Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
  • Citizen Action Center
  • Follow us on Social Media
  • Freedom of Information
  • Online Payments
  • Online Forms
  • Subscribe to News
  • Send Us Comments
  • Contacts Directory
  • Projects & Initiatives
  • Public Documents
  • Community Links
  • Village Code
ZBA May 10, 2006
                                                DRAFT FILED:  5/23/06
                                                FINAL APPROVAL: 6/10/06


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

MEMBERS ABSENT:           Witt Barlow

Meeting came to order 8:00 P.M.

The Chairman of the Board announced the location of fire exists to all in attendance of the meeting.


4/12/06 -    Riedy - Made Motion to accept the minutes
                   Rolnick - Second the Motion
                   Vote:     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.

For the Record:  The Board heard a previous application for the same variance request on April 12, 2006 and it was denied.

Mark Franzoso – I am in a contract agreement for a parcel on Ridge Road.  We appeared before the Board last month and our request was denied. To be honest I do not understand the zoning issues.  I have Philip Tully, P.E., here to speak on my behalf and Mr. Scott’s behalf regarding this parcel.  

Philip Tully, 4 Eklof Court, -  As you are well aware at the last meeting we were confident enough to go forward with our hearing without a full quorum and now we are before you and again and we do not have a full quorum.

Riedy – Would you like the option to adjourn?
                                                                Page -2-
                                                                                               ZBA Minutes

Tully – That would be up to the applicant to make that decision.  We stated the facts last time and this time we embellished those facts and are more specific as to why the variances should be granted.  Section 230-75 (C), of the Zoning Regulations is applicable.  Are you aware of those conditions in Section in Section 230-75 (C)?

Joseph Sperber, Code Enforcement Officer – Mr. Tully, you may be working from an older book.

Tully – May I see yours so I can make sure it is the same thing?

Discussion followed over the Code.

Tully – I think frankly, it does not seem to address the same conditions.

The Board should be considering the physical conditions and if the physical conditions are peculiar to the lot and the answer is yes.  So, you need to consider the physical condition of the lot, and if it was created by the applicant or owner, and is there a detriment?  The answer is no.  You need to consider if granting these variances would be injurious to the neighbors or a detriment to the public’s welfare and the answer is no.  The Zoning Board in 2002 granted a variance and one variance was for Lot depth and since Lot #32 and Lot #33 share the same common lot line the granting of that lot line for Lot #32 should also apply to Lot # 33, since it is a common lot line shared by both lots.

Riedy – The Zoning Board expressly denied the variance with respect to Lot #33.

Tully – They did not deny it, they decided not to consider the granting of a variance at that time.

Riedy – I think we might have a misunderstanding there, it was without prejudice.

Tully – But, the old variance also applies because it is a common lot line.  There will be no detriment to nearby properties and the variance we are asking for will not be detrimental to the neighbors.

Rolnick – Why is that? –

Tully – The use is a permitted use and it will not be detrimental.

Rolnick – But, I think the variance for the other lot was given because it had an existing house.  How would you compare the granting of the variance in that respect?

                                                                Page -3-
                                                                ZBA Minutes

Tully – Because, they have the same findings.

Rolnick – The difference to me is there was a house on the lot that was granted the variance.  How can that be transferable to a lot that does not have a house?

Tully – Because the Zoning Board created and increased the degree of non-conformity by granting it.  It is a common lot line that is shared by both lots. There would be no reason to grant the variance if we would not be able to apply it to this lot too.

Riedy – Moving the lot line was a request made by the applicant, it was not something the Board acted upon on its own.

Tully – How can you grant a variance for Lot #32 and not Lot#33?

Riedy – So, you see no difference in granting a variance for the improved lot as opposed to granting it for an unimproved lot?

Tully – This consideration is based on the fact that this division line occurs on both lots and should apply to both lots.

Rolnick – The rear yard also needs a variance.

Tully - Yes.  We will need a rear yard variance.  The required setback is 25 ft.

Rolnick – Can this lot be considered an existing small lot?

Tully – No, because it has not been under separate ownership since 1962 or it would not need a variance.

Rolnick – Why wouldn’t it need a variance?

Tully – Because the Zoning Regulations for Existing Small Lots specifies no minimum lot depth.

Sperber – Ownership also plays a factor and lot width, so it would not be applicable in any event.

Tully – If you look at Section 230-162 (2) (e) ….

                                                        Page -4 –
                                                                                    ZBA Minutes

Rolnick – So, you are talking about the factors and you are saying it was not self created.

Tully – It certainly is not self-created.  It has been that way since day one.

Rolnick - But, if the lot was purchased when it was substandard, why is that not self-created?

Tully – Because, he did not create it.

Stephens – But, when they purchased the property and they came for a variance in 2002, that is when they created this problem.

Tully – Suppose they did not change the lot line in 2002.  Changing the lot line did not change the lot depth.

Riedy – Mr. Scott sent everyone a letter and attached to that letter is a map.  While we refer to that map; could you please repeat that again Mr. Tully?

Tully – Changing the lot line did not change the lot depth.  Depth is the minimum distance from the front to rear.  It is a common lot line.  It did not change.  It only changed with respect to Lot #32, because they moved it.   Lot #33 always included the narrow neck of the property.

Riedy – OK.  Thank you, Mr. Tully.

Franzoso – Most people read the gazette and know Mr. Scott.  It was Mr. Scott’s intention in 2002 to have a buildable lot.   The Scott’s have donated other property across the street to the Croton community as conservation land to be kept forever green.  None of the houses on Ridge Road are conforming.  This property may need a variance, but a nice little house is being proposed for this lot.  I had a modular company draw up a picture of the proposed house.  The Village could use the tax revenue too.  I do not think it will be detrimental to the neighbors.

Riedy – Mr. Tully stated that the construction will cause no impact to the steep slopes, do you agree?

Franzoso – None whatsoever.   You come out of the house to a flat level patio and there will be an unobstructed view of the Hudson River.
                                                        Page -5-
                                                        ZBA Minutes

Discussion followed over plans and the area where the slope gets steep.

Rolnick – I spoke of the proposed location of the house being shown on the plans as being very close to the steep slopes but, you say it will have no impact whatsoever?

Franzoso – None whatsoever.

Riedy – Are you saying the topographical survey you submitted last month does not show the envelope of the home you are proposing to build?

Franzoso – Oh yes, it does, and it will have no impact on the slope going down and off to the side it is all level.

Scott – I think I can add something that might be a clincher.  If we had never provided the bow tie lot and I wanted to build a house I would still be here tonight for a lot depth variance, so nothing has changed.  I would still need a minimum lot depth variance.

Riedy – Yes, and that was the case in1966, when you purchased the property.

Scott – All I ask is that you do not penalize me.

Riedy – Why do you see it as a penalty?

Scott – It is a taking.

Riedy – And how is it a taking?

Scott – By not giving it a variance you are declaring it a non-buildable lot.  Yates purchased the property in 1914.  It was sold as a buildable lot.

Riedy – But, you stated it would be a hardship to you, if we failed to grant the variance. When you purchased the property in 1966, nothing could be built without a variance.  That is what you purchased then.

Scott– I was in ignorance of the fact that the lot required a minimum lot width variance.

Riedy – When you purchased the property did anyone state it was a buildable lot or did you inquire to see if it was?

Scott – No.  I purchased it in good faith.  We could have chosen to abandon the property as the former owner did for taxes.  We paid the tax arrears from the previous owner.
                                                                Page -6-
                                                                                               ZBA Minutes

Tully – In 2002 when the Zoning Board of Appeals granted the variance to move the lot line they had to have recognized that the sole purpose in doing so was to create a building lot or otherwise moving the lot line would have served no purpose.

Riedy – Anyone else like to be heard?

Roger Gurka, 26 Ridge Road – (To Mr. Scott and Mr. Franzoso) I am not aware of any letter that was sent by the applicant.  I do not know why we have to squeeze something in this very little piece of land that they have.  From my estimations up there, what everyone calls a step slope, is an embankment.  There is an existing house in the area that had some issues.  The house is still in litigation about a retaining wall that collapsed.  There are a lot of trees that I am concerned about.  That is what is holding the house.  They will have to cut down trees to build.  I want to know what will happen when they cut those trees down to build.  There are a lot of trees right on the edge of the embankment and many small trees.  As far as I am concerned, that is what is keeping the house up, it is all sand there.  I had my mud slide. I know what that is all about, especially the tree factor.

Douglas Whikehart, 27 Ridge Road – I live south of this property.  My concerns are the same as my neighbor’s with respect to the slope and trees.  One of the indications is that it will be a detriment to the neighborhood and I take issue with that.  We do have a problem with erosion and there is a lot to lose with respect to the slope. There are steep slopes there and trees all along the slope and assuming they want a view of the Hudson River, they will be taking down a lot of those trees.  I have no idea what they are basing their comment on when they say there will be no impact on the steep slopes

Waitkins – The steep slopes law has nothing to do with this application.

Riedy – When did the collapse of the retaining wall take place?

Whikehart – Three years ago.

Rolnick – Your house is immediately to the left from the road?

Whikehart – Yes.

Franzoso – To ease the concerns, their property is held up by railroad ties.  I will use pre-fabricated concrete block and as far as the rear yard goes, because I was concerned about that, and when land slide happened, I tried to assist John Barrardi with that. I had W.D. Contracting look at the site and he told me no problem whatsoever.  He will go nowhere near the slope.  There is a good size tree in the middle of the lot that will have to come down.  I am aware the roots of trees are holding the embankment.  It is not necessary to
                                                        Page -7-
                                                        ZBA Minutes

take down trees in the bad area.  There are steel pilings that were installed ten feet behind the building and it has already been graded a great deal.

Rolnick – So you are saying the steel pilings will hold up the hill?

Franzoso – There are some saplings or grub trees that will come down, but not old or big trees.

Whikehart – I have some pictures of the lot and I do not know how they can build without taking the trees down.

Riedy – Show the pictures to Mr. Scott and Mr. Franzoso first and the ZBA Secretary.

Scott – (Referring to photos) – This is a photo of exactly what we are avoiding.  In no way does this application fall under the Steep Slopes Ordinance.

Riedy – We are giving you the opportunity to look at the photos and then we can look at them and you can tell us what you think they represent and Mr. Tully, your engineer can comment on them.

Franzoso – (Referring to pictures) There is a great picture there that represents what I was talking about with respect to the work that has already been done.

Tully - It is stated that that wall is approved by the Village Engineer.

Discussion followed over pictures and the Board requested Mr. Whikehart to number the pictures for discussion.

Waitkins – The picture marked “A” –

Franzoso – Is a picture of it sideways at the edge of the steep slopes.

Riedy –Mr. Whikehart did you take the photos?

Whikehart - Some and my wife took the others.  Picture “A” was taken from my side yard pointed at the lot in question.  It is capturing the line of trees that go along the slope.     I do not know where exactly the footprint of house will come, but it is hard to believe it will not affect any other trees.  Ignore picture “B”.  Picture “C” is from down below to show the angle of the slope from behind the Dunkin Donuts Shop below.  It is showing the steepness of the slopes. Trees are partly removed to make way for the shopping mall. Picture “D” is identical only at a different angle. You could disregard that picture too and just use picture “A” and “C”.

                                                                Page – 8 –
                                                                ZBA Minutes

Tully – Again I would like to say we are not disturbing the steep slopes and the retaining wall, I do not know why that particular wall collapsed.  We will have no retaining wall comparable to that wall, so I do not know why we are taking about it.

Rolnick – But, Mr. Franzoso mentioned a retaining wall.

Tully – None at all, just along the driveway.

Riedy – (To Mr. Scott) Do you want to comment on the photos “A” or “C”?

Scott – I have difficulty in understanding why people who have not seen the plan are making comments as to the placement of the house and slope that are not steep slopes. I was a geologist for the state of New Jersey and an assistant geologist to the Board.

Scott - That has been a stable lot for more than the lifetime of some people in this room.  Mr. Tully will be the engineer and it will certainly not endanger this gentleman’s property.  It will not encroach on the steep slopes in any way.  The placement of the house is to avoid the steep slopes.  If we needed a steep slopes permit we would not be here before this Board.

Riedy – Any other comments?

Franzoso – I think the photos help to prove our case.  I have no objections to the photos.

Riedy – Anyone else like to be heard?  Mr. Scott would you like to say anything?

Scott– Only that we would like your approval on this project.

Tully – We prevail upon you to change your vote from the last time.

Hearing closed

Stephens – Made Motion to grant a rear yard variance of 11.5 ft. and a 85 ft. lot depth

Rolnick – Second the Motion
Vote:  2-2 – Stephens & Waitkins – In Favor
                   Rolnick & Riedy – Against

Application Denied
                                                        Page –9-
                                                        ZBA Minutes

Nance Shatzkin, Agent/Symphony Knoll Affordable Housing, Mt. Airy Rd.  Located in a RC District and designated on the Tax Maps of the Village as Section 67.20 Block 3 Lot 2 & 36.

Nance Shatzkin, Agent for Symphony Knolls Affordable Housing.  -  We are requesting an extension of a variance that was granted one year ago.  There is an expectation that once a variance is granted the applicant will begin construction within one year.  However, affordable housing presents extra challenges that need to be met in that time frame.  We also came before the Zoning Board early in the design process at the request of the Planning Board.  We also have a lot more information that was not available one year ago that you were not able to review.  In the spirit of knowing you (ZBA) are interested in the details of the plan for this site and the fact that a lot of steps have been completed, we wanted to give the ZBA a sense of the significant progress we have made on the site. We were gifted the McClure homestead when Mt. Airy Woods was being built in the 1990’s and we needed a four acre parcel to meet the RC Multi-Family Zone.  Everything else belongs to the Croton Housing Network. The County will purchase the property for the purpose of constructing the new house and will pay the expenses and it will then be given back to Croton Housing Network.

Ms. Shatzkin further explained how the project was being bonded and funded with the help of the County and Federal Programs that provide funding to offset construction costs for medium income housing and as a result of the bond it becomes eligible for a four percent tax cut.  

Ms. Shatzkin further stated that this is also an explanation as to why they cannot always work within set time frames.

Rolnick – Does the County own it?

Shatzkin – The County buys it and then it comes back to the Croton Housing Network  There are agreements as to who is responsible for sewer maintenance, etc. Infrastructure agreements are not granted to the Croton Housing Network, but the Village.  The Housing Network will give the Village an easement and the County will construct it and the Housing Network will be responsible once it is built.  The housing development has developed a new piece to the village trail system and actually we are giving the village two easements.

Discussion followed over plans and the location of the easements.

                                                        Page -10-
                                                        ZBA Minutes

Stuart Markowitz, Architect for Symphony Knoll– There is a trail easement that will start at Mount Airy and run up to Symphony Knoll and up to Upper No. Highland and it will join with the major system of the trails that exist.

Shatzkin – That will be an incredible link to the existing trail.  We have agreed in our Planning Board process to do the easement now and it will be up to the village to do the trail or not.  If the village should pursue it, our design for the water main will allow the village to bring in another hydrant to it.  That easement was a request of the village and the easement has been mapped and included in the site plan.

Markowitz – The land that accommodated the McClure house was relatively flat and the west side is all steep.  We utilized the McClure lot for access and parking.  (Referring to Plans)- there is essentially a one way street around the center green that also has trees and parking on both sides.  It will be easy for seniors to navigate and it will be bigger in the front of the building as well.  These views are a front façade.   The building can be seen mostly from the existing driveway.  South of that the existing trees hide it and as you go up King Street you lose it.  We set the Building one hundred feet from where the McClure house is.

Discussion followed over plans and the height of the Building.

Markowitz – Submitted picture drawings that were taken from the driveway entry.

Discussion followed over drawings.

Markowitz – We will be sharing the driveway with Mt. Airy Woods.

Rolnick – You say there will be additional screening and plantings?

Markowitz – Yes.  I will show you the planting plan.

Discussion followed over plans and the balloon tests that were conducted to show the effect of the height of the building.

Shatzkin – Based on the balloon test the building will not be seen from anywhere else, except the neighbor in the back.   There is a significant buffer between the back of the building and the lot is a much wooded area.

Shatzkin – The land transfers that were required are now complete.  Some of the funding is completed or scheduled to be completed.  We have support from legislators and a very good statement of support from them.  The Planning Board did extensive reviews and had
                                                                                 Page – 11-
                                                                                 ZBA Minutes

an extensive impact on the site plan and it was opened for a public hearing last night.  There were no negative comments, whatsoever.  There was a little concern about the new trail, but that is not really our issue.  No one was there to speak against the project.  We feel the architectural design has improved significantly and the Visual Environment Board has also reviewed the plans and have been complimentary.  We want it to be three stories and not a humongous building

Markowitz – We asked for a variance of thirty five feet that would have been equal to what a single family house would have been allowed.  It is a building height of 31.5 ft. that Zoning Allows.  We hope to start construction in the fall.

Shatzkin - The archeological review has been completed and you are seeing the plans that are on file with the Planning Board now. The most straight forward approach was for us to ask for an extension of the existing Variance that was already approved and we wanted to give you an up to date review of where we were at with the Planning Board.

Waitkins – Is this a request for exactly what you got before?  The last Resolution stated that you would come back to us if the Planning Board required any changes.

Shatzkin – It is because of the timing that we have come back to you, not because there have been any changes.  The Croton Housing Network has been an exemplary ongoing event and that has to do with involving village government more.  I think that is the nature of our partnership.

Riedy – We all appreciate the references to the Site Plan information.  I know a lot of work has gone into these plans in the last year and it is good that you have touched base with us to review these matters.  The 2005 Resolution refers to Plan C…

Markowitz – That is because there were site plan options given at the time and that has been solidified now and it is Site Plan “C” that is a single building plan that is before us tonight.  The only change to the building was that we lowered it a little.

Riedy – So in fact this is identical to the Site Plan “C” that is in the 2005 Resolution?

Rolnick – I would like to address approving what is before us tonight as opposed to granting according to the 2005 Resolution.

Markowitz – So you are saying you will vote according to the new plans today as opposed to the extension request?

Riedy – I agree.
                                                                              Page – 12 –
                                                                              ZBA Minutes

Discussion followed with the other ZBA Members as to how they will proceed.

Markowitz – The building is smaller and the shape is slightly different, which changes the dimensions.

Stephens – The legal notice states that they are requesting to renew the 2005 variance and requesting to include revised architectural plans.

Riedy -  The public notice is satisfactory for the purpose of public notice, but I do not think we are bound by the public notice.  There is a more appropriate procedure to take and it speaks to the revised architectural plans.

Discussion followed over the language of the notice and what was before the Board.

The Board unanimously agreed not to base their decision on the previous resolution but to consider it as a new application in order to allow them to deliberate on the revised plans that were presented to them this evening.

Shatzkin – Are there any other questions the Board may have as a result of this decision?

Rolnick – What kind of siding will there be?

Shatzkin – Cement clapboard that is made with cement and flat clapboard.  It is the same that was used at the Discovery Cove units.  It will be the same concept, just a different color.  

Rolnick – It will not be white?

Markowitz – Light gray with a trim which color has not been chosen.

Riedy – Have you changed the parking?  Will that be the same?

Markowitz – Yes.  It is the same, 20 spaces.

Rolnick – All the parking is conforming?

Markowitz – Yes.  It allows for one and one half parking spaces per unit and parking for the office.

Riedy – What is the height of the building?
                                                                              Page -13-
                                                                              ZBA Minutes

Markowitz – It is measured at mid height of the pitch.  It is 31.5 ft.

Riedy – So, you are requesting a variance for 32 ft.?

Stephens – Has any part of the trail way been changed on these plans?

Shatzkin – Yes.  Last week the trails committee requested it be lower.  The dash line represents a fifteen foot easement.  Rather than bringing in a surveyor that would cost thousands of dollars, we agreed to let the village use the trail and it is more defined now than it was then.  We have added, at our suggestion, an easement that would allow the village to add another trail, if they wanted.  One year ago we said we would maintain the stone foundation of the McClure house.  We moved away from that idea and intend to completely remove the existing foundation and use it for facing on various walls on the site.  For safety factors and cost factors, we removed it and the County would not have paid for it anyway.  The house goes, cottage goes, and the shed goes.  That was always the intention.

Riedy – On Site Plan 1 the one and one half story building …..

Shatzkin – When the traffic study was done they assessed that it would not be as safe unless we could widen it, so we decided to widen the lowest curve on the driveway.  It will not be necessary to disturb Mt. Airy for the water and sewer connections.

Markowitz – The basement plans shows we have a partial basement given the rock contours.

Discussion followed over plans.

Shatzkin – We would like to develop programming at the site that will appeal to seniors that will live there and to seniors in the community.  So, if we can get the basement space we would do that.  We would also be creating another space for the community to use, but we do not want to say too much about it now without knowing for certain if we will be able to do this.  But, there are funds in our planning for this so we can serve the needs of the residents and also the community.

Riedy – Are there any other questions?

                                                                                 Page -14-
                                                                                  ZBA Minutes

There was no reply.

Hearing Closed.

Stephens – Made Motion not to approve the application as a renewal of the previous Resolution dated April 13, 2005, due to revisions that were made to the plans, but to consider the application as a new application according to revised plans S1 submitted and as follows:

        1.  One three story structure limited to 32 ft. in height

       2.  Route of trail changed

        3.  Widening of the lowest curb for safety purposes

       4.  Village Engineer shall have the discretion of referring the application back to the
             ZBA if any future changes are significant.

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

Respectfully submitted,

Janice Fuentes
ZBA Secretary


                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:

                This application was previously submitted for a hearing on April 12, 2006 and the application was denied.

                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.  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 the application is hereby DENIED, as follows:

Stephens – Made Motion to grant a rear yard variance of 11.5 ft. and a 85 ft. lot depth

Rolnick – Second the Motion
Vote:  2-2 – Stephens & Waitkins – In Favor
                   Rolnick & Riedy – Against

Application Denied



Nance Shatzkin, Agent/Symphony Knoll Affordable Housing, has applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, With a request to renew a variance that was granted on April 13, 2005 and a request to include approval of revised architectural plans.

The property, at Mt. Airy Road, Located in a RC District and is designated on the Tax Maps of the Village as Section 67.20 Block 3 Lot 2 & 36.

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

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

The proposed three-story will be less expensive to construct and there will be less excavation and disturbance to the environment.

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

The applicant will provide screening to make the building less visible to the neighbors.

The applicant is providing housing for the Senior Citizen’s of our community.

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

Stephens – Made Motion not to approve the application as a renewal of the previous Resolution dated April 13, 2005, due to revisions that were made to the plans, but to consider the application as a new application according to revised plans S1 submitted and as follows:

        1.  One three story structure limited to 32 ft. in height

       2.  Route of trail changed

       3.  Widening of the lowest curb for safety purposes

       4.  Village Engineer shall have the discretion of referring the application back to the
             ZBA if any future changes are significant.

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