Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
Welcome to the website for the Village of Croton on Hudson, New York

Contact Us
Subscribe to News
Spacer
On Our Site

Click to Search
Village Seal

Village of Croton-on-Hudson
1 Van Wyck Street
Croton-on-Hudson, NY 10520

Phone: 914-271-4781
Fax: 914-271-2836


Hours: Mon. - Fri., 8:30 am - 4 pm
 
ZBA April 12, 2006

                                                        DRAFT FILED:   4/25/06
                                                        FINAL APPROVAL:  5/10/06



VILLAGE OF CROTON-ON-HUDSON, N.Y. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 12, 2006.


MEMBERS PRESENT:        Kathleen Riedy, Chairman
                                               Ruth Waitkins
                                               Paul Rolnick

MEMBERS ABSENT: Rhoda Stephens
                                               Witt Barlow

ALSO PRESENT:           Joseph Sperber, Code Enforcement Officer


The meeting came to order at 8:00


APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

3/8/06 – Riedy – Made Motion to accept the Minutes
             Rolnick – Second
             Vote:  3-0  In Favor – Riedy, Rolnick, Waitkins



Riedy - Announced the location of Fire Exists to all in attendance of the meeting.

Riedy – Explained to the applicants that the ZBA consists of a five member Board and only three members are present this evening.  Although three members constitutes a quorum; in order to proceed with the hearing and be granted a variance the applicant would need a unanimous vote in favor of the application.  It has been the Board’s practice to grant an applicant the option to adjourn their hearing until the following months meeting when a full Board may possibly be present.


Nance Shatzkin, Representative for Croton Housing Network/Symphony Knolls – We are here tonight to request an extension of a variance that has already been granted as opposed to a new variance.  We would rather wait and adjourn our hearing until next month. However, if we request to adjourn until the following month the Variance that we

                                                                Page – 2-
                                                                                               ZBA Minutes
                                                                                               4/12/06

are requesting to renew before it expires, will have expired by that time, then what recourse would we have?

Waitkins – (To Ms. Shatzkin) – You are just asking to renew the variance that has already been granted, so there is really nothing more to be said, correct?

Shatzkin – Yes. The Board may have more questions, because it has been a full year since we have been before your Board and the Planning Board has since addressed other issues. So, if the Board feels the need for us to go over that we will be more than glad to.  But, as far as the application is concerned there is nothing new.

Riedy - I also wanted to open the hearing this evening in case anyone is here to address the issues.  They can address them today or they can return for the next meeting, whatever they think would be in their best interest.

Riedy – Is there anyone here who would like to be heard?

Residents who live at 18 Mt. Airy Rd. were present and agreed to come back for next month’s meeting.

After discussion, the Board unanimously agreed to open the hearing only for the purpose of there being no ambiguity with respect to the date of expiration of the variance.

Rolnick – Made Motion to open the hearing only for the purpose of there being no ambiguity with respect to the date of expiration of the variance and to adjourn the hearing until May 10, 2006.

Waitkins – Second the Motion.
Vote 3-0 – Rolnick, Waitkins, Riedy

Hearing Adjourned until May 10, 2006.


Phil Tully, P.E., representing the applicant FCI Total Homes, Croton Point Ave. on behalf of the owner Robert Scott, Ridge Road, Section 70.09 Block 9 Lot 33– What would happen if an applicant were to go forward with their hearing tonight and they only received two votes in favor of the application?  What recourse would the applicant have?

Riedy – You could re-apply and the Board would re-consider the application.

Tully– Agreed to move forward with his client’s hearing.

                                                        Page -3-
                                                                                   ZBA Minutes
                                                                                   4/12/06




HEARINGS:


John M. Shumway, 91 Cleveland Drive.  Located in a RA-5 District and designated on the Tax Maps of the Village as Section 79.09 Block 9 Lot 34.  Request for a total side yard variance with respect to an existing deck.

Shumway – I lived at 91 Cleveland Drive for 18 years.  As a result of a title search I found that the side deck did not have a Certificate of Occupancy.  The deck pre-existed sometime between the original owner and my purchase.  The deck is bigger than the original survey shows.  I am requesting a side yard variance of 3.8 ft.

Rolnick – When did you purchase the property?

Shumway – Approximately eighteen years ago.

Rolnick – Did you say it not only didn’t show up when you purchased, but the people before you were not aware of it also?

Shumway – The C.O. was issued after the deck was already built and it did not show up at that time before I purchased.  There was a deck without a Certificate of Occupancy and it needed a Building Permit and a Certificate of Occupancy.  It did not need a variance.  The side deck is the one we are applying for.  We do not know who extended it or how it got there before we purchased.

Rolnick – Could it have been built by the owner before you?

Riedy – Your neighbors were notified.  Have you had any opposition?

Shumway – No and one of my neighbors Joseph Hojnacki, who lives on the side where the deck is, wrote a letter in favor of the application.

Rolnick – The house is occupied now?

Shumway – Yes.  We set up an escrow account pending the hearing.

Riedy – What is the actual distance between the side deck and the property line?


                                                                        Page -4-
                                                                        ZBA Minutes
                                                                                                           4/12/06



Shumway – We are requesting a 3.84 ft. variance.

Rolnick – Will there be any lighting?

Shumway –Yes.  There is a small existing light.

Riedy – Will there be any screening or plantings on that side of the house?

Shumway – There is a lattice work fence.

Rolnick- Can you look over the fence when you are on the deck?

Shumway – Yes.  The deck is high.

Rolnick – How did you use the deck?

Shumway  – For storing recycling, barbeque, entrance & exit.  It is convenient where it is located, it is off the kitchen.
 
Sperber – (To Rolnick) – That platform that exists is four feet wide at the widest point so it is actually less than four feet.

Riedy – Are there steps to the rear of the deck leading to the back yard?

Shumway - No just the front.

Riedy – What would the hardship be if the variance were not granted?

Schumway – It is an additional space they could use to sit out on the porch and when the leaves are off the trees there is a river view.  We had enjoyment of it.  


Riedy –The door in the kitchen leads to the deck.  Is that correct?

Shumway – Yes.  It is a second entrance to the house.


Riedy– These are the plans you submitted to the engineer?

Schumway –Yes.  Elevation plans.

                                                                        Page -5-
                                                                        ZBA Minutes
                                                                        4/12/06

Riedy – Any other questions?

There was no reply.

Hearing closed.

Waitkins – Made Motion to grant a side yard of 3.84 ft. for existing deck.
Second – Paul
Vote:  3-0 in favor.


Raymond & Jessica Godwin, 98 Olcott Ave.  Located in a RA-5 District and designated on the Tax Maps of the Village as Section 79.05 Block 5 Lot 12.  Request for a total side yard variance with respect to a proposed second story addition.

Mary Ting, Springer & Ting Architects, Briarcliff Manor, N.Y. was present to represent the applicants Raymond & Jessica Godwin.

Ting – I submitted a letter from the neighbors in support of the application.  The letters represent the immediate neighbors.  My clients have an “L” shaped lot. It is a one and one half story house now and we would like to make it a two story.  We will be adding mostly in the front.  The lot has two front yards. The house is considered to be existing non-conforming.  I only need the variance for a small portion in this corner (referring to plans).

Discussion followed over plans and survey.


Ting – We are looking for a combined side yard, it is eight ft. here and twenty foot combined.  The first floor is considered to be existing non-conforming. We are building on top a Dutch Colonial, which sets it back.  Because the existing footprint is not correct, we need a variance.   

Rolnick – Is it correct that when they have two front yards they get to chose their front yard?

Sperber -  They have two front yards.  They have no choice of front yards.

Ting – We get to chose the rear yard.

Discussion followed over plans.
                                                                Page -6-
                                                                ZBA Minutes
                                                                4/12/06


 
Ting – We are fine with the side yard and front yard.


Sperber -  They received a variance in 1976.  They need a total side yard variance of 2.49 feet.

Ting – The addition will be set back like a dormer.

Riedy– Is that the original configuration of the house as it was originally constructed?


Ting – Referring to drawings – The previous owner added the dormer.

Riedy – When was if first built?

Ting – 1938.

Discussion followed over plans and pictures that showed the elevations with respect to the roof line and what tree(s) will be removed.

Ting – The house now has three bedrooms and two baths.  After construction it will be three bedrooms and three baths.  The bedroom that is now located downstairs will be used to add on to the kitchen area.

Riedy – How many baths do they have currently?

Ting – One bath downstairs and one upstairs.  It will be one bath downstairs and two upstairs.


Rolnick – What is the current square footage?

Ting – Approximately 1,500 square feet.  When construction is completed it will be approximately 2,000 square feet.  That does not include the basement.


Riedy - The survey shows a porch on the side of the house and according to your plans, that area will in fact be a dining room?

Ting – Yes.  It is a sun room now that is not heated.
                                                                Page -7-
                                                                ZBA Minutes
                                                                4/12/06


Rolnick – It is entirely closed correct?

Ting - Yes.  

Riedy – How many square feet is it?  

Joe – The existing porch is approximately 200 square feet.

Discussion followed over plans and square footage.

Riedy – Looking at page 2 of your plans; the area behind the dining room is a vestibule?

Ting – Yes.  That is part of the porch now.  

Riedy - Is this the area that is at issue?

Ting – No.  The area that is at issue is on the second floor above the family room.

Discussion followed over plans.

Rolnick – The neighbor at the corner of Olcott Ave. and Maple Street.  You said you did not get a letter from them, but you spoke to them.  Did they indicate they were ok with your plans?

Ting – My client spoke to them and the neighbor said they had no problem with it.

Riedy – What kind of siding will you be using?

Ting -  Right now it is vinyl and aluminum.  The original has cedar shingles and we have to recover it with additional siding.

Riedy – What would be the hardship if the application was not granted?

Ting – It would not be possible to build.

Riedy  – When did they purchase

Ting – Two years ago.

Sperber – Anything the applicant would need to do would require a variance because the original house is legally non-conforming.
                                                                Page -8-
                                                                ZBA Minutes
                                                                4/12/06

Riedy – Any other questions?

There was not reply.

Hearing closed.

Rolnick – Made Motion to grant a variance for a total side yard of 2.49 ft. according to plans submitted.
Waitkins – Second the motion
3-0 In Favor

F.C.I. Total Homes on behalf of Robert Scott, Ridge Road.  Located in a RA-5 District and designated on the Tax Maps of the Village as Section 79.09 Block 1 Lot 33.  Request for a lot depth and rear yard variance with respect to an existing lot and a proposed one family dwelling.

Robert Scott – May I approach the Board?

Riedy – Yes you may.

Scott - I am the owner of the property.  I would like to give you a history of the lot.  In 1963 my wife and family came to the United States from the Middle East and fell in love with the Village.  After we moved in we discovered our side lot line was eight feet outside our kitchen door.  When we were purchasing the lot we were shown an expansive lawn that we did not realize was located in the adjacent lot.  I traced the owner of the adjacent lot and found that he had owned it since 1914.  He owed back taxes and we purchased the lot from him.  The lot had a peculiar shape it looked like a bow tie. Several people advised us to separate the lot and give the lower elevation portion of the lot to the improved lot.  In the year 2002 we separated the lot and were granted a variance to do so.  Two of the ZBA Members that are present tonight were present at that meeting, Paul Rolnick and Ruth Waitkins.  The lot line is now in question.  There is no problem with the front and side yard.  The rear lot line for which the variance is being sought abuts a Commercial Zone.

Discussion followed over plans with respect to the location of the lot in question and a Commercial Zone located below the property.

Riedy – When you purchased the second lot did you consider the ramifications?

Scott – No.


                                                                Page -9-
                                                                ZBA Minutes
                                                                4/12/06


Scott – Essentially there is no problem with the neighbors being affected by the variance.  If anyone has any questions with respect to the history of the property I will answer them.  We purchased the lot in 1966 and we held it for forty years.

Riedy – Looking at the topography and the survey…….
                                                        

Scott – Phil Tully, P.E., will answer those questions for you.

Riedy – (To Philip Tully, P.E).  Looking at the topographical survey there is a proposed dwelling outlined.  Exactly where is the rear lot line?

Tully – If you look at the map the furthest distance from you, it will be thirteen point five feet in the rear yard at the right rear corner of the house.  

Rolnick – So you need a rear yard and total lot depth variance.

Discussion followed over plans with respect to lot depth measurements and how lot depth measurements are measured.

Joseph Sperber, Code Enforcement Officer – Lot depth is the minimum distance from the street line to the rear.

Tully – Since we are on the subject of lot depth, when we were granted a lot depth variance in 2002 for Lot #32, then in essence we were also granted it for Lot 33 also since it is a common lot line that separates the two lots.


Discussion followed over the previous Resolution that was granted.


Rolnick – If you were to cut off that part of the bow tie that is the most narrow would there be a way you could make this a more conforming lot?

Tully – We did not address that.  We would have to look at it.

Discussion followed over plans.

Tully – (after reviewing the plans) It measures approximately 48 ft. that is less than 50% of what is required to make it a conforming lot.

                                                                Page -10-
                                                                ZBA Minutes
                                                                                               4/12/06



Rolnick– So your answer is no.

Tully – Correct.  The theoretical line for the rear yard at twenty percent under existing small lot did not work.  We cannot make it conforming in any way.

Rolnick – There is a lot directly across the street.  Is it buildable?
                                        
Scott – There are two building lots my family gave to the village to keep forever green for the benefit of the people on Ridge Road and the people of Croton.  The lot in question tonight was created by this very Zoning Board in 2002, and it has been pointed out this evening that we did not create the lot depth, it was always there.

Rolnick – Why didn’t you need a variance in 1966 when you purchased the property?

Tully – They were not building on it then.  The house was already on it.

Scott – The house was built in 1929, prior to zoning and the lot in question was purchased in 1914.

Riedy– In 1963, you purchased one lot and in 2003 you came to the Zoning Board to ….

Scott – In 2002 the improved lot with the house became larger and the bow tie lot became a 7,500 sq. ft. lot.

Rolnick – Are the elevation plans showing what will be built?

Tully – Essentially; the entrance may be moved .

Mark Franzoso, F.C.I. Total Homes  – You can show that to a hundred people and I am the only one who can see the possibilities.

Sperber – The footprint is just shy of nineteen hundred square feet.  Two story.

Rolnick – Are there steep slope issues?

Sperber – It does not appear that they do.  There are parking and draining issues and they have to go to the Planning Board.

Mark Franzoso – Why do we have to go before the Planning Board?

                                                                Page -11-
                                                                ZBA Minutes
                                                                4/12/06


Sperber – Any new house construction needs to have minor site plan approval by the Planning Board.

Riedy – Is the garage to be a separate structure?

Franzoso  –  It will be located under the home.
                                                                
Riedy – Are there any other questions?

Scott – May I point out that in 2002 the variance was granted without prejudice and the owner could apply for a variance for lot #33 at any time the owner intended to build.

Riedy – Yes, we are a ware of that.  Thank you.

Any one else like to be heard?

Jennifer Whikehart,  27 Ridge Road – I live on the south side of the property.  We purchased in the year 2002 and the following year the property on the side of us had a retaining wall that essentially failed and went into the house below and our house was also compromised.  An engineer came to look at it and he told us not to get rid of the trees on our property because of the slope.  My concern is that if you grant the variance and they move that house further you are talking about a lot of trees coming down and I am afraid that slope will be compromised.  That slope is very steep.

Rolnick – So you are worried, that if the house is built it will destabilize your structure?

Whikehart – The whole slope in general.  

Rolnick – Do you have any other comments or objections?

Whikehart – I just got back from vacation.  I did not have a chance to look at the blueprints.

A copy of the plans were submitted to Ms. Whikehart for her review.


Discussion followed over plans.

Whikehart – (After reviewing the plans) The slope is my main concern.


Page -12-
                                                                ZBA Minutes
                                                                4/12/06

Rolnick – How long have you owned your house?

Whikehart – Since 2002.

Riedy – The structural engineer that you referred to did he indicate any work you needed to do on your property for the slope?
                                                                
Whikehart – No, the people below us.  There were some railroad ties that moved down. It was not a retaining wall. When the slope washed out below, it washed out under our property and we had to have trees looked at and the engineer said not to take any vegetation off that slope, because it is a weakened slope.

Riedy – The rear wall over at your house, how does it line up with the Scott house?

Discussion followed over plans.

Sperber – It projects about eight feet further west of the Scott house.

Riedy – Any other comments or questions?

Roger Gurka -26 Ridge Road – My property is directly across the street.  It is not an empty lot it is my property and there is one lot south and beyond that is this lot in question.  Their line in the “Bow tie” is where my house is.

Rolnick- Do you understand where they are going to build.  So your property is across the street, but your house is actually farther down correct?

Gurka – Yes.

Rolnick – Is any part of your lot a buildable lot?

Gurka – Probably not.

Gurka – Trucks can’t turn around they will need two parking spots there and there is nowhere for anyone to park on that side of the street.  On northern part of the property they will need retaining wall.  If the Planning Board will look at it fine.  Another issue is the water issue and flood damage.  The bank ended up in my back yard.  Another fifteen feet and the road would have been in my back yard.  I had to stop water from coming into my back house.  I had a spot in my backyard where there was a tree that is almost gone.    That is a dead hill and the rear of that property is near commercial property.  That is awfully close and if the slope caves in, that is awfully close.  I do not think it is a good

                                                                                                 Page -13-
                                                                ZBA Minutes
                                                                4/12/06



idea, because of parking and the steep embankment.  You could spend a lot of money on walls and still have a water issue.

Rolnick – The water is coming from up hill down the road?
                                                                
Gurka – Yes and it tilts and comes into my property.  That would not have a beneficial impact on my property.

Rolnick – Do you have a view from your house?

Gurka – Yes, if I stand on the roof.  

Rolnick – So this house has no impact on your view.

Gurka - It is my light, especially in the winter time. There is also an air issue as far as I am concerned.  If Capriccio’s Restaurant is cooking something I know what they are cooking.

Riedy – Anyone else like to be heard?

Scott – May I offer a rebuttal?

Riedy – Yes.

Scott -  With all respect to my neighbors, we were here first.  We do not want to see any more building around us.  I have a driveway below grad and suffered from hurricane Floyd.  It is an unreasonable request.  The house will not add terribly to run-off.  Run-off cannot run off into the street.  Run off will be there whether there is a house there or not.  The proposed construction will not add run-off into the street.

Riedy – Anyone else like to be heard?

Rolnick – (To Phil Tully, P.E.,) – Would you like to address the engineering issues?

Tully – We can handle drainage on the site.  There is no need for it to go into the road.  We are here for a rear yard variance.  We will provide a driveway and two off street
parking spaces.  We are not asking for parking variances.  Parking meets the zoning requirements.  Drainage is not an issue.


Page -14-
                                                                ZBA Minutes
                                                                4/14/06

Rolnick – What about the steep slopes that Ms. Whikehart is concerned about?

Tully – We are not compromising the steep slopes.  We are clear up to the steep slopes, so we are not disturbing the steep slopes.

Rolnick – (To Mr. Sperber) – What determines if a steep slope requirement is triggered?

Sperber – Percentage of a specific grade that is disturbed.  This does not look like it will trigger a steep slopes permit.  As far as my comments about the parking, I just threw that out there because the plans do not show any provisions for parking.

Rolnick – What would happen if the Board did not grant a variance and they did not build a garage?

Sperber – They would still have to provide two parking spaces.  That would also be part of the Planning Board approval during the minor site plan approval process.  Architectural features will be addressed as well.

Riedy – I have no other questions.  Anyone else have any questions?

There was no reply


Hearing closed.


Rolnick – Made Motion to grant an 85 ft. lot depth variance and a 12 ft. rear yard
                  variance according to plans and survey submitted.

Waitkins – Second the Motion

Vote:  1-2 – In Favor – Waitkins
                   Against – Riedy, Rolnick

Application Denied


Respectfully submitted,

Janice Fuentes
ZBA Secretary
4/12/06

                                RESOLUTION


John M. Shumway has applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, for a  total side yard variance with respect to an existing deck.

The property, at 91 Cleveland Drive, is located in a RA-5, District and is designated on the Tax Maps of the Village as Section 79.09 Block 9 Lot 34.

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.

There were no objections from the neighbors.  

The requested variance was not substantial.

Hardship was not self created.

The proposed variance will not have an adverse affect on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood or district.




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

Waitkins – Made Motion to grant a side yard variance of 3.84 ft. for an existing deck.
Rolnick – Second the Motion
Vote:  3-0 – In Favor




4/12/06







RESOLUTION

                F.C.I. Total Homes, on behalf of Robert Scott, has applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson for a lot depth and rear yard variance with respect to an existing unimproved lot and a proposed one family dwelling to be constructed there.

                The property on Ridge Road is located in a RA-5 district and is designated on the Tax Maps of the Village as Section 79.09, Block 1, Lot 33.

                A public hearing having been held after due notice, this Board, from the application, the files and records of the Village, and after viewing the premises and the neighborhood, finds as follows:

                In 1963, the Applicant and his wife purchased a home in Croton at 33 Ridge Road.  Constructed circa 1929, prior to the enactment of zoning regulations in the Village, the Applicant’s home was legally non-conforming.  

                In 1966, the Applicant and his wife purchased the unimproved parcel of land -- configured in an unusual “bow tie shape – that lay adjacent to their home at 33 Ridge Road.  

                In 2002, the Applicant sought to move the then-existing lot line between the improved lot, i.e., the lot improved by his home, and the unimproved adjacent parcel of land.  Moving the lot line, as proposed, increased the size of the lot where Applicant’s home is located. The Applicant applied to the ZBA for a variance to (i) create a larger improved parcel (Lot 32); and (ii) create an unimproved parcel (Lot 33) that would be available for future development.   Turning first to Lot 32, the ZBA granted Applicant’s request for a 76.67 foot lot depth variance, a one (1) foot front yard setback variance, and a twelve (12) foot rear yard setback variance.  Turning next to Lot 33, the ZBA denied Applicant’s request for a variance without prejudice but noted that the Applicant was free to come forward at any time with a new application and a new plan for improving the property.

                Lot 33 is the focus of the application now before the ZBA.  Pursuant to Section 230-33 of the Village Zoning Code, the minimum lot depth required in an RA-5 district is one hundred (100) feet and the minimum rear year setback is twenty-five (25) feet.  At its narrowest point, Lot 33 is 16 feet deep, thus requiring a variance of 84 feet.
In addition, Applicant seeks a rear yard variance of twelve (12) feet.

                


        

                The ZBA rejected Applicant’s contention that “in essence” he was granted a lot depth variance for Lot 33 when, in 2002, the ZBA granted a lot depth variance for Lot 32.   While the ZBA recognizes that Lots 32 and 33, as now configured, share a common lot line, that fact does not give rise to a de facto variance for Lot 33.  In addition, by denying the Applicant’s request for the lot depth variance for Lot 33 without prejudice to submit a new application, the ZBA in effect acknowledged that the Applicant was free to again apply for a variance for Lot 33.  Finally, the ZBA must review each application on its merits, notwithstanding the fact that the Applicant has requested variances for two adjacent parcels of property that share a common boundary line.

                The requested variance is substantial.

                Strong objections from neighbors suggest the likelihood of a detriment to those affected properties should the proposed house be built.  For example, one neighbor expressed concern that removing more trees from the slope would cause further erosion and possibly undermine the structural integrity of the foundation of her home.  A second neighbor expressed concern about the new construction blocking sunlight, especially during winter months.

                Applicant did not suggest that denying the application would prove to be a hardship to him.


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

                Rolnick – Made motion to grant an eighty-five (85) foot depth variance and a twelve (12) foot rear yard variance according to the plans and survey submitted.

                Waitkins – Second the motion

                Vote 1-2:       In Favor -Waitkins
                                Against – Riedy, Rolnick
                        
                         Application DENIED


4/12/06












                                RESOLUTION


Raymond & Jessica Godwin,  has applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, for a request for a total side yard variance with respect to a proposed second story addition.

The property, 98 Olcott Ave., is located in a RA-5, District and is designated on the Tax Maps of the Village as Section 79.05 Block 5 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:


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

There were no objections from the neighbors.  The neighbors submitted letters of approval.

The requested variance was not substantial.

The proposed variance will not have an adverse affect on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood or district.




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

Rolnick – Made motion to grant a total side yard variance of 2.49 ft. according to plans submitted

Waitkins – Second the Motion.

Vote- 3-0 – In Favor – Rolnick, Waitkins, Riedy


4/12/06