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 July 12, 2006


VILLAGE OF CROTON-ON-HUDSON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 12, 2006.


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

ALSO PRESENT:                   Joseph Sperber, Code Enforcement Officer


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:

6/14/06 -  Stephens – Motion to grant as amended and corrected
                Rolnick – Second the Motion
                Vote: 3-2 – In Favor – Stephens, Rolnick, Riedy
                                   Abstained – Waitkins, Barlow


HEARINGS:


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 variance with respect to a proposed new one-family dwelling.  A previous appeal for lot depth and rear yard variances was denied on 4/12/06 and 5/10/06.

Scott:  Stated that the property in question was purchased in 1966.  There was a previous variance granted for a lot line change on June 12, 2002.  The Board granted the variance without prejudice for the improved lot only.  The applicant was given the option to return to the Board for the unimproved lot when he could provide plans for the proposed construction.  The applicant stated that he assumed the vacant lot was a buildable lot at the time of purchase. The applicant further stated that after reapplying for a rear yard and lot depth variance for the unimproved lot he was turned down by a vote of
                                                        Page – 2-
                                                        ZBA Minutes
                                                                                   7/12/06


two against and two in favor.  Mr. Scott stated the property would need a lot depth variance even if the June 12, 2002 variance was never granted.  Mr. Scott further stated that they have revised the original plan so that he no longer needs the rear yard variance, only lot depth.

Mr. Scott also addressed the concerns of a neighbor Roger Gurka , 26 Ridge Rd. who was concerned about the construction blocking his sunlight.  Mr. Scott stated that he cannot find an application that was ever turned down because of blocked sunlight.  Mr. Scott stated that according to the topographical & construction plans that were submitted, the sun will always be south of both structures.

Mr. Scott – Stated that in 1993 he owned other property in the area that he donated to the village to be kept forever green and whatever sunlight the Gurka’s get is from that land.

Mr. Scott – Stated that at the last meeting there were neighbors that were concerned about the steep slopes and whether the removal of trees would affect the slopes.  Mr. Scott stated there would be no trees would be removed and he did not need a steep slopes permit.  Mr. Scott further stated that his application was in the hands of a competent engineer who retired from the village nine years ago.

Mr. Scott - When my previous request was denied, one of the reasons stated was that he did not show hardship.  Mr. Scott stated he did not mention any hardship because it was too painful to discuss.  Mr. Scott further stated that his hardship was due to the fact he retired in 1983 and is living on a fixed income.  His income is so small he does not pay taxes.  Mr. Scott stated that he is also a cancer patient who is about to enter chemo therapy.  Mr. Scott stated that he cannot afford such pleasures as eating out in a restaurant. He is deaf and has a special amplifier phone. His dog is trained to awaken him in case of an emergency. His wife is ill.  Mr. Scott further stated that it would cause him a severe hardship if this variance is not granted.

Discussion followed over plans.

Kathleen Riedy and Paul Rolnick – Requested the applicant or contractor to go over the details of the building envelope.

Mark Franzoso – Stated that he would like Philip Tully the Engineer to discuss the plans.





                                                                Page -3-
                                                                ZBA Minutes
                                                                7/12/06



Philip Tully, 4 Eklof Court, Croton-on-Hudson, - Stated that this is the third application regarding this lot and this application is substantially different than the previous applications since it does not require a rear yard variance.  It only requires a lot depth variance and the proposed construction complies with all other zoning requirements.  Mr. Tully further stated that the Board allowed the increase of the degree of non-conformity by allowing the lot line change.  Therefore, this was a result of an act by the ZBA.

Rolnick – Asked Mr. Tully why he felt this application was different from the previous application that was submitted to the Board.

Tully – Stated that this application is different because the previous application requested a rear yard and lot depth variance.  This application is only requesting a lot depth variance and the dimensions of the house have been altered substantially so that it complies with all the zoning requirements.

Rolnick – Stated that he needed to know what the facts are with respect to how the average measurement was determined with respect to frontage; since this was not discussed the last time and he felt that it was needed in order for the Board to establish if the other setbacks fall under the applicant’s explanation.  Mr. Rolnick also requested to know what Mr. Scotts front yard measurements were compared to his neighbor. It was stated that Mr. Scott’s property had an 11 ft. frontage and the property next to his was 9 ft.

Discussion followed over plans.

Joseph Sperber – What  Mr. Rolnick is getting at is if there is a Section of the Code that the applicant did not supply the Board with that states how the applicant arrived at his determination of the Code.  The Board needs to know that in order to make a decision.

Tully -  There is a provision in the Zoning Regulations.

Riedy – Section 230-40(E)(3)?

Tully – Correct.  We are exceeding the average.

Rolnick – So you are good with the front, rear and side.

Stephens – Then you are here only for the lot depth requirement?

Tully – Correct.
                                                        Page -4-
                                                        ZBA Minutes
                                                                                   7/12/06



Discussion followed over plans and the location of the driveway and garage.  It was stated by the applicant that the garage will be located under the house.  Discussion followed over elevation plans and the location of the entrance to the house.

Tully – The applicant requests a minimum lot depth variance.  The lot depth is peculiar to the land and not the result of this application.  The hardship to the applicant would be to deny him use of his land.  There will be no adverse affect on the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties.

Discussion followed over plans with respect to the lot depth and area.  

Sperber – Stated that the lot area was 5,000 sq. ft.

Tully – Stated that the height of the proposed structure will be well within the requirements.

Rolnick – Asked what the distance would be from the steep slope to the proposed house as opposed to what the distance was before the revisions to the house plans and how much closer was it before 12 ft. or 13 ft.?

Tully – Yes.  Approximately.

Riedy – What will the square footage of the house be?

Franzoso – 1,600 sq. ft.

Riedy – Any other questions?

Mark Franzoso – I was prepared to make a statement, but after Mr. Tully and Mr. Scotts statements I have no other comments.

Rolnick – When will construction start?

Franzoso – Right away.

Rolnick – Usually an applicant would show more of an elevation plan.

Franzoso – I had hoped to have the house sold by now.


                                                Page -5-
                                                ZBA Minutes
                                                7/12/06


Tully – We would prefer to ask for a five member Board, but the Board does not meet in August and time is money.

Franzoso – We have made the necessary revisions.

Riedy – Anyone else like to be heard?

Douglas Whikehart -  The purpose of this Board and the Zoning Regulations is to provide maximum protection against non-conformities.  This property was non-conforming when it was purchased and this variance still does not change the fact it is non-conforming.  Ridge Road is narrow and one of the narrowest areas is where this house will be built.  During a rain storm there was erosion and the retaining wall collapsed.  I am concerned this construction will cause further erosion.  Trees will be cut and trees help to keep soil in place.  

Rolnick – If it could be built in a way that it would not disturb the steep slopes would you still object?

Whikehart – No.  But, the details seem to be lacking here.

Rolnick – So, you don’t object to a structure being built, just the impact it may have on your lot, correct?

Whikehart – Yes.  This request is substantial.

Tully – I would like to comment.

Riedy – If you don’t mind Mr. Tully we will hear from everyone first and then you can comment.

Roger Gurka, 26 Ridge Road – I am concerned about trees that will be cut down and erosion.  The Board turned it down the last time because it was substantial, not because it was blocking the sun.  With a setback of 12 ft. from the slope, it does not seem like a very long distance before it drops off.  What was the distance?

Rolnick – 12 ft.

Gurka – I am concerned it will add to a steep slope problem we already have.



                                                Page -6-
                                                ZBA Minutes
                                                                       7/12/06



Scott – Regarding Mr. Whikehardt’s concerns about non-conformities.  His property does  not have the minimum side yard requirement and his is closer to the road.  We are asking for 12 ft. when the minimum is 15 ft..  We are asking for a measly 3 ft. difference.  As far as erosion, every house on Ridge Road had problems with erosion during construction.  The builder has servitude to make sure the house is correct and does not endanger them.  Regarding erosion; the house collects water in gutters and dry wells.  It does not run down as it would if there were no house.  The Whikehart’s cut a tree.  They said it was sick, but by coincidence it gave them a better view.  The Board cannot hypothetically decide that erosion will occur during construction.  It will produce taxes and revenue for the village.  The village cannot suddenly deny all non-conforming lots and say they are unbuildable.  It was created from the subdivision of Clifford Harmon.  It is called Ipso Facto.

Riedy – You are not arguing that Clifford Harmon’s plan trumps the Zoning Code are you?

Scott – It is the Board’s job to see how it will work together in a harmonious way to build it.  But, to say because it is non-conforming is reason not to allow a variance is asking for the moon.  Mr. Franzoso wants to build something he can sell.  He does not want to indiscriminately remove or take down trees.  There will be no erosion there and if there is we can landscape and ……

Tully – We are here because we have a non-conforming lot where Zoning Regulations cannot be adhered to.  The same reasons everyone else is here tonight.  If erosion might cause a problem it will be taken care of accordingly.  But, no erosion will occur.

Riedy – How many trees will be removed?

Scott – No large ones.

Tully – The Zoning Regulations also addresses trees 8” in diameter and more.

Mr. Whikehart – The tree I took down almost damaged the property below me. I was told to take it down.  The comment about all the other houses being non-conforming; I do not think that is true either.

Riedy – Sir, your house is not an issue here tonight.

Whikehart – Thank You.

                                                        Page -7-
                                                        Meeting Minutes
                                                        7/12/06



Riedy – Anyone else like to be heard?

There was no reply.

Hearing closed.


Rolnick – Made Motion to grant a Lot Depth Variance of 85.18 ft. according to plans submitted.

Stephens – Second the Motion

Vote:  3-2 – In Favor – Rolnick, Stephens, Waitkins
                  Against – Riedy, Barlow

Ronal Napolitani, Hastings Ave., Located in a RA-5 District and designated on the Tax Maps of the Village as Section 79.13 Block 2 Lot 78.  Request for a front yard variance with respect to a proposed porch.


Ronald Napolitani -  The applicant, submitted pictures and elevations with respect to the proposed construction.  The applicant stated that he was looking for a 4 ft. front yard variance.

Discussion followed over plans and the location of the property.

Napolitani – It is a 50 ft. x 100 ft. lot.  It is a corner lot, which is different to build on.  I want to duplicate the house I constructed on Oneida Ave.  When I came before the Board for a variance for that house there were many families against the application, but they ended up very happy with the final construction.  The property has two front yards.  I would like to have the front entrance on the Hastings Ave. side.  I do not need a variance for the house only the porch.

Rolnick – Elaborate on the neighbors liking it.

Napolitani – The other house that I built on Oneida Ave. needed a variance and the neighbors were against it.  I eventually sold it to my cousin and the neighbors told my cousin that they liked it.    The variance I am now requesting is more for esthetics.

Rolnick – Could you make the porch with less width?
Page -8-
                                                        ZBA Minutes
                                                        7/12/06


Napolitani – I did a lot of homework to try and find a house that fit and this one worked well.  

Barlow – Except you need a variance.

Napolitani – But, everything is identical to what I put up on Oneida.  I want this house to front on Hastings Ave.
                                                        
Waitkins – But, you picked the front yard.

Sperber -  By having two front yards it eliminates one side yard.

Stephens – You are requesting a four foot variance?

Napolitani – Yes.

Witt Barlow – What if you don’t get it?

Rolnick – Would you build a bigger house without a porch?

Napolitani – It was difficult to find a house that worked.  It would look ridiculous without it.

Stephens – What will the depth of the porch be 4 ft.?


Discussion followed over plans.

Napolitani -  The garage will be below the porch under the house.

Discussion followed over plans.


Barlow – You say it is the same size house on the same size lot….

Sperber – It is the same size lot except for the sidewalk.  We don’t have a survey.  It only shows the dimensions of the plot itself.  It does not give the setback dimensions.

Discussion followed over plans.

Napolitani – The house is flat but will be raised up slightly.
Page -9-
                                                ZBA Minutes
                                                7/12/06



Barlow – What is the height?

Sperber – Less than the required 35 ft.  It is 2 ? stories, which is approximately 30 feet–33 feet.

Stephens – Does this have to go before the Planning Board?

Sperber – Yes.

Waitkins – Why?

Sperber – According to the Code changes every new house needs to go before the Planning Board for a Minor Site Plan Approval.

Barlow – Where does this stand with the new Floor Area Ratio?

Sperber – I don’t know.  I haven’t seen a floor plan.  They could build more than 3,400 sq. ft. on that size lot.


Riedy – Any other questions?

There was no reply.


Hearing closed.


Stephens – Made Motion to grant a 4 ft. front yard variance according to plans submitted for a proposed porch.

Barlow – Second the Motion

Vote:  4-1 – In favor – Waitkins
                  Against – Riedy, Stephens, Rolnick, Barlow

Application Denied



Page -10-
                                                        ZBA Minutes
                                                        7/12/06

Peter Humphrey and Heather White, 8 Van Wyck Street.  Located in a RB District and designated on the Tax Maps of the Village as Section 78.08 Block 6 Lot 3.  Request for a side yard variance with respect to a proposed addition.

Heather White – My husband and I own 8 Van Wyck Street.  It is an old house that has a major sag of approximately 6 inches.  We need to raise the ceiling height and need to raise the roof itself.  It has six layers of materials. We need to raise the roof and add a master bedroom and bath.  We would also like to change the pitch of the roof.  We will need a side yard variance of 4 ft.  There will be no windows on the side facing the neighbor.  If variance is not granted there will be a loss on the rental property that we are planning on moving into while construction is being done and the laborers are waiting.  

Stephens – Is your house designated with a landmark status?

Sperber – Village does not have that.

Rolnick – Are you extending the existing line of the house?  

Sperber – They are following the same side yard setback.  It will be straight out from the second floor to the existing setback.

Rolnick – Have you had any comments from the neighbors?
                                                        
Ms. White -  Yes.  She is here this evening.

Discussion followed over plans.

Rolnick – Do you have the required parking.

Sperber – He has one off street parking.

Rolnick – Is that all that is required?

Sperber – No.  Two are required.  This house is legally non-conforming.  It would not apply here.  If they wanted to convert to a two family I think they would need to consider that.

Stephens – When the original structure was built there were no cars.

Ms. Milagros del  la Consela – 2 Van Wyck Street – They abut my property to the right.  I received a copy of the plans on Monday.  I lost my brother and have not been able to focus on this.  I have concerns about privacy and the proximity of the houses, sun light,
Page -11-
                                                ZBA Minutes
                                                7/12/06

and removal of trees.  I am not prepared to agree or disagree today, unless the Board can assure me that it will not affect my property or sale or resale.  From my living room I can see the front of the house.  If she extends there more I will see her more and that is where my rock garden is.

Barlow – I understand your circumstance, but are you in favor or against this application?

Consola – I briefly looked at the plans.  I have concerns and want more time to look at the plans.

Barlow – Can you do that this evening?

Consola – No.  I am in the process of making funeral arraignments.

Ms. White – Is there a way the Board can make a decision based on giving her time to review the plans?

Riedy -  We are not scheduled to meet again until September.

Rolnick – What hardship would there be if it were adjourned until September.

Mr. Humphrey – We would lose labor that has already been lined up and with the roof situation we need to do the construction before winter.
                                                
Riedy – We generally make our decisions the same date as the hearing.

Humphrey – If we have the decision in September we will only have 60 days before the cold weather.  

After a discussion the Board decided to close the hearing and make a decision this evening.

Hearing Closed.

Barlow – Made Motion to Grant a 4 ft. side yard variance as requested and according to plans submitted and with the following conditions.

        The applicant is to maintain the existing screening from the neighbor.

Stephens – Second the Motion
Vote:  4-1 - In Favor – Barlow, Stephens, Waitkins, Rolnick
                   Abstained - Riedy
Page – 12-
                                                ZBA Minutes
                                                7/12/06

Pasquale Mastrantuono, 30 Brook Street, Located in a RB District, and designated on the Tax Maps of the Village as Section 78.08 Block 5 Lot 34.  Request for a side yard and total side yard variance with respect to an existing roof.

Philip Tully, 4 Eklof Court – I am here on the applicant’s behalf.  This is a simple matter.  The existing roof needed a lot of repair.  It was more cost effective to install a new roof.  According to Section 230-53 ( C ) no variance is required.  We are not increasing the degree of non-conformity.  We ask for the Board’s Determination.  This is normal maintenance and repair.  We took the new roof off and replaced it the same as the existing.  

Rolnick – Isn’t that section of the Code in relation to non-conforming use?

Tully – We can enlarge and repair as long as we do not increase the degree of non-conformity.  We are asking the Board to determine that no variance is required.

Rolnick – But the Building Dept. gave him a stop work order.

Tully -  The engineer gave him a stop work order.  It is not for the engineer to determine, that is just his opinion.

Sperber -  He received a variance for the front stairway.  It did not show plans for the roof structure.

Tully – It showed a roof over stairway.  So, it is a roof over a roof.
                                
Sperber - There was a variance granted for the stairway and the C.O. was based on the plans to construct a stairway to the second floor.  The plans did not show the roof structure so it is not according to plans.  The front yard is not an issue.  The side yards have always been an issue.

Tully – We already have a variance so it is legally non-conforming because of the prior variance.  What Mr. Mastruantono did was build a roof over an existing roof.

Sperber – There was a roof and now there is a roof being built over the existing roof.

Discussion followed over plans.

Stephens – What was the purpose of putting it out farther?

Discussion followed over plans.

Page -13-
                                                        ZBA Minutes
                                                        7/12/06

Tully – He has been stopped from doing work, but when completed it will look a lot nicer.

Sperber – Was that part of the plans for the stairs?

Mastruantono – No.

Sperber – So, that is why you should have applied for a building permit first.

Tully – We do not contest that.

Riedy -  What would be the hardship if it were denied.

Tully – He will have to remove the new roof at a major expense and he will still have a leaky old roof.

Rolnick – What dimensions are you asking for?

Tully – We are not increasing the degree of non-conformity.

Rolnick – But, what if we disagreed with you.  What variances would you be looking for?

Tully -  Minimum Side yard and total side yard.

Rolnick – But what exact measurements?

Tully – The existing left side is 2.83 ft. and the right side is 8.93 ft. and we received a variance before for the setbacks.

Rolnick – Is it an existing small lot?

Tully -  Existing small lot does not apply.  We already have these variances and we are not infringing upon those variances.

Discussion followed over survey.

Sperber – But, the variances that were granted did not show the roof.

Rolnick – The Resolution states “according to plans submitted”.

Tully – But we are still not increasing the degree of non-conformity.

Page -14-
                                                        ZBA Minutes
                                                        7/12/06



Riedy – Any other questions?

There was no reply.


Hearing Closed.


Stephens – Made Motion to grant a variance from Section 230-53(C) of the Village Code for an east side yard variance of 9.17 ft. and a total side yard variance of 21.07 ft. and according to plans submitted.

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


Jeff & Karen Thornton, 100 North Highland Place.  Located in a RA-40 District and designated on the Tax Maps of the Village as Section 68.13 Block 1 Lot 15.  Request for a front yard variance with respect to Section 230-40(b) of the Village Code.

Mr. Thornton – Submitted Pictures to the Board.  Mr. Thornton stated that his existing two car garage that was built in 1905 is crumbling.  The garage was originally built close to the street and current zoning does not allow him to build within the same footprint. The existing depth measurement is 18.4 ft. and the proposed depth will be 18.49 ft. to accommodate modern cars.  The garage is closer to the street than the house.  Mr. Thornton referred the Board to the pictures.  Mr. Thornton stated that there was a hill that slopes down and there is a septic system in that area so he would not be able to build in that area and there is no other place on the property to site the proposed construction.

Rolnick – What about the left side of the house?

Mr. Thornton – There is a big oak tree that is 100 years old and a stop sign and we would need to install a driveway through a grass yard.  If I were to build on the right side I would be closer to the water tank property and we don’t want that.

Rolnick – Is the area behind your house a slope?

Thornton – Yes.  That would be the most dangerous location.  Anywhere near Mt. Airy Rd. would be dangerous.


Page -15-
                                                ZBA Minutes
                                                7/12/06



Rolnick – Will there be electricity?

Thornton – I would like to, but I am not sure.

Barlow – Will there be an exterior light?

Thornton – If we install electricity or a detector.

Rolnick – (To Mr. Sperber, Code Enforcement Officer) – If it were built within the same footprint would he need a variance.

Sperber – I do not think it would.  It pre-dates and is legally non-conforming as it stands.

Rolnick – The bays as they stand now, do they fit your car?

Thornton – Not sure.  Probably, technically, yes, but it would be hard to get out of the car.  My Architect Gary Yates, suggested I make it larger.

Rolnick – If you are building something bigger than what is existing we need to address hardship.

Thornton – I will also be using it for bikes, lawn mowers, snow blower, etc., if I were to keep the garage the exact same measurement I would not be able to store them.  I now keep the cars in the driveway that is in front of the house (Mr. Thornton referred to pictures).  There is also a little stone wall with historical character.  We do not want to destroy that.  It will not be any closer to the street or other properties.  It will go closer to our house approximately 7ft. – 8ft. from the street.

Stephens – You stated in your application that you wanted 22 ft. x 19 ft., but your plans show 22.66 ft.

Thornton – Yes.  Sorry, I was being general.

Riedy – Are there any other questions?

Rolnick – Will the height be higher than the existing garage?



Page -16-
                                                                ZBA Minutes
                                                                7/12/06

Thornton – It should be the same.  I do not need it higher.  I want to retain the same type of roof.  It will conform to the existing garage.

Hearing Closed.
                                                                
Stephens – Made Motion to Grand a front yard variance according to Section 230-40 (B) of the Village Code and according to plans submitted.

Rolnick – Second the Motion
Vote:  5-1 - Stephens, Rolnick, Riedy, Waitkins, Barlow                                                         

Phil Spagnoli, 214 Grand Street.  Located in a RB District and designated on the Tax Maps of the Village as Section 68.17 Block 3 Lot 32.  Request for a renewal of a variance from Section 230-77 (B) with respect to frontage on a Village street and Section 230-4 Titled “Terms Defined” with respect to a proposed new construction of a two-family residence and proposed ingress and egress; that was granted on March 9, 2005.  The applicant further requests to amend the original variance to read single-family dwelling.

After discussion the Board noted that Section 230-77 (B) of the Village Code with respect to frontage on a Village Street had been changed recently to Section 230-153(C).  The Board requested to amend the Resolution to read Section 230-153 (C) with respect to frontage on a village street and to further amend the Resolution to read Single-Family dwelling.

Hearing Closed.

Stephens – Made motion to renew and amend the original Resolution dated March 9, 2005, to read Section 230-153 (C) with respect to frontage on a village street and to further amend the Resolution to read Single-Family dwelling.

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

Respectfully submitted


Janice Fuentes
ZBA Secretary
7/12/06

                                RESOLUTION


Peter Humphrey and Heather White, have applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, for a side yard variance with respect to a proposed addition.

The property, at 8 Van Wyck Street, is located in a RB, District and is designated on the Tax Maps of the Village as Section 78.08 Block 6 Lot 03.

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.

The requested variance was not substantial.

The applicant established need and hardship.

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:


Barlow – Made Motion to Grant a 4 ft. side yard variance as requested and according to plans submitted and with the following conditions.

        The applicant is to maintain the existing screening from the neighbor.

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

7/12/06






                                RESOLUTION


Ronald Napolitani, has applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, for a front yard variance with respect to a proposed porch.

The property, at Hastings Ave., is located in a RA-5, District and is designated on the Tax Maps of the Village as Section 79.13 Block 2 Lot 78.

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


The benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some other method such as a smaller house with porch or by eliminating the porch.

The alleged difficulty was self-created.  The applicant recently purchased the property knowing the requirements.

The applicant did not demonstrate hardship.



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

Stephens – Made Motion to grant a 4 ft. front yard variance according to plans submitted for a proposed porch.

Barlow – Second the Motion

Vote:  4-1 – In favor – Waitkins
                  Against – Riedy, Stephens, Rolnick, Barlow

Application Denied
             


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


7/12/06



                                RESOLUTION


Pasquale Mastrantuono, has applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, for a  side yard and total side yard variance with respect to an existing roof.

The property, at 30 Brook Street, is located in a RB, District and is designated on the Tax Maps of the Village as Section 78.08 Block 5 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.

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 variance from Section 230-53(C) of the Village Code for an east side yard variance of 9.17 ft. and a total side yard variance of 21.07 ft. and according to plans submitted.

Rolnick – Second the Motion

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

7/12/06







                                RESOLUTION


Jeff & Karen Thornton, have applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, for a front yard variance with respect to Section 230-40(b) of the Village Code.

The property, at 100 North Highland Place, is located in a RA-40, District and is designated on the Tax Maps of the Village as Section 68.13 Block 1 Lot 15.

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:

Stephens – Made Motion to Grand a front yard variance according to Section 230-40 (B) of the Village Code and according to plans submitted.

Rolnick – Second the Motion
Vote:  5-1 - Stephens, Rolnick, Riedy, Waitkins, Barlow

7/12/06







                                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 variance with respect to a proposed new one-family dwelling.  A previous appeal for lot depth and rear yard variances was denied on 4/12/06 and 5/10/06.

The property, 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 and after viewing the premises and neighborhood concerned, finds:

There were no objections from the neighbors with respect to the construction of a new Building. The neighbors concerns were with the steep slopes.  The applicant does not need a steep slopes permit.  The new construction will meet all of the setback requirements (according to Section 230-40(E) (3) of the Village Code) except for Lot Depth.

The benefit sought can not be achieved by some other method.
The applicant demonstrated hardship.

The alleged difficulty was not self created.

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

Rolnick – Made Motion to grant a Lot Depth Variance of 85.18 ft. according to plans submitted.

Stephens – Second the Motion

Vote:  3-2 – In Favor – Rolnick, Stephens, Waitkins
                  Against – Riedy, Barlow


7/12/06







                                RESOLUTION


Phil Spagnoli, has applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, to request a renewal of a variance from Section 230-77(B) with respect to frontage on a village street and Section 230-4 titled “Terms Defined” with respect to a proposed new construction of a two-family residence and proposed ingress and egress; that was granted on March 9, 2005, and request to amend the variance to read single-family dwelling. The property, at 214 Grand Street, is located in a RB District and is designated on the Tax Maps of the Village as Section 68.17 Block 3 Lot 32.

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


Section 230-77(B) of the Village Code with respect to frontage on a Village Street had been changed recently to Section 230-153(C).  The Board further requested to amend the Resolution to Read Section 230-153(C) with respect to frontage on a Village street and to further amend the Resolution to read Single Family Dwelling.

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

Stephens  - Made motion to renew and amend the original Resolution dated March 9, 2005, to read Section 230-153 (C) with respect to frontage on a village street and to further amend the Resolution to read Single-Family Dwelling.

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

7/12/06