The Zoning Board of Appeals granted both variances in front of it on Dec. 16 — and on the second one it granted slightly more than the applicant had asked for, after the chair rounded a height figure up on the spot. It was Christine Wagner's last meeting in the chair. Wagner presided over a full five-member board — Daron Weber, James Tuman, Doug Olcott and William Goldsmith — with Assistant Village Engineer Ron Wegner and trustee Stacey Nachtaler, the board's liaison, also in the room. Both applications passed 5-0, and no member of the public spoke against either one.

A dormer that needed a variance because the code changed

Architect Joseph Arnow came first, for Noelle Sirico and John O'Brien at 21 Elmore Avenue, a one-and-a-half-story house in the RA-5 district. The plan is a rear shed dormer to get headroom over an existing bedroom and room for a full bathroom — work that adds nothing to any yard encroachment the house already has. The variance is an artifact of timing. The house was permitted in 1950 under the 1931 zoning code, which allowed a chimney to project 18 inches; the board granted a west side yard variance for that chimney in 2001. Afterward the code added a 20-foot combined side yard requirement the house cannot meet. "The total side yard setback is currently 17.4 feet, and we are requesting a 2.6 foot total side yard variance," Read 1:38▶ Arnow said, and confirmed the dormer would not increase the degree of nonconformity. Goldsmith put the point plainly. "There's nothing about the actual bump out that needs variance. What we're talking about is making sure that this project conforms to the current code," Read 4:52▶ Goldsmith said. Arnow also told the board the dormer sits at the rear and blocks no river views, and pointed to other one-and-a-half-story houses on Elmore Avenue that have added dormers. Tuman said the applicants were boxed in by the code rather than by their own design. "You would always need a variance pretty much to do anything here just because of the nature of the law and the nature of the code," Read 6:03▶ Tuman said. "Not a detriment to the community. No one will see the addition." Read 6:18▶ Nobody came forward at the public hearing. Tuman moved the 2.6-foot total side yard variance, Wagner seconded, and the board granted it 5-0, according to the minutes.

The cottage, and the extra two inches

The second application was 43 Riverview Trail, in the RA-25 district, where owner Rosanne MacDonald wants to tear down a collapsing accessory cottage and put an accessory dwelling unit in its place. Norm Jansa of Westchester Modular Homes Construction Corp. presented it and laid out two variances: the house sits 45.7 feet back from the street while the new cottage would sit 24 feet 5 inches back, and the code caps an accessory structure at 15 feet where this one measures 18 feet 3 inches. "Our new ADU structure is 24 feet five inches, and we're asking for the variance of 21 feet two inches," Read 9:07▶ Jansa said, putting the height relief sought at three feet three inches. The existing cottage is roughly 12 to 13 feet tall with a failing flat roof. "It's starting to collapse, and we need to be replaced while it's still standing," Read 10:48▶ Jansa said. Goldsmith was the one member who would not let the height go. "I reviewed the application several times. I don't think I saw anything explaining the need for the height variance," Read 17:08▶ Goldsmith said. "It's not clear to me why the proposed ADU couldn't be compliant with the 15 foot height." Read 17:22▶ Asked directly whether the manufacturer had other designs, Jansa said it did. "We have different roof heights. I mean, we could change the pitch of the roof if need be. We were just trying to give a nice look to it," Read 18:42▶ Jansa said — the extra height, he had explained, was to carry the same roof pitch as the main house, which the cottage will be clad to match. The reason for the project came from the owner's daughter. According to the minutes, Annette Forte told the board the cottage would let her live on the property and support her mother, who has lived in the village more than 15 years and was recently widowed, and that she cannot move into the main house because of pets; the minutes also record the cottage as unoccupied since about 1986. Much of what Forte said is inaudible on the recording, which the chair noticed at the time and asked speakers to correct by leaning into the microphone. Wagner opened the public hearing and the only person who came forward was the village trustee sitting as liaison. "I'm Stacey Nachtaler. I live in the village, and I'm also a trustee. And my question is just concerning parking because I noticed on the street, it doesn't appear that you can park on the street," Read 21:14▶ Nachtaler said, after offering condolences on the death of MacDonald's husband. MacDonald said the street would not be used. "First of all, she doesn't even need to park in the gravel lot because my driveway is huge," Read 22:26▶ MacDonald said. Jansa described the proposed 20-by-25-foot gravel apron as a convenience — somewhere to pull up to the front steps with groceries. The minutes record that parking and site layout will get a closer look during Planning Board review. In deliberation, Tuman asked whether granting the height would set an awkward precedent. Wagner said it would not. "Every application from my perspective is unique to the location, the character of the neighborhood, all of that," Read 25:43▶ Wagner said, arguing that matching the style of the main house is itself a reason for the board to allow extra height. Olcott reached back for an example — a converted bed and breakfast on Benwick that he put at close to 18 feet — and set out his own view of the policy. "I'm trying to promote ADUs in the village as a public policy initiative," Read 27:45▶ Olcott said. He also argued that the front-yard relief is not really a measurement at all. "It's either you're approving it in front or not. I don't think we should approve the variance based on the distance," Read 28:31▶ Olcott said. On the five factors the board split the two questions: the cottage standing in front of the primary residence was substantial, mitigated by the topography, the dead-end street and the limited visibility; the height, Goldsmith said, was "on the cusp." Read 31:53▶ Then came the two inches. Moving the variance, Wagner read the height figure off the application, checked it aloud, and rounded it up. "Three foot three inches or three point three? Three foot three inches. Alright. Let's say three foot five inches to be safe," Read 29:36▶ Wagner said. Olcott seconded and the board granted both variances 5-0. The minutes record the grant as a height variance of 3 feet 5 inches — two inches more than the application requested.

Housekeeping, and a departure

The board then rewrote its own rules and procedures, on Wagner's proposals: strike the language fixing meetings to the third Tuesday of the month at 7 p.m., since the board sometimes has to move them; drop a subsection on liaison appointments the board does not make; reorganize the section on what goes into the minutes; and let the presiding officer end the meeting instead of requiring a motion to adjourn. "Meeting shall be adjourned by motion. And I recommend, I mean, generally, we don't do that," Read 37:36▶ Wagner said. The amendments passed 5-0, as did approval of the October 28 minutes. Before the board adjourned, Wegner and the members put their thanks to Wagner on the record, according to the minutes. "Thank you for your service," Read 38:38▶ Goldsmith said. What to watch for: 43 Riverview Trail still needs Planning Board approval, where the driveway, the gravel area and the site layout will get the detailed review the ZBA deferred. The zoning board's own next step is a new chair.