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

Contact Us
Subscribe to News
Spacer
On Our Site

Click to Search
Village Seal

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

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


Hours: Mon. - Fri., 8:30 am - 4 pm
 
ZBA May 9, 2007
                                                        DRAFT FILED:   5/10/07
                                                                                   FINAL APPROVAL: 6/13/07


VILLAGE OF CROTON-ON-HUDSON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 9, 2007.


MEMBERS PRESENT:  Kathleen Reidy, 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.

Approval of Minutes:  

Kathleen  – Made Motion for approval of   Minutes:  4/11/07
                                                                                    3/14/07
                                                                                    3/16/07
Stephens – Second the Motion
Vote:  4-1  - Reidy, Stephens, Barlow, Olcott – In Favor
                    Waitkins -  (Absent for Vote)

HEARINGS:

Kay Marron, 120 Mt. Airy Rd.  Located in a RA-40 District and is designated on the Tax Maps of the Village as Section 68.09 Block 3 Lot 2.  Request for a front yard variance with respect to a proposed roof to replace an existing canvas canopy. (Adjourned on 4/14/07).

Todd Springer, Architect represented the applicant – We are seeking a permanent roofing over an existing terrace.  Page A-6 and A-10 describe the scope and size of the house.  It is an “L” shape and there is an existing low stone wall coming off the street.  They would like to extend the low roof for permanent shade rather than having a temporary canvas cover. The extent of the variance is 12 ft. which includes a few inches to allow for error.  It will be supported with columns.  If we may offer our opinion with respect to the intrusion into the front yard, it is some distance from all the houses around it.  The topography is considerably higher and looks over the “Sanford’s” house.  The road is curved enough so you don’t even look out at their house and if you did you would look over the top of the roof.  The present canvas structure is actually higher and we will be extending the existing roof that is actually lower than the canvas.

Riedy – Do you have photos/?

                                                                        Page -2-
                                                                        ZBA Minutes
                                                                        5/9/07

Springer -  Yes (Mr. Springer submitted photos)

Riedy – For the record let us mark the photos

A – Shows the house prior to the installation of canvas and without a roof.
B - Shows the existing canvas.
C - Shows from the road off to an angle.  
                                                                        
Stephens – You have no intention of adding screening in the future?

Springer – No .  It will be a permanent roof but it will be open with supporting columns.

Riedy - What does photo A depict?

Springer – The house many years ago prior to the canvas cover.

Discussion followed over plans.

Springer – (Referred to Page A-10 of the drawings) This gives the best depiction of the height of the roof.

Discussion followed over plans.

Barlow – What is the reason for wanting this roof?

Springer – The existing roof is canvas which wears out and they want a permanent roof.

Barlow – It is a matter of practicality ?

Springer– No, economic benefit.

Barlow – what is your hardship if you don’t get a variance?

Springer –They have the hardship of replacing the canvas each time it wears out.
We need the shade and cover and the existing canvas leaks and keeps wearing out.  We are always struggling with the portion that is beyond the front yard.

Barlow – and it looks like it will be more esthetically pleasing too.

Springer – correct.


                                                                Page -3-
                                                                ZBA Minutes
                                                                5/9/07

Riedy – Photo C – As compared to the existing canvas how will the permanent roof look different.

Springer – the new roof slopes down to the road. The canvas is set at an angle to the terrace so it has a much higher roof than the proposed roof will be.   

Stephens – On photo A-10 is that the height the canvas is now?

Springer – yes.

Discussion followed over plans.  The new roof would be the same height as the roof on the left of photo C.

Riedy– Will the roofing materials coordinate with the existing material?

Springer – Yes and it will be a definite improvement.

Stephens – The front yard variance is for twelve feet?

Riedy – Yes, this application is for a 12 ft. front yard variance.

Olcott – Are other parts of the roof being done too as part of this elevation?

Springer – Yes but the whole roof will not be changing.   Discussion followed over A10
and it does not apply to this variance.


Anyone else like to be heard?

There was no reply.


Hearing closed.


Liber Rios, 29 Old Post Rd. South.  Located in a RB District and is designated on the Tax Maps of the Village as Section 79.05 Block 1 Lot 43.  Request for a Side Yard and Total Side Yard Variance with respect to a proposed addition.

Rios – I am seeking more room.  We have two children now and have a very tiny house.  I only have two bedrooms and cannot afford to purchase a new house.   This is to create more room for my family.
                                
                                                                Page -4-
                                                                ZBA Minutes
                                                                5/9/07


Sperber – The survey was difficult to read and the figures they gave with respect to what they thought they needed is actually less than what is needed.  (Mr. Sperber referred to survey and notation noted on survey and Discussion followed over survey).  They actually do not need a side yard setback   They only need a total side yard.   It is a two family house in a two family zone so the variance they need is a twelve foot five inch
total side yard.  If they did not add the deck there they would still need a total side yard variance.  The existing building has a legally non-conforming side yard setback

Barlow – (Discussion followed over survey) .  I thought that was considered to be increasing the degree of non-conformity.  We always looked at it that way. I am a bit confused.  

Sperber– You can also look at it as if this was a single story or one and one half story and you wanted to build up but keep the original footprint.  That would be increasing the degree of nonconformity but in this instance they are not going up only back and therefore it only needs a total side yard.
 
Rios – I have photos

Photos submitted to board.  

Barlow– How long have you owned the house?

Rios – Seven years.  We did not have children when purchased.

Riedy (Marked the photos for identification purposes):

Photo A – Shows the exterior as it exists today
Photo B – Actually has four photos and photo B(4) shows the back of the house as it exists today and the entrance as it exists today.  Photo B (3) shows the side entrance.

Rios – We also need the additional bedroom we only have two.

Riedy - Photo C– photo 4 shows the side entrance

Rios – yes.  Discussion followed over location of kitchen.  

Riedy -That side entrance is approx 10.1 ft. from the side property line.

Riedy –With respect to exhibit D photo 3 – It appears to be the bump-out of the rear of the house.
                                                                Page -5-
                                                                ZBA Minutes
                                                                5/9/07


Rios – referred to plans. Discussion followed.
  
Rios – This area here (referring to plans) will be kitchen dining room and whatever else is needed.
                                                                
Discussion followed over plans.


Rios – the bedroom will be where the existing kitchen is now.  

Barlow – summarize that for us.

Rios – I have two bedrooms now and will have three bedroom and one more bathroom.

Barlow - And you will double your square footage.

Rios – Approximately 1500 sq. ft. in the end.

Riedy – Have you spoken to your neighbors?

Rios – Our closest neighbor next door is at 31 Old Post Rd. So.  

Stephens – The new addition will not come out beyond 31 Old Post Rd?

Rios – Not 31 but it will go beyond 27.  We have forsythias in between.

Waitkins – you have no driveways.

Rios – Yes I do but it is only about two feet deep on the side of the house.

Sperber – The proposed addition is 660 sq. ft. or 680 sq. ft. excluding the deck.

Barlow – What would the hardship be if you were not given a variance?

Rios – I would have to leave it the way it is.  I can’t move I can’t afford to    I would have to leave it the way it is.  

Barlow – Can you take the upstairs apartment?

Rios – No it helps us with the mortgage.
                                                        Page -6-
                                                        ZBA Minutes
                                                        5/9/07





Riedy – What is the benefit of the new side deck?

Rios – the property has a little slope. There will be no other doors to the house to access the rear yard.  There will be no use for the back yard at all unless we come from the front and walk around to back.   
                                                                
Riedy – Couldn’t you just put stairs on the proposed deck and gain access that way?

Rios – yes but we would have no usage to the back yard because of the slope.

Discussion followed over plans.

Rios – discussed plans for the access to the rear yard because of the slope.

Barlow – The variance is really for the deck and you would not need a variance if he did not have the wrap around deck going to the side.

Stephens – But if he removed that portion on the side he would need steps.

Rios – we will be losing one door with the new bedroom and we will have only one door in front for access.

Rios – it is possible to build steps but I do not see the benefit

Discussion followed over pictures

Olcott– He would still need a variance even if he omitted that section of the deck.

Sperber - Correct

Riedy - Anyone else like to be heard?

There was no reply.


Hearing closed.


                
                                                                Page -7-
                                                                ZBA Minutes
                                                                5/9/07

The Board unanimously voted to adjourn the hearing in order to allow the applicant to submit amended plans and requested the applicant and his architect to get in touch with the Code Enforcement Officer or Village Engineer to discuss the plans.

Stephens Made Motion to adjourn until June13, 2007.
Olcott – Second the Motion
Vote:  4-1 In Favor.   Stephens, Olcott, Riedy, Barlow
                                 Waitkins (absent)

Nancy Harper Kelly, 11 Palmer Ave.  Located in a RB District and designated on the Tax Maps of the Village as Section 78.08 Block 4 Lot 9.  Request for a side yard, total side yard, and rear yard variance with respect to an existing deck.


Kathleen Reidy, Chairman – Recused herself from the hearing due to the fact her family is related to the applicant and appointed Rhoda Stephens as acting Chairman for the hearing.

Nancy Harper Kelly - We have an existing deck that has existed for over twenty years.  We purchased the property from my father thirteen years ago. I am seeking the proper variances.  My application gives the dimensions.  I am looking to resolve this and I am appealing to the Board for this variance.

Stephens– It has been in your family since 1963?

Kelly - Correct

Stephens – and no changes have been made to the property?

Kelly - No

Kelly – On one side yard there is an easement that is a village owned piece of land.

Stephens – what hardship if not granted.

Kelly– It is existing I would have to take it down.  It would be a hardship because I have sliding glass windows on deck and an exit off the kitchen that goes to the deck and I would need to make provisions for that.

Barlow– Was there a side door there when it was built?

Kelly - Yes. It was same width as deck.

Barlow  – Would that have required a variance?

                                                                Page -8-
                                                                ZBA Minutes
                                                                5/9/07

Sperber – No

Waitkins – If we grant the variance the house will be in compliance?

Sperber – Yes then if they sell or refinance they would clear title.  This is the only encroachment.

Stephens – It is one side yard of 4.8 ft. and total side yard of 5.04 ft. and a rear yard of 6 ft.?

Kelly – Yes.

Anyone else have any questions or is anyone else in the audience in opposition or in favor of the applications?

Russ Harper– I am the resident at 7 Palmer Ave.  I am the next door neighbor.  My property is directly affected by this application and I have no problem with it.   It has been there twenty years and there is a ten foot easement between the properties that belongs to the village and it has been common property for years.  It is ten feet between the two property lines. It will be a minimal affect if any.

Anyone else like to be heard?

Hearing closed.


Olcott – Made Motion to approve the application as submitted. With one side yard variance of 4.8 ft. and rear yard variance of 6ft. and total side yard variance of  5.04 ft.

Barlow  – Second the motion

Vote – 3-2 – Olcott, Barlow, Stephens – In Favor
                    Riedy - Abstained.
                    Waitkins – Absent for Vote.

William Davis, 7 Mountain Trail.  Located in a RA-25 District and designated on the Tax Maps of the Village as Section 79.05 Block 1 Lot 43.  Request for a rear yard variance with respect to a proposed handicap ramp.

Mr. Davis - The ramp is for my wife who is handicapped.  She is in the hospital and the only way she can come home and get into our dwelling is if I install the handicap ramp.



                                                                Page -9-
                                                                ZBA Minutes
                                                                5/9/07


Stephens – You do have a ramp in front.

Davis - Yes but she cannot walk anymore. She can not stand and she needs to use a wheel chair and a hoist to put her in bed.  That is the only means she has to get into the home. Because the house is split level the existing ramp in front of the house does not go to the bedroom level.

Riedy – Is she home now?

Davis – No.  She will be coming home on Mother’s Day.  She has not been home since December.

Barlow – Mothers Day is only four days from now.

Davis – We will need an ambulance to bring her home and she will need the ramp when she has to go to doctors etc. this ramp in the back is very necessary.

Stephens – This will not go near the pool?

Davis - The pool will be removed and it is on the opposite side of this ramp

Stephens – suggested a removable ramp that can be removed when they sell or transfer title.

Riedy– If we were to impose a condition of the variance that the deck would have to be removed upon sale or conveyance of title that would not be a hardship to you?

Davis – No.  Not at all.

Riedy – Discussed her concern that if the property were sold and the conditions of the variance were not known.

Sperber – Stated that this information would be available to any title company when they conduct their searches to clear title.

Davis – My son will take over the property someday.

Anyone else like to be heard?

        Page -10-
        ZBA Minutes
       5/9/07


There was no reply.

Hearing closed.


Barlow – Made Motion to grant a 5 ft. rear yard variance for a handicap ramp as described in the application with the condition that the ramp be removed when the property is sold or transferred.

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


Dana Garrett, 16 Palmer Ave.  Located in a RB District and is designated on the Tax Maps of the Village as Section 78.08 Block 3 Lot 23.  Request for a side yard and total side yard variance with respect to a proposed deck.


Dana Garrett – I supplied photos.  I want a deck in the back yard and I need a variance for a small size portion that will allow me to access the deck.   My yard slopes down the back without wrapping on the side.   There will be two doors in the back to the downstairs and side to laundry area and I would have no way to get to that easily.   My request is similar to a previous request you heard this evening.

Garrett - The deck will be level with the two doors.  The deck is about three feet off the ground.

Sperber – It will be approximately three and one half feet.

Garrett – It is just the side portion that needs a variance so I can easily access the deck.  The rest does not need a variance.  I also included a letter from Joshua and Kathy Deustchman of 14 Palmer Ave. who are in favor of the application.  Two separate set of stairs would be unsightly so I just wanted to cover the footings.

Stephens – A patio would not cover that?

Reidy – What is the side yard variance you are asking?

                                         

                                                                
Page -11-
                                                                ZBA Minutes
                                                                5/9/07

Garrett – It will not be any wider than existing house.   It will be the same dimensions as the deck above it.  

Stephens – you are looking for total side yard of seven point nine feet and Side yard variance is 1.4 feet
                
Any other questions?

There was no reply.

Hearing closed.

Stephens  – Made motion to  grant a side yard variance of 1.4 ft. and a total side yard variance of 7.9 ft. according to plans submitted with the following condition.

Lattice will be installed under the deck on all three sides.

Barlow – Second the Motion
Vote:  5-1 – In Favor Stephens, Barlow, Riedy, Olcott,
                   Waitkins – Absent for Vote

New Business:

Something Good In the World
Maple Street

Kathleen Riedy, Chairman – Their ZBA Variance is about to expire.  Approximately five years ago the Zoning Board approved a series of variances and as a part of a process the variances became part of a Special Use Permit that was issued by the Village Board.  The Special Use Permit and the ZBA Variance expires in June.  The New Owner needs to re-apply for renewal of the same variances that were previously granted.

The ZBA Secretary informed the Board that the applicant has already been in contact with her and will be submitting her application for next month’s hearing.


Respectfully submitted,


Janice Fuentes
ZBA Secretary
5/9/07
                                RESOLUTION


Kay Marron,  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 roof to replace an existing canvas canopy.

The property, at 120 Mt. Airy Rd., is located in a RA-40 District and is designated on the Tax Maps of the Village as Section 68.09 Block 3 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:


The proposed roof will be more esthetically attractive than the existing canopy and will be lower than the existing canopy.

There will be no detriment to the environment or nearby properties.




Barlow – Made Motion to grant a 12 ft. front yard variance according to plans submitted.

Stephens – Second the Motion
Vote – Vote – Barlow, Stephens, Riedy, Olcott
                     Waitkins (absent for vote)






5/9/07












                                RESOLUTION


Nancy Harper Kelly  has applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, for a  side yard, total side yard and rear yard variance with respect to an exiting deck..

The property, at 11 Palmer Ave, is located in a RB District and is designated on the Tax Maps of the Village as Section 78.08 Block 4 Lot 9.

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 adverse affect on the neighbors or environment.  The existing deck has existed for over twenty years and there is a 10 ft. village easement between the property lines that separates the properties and the deck has screening which the Board would require.

It would be a hardship to the applicant to remove the deck.

The alleged difficulty was not self-created.

Olcott – Made Motion to approve the application as submitted. With one side yard variance of 4.8 ft. and rear yard variance of 6ft. and total side yard variance of  5.04 ft.

Barlow  – Second the motion

Vote – 3-2 – Olcott, Barlow, Stephens – In Favor
                    Riedy - Abstained.
                    Waitkins – Absent for Vote.



5/9/07












                                RESOLUTION


William Davis  has applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, for a  rear yard variance with respect to a proposed handicap ramp.

The property, at 7 Mountain Trail, is located in a RA-25 District and is designated on the Tax Maps of the Village as Section 79.05 Block 1 Lot 43.

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

The hardship was not self created.  A Medical statement was supplied.

There will be no detriment to the environment or nearby properties.

The benefit sought cannot be achieved by any other method.


Barlow – Made Motion to grant a 5 ft. rear yard variance for a handicap ramp as described in the application with the condition that the ramp be removed when the property is sold or transferred.

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

5/9/07


                                    

















                                RESOLUTION


Dana Garrett  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 a proposed deck.

The property, at 16 Palmer Ave., is located in a RB District and is designated on the Tax Maps of the Village as Section 78.08 Block 3 Lot 23.

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 detriment or undesirable change to the neighborhood or the environment or cause any detriment to nearby properties..
 
The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by any other method the property has steep slopes.




Stephens  – Made motion to  grant a side yard variance of 1.4 ft. and a total side yard variance of 7.9 ft. according to plans submitted with the following condition.

Lattice will be installed under the deck on all three sides.

Barlow – Second the Motion
Vote:  5-1 – In Favor Stephens, Barlow , Riedy, Olcott,
                   Waitkins – Absent for Vote



5/9/07