ZBA Approves Three Variance Requests on a Night of Minimal Quorum

The Croton Zoning Board of Appeals approved three variance requests in a 33-minute meeting on April 21, moving quickly through a light agenda with only three of six members present.

With Chairman James Tuman and members Ethan Lewis and Doug Olcott absent, Geoffrey Haynes served as acting chairman. The reduced membership meant all applications required unanimous approval to pass. Ron Wegner, assistant village engineer, and Len Simon, village board liaison, were also present. 59 Sunset Drive The board reopened a continued public hearing for a 2½-story rear addition at 59 Sunset Drive, where owner Meredith Korn was represented by architect Joseph Arnow. The application sought side yard, total side yard, and lot width variances. The case had been the subject of a site visit on March 21, during which board members heard concerns from a neighbor at 64 Sunset Drive about preservation of a seasonal view. Bill Goldsmith, who had been absent from the initial hearing but reviewed the meeting video and participated in the site visit, said the neighbor's suggestions were thoughtful but did not rise to the level of an adverse impact under zoning standards. "While alternative designs may exist, I did not believe the suggested modifications were necessary or required under the zoning standards," Goldsmith said, according to the minutes. Matt Berger said the site visit allowed the board to observe the neighboring property's concerns about views firsthand. He concluded the addition would not create a meaningful disruption. The board found that the requested variances — 2.3 feet for the side yard, 3.3 feet for the total side yard, and 5 feet for lot width — were not substantial, and that no evidence of environmental or neighborhood harm had been presented. Letters of support from adjoining neighbors were submitted, and no adverse public comments were received. The motion passed 3-0, with Haynes, Berger, and Goldsmith voting in favor. 100 Young Avenue Matthew Dillon, who has lived at 100 Young Avenue with his family for about four years, sought side yard and front yard variances for a first- and second-story addition. Dillon said the family recently welcomed a third child and needs additional living space. The house is a Cape Cod built in the 1950s with a foundation that predates current zoning setback requirements. The existing structure is already nonconforming with the side yard and front yard setback requirements. The proposed addition would extend upward and toward the rear yard without expanding those nonconformities.

The variances required were minimal: 0.1 foot for the side yard and 1.1 foot for the front yard. No public comments were offered during the hearing. The board noted that neighboring properties, including the house directly across the street, have similar setbacks and second-story configurations. Letters of support from adjoining and nearby neighbors were submitted. The board unanimously found that the addition would not have an adverse impact and that the variances were not substantial. Berger made the motion, seconded by Goldsmith. The vote was 3-0. 39 Palmer Avenue The most technically complex case of the evening involved Margaret Crocker's property at 39 Palmer Avenue, a corner lot with two front-facing facades — one on Palmer and one on Hunter Place. Architect Lewis Rohn presented the application for a front and rear yard variance to extend and align an enclosed breezeway connecting the house to the garage, plus construct a canopy over the entrance. The application ran into measurement problems. Rohn had submitted plans based on a scanned, lower-resolution copy of the property survey, which produced setbacks of six feet (front) and seven feet (garage corner). When Wegner reviewed the original, more legible survey at the hearing, the actual measurements were eight feet and nine feet — reducing the variances needed. The original application had sought only a front yard variance. After reviewing the corrected survey, the board determined the request should be for both a front yard variance (5.9 feet) and a rear yard variance (12.7 feet). The rear yard variance corresponds to the property's existing nonconforming conditions, which date back to a 2016 variance when the detached garage was connected to the house and reclassified as part of the primary structure. "The numbers that were six became eight. The numbers that were seven became nine. So this is actually a better situation by a couple of feet," Rohn told the board. Stefanie Correale, the board's secretary, noted that the application as submitted only requested a front yard variance and asked whether a new application was needed to correct the request. Wegner said the correction could be handled on the resolution itself. The proposed addition would increase the house footprint by only about 20 square feet, plus the canopy area. Letters of support from residents at 1 Hunter Place and 3 Hunter Place were submitted. The board acknowledged that the variances were numerically substantial — approximately a 50% variance on the rear yard — but found this was mitigated by the property's longstanding nonconforming conditions and tight corner-lot configuration. The board said the addition would enhance the appearance of the house and benefit the neighborhood.

The corrected variances of 5.9 feet (front yard) and 12.7 feet (rear yard) were approved 3-0 on a motion by Berger, seconded by Goldsmith. The board deferred approval of its March 17 meeting minutes because two sitting members had not attended that meeting.