Zoning Board of Appeals
Alright. Hello, everyone, and welcome to the September meeting of the Croton-on-Hudson Zoning Board of Appeals. Should there be an emergency, there exits to your left, behind you, straight ahead here. We will follow the agenda, in the order that we have it. When your application has come, is read for you to come forward, the applicant will come to the table right in front of you. Please lean in to use the mics. You'll explain to us what you're here for and why. We'll ask some questions. And then there is an opportunity for public comment on each application. And so once we reach that point, we'll invite anyone in the public who wants to be heard to come on up to the table and share your thoughts on the application. So with that, we have one outstanding piece of business, from a couple of meetings now. So we will talk about Riverside. The exact address, 25 North Riverside. Come on forward.
And I believe you have some additional materials from the last time you were here. So if you could just walk us through developments over the past few weeks. Sure. Sure. Rob Luntz, resolution for architecture.
I'm here with John Whalen, the Mhmm. Owner of the property. And our application really hasn't changed from the last time we were presented it. We would still like to do a rather modest, we feel, five foot approximately height second story addition to the current building to make it viable for John's business. It's just currently doesn't accommodate what they need to to run their business out of it. And, and the stuff that we brought additionally was basically to take the initial diagram that we showed you with the red box, if you will, which was the zoning envelope and and and demonstrate what what could be done and probably will be done if we're, you know, sort of back boxed into this place where, they're not able to actually, make an make any sort of addition to the building because we felt like we were making a reasonable accommodation for it and and keeping it as modest as possible and, and yet getting that extra story. However, the Waylands have already bought another piece of property, up the road in Cortlandt, and and so they're moving the business there regardless, to to do this project because they have to vacate to be able to do the work because it's a pretty significant you know? Take off the roof. Yeah. They have to take off the roof, knocks part of the building down to get it to this lower second story height. And and if they're unable to sort of move forward, we felt like it was important to just show you, like, this is this is what the zoning envelope allows. It's a building that is could be quite attractive. It could be, you know, zoning compliant and and probably work in the village. It it you know, to to make to
if if they're unable to to build, then either John or someone else, because they may have to sell the property at that point to make to make the thing work. I mean, there anybody in their right mind would build this to their highest and best use. And so a three story building that is approximately 91 feet long, 26 feet wide at one end and 16 feet wide at the other end, and about 6,000 square feet. 5,800 is what it allows for, would be the logical outcome. Whether it looks exactly like this or not, this is the footprint that, is allowed to be built and will be built. And I think it was important to show that this is, in our opinion, and I think in John's opinion, a, you know, much more impactful on the neighboring properties. However, you know, and it's not to put anybody in in a you know, I think they're being put in a box here, you know, because their
the ability to expand their building was impacted by factors out of their control. I mean, the the zoning was overlaid on top of this existing building, and so,
you know, it just makes it without relief pretty much impossible to do something that is compliant. So that's why we're here. Wanted to show you, you know, what can be done, probably will be done, whether John does it or sells the property and someone else does it, should they not be able to move ahead with the proposal that we have on the table, which, again, you know, the my position is that it's a reasonable ask.
scheme? The same as no. It's 30 feet. It's the rear. 30 feet from the property line. Yes.
FAR, I'd have to look into. I don't believe there really would be. They're lock coverage or pretty fully impervious there. So that's that's wouldn't be an issue.
And what would you build this? For what? Would you build it for your business, or would you foresee,
like, a residential building there, like a three story residential building there? Well, the thoughts I mean, it's it's undefined at this point. Thoughts are that what's gonna yield the best value for the for the property. So it could be, commercial on the on the bottom level. It could be four apartments above or something like that. It could be three floors of residential. You know, it I think numbers would have to be run and development scenarios would have to be sort of figured out. But, but, obviously, you know, if you're gonna if you're gonna do it, you're gonna probably do it to the maximum that, you know, a a development would yield. So
even if you're gonna do this, it'd still be planning board approval. Right? Correct. Yes. And this
either way this goes, it's going to the planning board. Either way, it's planning board.
Any other questions? Alright. With that, we have left the public hearing open. So I wanted to see I know there have been various comments on this application already. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to be heard on the application? Yes. Please come on up. And just a reminder, name, address, and your thoughts. Sure.
My name is Catherine Ryder. I live at Seventhank Street, so across the street from the house that will be most impacted by this. And first and foremost, I'd like to remind everybody that his building was built before the zoning, So it wouldn't even be allowed to be built where it is now now. Okay? And sure, he can show you pictures of what can be done. Right? Okay. But it wouldn't be done to impact her porch, which it would. It would go right up against her back porch the extra five feet, not only blocking my next door neighbor's my across the street neighbor's view, but she wouldn't be able to use the porch. You know? I mean, 30 feet would at least give her a little easement from from being there. You know, it's it's, and would they actually plunk that kind of money down to do that big a renovation? You the the Croton has and I've been here talking about other things that Croton has allowed in the town since I bought my house twenty five years ago that I've been against, and it's been allowed. And some some
people have taken advantage of the new zoning laws and built monstrosities on top of buildings and charged $3,000 for a two bedroom when supposedly it was going to be, you know, affordable housing. How is $3,000 a month affordable housing? But, I mean, sure, it can be done. But will it be done? That's something, and the planning board would have to approve that. But right now, we're talking about approving that, which would impact me and my neighbor across the street who is here. And we can fight the other one at another time. But I'm still against this now because it will impact my view. It will impact my neighbor. And in ten years, if he chooses to sell it, somebody could knock it down and do what they're planning anyway. Okay? Because once you have the land, unfortunately, that kind of land in Croton is very valuable land. And we've seen that kind of thing done in a lot of different villages and towns in Westchester County. You know, 30 ago when I got married, they did it all over Rye. It's never going to stop. But what we're talking about today is going is something that's going to impact me and my neighbor. Okay? And that we don't know for a fact is gonna happen. But if he's allowed to do what he's doing, it's going to directly impact my neighbor and myself.
we rolled the dice five years ago and supposedly I lost and my view was going to be totally messed up by through by apartments going up above the the the kitchen store, which is now a VR store and the that can happen any day. It hasn't happened yet. I lost that one five years ago. The Croton Planning Board didn't listen to me five five years ago, six years ago. What was it? I lost that fight. I still have a view in front of my
I'd like, personally, to see all of Croton remain exactly how it is right now. Okay? Okay. I've seen too many changes in the twenty eight years I've been here already because I was around the corner renting before I bought. Okay? I bought into Croton for a reason.
I'm Laura Costantini. I live at 6 Bank Street right next door behind John's. And, you know, this is really tough because, I mean, we all we love John. We want the best for him. And but I will suffer because the house will devalue, and that's very important to me. And I'll lose my privacy on my back porch, which I adore, and the side of the house if he, builds. So
So similar question. You'd you'd prefer it being further spaced out even if it goes a little taller if that is what might come to be.
Thank you very much. Okay. Thank you. Would anyone else like to be heard on the application?
Hi. I'm Alicia Infoniaccio. My husband and I own the business next to John and Carrie. I we live at 1 Michaels Lane here in Croton, have lived here all of our lives. I think the plan that John and Kerry have is a good plan. You gave us the variance a number of years ago when we went ahead to do an addition on our building. I don't under, I don't see a reason why they shouldn't be allowed, this variance, to go up five feet. If you look back nineteen fifties, I think it was, that all of all of nine a had three story houses on it. They tore those all down to put in put in the highway. I think aesthetically speaking, that what John and Carrie are planning on doing would be a good thing for Riverside Avenue to help. It's gonna make it it look better, nicer. I think it would be I think it would be a good thing for this village for us to allow them to do that. I understand that the neighbors aren't thrilled with the idea, and I feel so I feel bad for them, but I really don't think that the five feet that they're asking for is gonna make that much of a difference. They may differ in my opinion,
but I think it's a good thing, and I think you should allow them to go ahead with this. Because if you don't, either they or somebody else will have the opportunity to go up a lot higher in the future. Thank you. Thank you.
My name is Ed Riley. I live on Trousdale Drive. I don't have a dog in this hunt. I think I know what the village of Croton has planned for the two corridors, the railroad corridor and the Riverside Avenue corridor. I believe one's gonna be a five story corridor. The other's gonna be a 35 foot three story corridor. And anybody that owns land on those corridors is gonna be offers that they can't refuse. I think in this instance, which used to be my paper when I was a kid, Bank Street and Riverside Avenue with three story buildings, a mixed area. I've noticed that the developer of the 35 apartment, basically luxury apartment at the foot of Van Wyke Street along Riverside Avenue has made accommodations for the neighbors. Because if you walk down the end of the street during the daytime, you'll see that that building, which is much too high and should never be improved for that height, will obstruct the views of about five houses in that Van Wyke Street, Barton Place neighborhood. So the builder, who's a local builder and builds well, he just built too high and the face is ugly, but it's well built. Made an accommodation for his neighbor by by building berms, and he's gonna do landscaping on top of that. I think that the, in this case, the builder, should offer to those neighbors what I call the Baltimore view. If you ever seen Baltimore, which is going to hell, but it was on good track before ten years ago, it was really on a good track, then it went to hell again because of leadership. What they would do is they would build
decks on the top of their houses. And if I were this builder, I would offer, for instance, these two homeowners or anybody else they obstruct out of a neighborliness, right, to build a deck on the top of their house so they have their views and that they can go ahead and build. As as for planning for the future, I would design it so, whether they develop or they sell the land unless somebody else develop, that I believe they have a right to go up 35 feet three stories so that those decks should be up no matter who builds that height. Thank you. Thank you.
Yes. I just I just wanted to respond to the the the issue of building right up to the line. There is no plan for building right up to the line. As you know that there's the one story garage there, which sits opposite the lowest level of the of the house next door, which, as I understand it, is not residential use and never has been. So the the addition, if you will, the five foot second story is setback that whole width of the garage that is would currently still be there behind there. So, there's nothing that's being proposed that would be, built right in front of their their building.
So how how far? Okay. I'm looking at maybe maybe you can just walk us through what you originally proposed because it's been a been a month. And I I see I think I see what you're saying, but I'm not Yeah. If we if you I mean I'm looking at if you look at the, the original package
and the existing site plan, 8002, the current building, that's being added onto as this proposal only is is set back from the property line of the neighbor by the width of this single story garage, which we were not planning on, you know, taking up the second story. The second story was pulled back to the same footprint that the taller part of the building currently is. So when you were there, you could see that that, you know, there already is a substantial sort of lifted part of the building that's in at the end of where the garage exists. So this the the addition is really from that point forward to Riverside. So So where the there still would be quite a bit of, you know, the same amount of space that's there now, just that the the lifted portion would be five feet higher. The five feet
addition is you're saying where the I'm looking at at a zero one one where there's a garage. Yes. That's the existing height you're saying. Is that what you're saying? Yes. So it's only the part to the right that's encroaching five feet.
So the part the part that is yes. From that glass door forward on that sheet Right. Is where the second story is being added. We did over the garage portion, we pro we're proposing as a as a really a a concession to the views and few shed of the neighbor was to add a green roof onto the garage portion so that that view would not be asphalt as it currently is, but it would be a green roof on top of the current garage space. But that current garage space exists, single story, wouldn't change, other than to accommodate the green roof. And we don't have to do the green roof. We can take it back down a couple feet
If that would if that was helpful. But we felt like it was actually, you know, a benefit to the neighboring property, and that's why we were proposing to do it.
Not in accommodate a reasonable ceiling height and, you know, and and mechanical and, you know, lights and structure. I mean, currently, the the reason we we're able to even go at that lowest level is because the current building has, like, 14 foot ceilings. So the the idea is cut that building down so that, you know, we're we're now at, you know, eight, nine foot ceilings and and it lessen the impact of the overall addition, but still capture the second story.
Does everyone feel able to make a decision based on the materials and inputs we've had? Okay. So with that, I'm going to close the public hearing. I do think it'd be helpful to go through the factors to get a sense of where everyone's landing. So the first question against the change in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties by granting the variance. I mean, we know that there will be some degree of impact on the neighboring properties. Some degree of impact. Most notably, the one to the left, if you will. So I don't think we can say there's no undesirable change.
Right. I think that Well, you could say in the character of the neighborhood. Mhmm. But it would you know? But there is detriment. And the first one. The second
The detriment to nearby properties. Detriment to nearby properties. Could
Because I was inside 6 Bank Street. Okay. I was inside 6 Bank Street. So I have a Right. An opinion on that, as you know.
And you're expect you're you think there will be a detriment from inside the house, the view looking out? Absolutely. Putting aside what could be built as of right, just focusing on the variance. Just focusing on the variance. Yes. Right. There will definitely be an impact. Right.
detriment to nearby properties. I'm I'm of the same opinion. Alright. The benefits sought by the applicant can or cannot be achieved by method other than requested variance.
can. As we know whose materials, it might not be what everyone would like, but it can be. Mhmm. Yes.
but that's not what From a height perspective, but not necessarily a closeness to the property line perspective. Right. So I think we'd say it it can Mhmm. But with greater height impact. I I do think this would be substantial. I do.
It will or will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environment conditions of the neighborhood or district. That's a different I know. We always have an issue with how it's different from number one. I mean, seems a broader statement than I you could argue that it's gonna be an improvement to the neighborhood Right. Because it's gonna be a better building. Right. Yeah. I would say, I I wouldn't say will in this instance. Yep. Will not have a significant because that's more focused on overall than, say, neighbor. And the difficulty alleged by applicant, I I do think this was self created putting aside this. Alright. So do we wanna make the motion and vote?
Or any discussion I think we should have a discussion. I I don't know what people are thinking. I just know that this site is gonna get developed as something, and I'm afraid that, it's not gonna be what the neighbors want. That's a real I know people in this village are concerned about too much housing, but this is gonna be a housing site. That's what it's gonna be. It's gonna be a three story housing site sold to a developer. And, you know, so I I I see that see that's gonna happen. This if if the motion's not granted because they can stay there, they can move their business to Cortlandt. And Well, it could happen if the motion is granted too.
They could still go ahead and decide to with a different they could still make a different plan,
or they could sell it and someone else can make a different plan. Right. It's true. It's true. You could do that if if I mean, you always have that, but, obviously, they would be coming through here if they were gonna do that. They would just sell it. They would just move to Cortlandt. Who knows? Yeah.
And I'm of a similar perspective. If if I was personally impacted, I would prefer the variance here personally, but we've gotten the inputs, and there is a way to do this without granting the variance. And so I am similarly of the position that I Yeah. I I I don't see that there's sufficient support based on the factors to grant it. Yeah. I I don't I don't cannot think favorably of a vote to increase
the noncompliance. It would have that, it would have to be happen some other way. I'm more in line with the thinking of the first speaker.
I mean, I I don't know. I I just I would prefer the building they're proposing than the one that's gonna be built. It's it's You you you keep saying it's gonna be built. It will be. I mean, you see what's going on in the village. It may be five years. It may be ten years. It's gonna get built. It's a housing site. So, I mean, that's
I I think we vote because I think everyone is pretty settled where they are. Darren, do you wanna make the motion? Just the motion to vote? Mhmm. The motion for the variance Okay. If you want the language.
For the property at 25 North Riverside Avenue, the request for a rear yard variance for proposed second story to an existing commercial building and for a variance request for a two year period to commence work from the village code listed.
Can I get a second? I'll second. Alright. I'm seconded. All in favor of granting the variance? Aye.
All, not in favor of the variance? Aye. Aye. Alright. So it did not pass. We wish you all the best of luck. Thank you. Thank you, folks. Thank you, everyone. With that, as we get resettled here, the next application on the agenda is 99 Mount Airy. So if you wanna come settle in, just give us a minute to change materials.
Alright. Tell me when everyone's ready. Okay.
ready up front? Yep. Stephanie, you're good. Alright. So 99 Mount Airy South. If you could tell us who you are and what you're applying for.
I'm Anne Palm Ribel. I'm the owner of the property, and we're hoping to sell it. My my husband died four years ago, and so I've moved to a one bedroom house now because this house is my my late husband's first wife, and he had three children. So it's so it's it's it's a good a good house for a family.
Mhmm. And there's a I believe that the issue is a shed on the property that's closer to the property line than the primary residence, I think, the The street line. Correct. To the street line. Yes. And that's all we have, right, is that shed.
from the map that you you can see the setbacks Mhmm. And hopefully, you've seen it from the street.
Certainly have. Okay. I've seen the well, so I live on Georgia Lane, so I buy I pass by all the time. So, like, oh, I know that building, but it's the garage, which Right. You can see and is perfectly fine and not an issue when it's just the shed, which I certainly don't as I drive by. You really have to stop and look.
I'm I'm Janet Brandt. I'm Anne's friend and real estate agent. This shed that's there now replaced a very old dilapidated shed. Mhmm. So it was there. We don't know why, Anne's late husband didn't apply or if he even if he was there when he bought it. Mhmm. But it it does seem like with the new he did put an addition on the front of the house which brought it's almost like in line. I don't know how the angles are, but it's set back pretty far. And we know after this if if you grant this, we will go and get a building permit Mhmm. Okay. And do whatever we have to do. The shed was there
beforehand when you when did you buy the house? Well no. She she, But you replaced it. You you're Mister
Reibel Reibel. But there was a shed on Yeah. That same There was a shed on that same spot. It was it was there when I came and and and and and and it was replaced during the time that I was there, but there was an was an older shed there when I came already. And and you moved in? Second wife. Yeah. And you moved in when? When I'm when I moved in In what year? O four.
I guess o four. I I don't know when I moved in. Okay. That's alright. It's alright. It was there. It's been there for a while. Been there for a while. It was old and decrepit, and that's why Bob, had this had this built. And when was it built? We're not a 100% sure. Do you remember maybe ten years ago? And he's gone four years now. He's gone four years now,
I would seem about right from even what I recall the times I've passed. Mhmm. Ten years. Mhmm. So I remember the old. I Oh, you remember the old? Oh, good. Yeah. I remember the old one. Yeah. Same So we're not fibbing?
How did this issue come up? The title? Record search. Yeah. Record search. Yeah. Yeah. Looking for a permit for this. Yeah.
Record for they're selling the property, so going through all the permits and seeing what's there, and and and we found that there was not a permit for the ship. We actually when we went in to check, we
spoke and we realized it was a problem. So, the buyers even I think we did this even before we had a buyer. We wanted to do the right thing.
And and behind the primary structure, it's woods back there. It's hilly. Right? So there's not really a spot for the shed that could be behind.
No. Is it elevated? But but behind the shed is a is a pond. Mhmm. It can't go it can't go back very far. It'll be in the pond. Mhmm. In the pond. It looks like it's elevated. It's elevated. To to be level with the driveway. With the driveway. And to not fall into the pond. Right.
I have do you wanna see a picture? No. I see see this. Right? Oh, you have it. Okay. Alright. You can see the elevation on here.
Any other questions before I open up the public hearing? Alright. I will check with the audience. Would anyone like to be heard on this application opening the public hearing? Alright. Seeing no one, does everyone on the board feel comfortable to make a decision on the application before us? Yes. As do I. So I will close the public hearing. From my perspective, the five factors all weigh in favor of granting with the only question whether it was self created because we don't know the timing the construction of the shed. So I think it probably is self created out of an abundance of caution. Yes. But otherwise, they Otherwise, it's favor. It's
none not a detriment to the neighborhood. Agreed. Would you like to make the motion? I would make a motion to grant a variance, to allow an existing shed, that's near to the street and the primary residence.
Alright. I will second. All in favor? Aye. None opposed? You are all set. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Wanna do a few factors? I think we kinda informally did it. They're Yes. They are all in favor except for the was self created. Yes. So I will submit that. Got it. Okay. Thank you very much. Should I say it again?
That'd be fine. Yes. Everyone agree it's not substantial in light of location. Mhmm. Yeah. Yeah. You'll be happy Right. Right. Okay. You covered it. I agree.
And as we organize ourselves, if we could have 41 Whelan come on up to the table, Just give us a minute.
Alright. Alright. Great. Best as I could tell what the setbacks were when I measured up. Okay. Because the fence, it looks like it's it looks like about a foot and a half over as best as I could tell.
Right. But but there there's about two feet between the shed and the property line. Between the fence between the fence and the shed. Right. The property line
is on your side. It looks like, or at least it was. Mhmm. And if that's where it is, then then that's okay. You should be sure you get the balance. Okay? And this was from 10309,
the other one that I said that that my back property Okay. Mine. Alright. You know, they yeah. Okay. I know that that I just got it today. So
Another letter of support. Alright. So just for the record, we have our letter of support from 103 Oneida Avenue from Aaron Thompson. Just folks wanna take a quick look. Okay. Sure. Alright. And with that, is everyone ready? Yep. Alright. If you could go ahead and tell us who you are and what you're looking for.
Sure. I'm Rayla Judici. Live at 41 Wayland Avenue. I lived there for twenty eight years now. There is an existing shed on the property that is not at the proper setback from the property line. So I I'm a corner lot, so I share a property line with the one you just read, 103 Oneida and then 37 Whelan on the other other side of me. Mhmm. And Ron came out and and was looking at the property lines, and it looks like I'm set back really only about a half a foot from the back property line and about 1.3 feet setback from the other property line. The shed that's there currently is sitting on an eight by 10 concrete pad, and I that it's a it's a old vinyl shed that's very unsightly, and we're looking to replace with a wood shed, you know, like a kid kinda Home Depot. I think I put it in the packet. Mhmm. And but the new shed would be 10 by 12 feet as opposed to eight by 10. We'd like to utilize the existing concrete pad that's there and just add on concrete to accommodate the larger shed. But in so doing, we would still remain not at the proper setbacks from the from the property line. So I'm I'm asking for a variance to allow this shed to be, at the setbacks that it's at, currently and just add on to the. In fact, when I when we put the pad in, I was just talking to a contractor about it, and we're actually gonna make it a little bit bigger and probably be able to increase that's those setbacks to about two feet from each property line, But it's still not within the within the code. So
that's what we're asking. So was there's an existing variance on this, Ron? No. What what is this 96?
That was from the house. There was, like, a I believe a four inch variant or something like that. It was a five inch variance to meet the requirements for minimum side yard setback. Side yard setback was for the existing house. I forget exactly how that came to be, you know, what brought the need to bring that one up. And I just wanna point out here, I'm trying to establish the existing setbacks. The survey I have here shows the neighboring fence a foot and a half off the property line, and the shed is about two feet off the property line. So just to be safe, I'm calling it the shed one half foot from the property line. I'm not 100% positive. The fence is newer. The fence could be on the property line, but just to be safe, we're gonna call it a half a foot setback.
That makes sense? So you're saying there's a fence there and how far it so so when you when you look at this Mhmm. The property line is inboard from that, you're saying?
Based on this old survey. It might have changed since then, but based on the old survey, yes.
We're gonna establish that. Yeah. We have other work going on, and we can incorporate the permit for the shed and the other work. But the the existing shed? There was no permit. There was not.
I appreciate your acknowledgment of self created in the in the letter that you provided. It was absolutely self created. A new new homeowner and just finding a shed. Yep. Yep.
Looks like a great spot for a new shed. Very good. Obviously, you put it in. Well, I had a contractor for the pad, and then I put the the plastic kid shed together. Yes. Yep. So we have the homeowners on either side of you. We have a homeowner across the street. Yes. What about the person behind you? Did you hear anything from That's that's the 1 B that's 103 O'Nida. Oh, because you're in a corner. So Yeah. I'm on right. A corner lot. So I share property line with 103 O'Nida and 37 Wayland. Yeah. Perfect. Thank you.
Alright. I'm just curious about the math. The for the side yard, does it say 3.7 variance? I don't know. It's kinda squiggly.
Well, it's so mine is so it's the mine looks right. The math on mine looks right. Did yours look different from that? Right. So it's 1.3. Okay. Yep.
Any other questions before I open the public hearing? How far is the fence from the shed?
Right. Based on the old survey, don't wanna get it wrong. So mhmm. Or if I do, I wanna get it wrong in the right direction. Mhmm. They're covered.
I'll open up. Alright. Is there anyone who is here to be heard on this application? Opening the public hearing. Seeing no one, does the board feel able to make a decision based on the materials before us? Alright. With that, I will close the public hearing and open it for discussion. Darren, Rocco, how are you feeling? I am taking.
So we're seeing a two foot setback for the side. Right? Is that what I read from the variance? I I I see. Oh, I'm sorry. No. No. No. No. No. Yes. The answer is answer Darren's question Darren's question.
We're gonna do two. So this narrative might have been written up before I actually got the final calculation. Okay. So go with the numbers. Alright. 3.7,
Yes. Pretty deep. I don't really remember how deep. But Okay. When I pull the other shed up, we're gonna be we'll be able to see how deep that pad is. But I remember it being pretty significant. Yeah.
So the 103 Oneida, I just back up to their yard. The house is probably a good 50 feet, you know, towards the Oneida towards Oneida Street, Oneida Avenue there. So, like, on that side, nowhere near the house, the 37 Whalen House from the shed to the property line is we're establishing close to two feet, and their house is probably another five. They have, like, a walkway on that side of the house. It's probably five, six feet from there. But there's a fence there? Oh, yeah. There's a fence there. Yeah.
I believe it'll be about one foot taller. I believe the does it show the height in this? No. Probably not. The photo that I sent, might have to look up the specs on the Home Depot shed that I picked up. I think it was supposed to be, like, nine feet four inches tall. Sorry. I didn't bring that with me. No problem.
it's gotta be about nine feet. Yeah. You're correct. Yeah. I mean, I I think it's going up a little bit, the new woodshed. Yeah. From what's existing. But I wouldn't say more than a foot, but I I I don't have those dimensions. Sorry.
Well, I hate to see somebody chop up a concrete foundation, personally. I the you know, I guess there are some alternatives to be considered. I don't know. Maybe if it was me, I would price out, you know, just to get it into compliance. I would have maybe looked at maybe a precast pad. But like you say, I agree that it would be an additional expense, and maybe it's not an expense that you're down with right now. So I'm kind of asking and answering my own questions here. Okay. But but that's why I asked in part about, you know, about how if you had any idea of how DP went with the with the Yeah. I I wish I did. I'm sorry. I could probably find that out for you soon. But You know, I'm I'm inclined to let it be.
Right. I I to be honest, I definitely need a larger shed. So I felt like my alternative would be if the board doesn't grant that variance that I'm gonna chop that thing up and go through the expense of having a whole new 10 by 12 pad.
Okay. It's a big expense. And it's a corner lot where I imagine you have you have some limited lands there, outdoors, is what I saw. You know, we have plans for a garden in the yard and stuff. So moving it, what I think it's five fifty. Is is that what it's supposed to be? Five feet? Yeah. We're gonna take up a lot of yard that that, you know, we'd rather use for something else. Mhmm. And And the shed's been there? The shed's been there. We moved into that house in '96. I think by '98, it was up. And it's a very unsightly plastic shed that I I have not power washed in the last few years because I kept saying we gotta get a new shed because I can't stand this. That's a good that's a good reason. You gotta talk yourself out of it. I I I'm down. You know, I would I
the neighbors will enjoy looking at a wooden shed, a new wooden shed more than this rather dirty plastic shed. Awesome. That's fair. It's very nice what you picked out. Mhmm. It looks like yeah. Darren,
I don't have any issue, I think, since it's been there for twenty five years. This is this is gonna be an improvement from what was there. Yes.
So And we have no objection from everyone surrounding it, which is helpful. Yeah. That's very important part. Three measures. Yep. So no undesirable change. Everyone agree? Great. Great. The benefit can be achieved but at additional expense Mhmm. With limited benefit. That's good. Alright. Substantial?
Will not have an adverse impact. Was self created. Alright. Who would like to make this motion?
I will. Motion is made for a request for a side yard and rear yard variance, for 41 Wheelan Avenue for proposed shed on an existing cement pad.
And we've decided on the three puts 3.7 foot variance, right, for the numbers for the side yard and rear yard, 4.5.
I don't know what to specify. We could say for a shed well, we don't have the number, but for a shed consistent with what was submitted in the materials. Yeah. For a shed with the height consistent with what was submitted in the materials. Okay. Okay. Yeah.
Sounds good. Can I have a second? I'll second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Alright. You're all set. Thank you so much. Thank you very much. Let's put that in the condition.
Alright. With that, moving right along. We are moving out of shed territory and into 19 Irving Avenue. If you could come on up, give us a second to reset. You settle in. Move to that.
I wanna revisit the size discussion.
comes up every now and then. No worries.
Alright. So if you could let us know who each of you are and then walk us through the application.
Sure. I'm Joseph Arno, architects for, Peter Obermeyer, owner, and Lisa Overmeyer, owners of 19 Irving Avenue. So we're hoping to build a small addition to square off the shape of the house, add a full second story, and provide a carport, all of which would require setback variances. Additionally, there would be a portico in the front of the building and a storage shed sorry. Another shed replacement in the backyard, which will comply with the setback requirements. So there wouldn't be a need for a variance specifically for this. The original building had a permit issued in 1950, but no certificate of occupancy was recorded. We assume it was constructed soon after 1950 and therefore governed by the 1931 zoning code. It was located in District C, which is now R A 5. Based on a 1967 survey, which is the most current survey, There are a few legal nonconforming existing conditions that I'll describe. The existing front setback at 14 foot 10 is only two inches short of the 15 foot setback requirement of the current zoning code. This 15 foot setback requirement was also part of the 1931 zoning code. I think they intended to comply, but they were off by two inches. The existing east side of the building had a has a chimney jutting out 25 inches from the main building. The current zoning code doesn't have doesn't provide a chimney exception, and therefore, the east side setback is approximately two feet short of the eight foot side, variance requirement. Nineteen thirty one zoning code did have a chimney exception, but it was limited to 18 inches, so the east side setback was also not in conformance. It was seven inches short of the eight foot requirement when it was constructed. So these are some of the things that were that were there. The total side yard setback is not in conformance with the current zoning code by approximately three feet.
And the 1931 zoning code only required eight feet per side and didn't have a total side yard requirement. So those are the existing nonconforming requirements. The current house is a partial two story building. It was originally built as a one and a half story building, and a shed dormer on the south side was added by permit in 1989. As mentioned earlier, we proposed to add a front addition to square off the interior corner of the building at a full second story and attic added to the house, all of which would conform to the existing side setbacks and the existing front setback minus half an inch As we're trying to have the front the the the line of the front continue, the house is slightly tilted, and so half an inch would be all we'd need extra from the existing to be able to make that work. Additionally, we proposed to build a 10 foot by eight y sorry, 10 foot eight y detached carport on the west side of the building and request a variance of five feet to bring the carport roof edge to the west property line. So the requirement for a detached building is five feet. We would be looking for the full five feet to be able to, to do this. We are also showing a front front portico and a rear yard shed replacement. So replacement in the same location as the existing, which was in compliance with the old zoning and the current zoning. And all of this would conform with the current zoning code. Not does not need a variance specifically. We have reviewed the surrounding area for consistency with our proposed changes. There are several two story homes in the vicinity of the property, so the proposed additions would not, would be in keeping with the neighborhood. Regarding the proposed carport, many houses in the neighborhood, for example, across the street, 12 Irving Avenue and 20 Irving Avenue, have a short distance of driveway to clear for snow and and other things, because they have garages to protect their cars under their split level buildings. So I think that at some point, they figured out that for this limited width of the building, split level buildings work well so that you can have the garage underneath. But this building was not built as a split level, and it has a limited side driveway to be able to have a garage or or as we're proposing a carport. One of the major visual reasons for a side setback visually is to avoid having houses and structures close to each other on either side of the property line. 19 Irving has the unique condition that the neighboring house at 80 Radnor Avenue is far away from the shared property line, approximately 45 feet, and has a high eight foot fence separating the properties.
The carport would be open on all sides to keep the existing visual separation from the property line and would be set back from the front of the house. So in in in some sense, there would still be that feeling of separation. There still would be light going through. It would not be a visual block for that for that area. There's a large tree which partially obscures the view of the driveway when approaching from Cleveland Avenue. We feel the carport would be consistent with the character of the neighborhood and not negatively impact neighboring properties. The proposed design intent can only be achieved with a variance. For the building addition, it's most efficient for the structural approach to build on top of existing exterior walls with their existing noncompliant setbacks. And to do this, a variance would be necessary. For the carport, the goal is to limit the exposed extent of the existing driveway, and the carport is the only solution. And the variance would be necessary as there's insufficient setback for a detached structure. The requested area variance is substantial. There would be no adverse effect or impact on the environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The carport roof would have gutters to be able to channel the water away from, the adjacent property, and the difficulty is self created. So that's it for my presentation. I'm happy to respond to any, questions or comments.
So I have a question on the height of the proposed structure as compared to the house when you're looking at the house, the one to the left. So putting aside the white fence on your right. The house to the left, height wise, how would this structure compare height wise to that house that's currently on the left?
Well, I'm not sure the height of of of that other house, but this is it's gonna be under 35 feet. I think it's somewhere in the 30 range, but I can see if I have it if I have it listed on the, elevation. I have it listed as 30, so 30 feet in height. We go to the pictures for the that adjacent house. It's a one story, but it's raised up on land. So I I don't I don't have exactly what that would be, but it's so far away that I don't feel like it would have much in the way of of impact
on the on the Only half only by a half inch. That's it. That's it. So going going up going upward on on the existing existing setbacks. And I think that 1931, I think they were kind of a little unsure about the chimney aspect. I think that if they ignored the chimney even on the survey, if you look at the survey, they only measure to the corners of the houses of the house. They don't measure to the chimney, which if you're trying to set what the zoning would be for an area, that would be critical according to, you know, what that zoning was for 1931. So anyway, I think that they were intended to conform, the side variances as well.
On the chimney side, so Yes. You're not building out there? No. No. We're only building in the front. So that if you look at the so if you so so my my question is Yes. If the house without the chimneys conform Yes. It does. Why do you need a variance for that side?
Because the chimney is for this current zoning code. The current zoning code goes to the chimney line. It does not go to the the proper building. So I'd have to comply with that. And and eve and even 1931, it only gave 18 inches. So even then, it was not conforming to 1931 exactly. But I think they they were ignoring chimneys. Know, they weren't paying attention specifically to the nineteen thirty one code for chimney exception. You're just legalizing that. That's essentially what you're doing. I'm I'm well, I'm building I'm building upward, and I'm legalizing it to a certain extent. Yes. Right.
Right. Right. But why I guess the question is, and, you know, I don't know what happened in 1950. It wasn't built to code in 1950.
It was not built to zoning code in 1950. That's correct. By two inches in the front Before your timeline. And seven inches and seven inches on the side. You you can't blame them. No.
Legalizing what what we found to be nonconformance. Yes. For the 1931 because I'd researched that and also for, current zoning.
And so you're building out the 2nd Floor, make it larger. Correct. Obviously, filling in some of that kinda area in the front. Correct. And you're also adding an attic
up top. So it's a full it's a regular two story house. Right. Two and a half. Yeah.
The the walls don't go up. They come out from the from the, the roof of the 2nd Floor, the ceiling of the 2nd Floor. And then
Oh, it is true. There are, you know, some I don't know if I should call them sizable houses immediate, you know, in the environment, but certainly two story houses. Looks like quite a few of them did the same thing Way in the story. In time. Yeah. It's
Other questions before I open the public hearing? Alright. I'm going to open the public hearing and see if anyone in the audience would like to be heard on this application. Hey. Seeing no one, does the board feel they can make a decision based on the materials before us? Yes. Yes. Alright. Then I will close the public hearing and open up for any final question of the applicant or discussion amongst the board.
Well, my thinking is to do anything on this house as an existing nonconformance, you know, natural thing to do what they're doing. I do have a problem with the carport. Building right next to the property line, zero setback. I I I I'm troubled by that.
That fence, is it one we've approved? No. It is. And that's right on the property line. Right? That white fence? What was that one? Yeah. Pictures. What are other folks' thoughts? We'll start on the house itself. I,
you know, I think that that as far as the house itself is concerned, I I guess I I jumped the gun on this a few minutes ago, but I think it's very much in keeping too far from the microphone again. The the materials make it harder. Yeah. I think it's it's it's very much in keeping with the character of the neighborhood, and I could see, the house actually looks a little diminutive compared to the other houses. Aw. I see. It is a cute house, and it would have been You're very right. I would have been all I would have been all all right with that too, I think, at one point in time. But I I understand, I what the likely needs are. So So I I mean, as far as the house is concerned and the I have to respect the research, mister Arno put into the application on the zoning issues. I mean, I think, yeah, in wanting to legalize those other aspects of it. No problem with that.
So, yeah, that's the house we're talking about. Right? Yeah. I think the house is a definite improvement for the neighborhood, and and
it's a nice looking house. Thank you. Natural thing to do, like you said. Right.
I will say I I think you're bursting at the seams a bit. Right? I mean, it's it's not a super big lot. And on the paper, was more worried than why I saw it in person. When you see it in person, you see kind of the space between everything. But that's why I asked about the height. Right? When you're getting to the edge of the line, it's just even more imposing kind of the higher up you go recognizing that if we were as of right, could get up to the 35. So that was my only hesitation of, like, it is bursting at the seams for that lot. But you are pretty much just going up straight from what exists there. We don't have anyone in opposition to the application, and and you get the need for the the space.
for the chimney. Yes. Exactly. That makes it easier. And and these are pretty limited numbers. Right. Right. Right. Exactly. Alright. So we're good on the house. Any other comments on the house before the carport? Because we'll maybe we'll do two separate variances.
no further comments on that. No comments on that. Okay. So carport. Darren, any particular thoughts on the carport?
Yeah. I mean, was right there. That jumped out to me too. I'm glad other people pointed it out.
Yeah. There's a Ron, you just answered the question of whether or not that, like, plastic fence is on the property line. And so I guess, I know looking at the Google, the Google thing. The and there's, like, a a small cyclone fence, is it? That's It's a solid it's a solid white Or is that shot? Am I looking at have a photo there too. There is a chain link fence on I call my side. Yeah. I'm showing my age. Yeah. White fence. Mhmm. Yeah. Correct. That that they're on the adjacent property has a white fence, and there's a chain link in front of And then alright. And that's right up against the
And remind me the height of the carport. I'm just gonna stay on the height. That's good. Thank you.
So let me get to that. It will be below the second story, but let me see if I have listed. When when trying to determine the height, whether you're going from the ground or whether because the the ground goes down Mhmm. For that. So it's in the range of about about nine. I I wanna have eight feet for the above the above the car. So it would be eight and then structure. I would go to minimum as eight, you know, as eight feet for that.
And we think that's probably an eight foot fence there, the white fence that's along there. If there's an eight foot fence that's along there,
so that they would be somewhere it would be a little bit of Popping over. It'd be it'd be popping over it a little bit.
I mean, so I I agree the carpool gives me hesitation at the same time with that big white fence right there. You're really like the impacted neighbor is really gonna be that one to the right when you're looking at it, the one right adjacent to the carport. And at most, they'll see a foot of a nice wood structure, the beams coming out, and
that makes me less concerned than if you didn't have that fence. I I feel more comfortable with the neighbors that we had comment from the neighbors. Mhmm.
Did you reach out to them? Do they know about this? Oh, I did. We didn't specifically ask them about this. Well, they get notified. Right. Exactly.
And they're not here. But, again, they may not I mean, I just don't like with a zero setback. You know?
I mean, that's my opinion is I I don't like the zero setback on that on the carport. Mhmm. I don't think it's a great precedent.
We had another carport where where some of the properties go downhill. Right. How close to property line was that one? Do you remember? I thought that was close. It was, like, right along the street. It was closer to the street. But I don't remember if the side yard was an issue. Obviously, the the side yard was an issue. I thought it was
We don't typically. Right? The whole idea is it's noticed. They can come get information. They could show. They can write something in writing if they're concerned or supportive. I mean, would a site visit you're you're kinda set. Like, it's right across the property It's
not something that we're you know, it's one thing you're legalizing something that's been there thirty years.
People moved in knowing it was there expecting it to be there. Yeah. I mean, you can see we grant this and
I don't think it's a great precedent. But And it's not a unique lot. It's not a corner lot where there are kind of limitations. It's not a Right. The only thing I'd say that is unique is that the adjacent property is very far away,
you know, 45 feet, away. And I think that that makes it a unique kind of condition. If there was a house that was abutting the property line, there would be we wouldn't wouldn't be presented. But since this is a unique condition where the adjacent house is far away and with the exception of the fence itself, there's not really a realization of the property line because you're not you're not having a feeling of a house being nearby.
In a certain way, it feels like a very open area on that side. Mhmm. So that's why it feels like a unique condition
You'd mentioned there's going to be, for, like, rain coming down. Right? You're gonna have the gutters. Yes. For snow. Obviously, as it melts, the gutters will capture it. I'm just thinking of It was a flat roof? Is it is it gonna be It's slightly tilted. It's slightly minimum slightly minimal tilt. Into the next door yard?
No. Well, it should as melting, it should be collecting in in gutters. It has to yes. It would have to melt to to work its way. Right. So it's it's a clump and it's
We can make a little we can make a little channel that comes up a little bit to collect the water so that it'll come up a little bit higher, but then it can collect some of the snow. We can make if that's a concern, we can make accommodation for that.
I think I can see in my skylight, like, at some point, right, it just slides down as it starts to melt. The whole thing just comes. And if you're right against the property line, you have that fence there. Where's it going?
I don't think there's enough of a of a slope there that's gonna cause that kind of a phenomenon. It's gonna be. It's it's No. Because it's very flat. With a slight slight superelevation towards the house. Right? Right. So that it actually falls in that in that little space between the carport and and and the structure.
slopes this way. We we could have it also we could have it slope the other way too. The slope is so small. You could you could to accomplish
Well, I guess I'm I'm I am feeling inclined to, to approve the carport, respective of Jim's opinion about the zero setback. I don't feel kind it's true. I I that's I I agree you don't wanna set a precedent, but at the same time, I could understand why you would wanna go for, you know, go for all every when you're putting this much of an investment into this kind of an improvement, I could understand why you would go for broke, you know, and try to get a car port as well. And so I don't know if I have if if there are enough good reasons to, you know, negate the owners wishes or intentions on that, but the the issue of the zero setback is a compelling one. But, so I I guess I'm still leaning towards, yeah, the carport. Darren?
I was kinda moved by Jim saying that the next guy up would want the setback.
We wanna go, like, right up to the property line. I mean, we're Yeah. That applications. The president is my decision. Yeah.
Alright. Well, let's separate out the vote Right. Between the house and the carport. House
Braco, we we have you make a motion yet. Sure. Mhmm. Yeah. You made one. But do you wanna do this one as well? This is Rocco's final meeting. So
make as many motions as you would like. It's a tough one. Especially ones that are gonna get approved. Do do the positive ones. So Yeah. Alright. So if you all make a motion for the house. Yes. Motion,
motion to hereby made for request for a variance at 19 Irving Avenue for home improvements that will require a side yard, total side yard, and front yard variances from the village zoning code, including legalization of existing chimney, proposed second story addition, and a side I think I'm repeating myself, side yard variance from the village code. Oh, no. For the postcard part. Excuse me. So, yes, second story edition and so moved. Very good.
And I know we have the motion out there, but do we just wanna quickly check? No undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood of the house. Great. The benefits off of the applicant cannot be achieved getting this any additional space, any adjustment with the structure of the house Right. It's yeah. It's already on control. Property light. I don't think you could yeah. So I'm gonna say it cannot be achieved by method other than the request or or some other variants. Some other. It is or it's not substantial. It's pretty small numbers. Yeah. I'm not. Yeah. I would say But it's making a much bigger house and footprint. So it's not I would say. Not. Not have an adverse effect or will not have an adverse effect, and it was self created. Okay. With that, we have a motion on the table. Could I get a second? Second. Darren seconds. All in favor for the house? Aye. Aye. Alright. Four in favor of the house. All set there. Carport.
Do you want to make this motion? Oh, the motion. Okay. You wanna go right okay. I wasn't sure. Sorry. Yes. Motion for the same property, 19 Irving Avenue, for a variance for a side yard variance for a proposed carport.
Alright. I will second that one in terms of the factors, the change in the character of the neighborhood from a carport going up to the property line.
Yeah. I mean, it's debatable. You could say it is or you could say it's not. I don't know. I'm not sure what Mhmm.
Okay. So this is house. Yeah. I mean, I I don't think we have any other carports. Not that I saw going for the property line. Alright. So that's a maybe. I'll figure out how to word that. Alright. The benefits off by the athlete can't be achieved. The prop the the layout, you can't fit a garage there. You can't do it for the back. You can't do it anywhere else, so it cannot be achieved. The variance is substantial. Good. Yes. It's completely gone. No no setback is, it will or will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. I don't think it would. Unless you're the next door neighbor. Yeah. But with the fence there, there's barely any impact on that side and to the point of the house being a decent distance away.
Physical or environmental? Aesthetic, may maybe you would you would what are you suggesting aesthetic, or you mean you actually mean physical or environmental?
Okay. So we'll have an adverse effect or impact in terms of aesthetics, in terms is everyone okay with that? Yes. Yeah. Okay. Okay. And was self created? Alright. Now with that clarification in everyone's minds with where you're landing, let's take the vote.
I thought I seconded. Yeah. Yeah. I'm Okay. I know we went a little out of order. Alright. All in favor of the carport? I'm gonna say I'm and all opposed? Aye. Aye. Alright. So you are all set on the house, but you're not all set on the carport. Ty doesn't go to the No. You need three. Three. You need the three. Ty doesn't go to the runner. Unfortunately
Is what would it be, what would be the method? Could we appeal in the sense to have a larger group for or a quorum for three, or does it not work that way? Is is this is this all the members
present? The vote. Right? Yeah. I mean, we already took the vote. And we're also gonna have I mean, you're out. You're gone. This is your last meeting. So we'd have to completely rehear the application.
Logistics on that. If it weren't to tie, I wouldn't. I I appreciate it. Like, my my my movement in favor, I know makes a difference. No.
Yes. Who do appeal to? I think it comes back here. It comes back to you? It'll come back here to be heard, and it'll be a slightly reconstituted board. Doug will be here. We'll have new person in your seat, and you'll have to explain kinda go through the process again. Just focus on the carport because the house is done, so it'd just be the carport. Got it. So we could proceed on the permit for the
house. Yes. And we can work our way along, and we can see about going back for a new body.
Alright. Vaughn will stop by to just figure out how what we should do. And I guess we have to figure out the timing for for a quorum and such for for that. That's right. Yeah. We wanna make sure everyone is here because yes. We So that would be next month would be the new
It depends on how the because because since it's an appeal, it's a different it has to be renoticed and everything. It's gonna be a whole other application, so it depends on how quickly you get it in for what meeting it would be at. But Ron will take care of all the logistics. After the end of the month now. Right. So there'll be another meeting in later October is is our next one. Got it. So if we had not had the vote, then it would just have gone on to the next,
meeting for that for that portion. Okay. Right. But we've but we've had a vote. Yes. Yep. Right. Very good. Thank you. Alright. Thank you. Good
Alright. And with that, our final application is for 12 Hunter Place. And let's hold on to these materials just for when the cardboard Mhmm. Which comes back a little bit different.
Fantastic. Alright. I'd also like that I to present to the board two letters in support of this application. One from Robin Lawrence and Malcolm Jones at 14 Hunter Place as well as Tanya Heidrick and David Mitchum from 11 Hunter Place. These are two neighbors
What's it? Did you get the one from the doctor? Did he email it to me? He supposed to email it. Don't think I got that from the doctor. Mike
Mike, let me just introduce myself. I'm Peter Skylar, and I'm here with the applicant. I'm I'm the applicant's attorney. Marlene Gallison is the applicant. She believes that the the neighbor immediately adjacent her. What's what's his name? Chris Bailey. Chris Bailey. And what what address is that? Is that 1010 Hunter Place, had expressed support, to her for the application, but we don't seem to have a letter from him. But just for what it's worth that he verbally expressed, and he was the most affected neighbor. Oh, really? No problem. He's the one, if you're looking at the houses, the the guy to the left. Mhmm. I'd also like to correct part of our application, which I'll have to admit is inadvertent mistake on my part. Miss Gelatin has lived in this house not for forty years, but almost fifty years. She actually purchased it in 1979. Right? Correct. I had put 86 down because she had originally purchased it with her dad on the deed. She was only 25 years old at the time, and he cosigned the loss the the loan. So he was on the deed, it wasn't transferred into her and her husband, Robert Galeson's name, until 1986. So the the addition that's on the house that they're seeking to to legalize has been there for close to well, at least close to fifty years. We don't know the exact date. I examined the files with the assistant village engineer. I don't think we were able to determine when exactly that construction took place. It certainly was, again, almost a half at least a half a century ago. And it it actually the the property that it's on, it's kind of an interesting case, which is sort of tangential to this application. But that whole development was part of an early nineteenth century development where the person who had done the original subdivision had left these narrow lanes that were supposed to be walkways between the streets. And they were sort of these orphaned parcels that the village never took over. And in our case, in in this key the Galison property and also the property below it was which was actually owned by our former police chief, People basically just used that narrow strip, and it it never was created it never was taken over by the village. That's what you show on this this survey as Correct. Designated as walk. Correct. So at some point, she realized, and, again, she bought this in 1979.
It it wasn't done through a real estate broker. They really didn't have the the level of scrutiny that we have today. So they didn't realize the Galazans, didn't realize that part of their house was on property that they didn't own, which when they did find it out, they they actually hired us. This was something lawsuit we filed just before the pandemic. We tracked down all the heirs of that property, which was kind of interesting process. And they basically said they didn't want anything to do with it, so we got a court decision. They had adversely possessed it for decades and decades, So we got a court decision that said that it, you know, went with the property. But, again, you know, they bought the property fifty years ago. This is not a self created hardship.
Yeah. Can we can we just step back a sec? So you you there's essentially two parts to your application if you could walk through them. The one is kind of legalizing an addition that has existed since before Correct. Current ownership of the property. Right. And the second is for a shed again. Sure.
So those are really the two, but the the big obviously, if you wanna separate them, the shed, as you can see from the photograph, is a shed again. It's existed since they've had the house. It is sort of set down behind the house. You can't see it from the street unless you walk onto the property and look over the the fence. It is adjacent to a very large retaining wall, which separates their property from the one to the right Mhmm. Adjacent to the right. So those folks are really looking over it in their view down to the Hudson and streets below them. Mhmm. It has very minimal visual impact. There really is no other place for a shed. This is a fairly narrow plot, and it does have a steep slope. I don't know if you guys all visited it and went in the back, but, you know, the whole the whole back of the property is is is basically this, you know, is is a steep slope with the date that they built up into a couple different layers there over the years. So there really is no especially for the, you know, the age of my client, you know, there's no other practical place to put a shed. She doesn't have a garage. There really is no other storage on there. And it's set like a a foot or so back from the wall if you look at it. So, I mean, we're we're asking for whatever that that delta difference is from the five feet. Mhmm. You know, she communicated with her neighbors. I don't think there's any objection. So as far as the shed goes, I I think
So so who owns that walk? She does. She does. Yeah. But if I'm looking at here, it looks like you're farther than five feet away from the side. Right?
No. Not in the walkway. You're talking about the shed, or are we talking about the house? Right. I thought we talking about shed in the back. No. Oh, the the little shed in the that one's not the shed we're talking about. Ron, can you Oh, you got one. The shed this shed up here. Yeah. The one at the bottom of the hill, that one's gone. That was gone. They that was removed. Okay. Do you ever remember having that shed at the bottom
forty years ago. Did it like, fall apart? Yeah. Fell apart. Alright. That that that should the the lower one disintegrated years ago. I I presented I presented to you guys a nice color photo of the shed on on the side there. You should have And
do you guys have the color pictures that I I sent as part of our oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So it's like, you know, a small small shed garden shed.
And it has it has I mean, the shed has, like, such liminal impact on anyone, I mean, because it's so hard to see because of the topography. I mean, it's That's a big wall there. Uh-oh. It's it's a huge wall. Yeah.
So, I mean, it it has it has no impact on the neighbors because they can't see it, and anybody walking along the street can't see it because it's down the hill. So and even looking up from it, I'm not sure how easy it would be. I I never I didn't look in that from from the neighbor's yard. The neighbor's yard is terraced too in the back. They have sort of a hill.
What was a steep hill? Yeah. What was that neighbor's name down below? It's the the chief from a police van. Oh, I don't even know their name. Anyway,
I I don't I don't think you could really see the shed from any any of the neighboring properties except with great difficulty. Put the shed in
over the shed there? It was it was put in about forty years ago. Forty years ago. Yeah. Maybe less. Maybe less. What happened was the driveway, that existed on on that exists on the left side, That was part of the strip that we weren't aware that was What you didn't know? Had a shed on it. And we removed that shed because we needed room to park. The car. Right. I see that. We put the shed a new shed on the backyard.
I'm good with the shed. Everyone else good with the shed? I don't understand the shed. Alright. Any questions about the house and the addition, which was preexisting?
Yeah. Let me so let me address the Yeah. If you're good with the shed, as far as the discussion goes, let me address the house. Again, this is this is from, you know, almost a half century ago, like, existing conditions when they bought it. The little addition that's there is a single room. It's like in the same space as, you know, where the driveway is, where where the retaining wall is built that's existed there. So be because that's so close to the property line, there's there's three well, there's two two variances there. It's the total side yard and then the side yard on the left. But, also, when we're looking at the survey, when I was reviewing with the engineer's office, it was pointed out to us that, you know, even though this house was built back in the thirties, we don't know what the application looked like back then, the building application, but it's it's slightly closer to the road than include than code allows. So we added that as another variance. Anyone who goes down to Hunter Place, you know, a lot of those houses are fairly close to the the road. It's a very narrow road. I I don't think if you didn't have a a measuring tape, you'd you'd probably spot that that was close to the too close to the road. And I think part of it is it's like the projection of the, the front entrance. So so the side yard variance is the tail of the house? The the side yard variance is if you're looking on this little the the picture that Ron took here is the little blue extension here. Right. So it's it's the tail that sticks out. It's Correct. Yes. Correct. So that causes both the side yard and total side yard? Correct. Yeah. Because on the other side, it's more than eight feet, but then you don't have the total. And when was that addition built? Well, again, it was there when she bought the house in '79, so it's almost fifty years ago. We could not find any records in the building department about when this when this was built. Or I guess we could have looked maybe at some
aerial photographs,
but Right. Would anybody else see those? Like, trees and everything? Prayer order? Lupicella.
Lupicella. One of the Lupicellas owned it. And her her husband, Robert Galzin, was a a long time village employee who tragically passed away this year. And Marlene is now, you know, sort of stuck with, you know, wanting to to legalize this, and it's falling upon her. And, you know, she she wants to to to get to legalize the house basically. Clean up. Yeah. So if we were to if we were to go through the the five factor analysis here, I mean, number one, whether it'd be an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. Again, this has been there for fifty years without complaint. Nobody's ever raised an objection about it. It was there at the time of repurchase, so it's it's it's been there for many years. Just again, it's on a street too where the the properties are fairly narrow, and there's a lot of structures that are close to the road there. Fact factor number two, whether the benefits sought by the applicant can be achieved by some other method. No. Not really. Unless you you you know, she had to, like, remove the the extension and demolish a portion of her house that she used how she used that she has used for fifty years. I mean, moving the shed too would would be a hardship because there's not. If you guys went in the backyard to see where the where the shed is, it's a very use small usable portion of of the backyard, back of our house. That's not not a steep slope, and that area is kind of underneath the the back porch that they have or the the back deck. Factor number three, whether the requested area is substantial. Well, as far as the side yard variance goes, yeah, there's no doubt that it's a a very substantial variance. But, again, it's it's something that we're legalizing something that's been preexisting without objection for, like, half a century, and and certainly was not a a self created hardship. Factor number four, whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the neighborhood.
I I again, it's been there for half a century. There nobody's complained about it. It's it's in a very modest house on a very small lot. So would it have a a that great of an effect? Probably not. And number five, whether the the alleged difficult difficulty was self created. Yeah. It was not self created in that she and her husband, she was 25 years old, bought this house that had this not only structure that was too close to the property line, it was actually on property that they didn't know. So they they sort of got bamboozled by,
the person they that sold it. Out when we took the permit on the driveway to get it replaced, And then we found out. We didn't know anything about laws or we just trusted the judge. I'm not excuse me. Not the judge, the lawyer. And, he never said anything to us about that strip of property. And we were living there all along
until the we got the permit for the driveway and found out everything. I I think that was Dan O'Connor who raised the flag, Who looked at it in real I think he looked at the tax map and he's you you could actually see the encroachment on the tax map.
That's funny. Yeah. So that that sort of, like, popped out on a The front yard variance is is essentially the the entryway. Correct. That's that's the encroachment. It's a, yeah, a little larger than a regular portico. And, yeah, it's enclosed.
Any other questions on the primary structure? Alright. With that, I will open the public hearing to see if there's anyone in the audience who wants to be heard on this application. Alright. Seeing no one, does everyone on the board feel like you make a decision on this application? Yes. The information before us? Yes. Yes. Alright. So I will close the public hearing, and open it up to well, so let's actually look at the factors. Let's start there. And then if other people wanna throw anything else. So in terms of and anyone say if you differentiate between the shed and the primary structure. So for both, propose no undesirable change in the character of neighborhood. Great. Alright. For both, I would say the benefits of letting these things remain and legalizing both structures cannot be achieved by method other than the request variance. Right. Yes. Alright. I would say that for both, it is substantial. Yes. But with respect to primary structure, it's been there for over fifty years. With respect to shed, it's of limited to no visibility on a plot with limited options. Mhmm.
The proposed variance will not have an adverse effect or impact. Agreed. Agreed. And I would say it was not self created with respect to the primary structure, but was self created with respect to the shed. Yes. Yes. Okay. There you go. Alright. With that, my English is to grant both, given that review, but curious other thoughts. I
Agreed. Yeah. Everyone's okay with this one? Okay. Did you want to make the final because it sounds like everyone's on the same page. We can do this one resolution with some differentiation. So I think we can do one.
You you can go out with a bang here. Yeah. Okay. Drum roll, please. And then if you need the numbers. Oh, yes. Okay. Thank you. Would it help if I recited the numbers this time? Okay. Anyway, motion is made for a variance request for 12 Hunter Place, which is a request for a side yard, total side yard, front yard a combination of side yard, total side yard, and front yard variances. I'm gonna read just what it has here. For the legalization of an existing front entryway and a side addition as well as the legalization of an existing deck and a side yard variance for the legalization of an existing shed. So made.
Do have a second? Second. Aaron seconded. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Granted. Thank you. Thank you very much. Good luck. Thank you.
Alright. With that, what remains are the village minutes for the last two meetings. Oh, yes. There's two. So we'll start with the oldest of the notes from July 22. Can we even do August without Doug? We're not gonna be able to do August. That's right. So we're gonna table August. I think
I wouldn't feel comfortable voting in favor of it since I wasn't here to say that it accurately reflects it. So I do think we well, the only problem no. This will be fine because Rocco was the other absent, so we should have I was worried if Rocco was the third, and then he won't be here after today. But he and I were the absent. So we just need one, two, and three here to go over these next time before we go off. Okay. Alright. So we're gonna hold on reviewing the August minutes. So everyone's keep those with the Irving materials. And then for July 22, I had non substantive edits. Just a few minor ones that I can hand off to you, Stephanie.
And did anyone else have any have a chance to review the minutes and have any edits to them for the July meeting?
Alright. Any other edits to the minutes? Alright. Then I will move to approve the July 2025 meeting minutes. Can I have a second? Second. Rocco is seconded. All in favor? Aye. With one absentee. Alright. And with that, the last thing I'll note in the minutes is thank you, Rocco, for your service. You. Greatly appreciated,
and we'll miss you. Yep. We will. Thank you. Very appreciated. Miss you guys too. Very good. Alright. That's it.