Documents

minutes 6 pages

DRAFT MINUTES OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING WEDNESDAY, July 12, 2023 PRESENT: Doug Olcott, Acting Chairman Daron Weber Rocco Mastronardi ALSO PRESENT: Ron Wegner, Assistant Engineer P.E. Len Simon, Village Board Liaison Nora M. Nicholson, Village Board Liaison ABSENT: Christine Wagner, Chairperson James Tuman 1. CALL TO ORDER: Acting Chairman Olcott called the Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting to order on July 12, 2023 at 8:01p.m. Acting Chairman Olcott began the meeting by explaining to the applicants that in order to be granted a variance they will need three votes and because there only being three members present at the meeting, the vote would have to be unanimous for a variance to be granted. Mr. Olcott noted that while the Board often votes unanimously, it is not always the case and if an applicant has concerns, they could choose to pass and postpone their application to the next meeting that is scheduled for September. Mr. Olcott then invited the first applicant up to present to the Board. 2. NEW BUSINESS: a) Russell Davies, Owner-27 Nordica Drive—Located in a RA-9 Residential District and designated on the Tax Maps of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson as Section 79.13 Block 4 Lot 63. Request for a side yard and front yard variance from Village Zoning Code Section 230-33A for a proposed 2-story addition. PRESENT: Russell Davies, Owner Mr. Davies began by introducing himself to the Board and stated he lives at 27 Nordica Drive. Mr. Davies stated that he has applied for 2 variances to allow for the proposed renovation and expansion of his house. Mr. Davies shared that along with the application, he also submitted additional documents that helped to illustrate what he is requesting. Mr. Davies explained to the Board that he is looking for a total side yard variance of 4.17’ ft where it is typically required to have 30’ ft in the RA-9 Zone therefore it would have a total side yard setback value of 25.83’ ft. Mr. Davies noted that both of the existing side yards meet the setback requirements individually but it is not the sum (total) that meets requirement. Mr. Davies stated that the first variance is a side yard variance request and the second is a front yard variance request. Mr. Davies stated that the front yard setback requirement is 25’ ft but for the benefit of the of his family and through his significant study over a several years, he believes that he is asking “justifiably” for a proposed setback of 18.1’ ft to allow for the expansion of his house. Mr. Davies added that it should also be noted that the existing front yard setback is 24 feet from the property line and is presently not in compliance with the RA-9 Zoning requirements. Mr. Davies then walked the Board through a series of plans that included panoramic street views of his property in relation to the street. Mr. Davies added that plans showed an early massing model that does not necessarily accurately reflect the expansion of the house. Mr. Davies also provided the Board with supplemental drawings that helped to further illustrate the proposed project. The applicant shared that on sheet A0.1 there was a 1946 survey which showed the position of the house in black, the L-shape of the house, and described that off the left side there was an extension of the main structure that included an open-air veranda and garage. The applicant added that the garage was originally and only accessible to the garage by an adjacent half lot which they no longer have, therefore they have never been able to park a car in the garage and use it for storage. Mr. Davies then stated that on the sheet being shown, the Board could see the dimensions of the existing and proposed addition and marked in red were the dimensions that were related to the variances he was requesting are. It was noted that on the left side of the diagram, there was a 12’ft variance marked where they would be creating a 4 cornered, hipped box structure in place of the existing garage and enclosing the veranda to make it an interior vestibule. The applicant went on to explain that the proposed addition had a setback on the left side property line of 12’ft and the front yard variance of 18.1’ft was shown as well. Next Mr. Davies discussed the demolition plan because he wanted to share the process of renovating the house and how they would like to reclaim the materials from the house. The applicant also shared that the walls of the house are quite thick and will be framed with 2’X6’ ft studs. Mr. Davies discussed an existing humidity issue in the house and that they will be going over an unexcavated space and that they will be enclosing the entire house to make it more energy efficient as well as addressing the humidity issues. He added they will be creating a thermal mass. Mr. Davies explained that the 2-bedroom house is no longer conducive for a family of 4 and would like his children to have their own rooms therefore they will be adding a much-needed primary bedroom and is a significant part of the addition. Mr. Davies emphasized the importance of the last drawing which showed the layout of the landscape of the property when the project is completed as well as a proposal for 2 off-street parking spaces in the front yard because it will be necessary with the front extension of the house. Mr. Davies explained the parking spots will project into the right of way (but that they have an existing spot that is in right of way but is far from the snow plowed areas). Mr. Davies then provided the Board with supplemental plans that included views and pictures of 47 Nordica drive which he shared was a similar renovation that took place on their street and that he is hoping for a similar outcome in aesthetics including the foliage for his renovation. The applicant provided an updated drawing of the property line that outlined lined the new footprint of the proposed project and pictures of how they would like the final project to appear. Mr. Davies also provided a page that showed an example of a project at 118 Truesdale Drive that he felt was a successful and similar project. Mr. Davies then discussed the color palette for the exterior of the house and discussed a large rock behind their house that he described as both a blessing and a curse. Further stating that the massive rock is beautiful and great for the ecology but there are some drainage issues and it gathers moisture and that there is essentially a river that runs underneath it. Mr. Davies showed the Board 3 sheets of renderings done by a friend of what the house will look when completed and he then addressed the 5 factors. Mr. Davies stated that he felt that it does not present detriment to the neighborhood and shared he had neighbor support. He stated that he felt there was no other feasible method to complete the project because the excavation of the rock would be difficult and costly. Mr. Davies stated that he felt the request was insubstantial and in considering the conditions of the property and that the construction around the house would rekindle joys of ecology of the neighborhood. Mr. was what they believed to be the best and most reasonable design. Mr. Davies added that he felt they do not have much choice other than to push towards the street and was uncertain if the difficulty was self-created or not but they put substantial time and thought into the design and this Acting Chairman Olcott thanked Mr. Davies for his thorough presentation and noted the Board received 3 letters of neighbor support including a letter from Steve Kaplan. Mr. Olcott asked the ZBA members if they had additional questions for the applicant. The Board did not. Acting Chairman Olcott then opened the public hearing. Earl Depasse of 10 Nordica Drive spoke. Mr. Depasse stated that Mr. Davies, is his neighbor has been a fantastic resource and advocate for the residents on Nordica Drive and was present to offer his support of Mr. Davies’ project. Mr. Depasse wanted to note that he felt it was amazing how Mr. Davies’ family had been able to fit in such a small space for as long as they have and expressed that they deserve to have more adequate space. Mr. Depasse also raised concerns about the current project that is taking place next door and how it may impact the street if there are simultaneous construction projects going on. Mr. Depasse raised the subject of the logistics of timing with two projects on the narrow street and requested that the Village inform the neighborhood of when the construction will be taking place to ensure accessibility to their street and homes. Mr. Depasse concluded by sharing that other than his concerns with timing and access, he is in full support of the project and expressed gratitude to Mr. Davies for his advocacy of the ecology in their neighborhood. Joseph Freeman of 20 Nordica Drive came forward to speak. Mr. Freeman expressed his full support of the project as well and stated that if “anyone should have the ability to enlarge their house, it is this gentleman.” Mr. Davies added that they too are concerned with a single lane road but in no case will they allow their contractor to park their trucks in the right of way and expressed his willingness to sacrifice his front lawn during construction so that their neighbors can access their properties and the street would not be blocked. Hearing no further comment from the public, Acting Chairman Olcott closed the public hearing. The Board then discussed the 5 Factors: 1. No undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor detriment to nearby properties will be produced by the granting of the variance. The Board discussed and agreed that the plan was well designed and they felt there would be no undesirable change to the neighbor and noted the support of the neighborhood for Mr. Davies proposed project. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by a method other than the requested variance. The Board discussed and agreed it cannot be achieved by an alternative design especially given the large rock in the rear yard which does not allow for the extension in the back and that the applicant has made a great effort to make the house energy efficient. 3. The requested variance is substantial. Although the Board was torn on this point, after determining the setback request was approximately 30%, the Board agreed the requested variance was substantial. It was additionally noted that front yard was currently non-conforming and that should be taken into consideration when determining the substantiality of the request. And is still within the single side variance 4. The proposed variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The Board agreed that the proposed design took in great consideration for energy efficiency and the ecology of the property and neighborhood and therefore would not have an adverse effect on the physical environmental conditions 5. The difficulty alleged by the applicant was self-created. MOTION: Mr. Weber made a motion to grant a total side yard variance of 4.17’ft and a front yard variance of 6.92’ft for a 2-story addition seconded by Mr. Mastronardi. The motion was carried by a vote of 3-0. All in Favor. Roll Call: Mr. Weber, yes, Mr. Mastronardi, yes, (Chairperson Wagner, absent, Mr. Tuman, absent). b) Greg & Sue Maher, Owners-44 Grand Street-Located in a RA-5 Residential District and designated on the Tax Maps of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson as Section 78.8 Block 6 Lot 81. Request for a side yard variance from Village Zoning Code Section 230-33A for a portion of an existing residence and deck. PRESENT: Greg Maher, owner Mr. Maher introduced himself to the Board as the owner of 44 Grand Street sharing that he lived on Grand Street for 23 years and that his wife, Sue Maher was in the audience as the co- applicant. Mr. Maher stated he had a short presentation for the Board and that his application and request is less typical than those normally heard. Mr. Maher explained that his application is unusual in that they are looking to slightly reduce the footprint of their home by removing a portion of the existing side rear deck. Mr. Maher stated that his house was built before zoning regulations existed and is legally non-conforming in respect to front and side yard zoning requirements. Mr. Maher explained that the request for the variance was prompted by the sale of 40 Grand Street and the proposed construction of the new home being built there. Mr. Maher shared that when he met with Mr. Victor Conte, new owner of 40 Grand St. that the lot lines did not match so he then commissioned a new survey of the property with all the improvements on both the lots that they own. Mr. Maher explained one lot is vacant lot and the other is where their home exists but together, they form a single tax lot. Mr. Maher shared that when they received the new survey, they saw that their deck extended into the adjoining lot that they own, noting it was not subdivided but rather two plotted lots and that the discovery prompted them to meet with the Village Engineer, Dan O’Connor, P.E. In meeting with Mr. O’Connor, it was discovered that the 18” inch extension of their house and the deck added in 2006 were not in compliance with current zoning requirements and there was not an 8’ft setback. Mr. Maher explained that they did submit a permit application, plans and drawings to the Village when they did their addition, however both they and the Village missed this issue. The applicant explained that they are therefore proposing to remove a portion of the deck that was shown on drawing as the orange, shaded cross hatched section (the section to be removed) and are asking for a 5.17’ft variance for the portion of their existing house extension which was shown on the drawing as the green cross hatched area and the remaining portion of the deck was shaded in blue cross hatched. Mr. Maher also noted the 6 letters of neighbor support that were provided to the Board and that no one held issue with present larger sized deck and extension of the house and the deck has been part of the street scape since 2006. The Board noted it was unusual request and Acting Chairman Olcott asked the Board if they had any questions for applicant. Mr. Mastronardi only commented that once the encroachment is removed, that the lot will be free and clear. Acting Chairman Olcott then opened the public hearing. There being not comment the public hearing was closed. The Zoning Board of Appeals reviewed discussed and reviewed the five factors: 1. No undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor detriment to nearby properties will be produced by the granting of the variance. The Board agreed that because the extension of the house and the deck have been existing since 2006 with no complaint, there is no negative impact on the character of the neighborhood. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by a method other than the requested variance. The Board discussed and agreed that in taking off a portion of the house is not feasible and would be an obvious hardship. 3. The requested variance is substantial. The Board agreed that the request is for a 5’ft variance out of a required 8’ft setback so it is therefore substantial. 4. The proposed variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The difficulty alleged by the applicant was self-created. The Board discussed the notion that while it was a self-created difficulty, if the Village had not missed it in 2006 the application would not have come before the ZBA. MOTION: Mr. Mastronardi made a motion to grant a side yard variance of 5.17 ft for a portion of an existing residence and deck, seconded by Mr. Weber. The motion was carried by a vote of 3-0. All in Favor. Roll Call: Mr. Mastronardi, yes, Mr. Weber, yes, Mr. Olcott, yes, (Chairperson Wagner, absent, Mr. Tuman, absent). 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Acting Chairman Olcott made a motion to approve the June 14, 2023 minutes, the motion was carried by a vote of 3-0. Roll Call: Mr. Olcott, yes, Mr. Mastronardi, yes, Mr. Weber, yes. (Chairperson Wagner, absent, Mr. Tuman, absent). 4. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was duly adjourned at 8:48pm Respectfully Submitted by, Stefanie DeMattia Secretary to the Zoning Board of Appeals