Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
  • Citizen Action Center
  • Online Payments
  • Online Forms
  • Subscribe to News
  • Send Us Comments
  • Contacts Directory
  • Projects & Initiatives
  • Community Links
  • Village Code
 
 
ZBA June 14, 2006

VILLAGE OF CROTON-ON-HUDSON, N.Y. MEETING MINUTES OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 14, 2006.


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

MEMBERS ABSENT:         Ruth Waitkins


The meeting came to order at 8:00 P.M.

Announcement of the location of fire exits to all in attendance of the meeting.


APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

5/10/06 – Riedy – Made Motion to approve the Minutes as Amended:

               Re:  Robert Scott, Ridge Rd. - the following was added to the Minutes
                       and Resolution:

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

              Rolnick – 2nd the Motion
              Vote:   3-1 – Riedy, Rolnick, Stephens
                                   Barlow-Abstained

                 
HEARINGS:


Lynn Perton/Kerry Pisano, 2 Observatory Drive.  Section 79.09 Block 7 Lot 6.  Request for a front yard variance and/and or portico exception variance with respect to a proposed portico.

The applicants Lynn Perton and Kerry Pisano and their contractor Michael Krisa, Krisa Contracting Co. Inc., 22 Mohawk Lane, Yorktown Heights, N.Y. 10598, were present for the hearing.
Page -2-
                                                                                                                       ZBA Minutes                                                                                                                        
6/14/06

Ms. Perton – We are requesting a variance to construct a 9 ft. x 5 ft. portico in the front of our house.  We currently have no protection from inclement weather on either side of the
house.  The architecture of the proposed portico will improve and enhance the visual affect.  We are gatekeepers of the block.  We are requesting a front yard variance of 11.5 ft. from the street and the portico will be 9 ft. x 5 ft.

The applicant submitted pictures of other properties in the neighborhood that have similar porticos with similar setback dimension.

Stephens - Will the portico be farther than the front steps?

Perton - It will be no farther than the front steps.

Barlow – When was the house built?

Perton – It was built 1953 and we purchased it in March of 1989.

Barlow – How high will the portico be?

Krisa – It will be no more than 12 ft. high.

Barlow - More than half way up the roof?

Krisa – No.  It will be well before the chase.

Stephens – Will it have columns and be open?

Krisa – Yes.  It will be all open.

Peyton – 17 Observatory is similar.  It is the house located at the end of our cul-de-sac.

Rolnick – This is not your final drawing?

Perton – Yes.  Dan has drawings and he sent us a letter.

Sperber – Pretty much so, they will also need to file plans for the engineer to approve with the Building Permit Application.

Rolnick – Why 9 ft. rather than 8 ft.?




                                                                Page -3-
                                                                ZBA Minutes
                                                                6/14/06

Sperber – If they already had the required front yard setback they would be able to build a 9 ft. x 5 ft. portico.  They are here for the front yard setback.  They are not her for an as-of-right setback.

Rolnick – Seems like a technicality.
                                                        
Rolnick – what if it didn’t meet the front yard setback and they wanted a 6 ft. x 9 ft. portico?

Sperber – Then we would tell them they need to build a 6 ft. x 8 ft. portico or they would need a variance for the difference.  The main variance they are requesting is the encroachment into the front yard.

Discussion followed over Code Regulations and the dimensions of the proposed portico (9 ft. x 5 ft.), code regulations with respect to setback requirements (25 ft.) and Section 230-40(E)(2) of the Village Code with respect to entries and porticos.

Riedy – (Referred the Board to Section 230-40 (E) (2) of the Village Code) This section of the Code refers to a roofed-over, but unenclosed projections in the nature of an entry or portico no more than 8 ft. x 6 ft. from the front wall of the building, shall be exempt when the building otherwise complies with the regulations of this Section of the Code.  It further states that in computing the average setback, the presence of such entries and porticos shall be ignored.  This application is for an exception to the front yard, not a matter of width.  If they had the required front yard setback and built a 6 ft. x 8 ft. portico, they would not be here.

Stephens – Even if they wanted and 8 ft. x 6 ft. because, it is only if they were not in compliance with the other regulations that they would need to come before us.

Barlow - Then they will need a 13.5 ft. variance.

Perton – It will give us more covering.  It is a little longer than the original one but it is not huge.

Riedy - The width at the front step; is that how wide it will be?

Rolnick – Is 9 ft. a standard width?

Krisa – It is not standard they wanted it wider.


Page -4-
                                                                ZBA Minutes
                                                                6/14/06


Rolnick – How will you match the materials of the structure to the materials of the house?

Krisa – There will not be much siding to match, But, we will match it to the existing siding.

Riedy – Any other questions?

The applicant stated that they feel there will be no undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood nor will it cause a detriment to nearby properties.  It will be more esthetically appealing and welcoming than what’s existing.

The neighbors were noticed and there were no objections to the application.

The applicant submitted to the Board a copy of a previous variance that was granted on January 8, 1997, for a front yard variance with respect to an addition to the side of the house and the Board decided there was no adverse affect on the neighborhood.


There was no reply

Hearing Closed.


Stephens – Made Motion to Grant a 13.5 ft. front yard variance with the following
                  condition:

                           The siding of the portico will match the siding of the house.

Rolnick – Second the Motion
Vote:  4-0 – In Favor – Stephens, Rolnick, Riedy, Barlow


Harold A. Stanley, 43 Wells Ave., Section 78.08 Block 8 Lot 2.  Request for a rear yard variance with respect to an existing rear deck.

Kathleen Riedy, Chairman of the Board, stated that the applicant once lived across the street from her family for over 20 years.  However, she did not feel there was any need to recuse herself from participating in the hearing or voting on the application since there is no real conflict of interest.


Page -5-
                                                                ZBA Minutes
                                                                6/14/06


Stanley – I have owned the house since 1973.  The house was originally built in 1984.  There was once an in-ground pool in the area where the deck was constructed.  The deck was constructed for the pool.   The pool was removed and the deck remained.  The deck is now not compliant with the setback regulations.  The deck has been there since 1984.

The applicant submitted pictures for the Board to review.

Michael Stanley, Son of the applicant – We spoke to all our neighbors and they have no objection.

Rolnick – Which neighbors did you speak to?

Michael Stanley – Rear yard corner, 3 houses on Beekman Ave. which is located directly behind the property and Cooney St., which is the neighbor adjacent to the property.  We are requesting a 15 ft. rear yard variance.  The pool was an accessory structure and the

deck was part of the accessory structure.  At the time it was allowed to be 10 ft. from the property line.  But, now that the pool was removed it needs to meet different requirements.

Stephens – How did you find out that it did not comply?

Michael Stanley – When we asked to be re-assessed for the removal of the pool.  We are also preparing to sell and we may have a lost deal if the deck were to come down.  I wanted to look at the records for the houses that Franzoso built on Beekman Ave., which have decks.  It does not look like they had variances.

Rolnick – Will you use the area under the deck?

Michael Stanley – No.

Rolnick – Would you mind if we imposed a condition that lattice work be installed?

Michael Stanley – We would agree to the variance being contingent upon lattice being installed.

Rolnick – Will it be pressure treated?

Michael Stanley – I spoke to the engineer to make sure it was built according to today’s structural standards and it is. It is a great neighborhood and a friendly place to live.

Page -6-
                                                                ZBA Minutes
                                                                                               6/14/06


Riedy – If we granted the variance we would make the existing screening part of the condition, so the new owner would need to maintain it.  Whose fence is it in the back of your property?

Mr. Stanley - That was Mrs. Holland’s fence.  I do not own it.  We own a small piece that is adjacent to the Cooney property.

Rolnick (To Joseph Sperber, Code Enforcement Officer) The platform deck that is next to the raised deck is that subject to a variance?

Sperber - It is not flush on grade, so I would say yes, unless you define it as a patio.

Mr. Stanley – It sits on ground.  When I purchased the house I put the patio in.

Rolnick – If it is defined as a deck you will need a variance.
                                                                
Michael Stanley – We can raise the grade to make it flush and consider it a patio.

Sperber – We could call it a patio and it would only require a 4 ft. setback

Riedy – I would like to make the photos that were submitted this evening as part of the record.

The Board agreed.

Photos made part of the record.

Discussion followed over the existing screening and if it was sufficient to provide privacy to the adjacent neighbors and what type of screening the Board would require, and what species of trees would be best for that particular location and environment.

The applicant requested a short adjournment stating there was an arborist that he knew attending another meeting in a nearby room who could help in determining what species of plants/trees would be best.


The Board granted his request.




        Page -6-
                                                                ZBA Minutes
                                                                                               6/14/06


Mark Nagel and Bruce Laemmel the arborists discussed different species of plants and trees and how it would affect or react to the environment.  They stated that the existing screening, Rose of Sharon, Blooms 6 months out of the year and drops their leaves around November. It is thick at the top and can grow 7 ft. to 8 ft. across.  If other plants

were to be planted next to it, it would compete with the other plants.  If arborvitae were planted it would be eaten by the deer.

Mr. Nagel and Mr. Laemmel suggested removing the existing screening and replacing it with evergreen trees such as dark American or emerald.

Discussion followed over other different species of plants/trees such as Arborvitae, Plicotta, Chesapeake, Japanese Holly, Norway Spruce, Colorado green and blue, White Spruce, Leather Leaf Vibernum, and Alleghany or Willow Wood.

Riedy – Anyone else like to be heard?

There was no reply.


Hearing Closed.


Rolnick – Made Motion to grant a 15 ft. rear yard variance for the existing deck with the
                 following conditions:

                            1.  Lattice work will be installed under the deck.
                            2.  Replace existing screening with 6 ft. year round evergreen trees.
                            3.  Trees are to be placed along the rear lot line adjacent to the deck at a
                                  width not less than 25 ft. and are to meet the approval of the Village                               
                                  Engineer.
                            4.  Screening will be maintained perpetuity.

Stephens – Second the Motion
Vote:  4-0 – In Favor    Rolnick, Stephens, Riedy, Barlow





                                                                                Page – 8 –
                                                                                ZBA Minutes
                                                                                                                       6/14/06





DISCUSSION:

Re:  Scott ZBA Application/Request for a full quorum at the July 12, 2006 hearing.
      Ridge Road

Rhoda Stephens stated that she will be returning from vacation on July 12, 2006, and is not certain if she will arrive in time for the meeting.

The applicant was not present at the time and the Board requested the applicant be notified that there is a possibility there will not be a full quorum for the next meeting. (The applicant and Philip Tully, P.E., the applicant’s representative was notified by the ZBA Secretary on 6/15/06).


Respectfully submitted,


Janice Fuentes
ZBA Secretary
6/14/06


















                                                RESOLUTION


Harold A. Stanley, has applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, for a front yard variance and/or portico exception variance with respect to a proposed portico.

The property, at 43 Wells Avenue, is located in a RA-5, District and is designated on the Tax Maps of the Village as Section 78.08 Block 8 Lot 2.

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.

There were no objections from the neighbors.  

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 15 ft. rear yard variance for the existing deck and
               according to the following conditions:

                a)  The applicant will replace the existing screening along the rear lot line
                      adjacent to the deck with  6 ft. evergreens at a width of not less than 25 ft.

                b)  Screening shall be maintained in perpetuity.


                c.)   Lattice work will be installed under the deck.


Stephens – Second the Motion
Vote:  4-0 – In Favor – Rolnick, Stephens, Riedy, Barlow


6/14/06

                                RESOLUTION


Lynn Perton/Kerry Pisano, has applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, for a front yard variance and/or portico exception variance with respect to a proposed portico.

The property, at 2 Observatory Drive, is located in a RA-9, District and is designated on the Tax Maps of the Village as Section 79.09 Block 7 Lot 6.

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 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:

Stephens – Made Motion to Grant a 13.5 ft. front yard variance with the following
                   condition:

                  The siding of the portico will match the siding of the house.

Rolnick – Second the Motion
Vote:  4-0 – In Favor – Stephens, Rolnick, Riedy, Barlow

6/14/06