ZBA December 11, 2005
                                                        DRAFT FILED:  12/20/05
                                                        FINAL APPROVAL:  1/11/05


VILLAGE OF CROTON-ON-HUDSON, N.Y. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF DECEMBER 14, 2005.


Members Present:  Kathleen Riedy, Chairman
                               Rhoda Stephens
                               Ruth Waitkins
                               Witt Barlow
                                Paul Rolnick


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


APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

Riedy Made Motion to accept the minutes

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

HEARINGS:


Jesse Beller, 4 Munson Street, Located in a RA-5 District and designated on the Tax Maps of the Village as Section 79.05 Block 1 Lot 18.  Request for a front yard and side yard variance with respect to an existing one-family dwelling.


Beller – I think my application stated exactly what the problem is.  I have lived here over forty years.   The house is not in compliance with the present day laws.   There is a difference of 1.5 ft.  The issue arose when I was thinking of putting up a portico.  I am out of compliance and want to make it legal in case I sell.  Three families lived in the house prior to my purchasing it and this issue was never mentioned.  

Stephens – The house was built in 1949?

Beller - Yes

Riedy – You presented photos?

                                                                Page – 2 –
                                                                ZBA Minutes
                                                                                               12/14/05


Beller – Yes.  I numbered them on the back.  Photo number one was taken standing on Munson Street and on the left side it should be twenty feet, but it is only 15.9 ft.  The wall is right on my property line.  There is a wall on the front of the property that is on city property.  The second picture shows the front entrance. On the front, I have plenty of frontage but it is not all my property.



Riedy – The parcel shown on the diagram is shy of twenty feet?  

Beller - It is 4.07 ft.  

Riedy - The enclosed porch is that reflected on photo number one?  It shows the side of the enclosed porch.


Beller – Yes.  The concrete patio on the left is not enclosed.

Riedy – Photo number three, that is the side yard?

Stephens – I think he has number three mixed up.  Number two is listed as three and three is listed as ….

Discussion followed over photos.

Beller – Number two shows the side of the house.

Discussion followed over pictures.

Riedy – Photo number four shows the side of the house.  Looking from the back forwards to Munson Street, is that the extension sticking out?

Beller – That is the extension sticking out.  It should have a setback of 20 ft, but it is only 15.7 ft., that is one of the problems.  Photo number six shows the next house and how far away it is.  I am not very close to the next house.

Barlow - When was the porch enclosed?

Beller – Since we purchased, it was before that.


Page – 3 –
                                                                ZBA Minutes
                                                                                               12/14/05


Stephens  – In 1956 or 1957 it was enclosed.  The Montalvey enclosed that porch.

Rolnick – Did you do any construction on your  house?

Beller - Nothing externally, just the kitchen internally.  We were thinking of building a portico. That is when the issue came up.  That is why we are here tonight, in case we decide to install a portico.  But, I was told if it was six feet out and eight feet wide I would not need a variance.  

Beller – I also have a letter from a neighbor Andrew Dickey in favor of the application.


The letter was made part of the record.

Riedy – Anyone else like to be heard?



Hearing closed.

Stephens – Made Motion to grant the application as requested.

Barlow – Second the motion.

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



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 79.05 Block 3 Lot 17.  Request for a side/Total side yard variance with respect to a proposed addition.  (Adj. on 11/9/05)

Yozwiak – We were here last month.  But, I do not think Ruth Waitkins (ZBA Member) was here.  Do we have to repeat what transpired at the last meeting.

Waitkins – No.  I have read the minutes.




Page – 4 –
                                                                ZBA Minutes
                                                                                               12/14/05

Yozwiak – My architect Chris Borchardt, will walk you through the plans.  We have a sheet that shows the square footages and the revisions we made to the plans from last month.

Borchardt – We took the bay window off the side of the house.  In doing that we were trying to clear up the situation with the setback.  The upstairs floor plans show our revisions after the neighbor’s comments and as an alternative solution we pulled back the wall 1ft. 8 in.  We reconfigured the master bathroom with a smaller front elevation to show a different presentation with the gable.  We tried to respond to the comments at the last meeting.  We removed the gable and now it comes across and terminates as a roof form to minimize the impact.  On the previous drawing the existing window is shown as a double window, it is actually a single window.  On the second story these windows change slightly.  They get taller and there are two sets of double windows.  We took out one window in each set.  The last plans showed a balcony that has been removed from the plans.

Yozwiak – We discussed taking that off at last months meeting. You should have received a letter from Mr.& Mrs. Ribreau, 59 Sunset Drive, in favor of our application.  Bruce Laemmel, was not the owner of the house at the time of the last meeting.


Rolnick – Was Mr. Ribreau the owner at the time of the last meeting?

Yozwiak – Yes. I have another letter from Michele Cortese and Joseph DeGenova, 65 Lexington Ave. in favor of the application.  I have another letter from Al Mazza, Cornerstone Masonry, 74 Lexington Ave., In favor of the application that I am submitting tonight.


Letters submitted for the record.


Ms. Jankovic – Al Mazza lives closer to our house.  

Barlow – What about Ms. Cortese?


Ms. Jankovic - They are at sixty five.


Ms. Jankovic – We love our house and the character of it and the arches and the property. When considering on building and with the housing market as it stands now this is one of
Page – 5 –
                                                                ZBA Minutes
                                                                                               12/14/05

the only options we have or we will be forced to leave the community.  We spent a lot of time with an architect who would stay within the character and nature of the neighborhood and the house.  We made small rooms with arches and designed everything so if you were to come into our house you would not be able to tell we did an addition.  We appreciate the character and structure of our house as it is.  We spoke to a real estate agent and a number of architects.  Nancy Johnson knows we considered moving and we showed plans and how it would improve the property value and character of the neighborhood. The real estate agent suggested we put in a master bath, so we added it at that point. We went to a lot of effort to make sure it is a plan that improves the property value and stays within the character of the neighborhood and is reasonable.
Mr. Yozwiak -  Presented a photo montage to the board.   For the record:  The first sheet shows the rear of the house and a gap between the garage and house.   If we expanded off the back of the house, circumstances would make it difficult.  The land drops off and we have hemlocks and they are huge.  We spent a lot of time taking care of them and if we were to build off the back we would lose those trees.

Riedy – Referring to photos – The existing porch is what is reflected in this photo here?
Yozwiak – Yes.  We are not going out as far as the existing porch.  We are adding a walkway from the porch to the back to give access to the back yard.  The second  page - The last time at the hearing we talked about trees and who the trees belonged to.  The photo shows all the maple trees between our house and 65 Sunset.  They are our trees.  I also showed you a view of the Johnson house from the back and it shows the relationship of size compared to our house and theirs.  The next photo shows more trees.  We are trying to keep these trees

Riedy -  All these trees will be staying with the construction?

Yozwiak – Yes.  The other picture shows the fence we installed, just so we could show you we did not install a large plastic fence.  The next page shows the houses in the neighborhood.  Picture number one shows the house to the left and the house to the right which is the Johnson’s and photo three and four show houses along the block and on Sunset and adjacent to that.  Photo number eight is the Johnson’s driveway and the back of the property and it shows we are not going deeper.  It shows the Johnson house on the side, it is not back to back with ours.  There were comments made as to whether this house would be within the character of the neighborhood.  The next page shows the Johnson house is set back much deeper than where our house will be.   The Maple trees in the back are facing our side. The Johnson’s have been asked over the years to trim the limbs that are over the property line near the fence but, we trim them so they do not intrude. On the last page the first picture is from the back of my garage toward the

Page – 6 –
                                                                ZBA Minutes
                                                                                               12/14/05


Johnson’s and again it shows the addition will not be in line with their house.  The other photos are from the front and the back between the two properties.  

Stephens – The split rail fence is that yours too?   

Yozwiak - Yes.  To sum it up, we responded to our neighbors concerns and pushed the upper level back one foot eight inches.   Our roof line does not change.  We are lower than the houses on both sides of us.  Our footprint will not change.  The only difference is that we are connecting the garage to the house.   The Johnson’s house sits back further than our house.  There will be no trees cut down. Our house will still be smaller than the Johnson’s house.

Ms. Jankovic - We are active members of the community.  We belong to Holy Name of Mary, C.E.T. school, and soccer.   We are interested in staying in the community and if this application does not go through we will be moving.

Barlow  – Have you discussed this application with your neighbors since the last meeting?

Yozwiak - Yesterday, I dropped off a small set of plans about eight thirty in the morning that shows the changes and that is it.

Barlow – Anyone else?

Yozwiak – The Laemmel’s, but that is it.

Riedy - Anyone else like to be heard?

Thomas Johnson – 65 Sunset Drive – I live adjacent to the applicant who is requesting the variance.  I do not think the variance should be granted.  It seems to me the variance should be granted only for extraordinary reasons, not just any ordinary reason.  The applicant’s reasons are not extraordinary, so it should not be granted.  The plans show the basis of the variance concerns; a yoga room and the location of the master bathroom.  He could stay within the variance requirements by eliminating the yoga room and master bath.  The zoning maintains the character of the neighborhood and the construction will change that.  It will be enormous in relationship to the plot of land.  There will be practically no breathing space on either side.  As the owner of the adjacent property, I object, because it would expand their residence much closer to my property.  I would hope to have neighbors with the proper zoning.


Page – 7 –
                                                                ZBA Minutes
                                                                                               12/14/05

We found a full twenty inches was changed after our objections at the last meeting.  The value of their property may increase, but I think it will take away the value of my property when someone says “look at that house next to you”.  That is my opinion alone.  Some of my neighbors have requested I read a letter to you.

Letter with comments from the neighbors and a petition were read to the Board and submitted to the Board for the record:

Frieda Rubin – 54 Sunset Drive –  “I live at 54 Sunset Dr. and have lived in Croton 45 years.  I believe in the Zoning Laws and would react against changing it.  Privacy is important in all issues and if you give a variance to one you would do likewise for others”.

Mrs. Shumsky – “I regret that I cannot attend the meeting.   As a resident of Croton I wish to make my voice heard.  I am opposed to granting the variance.

Portia Clark – 62 Old Post Rd. South – “The revised plans still do not yet meet village requirements.  They have not complied.  We would be pleased if a solution could be found.”

Barlow – The petition you have submitted this evening is it the same petition from last month?
Mrs. Johnson – No, it is new.  The applicant submitted new plans.

Rolnick – What are the dimensions of your house?

Johnson – Twenty by forty five.

Sperber – That is not correct.  I can get the property record card.

Johnson – It is forty five across the front….Thirty two would be a good estimate.

Rolnick – With respect to these revised plans you have mentioned a lot of things and they are all very important but, you particularly mentioned the master bath and yoga room; if this plan did not have that, would you be in favor of this variance?

Johnson – No variance would be necessary, if the master bath and yoga room was removed.

Rolnick – That is incorrect.  It would still need a variance.


Page – 8 –
                                                                ZBA Minutes
                                                                                               12/14/05

Johnson – But, I would not have any objection to it then. Legally, I would not be opposed, esthetically I would.  But that would be an opinion.  It just doesn’t feel right.  

Riedy – It is not legally conforming.  We are just looking for your thoughts with respect to the application.

Johnson – I would look at this as a major renovation.

Rolnick – What amount of screening could you imagine between the two properties that would eliminate your concerns?  From what you are saying, it seems to me the screening would need to be substantial.

Johnson – Yes.

Rolnick – Would any screening make you feel better?

Johnson –No.  There is no room for screening.

Riedy – Your concern is with respect to the building over the garage and the window in the master bedroom and the window in the exercise room.  Exactly what is your objection; that there are windows?


Johnson – No.  I object to a second story structure going over my property.

Riedy – It will be over the existing garage.

Rolnick – Mr. Johnson, were you the original property owner that subdivided the property?  

Johnson – Yes.

Johnson – Yes, we were the original owners and we subdivided because the original lot line did not include that garage.  There were two garages, one in the front and one in the back on the side.  The property line runs along the garage walkway.  By taking one garage from the other property, 61 Sunset was able to have a garage.  The lot division was fifty feet.

Riedy – Who determined where the lot line sits today?

Johnson – It was determined when the property line was divided and it was sold off.
Page – 9 –
                                                                ZBA Minutes
                                                                                               12/14/05

Riedy – So you determined that lot line?

Johnson – Yes.

Riedy – When did you determine that?

Johnson – 1961.  It was once a house and two garages with wooded land next to it.  They were once technically three lots.


Michael Gaffney – 67 Lexington Ave.– My wife and I have lived in our house since 1984 and I can say in those twenty one years I have seen a great deal of change, just in our little section.  I have noticed for the most part the changes have been positive changes and neighbors tend to be neighbors and are willing to talk about things and work things out and help us to grow as a neighborhood.  I was surprised to hear that the Johnson’s once moved the property line and this is a creation of the Johnson’s and now they want to change something that is a result of their own making.  I do not think the addition represents any kind of eye sore or is out of character with the neighborhood.  I have seen houses sandwiched in and everything seems to be after the fact and imposed on things done in a hodge-podge fashion.  I think the applicants are valuable members of our community and would like to see them stay in our community.  

Riedy – Have you seen the plans?  How big is your house?

Gaffney – It is small.  It is six or seven houses away from the applicant’s.

Riedy – Any other questions?

Paul Ingvoldstad – 99 Old Post Rd. – I am an architect for thirty five years and have lived at my present location for about thirty years.  I mentioned at the last meeting that my wife and I and our dogs take walks every day around Sunset Drive and I am familiar with the area.  I think that as the man before said, it is kind of tight.  Although, everyone wants everyone to do what they want to do…but, the reality is that this is a RA-5 Zone and this neighborhood has been small lots since the early part of the century.  A lot of previous decisions were based on the fact that many of the houses are small.  If someone purchases a house at that size it is for a certain function.  It is a small cottage house that is now being proposed to turn into a mini castle and to me as an architect, it will look very strange but, that is not your business as a Zoning Board.  If someone is going to make a major change to a house there should be an effort to bring that house into compliance as much as possible. In this case I think it is clear what has to be done to bring it into compliance.

Page – 10 –
                                                                ZBA Minutes
                                                                                               12/14/05


Riedy – In your view, what needs to be done?

Ingvoldstad – It is a narrow piece of property, a very deep property in terms of depth.  If you want to make a major change the house should be more in relationship to the property and not to go out to the sides, but to extend it towards the back.  The dimensions should be according to Code.  The reason it could not be according to Code is because they wanted a substantial Master Bathroom and Jacuzzi with cathedral ceilings or something like that. I think they should reconfigure the second floor plan so it is more in relationship to the depth of the house.   My feeling is they should do as much as reasonably possible to bring the house up to the zoning requirements.  I think that is really what the law says.  A variance is only given when they make every effort to comply, then a variance makes sense.   That is basically how I look at it.  Architecturally, I can say a lot, but the issue is have they done everything  to make it come close to the requirements?

Robert Luntz – 4 Hughes Street – I am not so far away from this property.  We have three children and have lived in Croton for seven years.  I reviewed the plans before and after the changes.  We were faced with a similar situation and had to come before the Board for a front yard and side yard variance.  Part of the reason we had to do this is because there was no way to add on in the back of the property because of the topography, and the applicant has the same problem with this application, and they decided to go up a second level than go out the back.



Riedy – What does not make sense is the aesthetics and design.

Yazwiak  – There are existing stairs and there is a natural way to extend those that this plan takes advantage of and we are keeping the roof line in character with the existing house and the style.  Adding on is a completely reasonable approach and as I stated before our community has grown and our needs change when families grow and then there is a need to make it more valuable and suitable. It was also stated before that the size of the rooms are in keeping with the character of the other rooms in the house. I think it is a reasonable and well thought out design.

Neighbor-  I have not had a chance to review the plans, so I am solely speaking as a neighbor.  I spoke to the Johnson’s and they have discussed the plans with me and I have listened and thought about what was said today and I have no objections and I support the renovation.  In fact I am surprised at the level of objections.  The plans seem appropriate and fitting and they do no damage to the character of the neighborhood.  

Page – 11 –
                                                                ZBA Minutes
                                                                                               12/14/05        

There were accommodations made with respect to the neighbors concerns and they were significant accommodations.   I think the applicant should be allowed to expand and increase the value and use of his property.  I think it would be a negative precedent to decline this request.  In my mind it is in the community’s interest to grant the applicant’s request, it does no damage to the neighbors or character of the neighborhood and we will be keeping families in the neighborhood who make significant contributions to their community and neighborhood.  I strongly encourage the Zoning Board to approve this application and I thank you for listening to me.

Janet Kraybill - Sunset and Old Post Road – I have lived in Croton since 1997.  Our house was built in the 1920’s and I love our house and their house and I care what those houses look like.  I thought the plans were terrific.  I like the scale of the house and the trees they were talking about.  I also care about what the neighbor said, that we can have the houses we need.  We all want to feel that we are welcome and can stay in Croton.   

Laura Ricket – 50 Sunset Drive. – I live directly across and one house over from the applicant.  I ditto to what everyone else has said.  I was happy to see that the plans were esthetically in keeping with the existing front of the house. It would work beautifully in the neighborhood.

Steve Kristy– 49 Sunset Drive ; I live three houses down from the applicant.  I am here to express my support for what I feel is a reasonable expansion and they have a right to request a variance.  I do not want to force them out of the neighborhood.  I want to live in a neighborhood that is congenial and civil as long as it is within reason and I believe everything that has been presented here tonight is within reason.  I do not want to live in a community that says no you can’t do this or that.  

Yozwiack – A gentleman mentioned building in the back and jamming a big home on small lot.  I think if you speak to Mr. Sperber, Code Enforcement Officer, you will find that our house is and will be well under the floor area ratio that is required. Our house is in compliance but, since we are attaching the garage that is six feet from the property line we are required to get a variance. In order to come into compliance without a variance we would need to move the house and garage and that would be beyond our means. I agree the addition is within the natural way the house should flow.  If we built out the back we would have a structure that would look awful and there would be issues with the topography.

Riedy - Did you explore going out the back with your architect?

Yozwiack – Yes. If we built out the back we would have to build higher.


Page – 12 –
                                                                ZBA Minutes
                                                                                               12/14/05
        
Mrs. Jankovic – We have a patio and we can watch the sunset.  If we build farther back, that space would be a hemmed in dead zone, because there would be so much house that the view would be cut off and the topography would be an issue.

Stephens – How much does that slope, slope?


Borchardt - Approximately eight feet.

Yozwiak - We are just trying to connect the house to the garage and it has a different roof line and the connection has to be made some how and in order to do that we need a variance.

 Barlow – Why is it necessary to connect to the garage and why not go back?

Yozwiak – If we were to build in the back we would have to build up just to get to the basement level.  

Barlow – Are you saying the front floor level is really not a basement?

Yozwiak – The floor and grade level are different in the front from the back.  We would need to modify areas to get physically in the back.  We would need to move all the mechanicals in the house to get to that space.  At the last meeting there was a gentleman by the name of Mr. Laemmel, who stated that he would have a larger objection if the house were built out the back.

Barlow – Most of the objections have all been because the house is too wide for the lot. What you will see from the street looks like it takes the whole lot.

Yozwiak – We are building within the existing construction.

Barlow – The garage was not part of the house, so you really are not.  Mr. Johnson said if you did not add the garage he would have no objection.

Yozwiak – So you are saying keep the space between the garage and go back?  If I did that I would again be here asking for a variance and I would show a plan going out from the back and the house would be parallel to the neighbors.  I would still be here having to fight a petition and them going to the neighbors getting a petition.

Borchardt – In terms of an overall scale you are looking at a structure three stories tall.  The plans as they are now looks like one story.  The side façade they would see from

                                        Page – 13 –
                                                                ZBA Minutes
                                                                                               12/14/05

their house and we would be building a three story addition on all three sides out the back.  

Mrs. Jankovic – Referring to the drawings – We added onto the garage so it would not look like one long expansion.  We set that area back (referring to plans) and put a pergola over the top, so you will not see a whole expansion on that part of the house.  That was a concern of ours when designing it.

Barlow – I see what you are saying.  Yes, the pergola is back.  I am sorry. I am looking at the wrong elevation.  I was looking at the old plans.  It is eighteen inches back, but it is back.  You do understand the problem you have with the neighbors.

There was discussion over plans and the location of oil tanks in the rear of the property, steep slope and the flow of the design.

Riedy – The master bath and yoga room ……….

Jankovic – …..It is a master bath and bedroom. I just happen to do yoga.  It was always a design for master bath and bedroom.  If we did not put the exercise room in the one thing we are still lacking is closet space and the room will still be dormered.  The characterization that this is a larger luxurious spa type of bathroom is not so.

Riedy – Assuming this was not part of your original plans would you not have a place for an extra bath on another floor?

Jankovic – We would have to redesign it and we were told this is an essential part for the real estate market.

Discussion followed over plans.

Rolnick – What is the existing square footage and what is being added?

Jankovic – There is a chart that was submitted because that was a question last time too.

Rolnick – Discussion followed over plans. -  There is a significant living area in the basement.

Mrs. Jankovic– Yes.  That is part of the design.

Rolnick – How much bigger is this house getting in terms of livable square footage?  Do you use the basement as living space?
Page – 14 –
                                                                ZBA Minutes
                                                                                               12/14/05

Borchardt – If you are including the basement it is 2,300 sq. ft. now and it will be increased by 1,200 sq. ft.

Rolnick – So it is about fifty percent.

Borchardt - Yes.

Rolnick – You heard the Johnson’s talk tonight about the master bath.  I just want to offer this up, if you want to take another shot at taking this up with your neighbor or let it rest here.

Yozwiak -  Let it rest here and if necessary we will re-file.

Mrs. Jankovic – We have put a lot of effort in this design.

Yozwiak – My feeling is that no matter what we do, we will find resistance from our neighbors.

Rolnick – What is the total width of the proposed house?

Borchardt – 47 – 48 ft. from the existing left side to the right side.

Barlow – The garage is 12 ft. 8 in. what is just the house?

Borchardt – 24 ft. and the garage is 12 ft.  

Yozwiak – They are separate.

Riedy – Any other questions?

There was no reply.

Hearing closed.

Rolnick – Made Motion to grant a 1.9 ft. side yard and 7.2 ft. total side yard variance according to plans submitted.

Stephens – Second the motion.
Vote:  3-2 - Against:   Rolnick, Waitkins, Barlow
                   In Favor – Stephens, Riedy
       
Application DENIED
Page – 15 –
                                                                ZBA Minutes
                                                                                               12/14/05



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 and 11/9/05).


Gwenveria Sargeant -  The last time we were here we had a sketch and it was our first time doing this and we did not know.   My husband had another sketch drawn and he did a good job depicting what we wanted to do.  He could not be here tonight he is down south in New Orleans.  He said he would suggest that this is not a carport it is an entrance not a carport. It is just a deck.  I submitted a copy of the survey and there was another question as to whether or not we could cut another driveway.  He said we would be getting rid of one tree.  He did a version of the rocks on the side so there is really like a natural cut for a narrow driveway. It will be nothing major.   Also, we could enter the house on the side from the driveway.  He made a new door in the basement on the side under the deck.

Riedy – Were you looking to be able to park under the deck?


Sargeant – I do not know how wide it is under there it is covered up by the shrubbery.  You might be able to get one car halfway under there.  Ever since we moved to the house we wanted a deck.  Everyone on either side has a deck.  A deck would add to the property.  We love the natural stones and we would make the steps go around the stones that are there.  There is also a garden there.

Stephens – So there would be no garage?

Rolnick – If you did not have a deck you would not need the variance, right?

Sargeant - Yes.  I think it just makes it

Sperber – I think you are a little shy.


Discussion followed over plans.

Rolnick – What would that deck have to look like to not need a variance?

Sperber  – It would be a cat walk.



Page – 16 –
                                                                ZBA Minutes
                                                                                               12/14/05


Sargeant – We kept it narrow in this area because we do not want to take down the evergreen tree. ( referring to plans).

Rolnick – You said a tree would be removed.

Sargeant – Yes the one marked on the plans, it is a crabapple tree or something.

Stephens – Do they need  permission for a curb cut?

Sperber – Yes. That would be a regular permit issued by the Engineering Dept.

Barlow – How would you feel if we suggested you install lattice.


Discussion followed over plans.


Sargeant – Yes.  We would definitely put lattice.  Sorry, he did not add that to the sketch and also on the side we want screening between the driveway and the neighbor.  We would definitely go for lattice we do not want to leave that open.

Riedy – What are the total variances being requested?

Rolnick – 4 ft. on the side and 5 ft. on the front.  Do you plan on having lights on the deck?

Sargeant – Where the pole is we will have a light just so you can see when you go up the steps.  But no big lighting.  There is a light on the front door of the house now.  

Discussion followed over the plans.

Sargeant – We also want to keep it a natural wood color and lattice to hide the basement and old stairs, something simple.

Barlow – You spoke to the neighbors?

Sargeant – Yes. They are excited.  Everyone got it in the mail and they mentioned they received it and the people across the street and they have seen the renovations we have made so far and have complimented us.


Page – 16 –
                                                                ZBA Minutes
                                                                                               12/14/05

Riedy – Any other questions?

There was no reply.


Hearing closed.


Stephens – Made Motion to grant a 5 ft. front yard and 4 ft. side yard variance according to plans submitted and with the condition that living screening will be provided on the side between the neighbor on the north and lattice will be installed under the deck except for reasonable egress for car to enter.

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



Respectfully submitted


Janice Fuentes
ZBA Secretary
12/14/05

















RESOLUTION


Kenneth & Gwenveria Sargeant , have applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, request for a front yard and side yard variance with respect to a deck/carport.

The property, at 193 Cleveland Drive, is located in a RA-25, District and is designated on the Tax Maps of the Village as Section 68.17 Block 3 Lot 46.

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.

The variance requested would not be substantial.


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

Stephens – Made Motion to grant a 5 ft. front yard and 4 ft. side yard variance according to plans submitted and with the condition that living screening will be provided on the side between the neighbor on the north and lattice will be installed under the deck except for reasonable egress for car to enter.

Waitkins – Second the Motion.

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

12/14/05


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


_Bernard P. Yozwiak & Teresa V. Jankovic, have applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, request for a side yard/total side yard variance with respect to a proposed addition.

The property, at 61 Sunset Drive, is located in a RA-5, District and is designated on the Tax Maps of the Village as Section 79.05 Block 3 Lot 17.

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 an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood.  

Neighbors in opposition to the application were present at the meeting and petitions were signed by several neighbors.

The benefit sought by the applicant could be achieved by some other method.

The variance requested is substantial.

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

Rolnick – Made Motion to grant a 1.9 ft. side yard and 7.2 ft. total side yard variance according to plans submitted.

Stephens – Second the motion.
Vote:  3-2 - Against:   Rolnick, Waitkins, Barlow
                   In Favor – Stephens, Riedy
       
Application DENIED

12/14/05









                                RESOLUTION


_Jesse Beller, has applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, request for a front yard and side yard variance with respect to an existing one-family dwelling.

The property, at  4 Munson Street,  is located in a RA-25, District and is designated on the Tax Maps of the Village as Section 79.05 Block 1 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 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 the application as requested.

Barlow – Second the motion.

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

12/14/05

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.”