ZBA October 11, 2006
VILLAGE OF CROTON-ON-HUDSON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 11, 2006.


MEMBERS PRESENT:        Kathleen Riedy, Chairman
                                               Rhoda Stephens
                                               Ruth Waitkins
                                               Witt Barlow
                                                Doug Olcott

ALSO PRESENT:           Joseph Sperber, Code Enforcement Officer


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:

9/13/06 – Approval of Minutes held over until next month.



HEARINGS:

Mathew Mansfield, 100 Hessian Hills Rd., Located in a RA-40 District and designated on the Tax Maps of the Village as Section 68.09 Block 4 Lot 41.  Request for a side yard variance with respect to a proposed second story addition. (Hearing Adj. on September 13, 2006).

The Chairman of the Board acknowledged receipt of a request from the applicant (Mathew Mansfield) to withdraw his application.


APPLICATION WITHDRAWN

Thomas Fallacaro, 3 Arrowcrest Drive.  Located in a RA-40 District and is designated on the Tax Maps of the Village as Section 67.15 Block 1 Lot 33.  Request for a variance from Section 230-40(A) (1) (B) with respect to a retaining wall being built less than five feet from the side property line, and Section 230-40(b) with respect to a retaining wall being built in a front yard, and Section 230-40(A) (1) (a) with respect to a retaining wall being built higher than 15 ft.

The Chairman of the Board acknowledged receipt of a request from Norman Sheer, Esq. for the Applicant Thomas Fallacaro, requesting to adjourn the hearing until next month.

The Board unanimously granted the applicants request to adjourn.



Thomas DeIngeniis, 22 Wolf Road, Located in a RA-5 District and is designated on the Tax Maps of the Village as Section 67.19 Block 2 Lot 37.  Request for a side yard variance with respect to an above ground swimming pool.

DeIngeniis – I am requesting a 12” side yard variance with respect to an existing in-ground swimming pool that was installed in the summer.  We are adding a deck to the pool.

Barlow – Didn’t you know that you needed a permit to install a pool?

DeIngeniis – No.  That was an assumption on my part.

Barlow – When was it installed?

DeIngeniis – June

Olcott – Does it sit on gravel?

DeIngeniis – Yes.  It would be a hardship to move it one foot.  I would need to re-grade and this was the clearest spot without tree roots.

Barlow – But you could go closer to the house.  Doesn’t the pool sit on a concrete block?

DeIngeniis – Yes, eighteen inches.  I believe that was done to drain water from the pool.  Without the gravel there would be a tremendous puddle.  If I were to move it closer to the house there is a bluestone ledge that would act as a step.  That is why I moved it over.


Barlow – You are building a deck around the pool?

DeIngeniss – Yes.

Barlow – What height?

DeIngeniis – It will be just a deck off the pool.  It will go towards the back yard.

Sperber – The pool needs to be 10 ft. from the property line.  The deck can be 5 ft. from the property line, if he wanted.

Barlow – Did you speak to your neighbors about it?

DeIngeniis – Yes.  The Orlando’s at 20 Wolf Rd. and they were OK with it.

Stephens – Are you aware that we received a notice from one of your neighbors who is concerned about the pool?

DeIngeniis – No.

The Board submitted a copy of the letter for the applicant to read.

Barlow – The neighbor that is concerned owns the property two houses to the left of the applicant.

Olcott – It states she is concerned about the children and safety.  The letter does not state she is concerned about the setbacks.

Riedy – Who owns the shrubs nearest to the edge of the pool?

DeIngeniis – They are mine.  I verified that with my neighbor and the tax map.

Riedy – If you plan to construct a deck, will those shrubs be removed?

DeIngeniis – No.  If I build a deck it will be towards the back not towards my neighbor’s house.

Riedy – any other questions?


There was no reply.

Hearing closed.

Waitkins – Made a Motion to grant a 1 ft. side yard variance with the condition that the existing screening or similar screening will be maintained.

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


Marshall & Rosalie Nathan, 1260 Albany Post Rd.   Located in a RA-40 District and designated on the Tax Maps of the Village as Section 67.19 Block 1 Lot 33.  Request for a variance from Section 23-40(A) (1) (B) with respect to a retaining wall being built less than five feet from the side property line and Section 230-40(b) with respect to a retaining wall being built in a front yard, and Section 230-40(A) (1) (a) with respect to a retaining wall being built higher than 15 ft.

Robert Luntz, Architect for the applicant – We are here this evening because we would like to construct an addition of a bedroom over the garage.  The existing house is a one and one half story home. It currently has one bedroom on top of the garage.  The reason for the variance is because they want all of the bedrooms on the same level.  They are an older couple and they adopted very young children.  They have been granted a front and side yard variance in the past.  The property is steep and goes towards the river. We will be maintaining the existing footprint, but this is a gray area as to whether we need a variance or not when it is not going beyond the existing footprint.  But, our previous variance was granted “according to plans submitted”, so we needed to come before you again.  We feel the proposed addition will not cause any undesirable change or detriment to the environment or neighborhood (The applicant provided pictures to the Board).  Currently the roof of the property is about the same level as the road, in fact, the entire house is below the level of the road.

Discussion followed over plans.

Luntz - There is a tree line and it is heavily landscaped.  Sheet A-2.1 of the plans shows the proposed construction.

Riedy – Sheet 0.00, what does this sheet reflect?

Luntz - The 2nd story design over the garage area on left where deck is shown.  It continues the roof line of the existing house.

Olcott – Will the chimney come off?

Luntz – Correct.

Waitkins – The height will not increase?

Luntz – Height will be within the restrictions.  The proposed construction will provide three reasonable bedrooms.  The second story plan A-1.2 is showing the existing master bedroom.  Sheet 1.2 shows the small room.  Three children in that room is inadequate.

Stephens – How long has the applicant lived there?

Applicant – 1997.  When we purchased the house we had no plans to expand.

Luntz – Sheet A1-1 is the existing floor plan with the proposed kitchen.  Sheet 1.1 shows the same area as it exists now, without the proposed kitchen.  That does not need a variance.  The proposal for the addition is to match the existing character and materials of the existing house.  The plan we are proposing is the only reasonable one.  There is a 14 ft. high retaining wall and a drop off.  There is no other feasible solution.

Stephens – What would the hardship be if the variance is not granted?

Luntz – The house is relatively small and there is no other feasible place to construct the necessary addition of the bedrooms.

Olcott – What is the total measurement of the proposed addition?

Luntz – 784 sq. ft plus 389 sq. ft.  The 784 sq. ft is 80% renovation work.

Discussion followed over plans.

Olcott – How many sq. ft. exist?

Luntz – 3,500 sq. ft. which includes the lower level basement?

Riedy – For the record, we have received photos that have been labeled A, B, C, & D.  Photo A – shows the proposed addition would not increase the height beyond the current peak?

Luntz – Correct.

Riedy – What does photo “B” depict?

Luntz – It is taken over the guard rail to show how far down the person’s (person in picture) head is compared to the elevation of the road.

Riedy – Will trees be removed?

Luntz – No.

Riedy – What does photo “C” show?

Luntz – That shows the area of the addition shown on Sheet 1.A2 of the plans.

Riedy - The second story window shown in picture “C”, is that roof line raised?

Luntz – No.

Riedy – Is the tree staying?

Luntz - There is no reason for that tree to be affected.  The footprint is staying the same and there will be no change to the deck.  Picture “D” shows that there is no other place for the addition.  

Riedy – Is that Sky View to the north?

Luntz – It shows the house near the entrance of Sky View, then Sky View, and the Losapio property on the other side, and Village property between Sky View, and us on the north side.  It may be a drainage easement.

Riedy – Any other questions?

Mr. Rickman – I am the neighbor above the applicant.  We have a view and privacy that is a major asset to us.  My concern is if the construction will infringe on my view and privacy.  I have been told it will not be raised any higher.  I will be concerned only if it affects the value of my view and privacy.  Especially if windows will be facing my bedroom.  It seems that we are safe but I ask the Board to consider if I am not.  We can only see the house through the trees and see lights.  If the chimney gets in my view and my privacy I ask that to be considered.  There will be more structure and more lights.  I am only concerned about my view and privacy.  The architect has been very kind about it.

Barlow – According to the plans there will be no windows facing you.

Luntz – That is true.

Barlow – Will there be sky lights?

Luntz – Yes.

Mr. Rickman – But how will I know until it is built?

Olcott – The proposed chimney is close to the river side. Is it the same height as the existing roof line?

Luntz – It needs to be two feet higher for Code.

Riedy – Sheet AO.OO might be helpful to the neighbor.

Stephens – It will be approved according to the plans submitted.

Luntz – We can agree to lower the chimney.

Sperber – It appears the chimney may be higher because it is set lower than the slant of the roof.

Olcott – Can you set it so it is not higher than the peak?

Luntz – (Scaled the measurements) – Given the footprint of the existing chimney from the peak we are more than 10 ft. away so we will be keeping within the peak of the roof.  All the windows will be on the north and south side.

Rickman – My goal is not to stop the proposed construction as long as my property is OK.

Riedy – We grant variances according to the plans that are submitted.  It will be their obligation to build it accordingly.

Riedy – any other questions?

There was no reply.

Hearing closed.


Stephens – Made Motion to grant a 15 ft. front yard variance and a 12.2 ft. side yard variance according to plans submitted and with the following condition:

       1.  The chimney shall be no higher than what Code allows.

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



Respectfully submitted,



Janice Fuentes
ZBA Secretary
10/11/06


                                RESOLUTION


Marshall & Rosalie Nathan, has applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, for a side yard and front yard variance with respect to a proposed second story addition.

The property, at 1260 Albany Post Rd., is located in a RA-40, District and is designated on the Tax Maps of the Village as Section 67.19 Block 1 Lot 1.

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 benefit sought by the applicant could not be achieved by any other method due to the topography of the land.

The neighbors concerns were addressed during the hearing.

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




Stephens – Made Motion to grant a 15 ft. front yard variance and a 12.2 ft. side yard variance according to plans submitted and with the following condition:

       1.  The chimney shall be no higher than what Code allows.

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

10/11/06

According to Section 230-164 (E)), “Unless work is commenced and diligently prosecuted within one (1) year of the date of the granting of a variance or special permit, such variance or special permit shall become null and void.





                                RESOLUTION


Thomas DeIngeniis has applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, for a side yard variance with respect to an above-ground swimming pool.

The property, at 22 Wolf Road, is located in a RA-5, District and is designated on the Tax Maps of the Village as Section 67.19 Block 2 Lot 37.

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 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 a Motion to grant a 1 ft. side yard variance with the following condition:

                1. The existing screening or similar screening will be maintained.

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



1011/06


According to Section 230-164 (E)), “Unless work is commenced and diligently prosecuted within one (1) year of the date of the granting of a variance or special permit, such variance or special permit shall become null and void.