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 November 9, 2005
                                                        DRAFT FILED: 11/22/05   
                                                        FINAL APPROVAL:  12/14/05

VILLAGE OF CROTON ON HUDSON ZONING BOARD OF ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 9, 2005


Members Present:    Kathleen Riedy
                                Rhoda Stephens
                                Paul Rolnick
                                Witt Barlow


Absent: -  Ruth Waitkins



Also Present -  Joseph Sperber, Code Enforcement Officer



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


HEARINGS:


Ronald Napolitani, 379 So. Riverside Ave., Located in a C-2 (Gateway Overlay District) and designated on the Tax Maps of the Village as Section 79.13 Block 2 Lot 26.  Request for an interpretation/relief from Section 230-20.3(B) (3) of the Village Code with respect to drive-through windows.

The Board acknowledged receipt of a request from the applicant to adjourn the hearing until next month.

The Board agreed to adjourn the hearing.


Kenneth & Gwenveria Sargeant, 193 Cleveland Drive, Located in a RA-25 District and designated on the Tax Maps of the Village as Section 68.17 Block 3 Lot 46 (Adj. on 10/11/05).

The Board acknowledged receipt of a request from the applicant to adjourn the hearing in order to give the applicant more time to submit revised plans.

The Board agreed to adjourn the hearing.
                                                                Page -2-
                                                                ZBA Minutes
                                                                                               11/9/05


Bernard P. Yozwiak & Teresa V. Jankovic, 61 Sunset Drive, Located in a RA-5 District and designated on the Tax Maps of the Village as Section 79.09 Block 2 Lot 24.  Request for a total side yard variance with respect to alterations and an addition.

Chris Borchardt, Architect for the applicant was present as well as the applicant.

Yozwiak -  We have a 1928 Sears Roebuck house with a detached garage.  We are looking to construct an addition by attaching the detached garage to the house. It is an existing 1 ? story house.  The addition will consist of a game room and office and the upper level will consist of a bathroom and yoga room.  

Discussion followed over the plans.

Yozwiak – On our left side on Sunset Dr. we are 6 ft. 7 in. from the driveway and on the right side we are 6 ft. 1 in. at the smallest measurement from the property line.
Borchardt – The house pre-exists zoning regulations.

Yozwiak – Because we are planning on connecting the garage to the house the current zoning requires 8 ft. on one side and 12 ft. for total side yard.  We are also planning on building on top of the garage.

Discussion followed over elevation plans and roof height.


Yozwiak – We are trying to build in the same manner as the existing house.

Borchardt – Referring to Plans:  We are trying to build it back so it is not right on the property line.  We have taken efforts to minimize the impact.  We have identified the portions that we thought would be advantages to the applicant.  The kitchen is in that area.  It is hidden behind a pergola and we are trying to maintain the detail of the house and trying to hide the bulk.  On this side of the garage area (referring to plans) it actually steps down in that area and that helps to minimize the height.

Discussion followed over plans regarding side elevations.

Borchardt – On the back we have taken efforts to build as little as possible.  From a perception stand point there would be very little construction in that corner.  We only had two options.  One would be to come out in the back and the property slopes in that area

Page -3-
                                                                ZBA Minutes
                                                                                               11/9/05
        

and it would sit twelve feet up in the air if it were built.  Our proposed location was one of the best spots.

Stephens – What is the size of the addition?

Borchardt – On the basement level it will be 345 sq. ft. and on the lower level we will be adding 345 sq. ft. and on the upper level we will add 505 sq. ft.   The existing total square footage is 2,300 sq. ft. and the total square footage after the proposed addition will be 3,485 sq. ft.

Rolnick – Is there is a walkout on the back?

Bochardt – Yes.

Barlow – What is the purpose of this addition?

Yoziak – We have three children and one bathroom and we need another bedroom.  Our kitchen is a galley kitchen so we are adding a new kitchen.

Barlow – How many bedrooms and bathrooms will you have if you build this?

Yoziak – A total of four bedrooms and three and one half bathrooms.


Discussion followed over plans.

Yoziak – There will also be a fireplace.

Barlow – How long have you lived there?

Yoziak – Since 1994

Barlow – Did you indicate that another alternative would be to go out towards the back?

Borchardt – Given the addition that they need we could not go out the back due to the slopes.

Barlow – But, if you were to go out the back you would not be intruding on the neighbors or be closer to the neighbors?

Yoziak – On the side of the garage it would be closer to the neighbors.
                                        Page -4-
                                                                ZBA Minutes
                                                                                               11/9/05



Riedy – Is the footprint of the home changing?

Rolnick – But, the rear is changing.

Borchardt -  The rear will stay the same.  It will stay as is.

Discussion followed over plans.

Rolnick – How do you compare the existing roof height with the proposed roof height?

Borchardt - We are actually picking up the existing roof line.  It will not be higher and in the garage area we have taken efforts to drop that roof line including the peak.

Stephens – Can this be built without the addition of the garage?

Yoziak – We are trying to upgrade our house and build what people are looking for this day and time and to put in a master suite.

Barlow – Part of the garage will be the master bath and yoga room?

Yoziak – Yes.  So my wife can do her yoga.

Discussion followed over plans.

Barlow – The master bath and bedroom will be over the garage?

Yoziak – We are not planning on constructing the balcony that is shown on the plans.  Where the door is shown we will have a window.

Rolnick – Have there been any improvements since you purchased the property?

Yoziak – None.

Barlow – How old is the garage?

Yoziak – I don’t know.  The house was built in 1928.


Pictures were submitted for the record.
                                                                Page -5-
                                                                ZBA Minutes
                                                                11/9/05


Riedy – How would this change your neighbor’s perspective at 59 Sunset.  

Barlow – 59 Sunset is the neighbor to the left?

Riedy – Yes.

Borchardt – There will be a bay window that will be immediately adjacent to the driveway.  It will have a window seat and we will try to minimize that.  They actually sit to the opposite side.

Yoziak -  Both of our houses go back the same distance.

Riedy – There have been two petitions that were submitted to the Board this evening just before the meeting began.  Have you had an opportunity to see these?  They will be submitted for the record.

Yoziak – No.  I have not seen them.   

Yoziak – (After reviewing the petitions) Am I suppose to respond to these?

Riedy -  If you care to.  I wanted to bring them to your attention.

Yoziak -  We have an old house and we hired an architect to do it right.  We are not putting it up on steroids we just want to do it right.  We are not trying to sandwich our house in.  We do have existing conditions that are tight.  One letter mentions that we should buy a larger house.  We are trying to avoid that and we like it here in this community.  We want to stay in the village.  We are not going any higher.   The front will look much like it was meant to be.  We are not raising the roof.

Riedy -  You are not going any higher in the back as well, correct?

Yoziak – Correct.  The basement is open in the front and buried in the back.  

Yoziak – Referring to Petition - These petitioners are all residents of 65 Sunset Dr.

Rolnick – What is the address immediately to the right of your property and are they on the petition?

Yoziak – 65 Sunset and yes they are on the petition.

Barlow -  The garage is currently on a slab?
                                                                Page – 6 –
                                                                ZBA Minutes
                                                                11/9/05


Borchardt – It is an actual suspended slab believe it or not.

Discussion followed over pictures.

Yoziak – There is an arbor way and we are trying to maintain the entrance way.

Stephens – The front will be stone.

Yoziak – Cement to match the front and the stone will be in the back of the house.

Barlow – Will there be any other changes architecturally?

Yoziak – We will not be constructing the balcony and the door will be replaced with a window.

Riedy – What kind of siding.

Yoziak – It will match the current siding.

Bochardt – It is called “safer”(sp) siding it will look like what is there now.

Riedy -  Will any trees be removed as a result of this construction?

Yoziak – There is one tree that is behind the garage that we may trim or need to remove.  We need to discuss this with the contractor.  There is a series of Maple trees along that property line that we would like to keep.

Riedy – What would the hardship be if you were not granted the variance and could not build the proposed addition?

Yoziak – We would need to move and purchase another house.  We did a lot of yard work in the back and the kids love the community, sailing, and they are able to walk to school.

Barlow – Would you consider going towards the back as an alternative rather than building out the side?

Yoziak – The layout goes deep.  We are not putting in air conditioning.  We are putting in a lot of windows.


                                                                Page – 7 –
                                                                ZBA Minutes
                                                                11/9/05

Borchardt – The layout goes deep and the rear slopes.  We are proposing the most efficient way to build.  We are using the existing wall and side wall of the house.  We are utilizing both.

Barlow – Is that enough to support a second floor?

Borchardt – The load is actually coming together at two points and it will support the wall.

Riedy – One factor is whether or not the proposed construction would have an affect on the community.  What you are planning on doing is to materially increase the size of this house.  How do you address that factor and if not, why?

Borchardt -  There will not be much of an impact because we tried to minimize it so the existing garage remains.  We have minimized any impact that we would be creating.

Yoziak -  If any addition were to be added to this house I think this proposal is in the right area.  I am an electrical engineer and have done a lot of construction for many years.  This is a Sears’s house and we are trying to keep the same esthetics and minimize the size and most of the size impact is seen from the back yard where it drops off.  We are not building in the back we are keeping it to the original footprint.

Stephens – Have your neighbors see the plans?

Yoziak – My neighbors next door saw them and the neighbor three houses down, but not the owner to the right.

Rolnick – When would you begin construction?

Borchardt – Late fall or early spring.

Yoziak – We were hoping to get the foundation poured in the fall before the ground freezes.  My wife needs a place to call her own.

Riedy – Anyone else like to be heard?

Nancy B. Johnson – 65 Sunset Drive – In response to the request for a variance to build an addition located at 61 Sunset Drive.  I have been asked to be a spokes person based on the following points:   The request for a variance appears to be a misguided intent to build an addition that will result in a house that is too large according to the existing Zoning, RA-5.  The lot in question is 5,000 sq. ft.  As the height of the renovated structure will be out of sync with the character of the block, there is a deep concern that
                                                        Page – 8 –
                                                        ZBA Minutes
                                                        11/9/03


such a situation will adversely impact the property values of homeowners who live on the block,   especially those houses on either side of the renovated structure, and possibly other houses in the vicinity as well. It will reduce my privacy and adversely affect the quality of life of the occupants of 65 Sunset Drive, which is my property, and 59 Sunset Drive, the former Ribreau property (loss of trees, a buffer, bedroom windows of adjacent houses too close to each other, etc.)  Although it is not a legal requirement we are disappointed that they did not seek input from their neighbors before deciding to renovate in such an extreme manner. Do they intend to use the yoga room for personal use, office, or personal business and if so, will it be monitored for road traffic? (A complete record of Nancy B. Johnson’s comments that was read to the Board during the hearing will be made part of the record).

Johnson – I brought photos.

Photos submitted for the record.
 
Rolnick – Did you see the proposed plans?

Johnson – Yes.

Riedy – The photo labeled “Johnson 1” – What does it show?

Johnson – Our house and buffer and the garage.

Riedy – To Johnson – How big is your house?

Johnson – 1,600 sq. ft.

Barlow – Is it smaller than the proposed house?

Johnson – Larger

Riedy – Are your bedrooms on the second floor?

Johnson – If they do build their windows will look right into ours and ours into theirs.

Discussion followed over pictures.

Riedy – Photo marked Johnson #5 is the view from the back deck of your home?


                                                        Page -9 –
                                                        ZBA Minutes
                                                        11/9/05


Johnson – Yes.  We have a wooded area.  That photo is to show generally what it looks like.  They put in a fence and their side yard is 6.5 ft. and does not comply.

Riedy – How much property is there between your house and the property line?  What are your setbacks?

Mr. Johnson – It is greater.  It is probably 12 ft.  

Mrs. Johnson – We have trees on our side and they have trees on their side and it is beautifully buffered.

Rolnick -  They said they would not remove the trees.

Yoziak-  Those trees are on our property.

Rolnick -  The trees between the properties are on  your side and you do not intend to remove any of those?

Yoziak – No, only the branches.

Riedy – Referring to Picture labeled “Johnson 4”, what are you trying to show us?

Johnson – The front on their home and I am trying to give you an idea of how it would be if it were enclosed.  But, what is not agreeable, is the plan for the garage.  This window here (referring to picture) will look right into their bedroom.

Rolnick – What do you see there now?

Johnson – A deck.

Discussion followed over plans.

Rolnick – Do these trees between the two properties provide screening?

Johnson – No, because it is there to shield the fireplace.

The five photos Mrs. Johnson submitted were made part of the record.

Riedy -  The plans provided for two windows on the second floor, one window in the bathroom, and one in the yoga room.  If the applicant were to change the plan and eliminate one of those windows, would that be acceptable to you?
                                                        Page -10-
                                                        ZBA Minutes
                                                        11/9/05


Mrs. Johnson – Well, if we have to look at a blank wall I do not think we will be too pleased.

Riedy – But, would it address your privacy concerns?

Mrs. Johnson – Let me think about that.

Stephens – Can you please write down the names of the people whose signatures are on that letter you submitted?

Johnson – Yes.

Yoziak – Their house sits back farther from the street than our house.  Those windows are in the rear.  They are not abutting.

Riedy – Anyone else like to speak?

Mrs. Johnson - I said before we did own that property and had our home built twenty years ago.  In order to get the lot we wanted we had to……

Mr. Thomas Johnson – Interrupted his wife to say – My point regarding the house is that the variance will change the character of the neighborhood.  The proposed structure ends up with seventy two inches on each side of the domicile that is a drastic change.  I would invite you to walk up and down on the street to see the character and the sizes of the houses and how they are located.  It does not fit the character.  Regarding the variance, you might want to say there already is one, non-conformity of six feet, and another on the other side, and the Zoning requirement is a total of 20 ft.  We are talking about a four foot setback for the domicile, if the variance is granted.  It moves the house very close to the adjacent area.  In this case I think one should look at what the neighbor has and see if the plans can be re-drawn so it sits back eight feet from the property line and therefore will conform to the requirements of the zoning regulations.

Riedy – You’re suggesting the elimination of the garage as part of the overall plans?

Johnson – I am talking about the domicile.  Therefore, it would be seventy two inches from the property line.

Barlow – If it were fourteen feet from the property line you would not have any objection?

Mr. Johnson – I am saying, would there be a legal basis for my suggestions?
                                                                Page -11 –
                                                                ZBA Minutes
                                                                11/9/05


Riedy – Do you agree with your wife’s assessment that it will adversely affect property values in the neighborhood?

Mr. Johnson -  There is a feeling that the houses are being pushed together rather than having it open.  It would be an abnormality to be that close to the property lines.

Rolnick – When you purchased your house did any of the lot lines change or did they remain the same?

Mr. Johnson -  The house at 61 Sunset was built on a lot that had a slab adjacent to it.  In order to keep the garage with the house there was an allowance made on the neighbor’s house to make an addition to the lot to encompass the garage.

Rolnick – Is that the new line?  Are you saying the lot line use to be in the middle of the garage?

Johnson – No, by the walkway.

Rolnick – Did you receive a variance for this?

Johnson – It was done with the engineer at the time it was approved.

Rolnick – Without a variance?

Johnson – I don’t know.

Paul Ingvoldstad– 99 Old Post Rd. – My driveway is the extension of Sunset.  Sunset Dr. is my neighborhood.  I am an architect.  I walk Sunset Drive and Lexington once per day at least.  I really appreciate what Colonel Harmon did many years ago.  Even though there are setback requirements, etc, there was a large variety of homes that got built in the development.  They are almost like doll houses.  As an architect and although this does not have much to do with what you are determining here but, I think, although I have not looked at the plans, I am only going by what I have heard tonight, I think it will look silly.  I can appreciate the effort that they are making in terms of trying to keep the front, but trying to get the best of both worlds will not work.  I think you could keep the front appearance and keep the addition going back, but with an esthetic approach.  My opinion is maybe some alternative plans might solve this.  I do not understand the setback problem, but I think you have to think in terms of making a decision that will set a precedent for that neighborhood and how all of these people that come into the neighborhood with three kids and want to expand the houses and how much of a variance you are going to allow and in that neighborhood they are all small lots.  There are only
                                                                Page – 12 –
                                                                ZBA Minutes
                                                                11/9/05


eight and ten feet between those houses.  They are tight and if you give them five foot variances the neighborhood changes.   The same thing happened in Yonkers.  Everything tightened up and grew up.  You need to think how you are going to affect the neighborhood.

Riedy – Are there any other comments?

Bruce Lemmel – 59 Sunset Drive – I am proposing to purchase.  I understand my neighbor has questions, it affects the street line and there are a lot of houses in this neighborhood that have small lots and giving variances can start a precedent.  I do not like the design.  It is a tough call.  The architect really has everything centrally located and not going out into the back yard.  That would in a sense start to affect my property, if they did.  There are three trees on the side of that structure.   

Paul Ingvoldstad – 99 Old Post Rd. So.  My driveway is the extension of Sunset.  Sunset is my neighborhood.  I am an architect.  I walk Sunset and Lexington once per day.  I really appreciate what Kernel Harmon did many years ago.   Even though there are setback requirements, etc., there are a variety of homes that were built in the development and since that time people have built larger homes in the vicinity of this neighborhood.  This house is almost a doll house.  As an architect I know this does not have much to do with what is being determined here tonight, but I think, although I have not looked at the plans and I am only going by the description that was given tonight, I think it will look silly.  I can appreciate the effort they are making in terms of trying to keep the front, but trying to get the best of both worlds will not work.  I thing you could keep the front appearance and keep the addition going back, but with an esthetic approach.  My opinion is that maybe some alternative plans might solve this.  I do not understand the setback problem, but I think you have to think in terms of the fact you may be making a decision that that will set a precedent for that neighborhood.  I also want to point out how people come into these small neighborhoods with three kids and then want to expand them.  How many variances are you going to allow in a neighborhood that has small lots.  There is only eight to ten feet between those houses and it is tight.  If you give them a five foot variance the neighborhood changes.  The same thing happened in Yonkers.  Everything tightened up and was taller.  You need to think of how your decision will affect the neighborhood.

Riedy – Any other questions?


Bruce Lemmel – 59 Sunset Dr. – I am proposing to purchase.  I understand my neighbor has questions.

                                                                               Page – 13 –
                                                                                ZBA Minutes
                                                                               11/9/05



Bruce Lemmel – 59 Sunset – proposing to purchase.  – I feel this application affects the street line and there are a lot of houses in this neighborhood that have small lots and giving one variance can start a chain reaction.  I do not like the design.  It is a tough call. The architect really has everything centrally located and it is not going out towards the back.  That in a sense would affect my property.  There are three trees on the side of that structure.  The proposed construction may affect that tree.  It may affect Maple trees that are old.  The trees may not be able to be saved, if the construction were to take place on the other side.  This proposal allows them to save the trees.  It is a tough call.  Does the bay window on my side need a variance?


Rolnick – They need a five foot side yard variance on that side.  

Lemmel – There is a lot of bathroom on that side, who is the contractor?  I do not want any more building in my back yard.  Maybe they can get another design and come up with another solution.

Rolnick-  So, you do not have any opinion to grant, or deny the application?

Lemmel – I have a feeling that no matter what work will be done …….

Barlow – Do you want it denied or granted?

Lummel – Probably, to deny, it will not look good in Croton.

Riedy – Are you in contract to purchase 59 Sunset?

Lemmel – Yes.  We are hoping to close shortly.


Riedy – And the vacant land; did you buy that as well?

Riedy – Any other comments?

Borchardt – The actual size of the lot is over 9,600 sq. ft., so the characterization he made of the lot line is incorrect.  The issue of height is also false.  The height will not change and it will not be out of character of the neighborhood.  With respect to the variance request we are only asking for the setbacks that already exist.  We are not proposing to extend farther.  We are just working with the existing conditions that we have.

                                                                                Page – 14 –
                                                                                 ZBA Minutes
                                                                                11/9/05


Riedy – What is the nature of the bulk and parking regulations (referring to plans)?

Borchardt – I was asked to add that when I submitted the application.

Rolnick – (To Code Enforcement Officer, Joseph Sperber) What was the reason for the request…..

Sperber - They needed to show two off street parking spaces.


Stephens – You are putting in a bay window?

Borchardt – Yes.  Other than that there will be no change.  It will be coming two feet beyond the original footprint.  The variance request is for two feet.  Six feet is existing, it will be four feet.

Barlow – (To Code Enforcement Officer, Joseph Sperber) The overhang does not require a variance, does it?

Sperber -  Yes, it would.  Just like it would for the construction of a chimney.

Barlow – But, chimney’s go down to the ground.

Sperber – I will need to check that.  In the front you can only have encroachments for the purpose of entry according to Section 230-40(E)(1), Obstructions, Number 1, first sentence.

Barlow – So, that would require a variance of two feet.

Discussion followed over the variance measurements that would be needed.

Yoziak – Our neighbor’s house was set back more than the normal of ever other house.  There are lots of houses that could be considered out of character of the neighborhood.  We are keeping the roof line the same, not higher. We are recessing back with the pergola and the walkway and arbor are the same.  There is no yoga studio it will be just an exercise size room for my wife, not an office.  The property line is a funky property line. I do not know how historically it got that way.  The bay window I would be willing to eliminate and put in an ordinary window.  Mr. Lummel, has no windows on that side of his house on the first floor.  They have been boarded up.


                                                                Page – 15 –
                                                                                   ZBA Minutes
                                                                   11/9/05

Lemmel– I like the idea that you are putting in a bay window, but if it is part of the variance …….  

Yoziak – We are tying to keep within the character of the neighborhood, even though they are arguing that position.  We tried hard to stay within the confines of this neighborhood and want to upgrade the house.


Riedy – There are two choices; one is to close tonight and have a vote according to plans submitted or we can adjourn to give you an opportunity to review your plans and perhaps revise the plans according to the public’s comments and we can put you on the next calendar for next month. There are also five factors that are taken into consideration when granting a variance as well as the comments of your neighbors.  From a procedural standpoint, if we close the hearing tonight and it is denied, then you would be in the position of having to revise the plans and submit a whole new application and start the process all over again or we can adjourn and you may want to compromise on the bay window.  An adjournment would give you the opportunity to consider some of the comments that have already been made and you heard your neighbors concerns about privacy.  I am just presenting to you the two options that you have. What is your preference?

Sperber -  This is normally a five member Board and tonight we have only four members present.  That means you will need at least three members this evening to vote in favor of the application in order to be granted the variance.  If you adjourn until next month there is a possibility that all five members will be present and your chances may be greater for obtaining a variance.


Yoziak - Can I have five minutes to decide?


Riedy -Yes.

After a short recess the applicant stated that he would like to adjourn the hearing until next month.



Hearing adjourned.



                                                                Page – 16 –
                                                                ZBA Minutes
                                                                                               11/9/05


Daniel Rosso & Tracy Jarc, 15 Irving Ave., Located in a RA-5 District and designated on the Tax Maps of the Village as Section 79.09 Block 2 Lot 24.  Request for a total side yard variance with respect to alterations and addition.

Ms. Jarc – I am seeking a two foot total side yard variance.  The house is a pre-existing non-conforming house that was built in 1959 according to the 1931 Zoning Regulation.  We are missing two feet from the required twenty feet that is required.  Our project is to add a second floor and raise the roof.  
We are not going beyond the existing footprint.  We are just adding a farmer’s porch that will be the full length of the front of the house.  There will be a stoop with a railing around it and it will be covered.  I believe it will be a couple of feet deeper than the current porch is now.

Discussion followed over plans.


Rolnick – Are you saying the variance that you need in the front is not specific to the variance you need now?

Barlow – There is 22.6 ft. in the front now.

Rolnick – In a RA-5 District they need a 15 ft. front yard setback.  So, it will be a full blown porch?


Ms. Jarc - Yes.



Riedy – It will be 15.6 ft. from the front yard

Stephens – What is the side yard that is requested?

Ms. Jarc – 2 ft.

David Jarc – I am the applicant’s brother and I am a contractor.  They need a variance for the pre-existing non-conformity and the existing total side yard is eighteen ft. and the required is twenty.

Stephens – What is the reason for the addition?
                                                                        Page – 17 –
                                                                        ZBA Minutes
                                                                        11/9/05


Ms. Jarc – Our house is too small.  We had one child and two years ago we had our second child.  Our house is too small.  We have been beaten on three offers for a new house and this is the only affordable option we have.  I was raised in Croton and my children would like to stay in Croton.  We have a living room on the first floor and off the living room is a master bedroom and behind that is second bedroom which is much smaller.  We have a full bath and in back of the house is an eat-in kitchen and an unfinished basement where half of it is our garage.  The proposed plans are for a living room and kitchen on the first floor and the full bath will remain.  One bedroom will become the dining room and the other one will be a multi purpose room. The new space, on the second floor will have two bedrooms for each of the children and a full bath, laundry closet, and master bed and bath.  

Rolnick – What is the current square footage?


Ms. Jarc – The current square footage is 1,200 sq. ft. and it will be 1,950 sq. ft. when finished.

Rolnick – Does this include the basement?

Ms. Jarc – Neither include the basement.  The basement would need to comply by Code.

Stephens – The height and pitch of the roof will remain the same?

David Jarc – 26 or 27 feet.

Joe Sperber, Code Enforcement Officer – It will be well below what the Code requires.

Rolnick - Is the roof height roughly the same as the existing height?  Facing the house from the street is it the same as the house to the right of your house and the house up the hill?  Is it roughly the same?


Ms. Jarc – The house to the left and the house to the right are roughly one and one half stories.  There is a dormer and a full second story.  The one down on Irving is one and one half stories.


Stephens – Have you shown plans to your neighbors?


                                                                        Page – 18 –
                                                                        ZBA Minutes
                                                                        11/9/05


Ms. Jarc – Yes.  I have shown them to Michael Getz, who has the one and one half story house next to me. I gave the neighbors an opportunity to see the plans and they all declined to see them.  Mr. Getz is here tonight.  In terms of the second floor we adjusted our plans for the windows that face our neighbors, so it would not impact them.  We have awning windows that are also high on the wall on the center of the building and double hung windows in the front and back of the building.

Riedy – Is that what I see on page A-2 of the plans?

Mrs. Jarc - Yes A-2 and A-3.

Riedy – You are showing a side porch on A-2 that is new?

Ms. Jarc– There is stairs there now, that lead to a doorway that is covered.  In order to fix the grade on the first floor coming out of the kitchen we need to raise the door.  In order to raise the door we raised the concrete pad to raise it up a little.

Riedy – So it will not go any closer to the side of the property?

David Jarc - No.


Rolnick – So what we are looking at is the existing rear deck and it will remain.

Ms. Jarc – Yes, and we have some corrugated plastic roof and it will be replaced.  It is old and yellow and worn out.  It will be replaced with vinyl siding.  It will not be a dramatic change.  It will be the same color.

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

Ms. Jarc – We would continue our real estate search.  The prices today do not leave a lot of room to afford upgrading.


Rolnick – Did you consider going out the back?


Ms. Jarc - Yes.  But currently this area is an open area and we did not want to take up the open space in the back and adding in the back would impact our neighbors more dramatically.  

                                                                        Page – 19 –
                                                                        ZBA Minutes
                                                                        11/9/05


Ms. Jarc – If you look at page A-2 of the plans, it is basically the side yard that we are looking for.   We could certainly cut it back two feet, but we would still have our remaining compliance for the chimney and it would cause issues with the stairway interior.    

Rolnick – You would do that to get out of having to get a setback from the base of the chimney?  Is the existing side yard closer ….wouldn’t what is existing….?

Sperber – The survey shows 8.1 ft.  It is less than two feet.

Rolnick – Is that the measurement they need?

Sperber – That seems to be.  Chimneys have always been included in the setback.  It would be 6.1 ft. for the side yard.  The variance request for the total side yard would be 4.1 ft.

Ms. Jarc – The side yard setbacks are not changing.  It complies with 1931 Zoning. There is no issue with the others it is pre-existing non-conforming.


Riedy - Any other questions?
        
Michael Goetz – I spoke to the Code Enforcement Officer.  My only concern is that now my chimney line is above their roof line, but when they build up a second story, I will be concerned about fumes going up into their house from mine.  I have no problem with the application.  I think it will enhance my property value.  No objections.  I just wanted my concern on record.

Riedy – Any other questions?

There was no reply.

Hearing Closed.

Stephens – Made Motion to grant a 1.9 ft. side yard variance and a 3.92 ft. total side yard variance according to plans submitted.

Riedy – Second the motion.

Vote:  3-1  - In Favor -  Stephens, Riedy, Rolnick,
                  Opposed -Barlow
                                                                        Page – 20 –
                                                                        ZBA Minutes
                                                                        11/9/05

James Breen, 109 Olcott Ave., Located in a RA-5 District and designated on the Tax Maps of the Village as Section 78.08 Block 8 Lot 12.  Request for a side yard variance with respect to a proposed awning.

Breen -  I want to keep an awning that has been there a number of years. It  keeps my stone patio dry and it is attractive and I would like to keep it.  It is six and one half feet from the property line.

Rolnick – But, it is not there now right.

Breen – No.  I had to take it down.  The whole side of the house came down.  I would like to put it back up.

Rolnick – Why is it not there now?

Breen -  The siding was rotted and I am not residing in it.  I would like to put the awning back up.  The only thing that will be different is the color.  It will be forest green instead of red.

Stephens – How long have you lived there?

Rolnick – I don’t live there, it is being renovated.

Riedy – What would be the hardship if we declined the variance?

Breen – Hardship?  The flagstone would be slippery and it looks better.

Rolnick – There is an entrance on that side?

Breen – Yes.

Stephens – This will be your primary residence?

Breen – Yes.  I have to sell my other house first.

Rolnick – How long was the awning there before?

Breen – The neighbors said approximately ten years.

Barlow – How far from the property line is the awning?

Breen – 2 ? ft.
                                                                        Page – 21 –
                                                                        ZBA Minutes
                                                                        11/9/05


Riedy – Did you install the patio?

Rolnick – But, you removed it.

Breen – Yes.  We had to remove it to install a curtain drain.

Rolnick – Does it have electricity?

Breen – There is a spot light because there is a door there.  I do not believe there is one there now.

Rolnick – (To the Code Enforcement Officer) Is that a Code issue to have the light there?

Sperber - Yes.

Rolnick – Have you spoken to your neighbors to your right about this application?

Breen – Yes, not specifically, but he seemed happy with what we were doing.
I originally was not going to take it down.

Riedy – How high is the awning?

Breen - Eight feet at the lowest part.  It does not have much of a pitch on it.  It will be canvas with metal a post.

Any other questions?

There were none.

Hearing Closed

Riedy– Made Motion to grant a  2.5 ft. side yard variance according to plans submitted.
Barlow – Second the Motion
Vote:  4-0  DENIED  Riedy, Barlow, Stephens, Rolnick


Respectfully submitted,

Janice Fuentes
ZBA Secretary
11/9/05
                                RESOLUTION


Daniel Rosso & Tracy Jarc, have applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, requesting a side yard/total side yard variance with respect to a proposed addition.

The property, at 15 Irving 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 24.

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:

Stephens – Made Motion to grant a 1.9 ft. side yard variance and a 3.92 ft. total side yard variance according to plans submitted.

Riedy – Second the motion.

Vote:  3-1  - In Favor  Stephens, Riedy, Rolnick,
                  Opposed -Barlow


11/9/05










                                RESOLUTION


James Breen, has applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, request for a side yard variance with respect to a proposed awning.

The property, at  109 Olcott 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 12.

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

The hardship is self created.

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 have an adverse effect or impact on the neighborhood.  The detriment to the neighbor outweighed the detriment to the applicant.





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

Riedy– Made Motion to grant a  2.5 ft. side yard variance according to plans submitted.
Barlow – Second the Motion

Vote:  4-0  DENIED  Riedy, Barlow, Stephens, Rolnick


11/9/05