs. Gaccione – We would not be able to get the room in the back.  Our home does not have a dining room.  We have a living room and dining room that is all one big room.  We need a place to eat.

Riedy – But, I do not see the dining room on the plans.

Gaccione – Family room/dining room

Riedy – It would be 10 ft. wide by 8 ft.?

Gaccione – I understand the widest we can go is 15 ft.  We would have to move a bathroom, which would be substantial.

Rolnick – What is the square footage of it now?

Gaccione – Approximately 1,800 sq. ft.

Barlow – ….and you are adding 300 sq. ft.?

Gaccione – The new floor area ratio maximum would allow a total of 4,000 sq. ft.  We are well below that.

Riedy – Are there any other questions?

Mrs. Adler – 12 Franklin – We would hate to lose them as neighbors.

Riedy – Have you reviewed their application?

Adler – Yes and I have no objections.

Hearing Closed.

Stephens – Made Motion to Grant a 7 ft. rear yard variance according to plans submitted and with the following conditions:

1.      Lattice will be installed under the deck
2.      The applicant will maintain the existing foliage for the purpose of screening.
3.      The siding for the proposed construction will match the existing house.

Rolnick – Second the Motion

Vote:  5-0 In Favor – Stephens, Rolnick, Riedy, Waitkins, Barlow
                                                                        Page -9-
                                                                        ZBA Minutes
                                                                        6/8/05


Steven Boyer, 216 Hessian Hills Rd.  Section 68.09 Block 4 Lot 33.  Request for a variance from Section 230-33 with respect to a rear yard setback for a proposed addition and Section 230-40(B) with respect to a proposed shed projecting nearer the street than the principal building.

Steven Boyer – I apologize I am not prepared with a copy of my plans.

The Board shared with the applicant the plans that were submitted with his application.

Boyer -  My Architect is here with me tonight.  His name is Barry Donaldson, 14 King Street, he owns his own firm.  

Boyer – I am proposing an addition.  Because the house is on a slab I do not have attic space, so there is an issue of storage space and in addition to that I have a water problem, which is actually what set things in motion.  I have a garage, but the garage is always wet and water has flooded into the bedroom half a dozen times since I moved here.  The garage is on the right side facing the house.  The addition would be to the right of that and the space that is currently the garage would be for a bedroom and a study.

Donaldson -  The slab on grade is a very thick slab poured directly on soil, so the water comes from off the rock ledge and pours down onto the edge of the building.  There is no sealant on that, it will all get jack hammered out.  A drain will be put all around the edge to the south end of the property.  The foundation will then be sealed and a new slab will be put in.

Barlow – Is it true that you did not need to add a bedroom to solve your problem you just thought that while you are doing this work you would expand it?

Boyer -  We need a bedroom.  We thought of doing it before.

Donaldson -  The location was limited by many facets such as the driveway on the east and the septic on the south west.

Rolnick – The point of being able to put the proposed addition anywhere else on site is poor because of the rock ledge on the north end of the site.  

Rolnick -  The location of the septic is not shown on the plans.

Donaldson - It is on the South West portion of the house and the leach comes off of that.  We have a permanent drain along that ledge.  You cannot build on septic or over a driveway and the rock area you would need to dynamite.
                                                                        Page -10-
                                                                        ZBA Minutes
                                                                        6/8/05

Discussion followed over plans with respect to the location of the leach fields.

Stephens – Where will the water be re-directed?

Barlow – You only need a variance for the shed in the front?

Donaldson – No.  The rear too.  The site plan probably gives the best indication of where the septic is on site.  The water will go into the southern field.

Stephens – It will not create a problem for the neighbors and not create the same problem we have on Hessian Hills Rd.?

Donaldson – No.

Stephens – What are the dimensions of the front bedroom?

Donaldson – 19 ft. x 15 ft. the outside dimensions.

Barlow – Could you move the addition forward?

Donaldson  – Then we would be encroaching on the front as well as the back.  If we moved it to maintain the setback in the rear we would be encroaching significantly on the front yard setback.  That would be more imposing.  There are quite a few trees in the rear that separate the back area and we plan on planting additional trees.   The house to the west is high and looms down on us so the intent is also for privacy.  The design is meant to bring the outside in and extend the inside out.  In the back you have a more private area where the family room or den will look out on and the master bedroom.  Most of the space in that area has a lot of glass and the existing house has a lot of windows.  In such a nice area you want to embrace the outdoors and take advantage of that.

Barlow – What is the front yard variance?

Sperber -  The variance they received required 11 ft.

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

Donaldson -  We would not be able to build it.  We could dynamite.  

Rolnick – What about a second story?

Donaldson – I thought of that and I did a design just to try it, but it was pretty bad, it was extremely intrusive.  We want to maintain the low profile on site.
                                                                        Page -11-
                                                                        ZBA Minutes
                                                                        6/8/05


Boyer -  It would change the character of the house entirely and it would be more of a problem for the neighbors in the back.

Stephens – Are  you asking for the proposed shed too?

Boyer – Without the garage I also need space for lawn mowers, etc.

Stephens – Without the shed and without the garage you may find yourself juggling cars.

Donaldson – He never used the garage.  He always used it as a tool shed.

Stephens – What are the dimensions of the proposed shed?

Donaldson – 17 ft. x 12 ft.

Waitkins – What will be in it?

Boyer – Lawn Mower, winter tires, etc.

Stephens -  Will it be heated?

Donaldson– No.  It will have electrical lighting, but no heat.

Rolnick -  The east elevation faces the street?

Donaldson – The entry elevation, yes.

Rolnick – Are you raising the elevation of the sun room?

Donaldson – It will be a mud room space at the moment the entry is small.

Rolnick – Will there be a new roof line higher than the existing roof line in the area of the mud room?

Donaldson -  It has a peaked roof to keep snow off and to prevent leakage.

Barlow – So, it is higher than the existing roof line?

Donaldson – Yes.  It is a greenhouse type of construction.

Rolnick – If you did not get the variance for the shed where would you put your storage?
                                                                        Page -12 –
                                                                        ZBA Minutes
                                                                        6/8/05


Donaldson - Slide it against the office area, if you notice on the east elevation where it cuts through the steps; that was the idea.  Those steps align with the walkway to the front of the house.

Discussion followed over plans.


Riedy – Any other questions?


There was no reply


Hearing Closed.


Riedy – Made Motion to grant a rear yard setback variance of 11 ft. 8 1/4 in. with respect to a proposed addition according to plans submitted.

Stephens – Second the motion.

Vote:  4-1 In Favor -  Riedy, Stephens, Barlow, Waitkins
                Against – Rolnick
                Variance Granted

Riedy  - Made Motion grant a front yard variance with respect to the construction of a proposed shed in front of the original structure and nearer to the street than the principal building according to plans submitted.

Stephens – Second the Motion

Vote:  3-2 - In Favor - Riedy, Barlow Waitkins
                   Against – Stephens, Rolnick
                  Variance Granted







                                                                        Page -13-
                                                                        ZBA Minutes
                                                                        6/8/05

Gordon and Liz Ingalls,  1 Penfield Ave.   Section 79.13 Block 3 Lot 76.  Request for a variance from Section 230-40(E)(1) with respect to fence height.

Riedy -  Gordon and Elizabeth Ingalls are clients of mine, but I have not worked with them in connection with this application.  Therefore, I do not believe it is a conflict in anyway for me to vote on this application.

The Board unanimously agreed.

Riedy – (To Joseph Sperber, Code Enforcement Officer) How tall of a fence does the Code provide for?

Sperber – According to Section 230-40(E)(1) which refers also to Subsection ( C)(1) with respect to corner lots and obstruction to vision at street intersections, it states that at all street intersections in all residential districts, no obstruction to vision exceeding 30 inches in height above curb level shall be erected or maintained on any lot within the triangle formed by the street inches of such lot, and a line drawn between points along such street lines 30 feet distant from their point of intersection, except tree trunks cleared to a height of eight feet.   The Ingall’s house is situated on a corner lot at the intersection of Penfield and Devon.  The Code does not allow a fence to exceed thirty (30) inches on a corner lot.

Mrs. Ingalls - We installed a hedge along our property for security measures to enclose our three year old.  The hedges have gaps on one side and our main concern is that our son can get out and sometimes cars come around the sharp turn quickly.  We predominantly want to establish a safety feature for my son.

Rolnick – How tall is your hedge?

Mr. Ingalls – We keep it manicured.  It is about forty inches tall.

Mrs. Ingalls – The proposed fence would be forty two inches we are asking for a variance for the excess.

Barlow - If you are allowed to have a hedge of forty two inches, why does it matter if the fence will be forty two?  The hedge would be a better barrier.

Mrs. Ingalls - Unfortunately, the hedges have extensive gaps and barberry bushes grow big, but my child is about three feet and he likes to jump.  Barberry bushes can only be purchased as tiny plants, so they would not seal the whole front area or the gaps.  We technically have two front yards and no rear yard because we are on a corner lot. So, my child actually plays in the front yard.

                                                                Page -14-
                                                                ZBA Minutes
                                                                6/8/05

Waitkins – Do you plan on putting the fence around the whole house?

Mrs. Ingalls – We checked with the village and we already put a fence in the back of the property, which is OK.  We now want to put a white picket fence around the front and to the right of our property and where the driveway is the fence will be on each side of it.  

Rolnick – Will you continue the fence in the driveway area so your son cannot run out of the driveway and into the road?

Mrs. Ingalls - Yes.  There would have to be two gates, a total of four gates, one in front where the path is and one where the white fence ends.  There will be a total of four gates.  Our whole plan is to keep our property enclosed.

Riedy – How tall is the fence in the rear of your property?

Mrs. Ingalls -  Six feet.  We checked with the Village and it is OK.

Stephens – And the height that you are proposing for the new fence is thirty two inches?

Ingalls – Yes.  It will be a gothic colonial style fence.

Waitkins -  The pickets are not too wide for the child to get out?

Rolnick -  Are you planning on more children?  I know this is a personal question, but my reason for asking is, what if we were to impose a condition stating the fence could remain only for a period of four years?   Would that be acceptable to you?

Riedy -  More and more of these vinyl fences are being installed and they will out live us.  Why did you choose vinyl?

Mrs. Ingalls – Frankly, I prefer wood and we would have chosen wood, but the back fence is vinyl and it will be easier to maintain.

Barlow -  The Code is concerned with safety and traffic.  Would you agree to cut the hedge to the correct height?

Mrs. Ingalls -  I have asked my neighbors if they have any objections and they said no.  They like the hedges.  They had various opinions, but they did not feel it was an obstruction or danger.

Rolnick -  Have you considered having the hedges on the inside of the fence?

                                                                Page -15 –
                                                                ZBA Minutes
                                                                6/8/05


Mrs. Ingalls – If I would do that, I would do without the hedges entirely, because esthetically, it would not be good.

Riedy – Are there any other questions?

Barlow – Has this corner lot had any difficulties?

Sperber  - It is not a through corner.  Unless you are going to visit someone you would not go there.  I have not heard of any problems.  It is not a four-way traffic area.  

Robert Sperling – 38 Devon Ave. – You cannot see the cars.  I have a photo taken from the approximate height of a driver’s head while I was standing in the street.  The hedge is approximately forty inches above the sidewalk.  The sidewalk level is approximately ten inches higher than the street level.  We looked at the Code.  It says thirty inches from curb.  In my opinion it is blocking the view.

Rolnick -  So you are saying it is higher than it sounds from street level?

Mr. Sperling – I believe so, yes.

Rolnick – Are you the immediate neighbor?

Sperling – Yes.

Kevin Coin – 31 Devon Ave. -   I brought photos.  The issue is the corner they share with other neighbors.  There are approximately six children who play in the street.  Children have played in the street for more than a decade.  I have a two year old and another neighbor has a five year old, two year old, and a teenager and there is a basketball net.  Every time we are outside in the summer you can constantly hear the cars.  By adding this other fence it will add a slightly more visual problem.  My wife feels that it is important to bring this to your attention and to consider our concern as an objection to the application.  I would suggest cutting the hedges down.  I think having a vinyl fence would block the view from traffic more.  I am planning on putting up a fence, but I am not blocking the view from traffic like this property does.

Riedy – Are you not concerned that the white vinyl fence would be distracting?

Coin – My house is the red and white house on the end.   Their house is between ours.  My fence will not be that much in line of sight

Riedy – Are you planning on putting yours just on the front or the side?
                                                                                Page -16-
                                                                                ZBA Minutes
                                                                                6/8/05


Coin – Alongside theirs.  We will have a nice square around ours and box front.

Mr. Ingalls – We did reach out to them and we did try to resolve this, but they refused that offer and you can get a full understanding of how we have come to this.

Mrs. Ingalls -  ….and this is over a two year period.  My neighbor does not maintain his property and it is dangerous for my children to run back there.  He began to build a fence early last summer and all the material and cement sat outside all winter.  He got overrun by fleas and all their clothing was put in blue bins and left outside in the yard.  I constantly have to look at this from my bedroom and den windows, it is an eyesore.  This is also my reason for needing the fence for privacy and so I don’t have to be depressed about looking at the eye-sore every day.  I have spoken to him over a two year period.   They said the reason they did not want a six foot fence is because they wanted to have more of a view, which is our property, which we keep maintained, and our view is his property which we need to cover up.

Mrs. Ingalls – Would you agree if we did away with the forty two inch fence and went with a six foot fence?

Mr. Coin – It would block the view of traffic.

Rolnick – How long have you lived there?

Mr. Coin – 22 yrs.

Rolnick – Are you aware of any incidents?

Mr. Coin – (Mentioned a resident by the name of  “Jammie” who ..) came to the Village to request a stop sign for the corner, but the village turned them down.  He was concerned about children running out in the street and getting hit by a car.

Rolnick – If we were to amend the application and request that they remove the hedges and in lieu of the hedge construct a fence similar in design that is shown in their application would you object?

Coin – If it were lower than forty two inches.  Thirty six inches I would not object.  The corner street sign has been hit several times.  This has happened in order to avoid hitting children.

Mrs. Ingalls – They hit the sign because they were tall vehicles.

                                                                        Page -17-
                                                                        ZBA Minutes
                                                                        6/8/05


Coin -  I would also like to rebuke their description of my property, but this is not the forum.

Riedy – Let us try to stay focused on the issue.  Does anyone have any questions on the photos that were presented?  

Riedy – (To Mr. & Mrs. Ingalls) Would you be agreeable to install a thirty six inch fence instead of hedges?

Mr. Ingalls -  We would like to keep the hedges.  We are not trying to take away the greenery we just want to add security.

Demetria Tsagarakis – I do not know these people or live near them.  I am just speaking as a gardener.  It would be best to keep the hedge and cut it to the proper height and use compost.  You would not need a vinyl fence.  If they do install a fence I think wood would be preferable over vinyl.  I have an issue with a forty two inch fence because you cannot see the cars over the fence and with the children on bikes you would not be able to see them over a hedge.  I know the corner they are talking about.  The kids are always running in the streets and with summer coming up….

Riedy - Any other questions?

There was no reply.


Hearing Closed.


Stephens – Made Motion to Grant the variance as requested and according to plans submitted.

Rolnick – Second the Motion

Vote:   5-0 – Opposed – Stephens, Rolnick, Riedy, Waitkins, Barlow

APPLICATION DENIED





                                                                        Page -18-
                                                                        ZBA Minutes
                                                                        6/8/05


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 (Adj. on 5/11/05).

Susan Reardon, Architect, Ferris Place, Ossining, N.Y.  – This is a re-submittal from last year.  The variance was denied.  We are now addressing the concerns the Board had with respect to safety and ingress and egress from the garage onto Grand Street and the concern with visibility and the steep hill in the area.  We repositioned the garage at the same angle as the house, turning out.  The special permit regulations for steep slopes, states that any steep slope would allow you to bring the accessory garage within five feet closer to the street than the house.  We are asking for that approval for this garage.  Otherwise, we would need a setback of five feet and the property drops in that area.  Another issue with the first application was the view.  We are maintaining all the best views on the property and as you are walking down the street.  We are also positioning the garage so we can maintain the old existing trees.

Rolnick – How is the positioning of the garage different than before?

Reardon – The other garage was facing the street and did not allow a back out.  There was a major concern about safety.  We have addressed that.  It has been shifted and oriented differently, but it is the same size and same design.  By making these changes one corner of the garage is on the front of the house and this allows us to be within five or ten feet of the front of the house.  Our concern is if we move it back, it would need a retaining wall and it is very steep at that point.

Rolnick - Would you need a steep slopes permit to build it farther back?  Would that have to go before the Planning Board?

Sperber – The Village Board normally refers it to the Planning Board.

Reardon - We submitted a sketch of what a wall would look like there and I did not think that would be a very good option.

Riedy – The driveway that exists today will be removed or incorporated in the plans?

Reardon - The existing driveway is asphalt that is chipping away.  We will replace that with gravel probably.

Mr. Mainiero - We would replace it with other pavement and then it would meet the sidewalk.  The progression will remain the same.
                                                                        Page – 19 –
                                                                        ZBA Minutes
                                                                        6/8/05

Rolnick – Would it be possible to have a single car garage and not need a variance?

Reardon – Because of the slope and because the front yard is twenty five feet we would need to move it forward and we would still need a special permit.

Sperber – My understanding is they need to set it back behind the primary structure and the primary structure predates zoning.

Discussion followed over plans.

Sperber -  The southern corner looks like it is ten feet as it is shown.

Reardon - When we tilt it in one corner it is seven feet, so we are asking for three feet.

Discussion followed over plans.


Riedy – Any other questions?


There was no reply.


Hearing Closed.  

Stephens – Made Motion to Grant a 3 ft. front yard variance to permit an accessory structure (two car garage) to be located in front of the primary structure and according to plans submitted.

Waitkins – Second the Motion

Vote:  4-1 In Favor – Stephens, Waitkins, Riedy, Barlow
                 Opposed – Rolnick


Respectfully submitted,


Janice Fuentes
ZBA Secretary
6/8/05

                                RESOLUTION

Laura Adler, has applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, for a Floor area Ratio Variance with respect to a proposed second story addition.

The property, at 12 Franklin Ave., is located in a RA-9 District and is designated on the Tax Maps of the Village as Section 79.13 Block 4 Lot 22.

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


There will be no undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties.

The proposed variance will not have an adverse affect on the environment or condition in the neighborhood or district.




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


Stephens Made Motion – To Grant a Floor Area Ratio Variance of 223 sq. ft. according to plans submitted.

Rolnick – Second the Motion
Vote:  5-0  - In Favor -  Stephens, Rolnick Riedy, Waitkins, , Barlow
               

6/8/05


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

Steven Boyer, has applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, request for a variance from Section 230-33 with respect to a rear yard setback for a proposed addition and Section 230-40(B) with respect to a proposed shed projecting nearer the street than the principal building.

The property, at 216 Hessian Hills Rd., is located in a RA-40 District and is designated on the Tax Maps of the Village as Section 68.09 Block 4 Lot 33.

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.

With respect to the proposed addition the variance requested is substantial, but because of the proposed location the visual and environmental impact will be minimal.  The benefit cannot be achieved by some other method due to the topography of the land and the location of septic.  A second story would be more intrusive.  

With respect to the proposed shed there will be no adverse affect or detriment to nearby properties or the environment.  The benefit could be achieved by some other method but, it would interfere with the character of the original structure or the topography of the land.

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

Riedy – Made Motion to grant a rear yard setback variance of 11 ft. 8 1/4 in. with respect to a proposed addition according to plans submitted.

Stephens – Second the motion.
Vote:  4-1 In Favor -  Riedy, Stephens, Barlow, Waitkins
                Against – Rolnick
                Variance Granted

Riedy  - Made Motion grant a front yard variance with respect to the construction of a proposed shed in front of the original structure and nearer to the street than the principal building according to plans submitted.

Stephens – Second the Motion
Vote:  3-2 - In Favor - Riedy, Barlow Waitkins
                   Against – Stephens, Rolnick
                  Variance Granted

6/8/05

                                RESOLUTION


John Gacchione, has applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, for a rear yard variance with respect to a proposed addition and deck.

The property, at 7 Franklin Ave., is located in a RA-9 District and is designated on the Tax Maps of the Village as Section 79.13 Block 4 Lot 18.

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 lot line is farther back than it appears and the property is screened from the neighbor who will be most affected.

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




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

Stephens – Made Motion to Grant a 7 ft. rear yard variance according to plans submitted and with the following conditions:

1.      Lattice will be installed under the deck.
2.       The applicant will maintain the existing foliage for the purpose of screening.
3.      The siding for the proposed construction will match the existing house.
Rolnick – Second the Motion

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

6/8/05


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

Stephen Schecter, has applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, request for a side yard variance with respect to proposed alterations and addition to a one-family dwelling.

The property, at 47 Darby 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 21.

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

The variance requested is minimal.

There will be no adverse affect to the neighborhood or environment.


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

Rolnick – Made Motion to Grant the application for a side yard variance of 0.9 ft. and a total side yard variance of 2.1 ft. according to plans submitted.

Stephens – Second the Motion

Vote:  5-0 – In Favor

6/8/05


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

Gordon & Liz Ingalls,  has applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, for a variance from Section 230-4-(E)(1) of the Village Code, with respect to a proposed fence.

The property, at 1 Penfield Ave., is located in a RA-5  District and is designated on the Tax Maps of the Village as Section 79.13 Block 3 Lot 76..

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


The variance requested would have an adverse affect on the neighborhood.  There are safety concerns with respect to visibility and traffic.

The Variance requested could be achieved by some other method.




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


Stephens Made Motion – To Grant the variance as requested.

Rolnick – Second the Motion
Vote:  5-0  - Opposed -  Stephens, Rolnick,  Riedy, Waitkins, , Barlow
               

6/8/05


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

Thomas Peyton & Janet Mainiero, has applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, for a variance and/or special permit to allow for an accessory structure to project beyond the front of a primary structure.

The property, at 33 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 4.

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 has addressed the concerns of the Board and finds this application much more acceptable than the first application submitted.  

There is no other location better than the location that is currently proposed.  They could build the garage without a variance, but the applicant would then need a steep slopes permit.

The current design keeps the garage as far away as possible from the existing trees.

If the applicant was requested to construct it by some other method, it would be a hardship of cost and the applicant would be required to obtain relief from the Steep Slopes Permit.

The garage is now turned slightly so it does not have an impact on the view that was a major concern for the neighbors.


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

Stephens – Made Motion to Grant a 3 ft. front yard variance to permit an accessory structure (two car garage) to be located in front of the primary structure and according to plans submitted.

Waitkins – Second the Motion
Vote:  4-1 - In Favor -  Stephens, Waitkins, Riedy, Barlow
                 Opposed - Rolnick

6/8/05


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.”