Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting

Alright. Welcome everyone to the December and final meeting of the Croton on Hudson zoning board of appeals for 2025.

• In event of emergency, the exits are to your left, behind you, and right here.

• We will follow the agenda

• that we have for today. So there are two applications before us.

• And the first one is for 21 Elmore Ave. So when if it's your application, if you come up to the table,

• talk us through your application, what you're looking for and why.

• After we have some questions, we'll open up the hearing to the public for any comments you want to have on the application.

• Alright. So 21 Elmore is coming up.

• Turn that off.

• Yes. Hi.

• And welcome.

So I'm Joseph Arne, the architect for John O'Brien and Noel Sirico, owners of 21 Elmore Avenue.

• And the current house is a one and a half story building. We're hoping to build a second story dormer on the back of the house to increase headroom and therefore expand the existing usable space.

• The new area will increase the size of the existing bedroom and provide a full bathroom.

• The original building was permitted and built in 1950

• and was therefore governed by the 1931 zoning code. It was located in District C, which is now R A 5.

• On 11/12/2001,

• the zoning board of appeals approved a west side yard variance,

• which was not in conformity due to its chimney.

• The 1931 zoning code had a chimney exception of 18 inches, and the building would have complied

• when it was constructed.

• At some point after 02/2001,

• a 20 foot

• total

• side yard setback requirement was added to the zoning code.

• The total side yard setback is currently 17.4

• feet, and we are requesting a 2.6

• foot total side yard variance.

• The new dormer would not increase any front, rear, or side setbacks.

• We have reviewed the surrounding area for consistency with our proposed changes.

• There are several one and a half story homes that have added dormers in the vicinity of the property, so the proposed changes

• would be in keeping with the neighborhood.

• For example, 25 Elmoore Avenue has a dormer in the front.

• The proposed design intent can only be achieved with a variance for the building addition. It's most efficient structural approach to build on top of the existing exterior walls with their existing noncompliant setbacks.

• And to do this, a variance would be necessary.

• The requested areas

• area variance is not substantial.

• There will be no adverse effect or impact on the environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district,

• and the difficulty is self created.

• So that is what I have to present and if you have any questions.

My first question is really just a confirmation from what I saw of the property by adding this dormer. Yes. You're not blocking any river views. It looks like actually

• there's really no views that are getting blocked by adding the dormer from what I could tell, but have you seen anything else or heard anything different? I I don't see that as being having any impact. Do

you have any

awareness of that? No.

No. And since it's in the rear,

• it it really is infecting the street so much.

• It wouldn't be that noticeable. Maybe from the sides you could see, but really

• not so much.

And

• the 20 foot total

• side yard that was enacted

• that was enacted 2001.

Don't know exactly. After the Yes. I don't know what date that was, but

• it was well after.

So there's really no anything

• you did on this house

• would require variance essentially?

No.

• No. I mean, we're we're not doing anything that would that would trigger anything more increase than the existing ones.

Right. But still it's still

a So the total He's just saying he's just saying because you're increasing the degree of nonconformity. Correct. Any any going any additional Correct. That's why we're here for a variance. Yes. Right. But anything you did with, looking

at alternatives,

• any alternative would have the same problem. Correct.

Any other questions?

• So it's not there's nothing about the actual

• bump out

• that needs variance. What we're talking about is making sure that this project conforms to the current code because prior

• variances was

• granted.

• The total side yard the total side yard requirement had not existed yet. That's my understanding. So that's that's what they're that's what they're they're.

Yes. Correct?

• I mean, as I'm making a change to the building and it doesn't conform to the current code,

• I would have to return to get the variance for that aspect. And so the total

• side yard

• variance

• would be required in the situation prior.

Any

• other questions while I open the public hearing? Alright.

• Well, with that, I'm going to open the hearing to the public to see if anyone in the audience would like to be heard on this application.

• Alright. Does the board feel like you make a decision on the materials before them? Yes. Yes. Yes. I do too. I will therefore close the public hearing and open it up for comments, and we can go through the five factors.

I

• I you know, as I said before, I there's nothing else. You would always need a variance pretty much to do anything here just because of the nature of the law and the nature of the code and what they're proposing is certainly not,

• you know, not a detriment to the community. No one will see the the addition.

Alright.

• So let's go through no undesirable change to the neighborhood. Sounds like everyone agrees with that. Very

• good.

• So I'm gonna slightly change the wording to number two. The benefits sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by a method other than a variance.

Right. I wouldn't say that.

Alright. The request variance is not substantial. Two and some 2.4 ish. I would write it. Three, it's not substantial. Small percentage. Alright. Alright. It

• will not have an adverse effect or impact.

• Agree. And it was self created? Yes. Yes. Alright.

With that, who would like to make the motion? I'll make a motion to grant a two foot six

• Two point six. Point six foot

• total side yard variance.

I'll second.

• All in favor? Aye. You're

all set. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Good luck. Thank you. Thank you. And

as we adjust our papers,

• if

• 43 Riverview would like to make your way up and settle in.

• Alright. If you could give us your name, address, what you're here for, and why, please.

My name is Norm Janssen. I'm with Westchester Monitor Construction,

• and we are here for

• 42 Riverview Trail owned by Roseanne McDonald,

• existing lot that has an ADU structure on it now that will be torn down.

• And the variances that

• we're asking for

• is a

• the

• what is it called, the

• front yard setback

• that's further in front of the actual res the the primary residence,

• which is

• primary residence structure setback is 45.7

• feet.

• Our new ADU structure is 24

• 24 inches 24 feet five inches, and we're asking for the variance of Quest of 21

• feet two inches.

• And, also, a

• minimal building height

• variance.

• An ADU is required allowed at 15 feet,

• and

• our median height of the structure, the new proposed structure, is 18 feet three inches, and we're asking for that variance of three feet three inches.

• As you

• can see with the

• existing

• photos

• and

• area that it's a very private

• dead end road

• that

• we feel is gonna have minimal impact

• on the neighborhood.

• And

• the design that we are proposing

• works with

• the existing house

• and neighborhood.

• So

• that is our request this evening.

How how high is the existing I I drove back up there earlier

• this evening.

• How how high is that existing structure?

It's falling down. The roof has given them. So, yeah, the whole back of the roof. It looks like it's a bit No. I asked how high it was. I I saw that it's I I saw that it's in bad condition. It's it's it's starting to collapse, and and we it needs to be replaced while it's still standing. But from the pictures, I mean, I didn't get out in measurement when I was there, but I would say it's maybe 12 to 13

• feet at that top ridge. Yeah. Okay. It was a flat roof, so there was no feet. Mhmm. It it it the mano slope to the back there.

So I don't see any pictures in our packet. I don't know.

No. Didn't see any.

• Yeah. Didn't there were no pictures. Yeah. We just got the survey and some elevation out of roof. Yeah. Okay.

So

okay. So this is existing. We'll pass it. Yes. In

relationship to the existing, where is the new going? In front of you? Going is the actual new the new

• building

Right.

• Does this is this also planning board?

• Yes.

• And that's after this? Correct. Yeah. Right. They need this variance these variances

• to go to the planning board.

And, also, the cottage that it's there now,

• it's a nice sort. Yeah. So if anything we do there, it only beautifies

• the property.

So existing

• cottage doesn't

• conform.

• Right? No.

• It was probably pre date zoning probably. No. It it got it got the variances it needed. It started out, I believe, as a garage.

• Correct. And

• it got the variance for being closer to the street.

• And then it was converted to

• I I forget exactly the term, but it's what was guest house. No. Cooking than us buying the house. Yeah. Summer for summertime. It is special permits. There was a special permit. No

• cooking facilities were allowed in there.

• So it does have a history. It was permitted to get to the point where The structure was permitted. It was not the

• Well an AUD at at the time. And it wasn't an AU per se.

• I forget what they call it. They call it a they call it a guesthouse. Yeah. Okay. A guesthouse. But paperwork. Not quite a full living facility,

• but

• a spot where somebody could sleep but not

• cook.

• You gotta go back to the.

• That was in '62.

• Right. Exactly.

• Elvis was in '2.

• Have you

• been in contact with your neighbors?

All of them.

• My

• 1st Street neighbor,

• she said, I'm not coming to the meeting.

• I'm all for it. Letters. And then there was a gentleman living up

• North North Ledge Loop. He came down

• on Saturday

• to tell me if you need a letter,

• I'll be more

• happy to give you one, but I have no problem. That moved in to

the red house. I forget the

• don't know. She We she hasn't been there. She just purchased them

over the summer. So

• if anything, they'll be happy to see something new other than seeing a broken down cottage.

Right.

• Right.

Just to reinforce the topography makes anything behind the house simply not feasible. Right. I mean, without

incurring

• an incredible amount of money and foundation.

• Mhmm. And, you know, we're trying to

• we wanna make sure the house sits correctly on the land and doesn't incur

• it being two stories and the battalion foundation and such. So we wanna tuck it in there and and and make

• it work for the neighborhood. Any

I

• reviewed the application several times. I don't think I saw

• anything explaining the need for the height variance.

• There's there's there's there's excuse me. There's some drawings,

• and

• it's not it's not clear to me why

• the proposed

• ADU

• couldn't be

• compliant with the 15 foot height.

With I'm I think one of the main reasons is in the design, we wanted something that matched

• the same pitch as the existing house

• because we're gonna clad it the same way,

• etcetera. No. There's you know, that is the main reason we,

• you know, decided

• to ask for a variance on the height.

• And with the height of foundation and finding that median height, it just, you know, it just happened to work out that that we needed that three foot three inches

• to to make that happen correctly.

• So the current structure

• is 18.3?

• Yes. 18.3.

• So

• and I guess we're also we felt that because of the way it sits on the street and the neighborhood as a very, very dead end street,

• very quiet,

• not much

• neighbors or movement that it would, you know, tuck in there nicely and and and and and look nice with the other house.

That's it. Does does

• Westchester Modular have

• other designs?

Of course. It could Well, we have a you know, roof heights. I mean, we could change the pitch of the roof if need be. We were just trying to, you know, give a nice look to it. That's all.

Was the height calculation influenced by the angle of the ground at all? Yeah. I mean, what we're trying to, you know, find that that

spot where we pushed back enough, but not too far back so we don't hit the

• hit the hill in the back and stuff. So but, I mean, that

• was the know, it it's the standard our it's our standard box height

that's livable for me.

• You know? And I have enough space.

• Yeah.

So and just a heads up, if we're

• gonna open the public hearing, if you for the microphone wasn't picking up just so you know when you were talking. Oh, wow. So, yeah, if you could just lean in for any future comments. Alright.

• So I'll open the public hearing.

• Sure.

• With that, public hearing is open. Would anyone like to be heard on this application?

• Yes.

• Yes. You're gonna have to.

• Yeah. And would you mind just vacating for a second so she can have the mic? Perfect. Thank you very much.

I can say, Donald, I'm I'm sorry for the loss of your husband. And who are you? I'm Stacy Nachtaylor.

• I live in the village, and I'm also trustee.

• And my question is

• just concerning parking

• because I noticed on the street, it it doesn't appear that you can park on the street. It's There will be a a driveway.

Alright. So so road and driveway. Angie's my driveway is big enough to park

10 cars. Is not an issue. Okay. So you might park 20 So so just one second, though. If you could just direct your concerns to us Sure. And we'll then have you go back, and we can follow-up. That sounds great. Perfect.

So, Mike, I see that there is a new gravel parking area as part of the home design or the and I just wanted to understand what that was for, what it could accommodate,

and just to understand whether there would be enough parking issue with Yeah. Granting this variance. Thank you. Perfect. Just hold hold on one sec. We're gonna anything else you wanna share? No. That's all. Okay. Thank you very much. And then so just hold one sec. Yeah. Let her make her way back. You can come on back.

• And so following up on parking for the ADU and the main house, could you talk through that gravel lot and how many people can accommodate

• keeping in mind the microphone fees? First

of all, she doesn't even need to park in the gravel lot because my driveway is huge.

• It's big driveway. And be an option. It could be an option, and it's our property. Mhmm. And it doesn't impact anybody.

• And there is

• man much property in between the gravel

• driveway

• to the next house.

• So it will not impact that house whatsoever.

• And

• if it need to be, she could park in my driveway. She does no one needs to park in the street.

• We usually get people from up all over up the hill.

• When there has something going on, they come the bottom of the hill and park.

• Not related to us, but whoever

• they have parties or whatever, they park on the bottom of the hill.

• But, you know, as far as us, we don't park on the street.

You guys Yeah. We proposed this 20 by 25 foot gravel

• in front of the house, as you can see,

• with a concrete sidewalk and a stair up to the house simply so that Annette can park close to her home and carry groceries in. I mean, that's the basic issue we had in. And the fact that it's a dead end driveway or a dead end turnaround down there, it's yeah. I mean, if

• for some reason, the town would want us to have it, which, like I said, and then the park Yeah. In her mother's driveway. But I think that

• a little driveway close to your front steps is nice for, you know, somebody who lives there. And just because it came up, is parking a lot on the street?

If if ever need be, is parking a lot on your street? On the street. Yeah. For sure. And,

again, this will be going for the planning board where Right. There's planning board will will be discussing these in detail. And it's not like anyone it's a dead end cul de sac. Mhmm. Right. There's

four houses on the road. Mhmm.

• So

When was the last time that the existing

• ADU was occupied?

Yeah.

• It's just been storage for

• since, like, what, 1984?

• Nineteen

• Nineteen eighty

• So 1986.

• No one's lived here.

I'll see if is there anyone else in the audience who would like to be heard on this application.

• Does the board feel prepared to make a decision on the application this evening?

• Yes. I do. I do. Yes. Alright. With that, I will close the public hearing

• and open it up for board conversation of the five factors and any other thoughts.

Just wanted to ask one thing.

• We've only had

• several ADUs since I've been on the board.

• Do we feel like there's a precedence issue with the height at all?

So

• I mean, every application from my perspective is unique to the location, the character of the neighborhood, all of that.

• So I don't personally, I don't have an issue with the height because I do we have we do have precedent in that. We'll take into account the orig the house itself and trying to match the style, etcetera, of the house because we want this to be a positive addition.

• And if it's not consistent with the style of the house, it just looks off. So we'd have had precedent to that that sometimes variances have kind of been tied to that desire, the aesthetic desire.

Yeah. I would guess the one that And it would be more. I would guess the one we approved on Ben Benwick.

• That was the old bed and breakfast,

which of that is probably close to 18 feet. Mhmm.

Garages, we've gone above because of the pitch of the roofs to match the pitch of the roofs for garages. And was that an existing building that was being converted? That's why I needed a variance.

Or was that a new building? It was basically a garage

into a

Right. And so in order to comply, they would have had to bring the building down, which obviously is can be problematic.

Yeah. Mhmm. I'm just talking about president. Right. Are you Like, I agree with

• Christine.

Each application.

• So Right. And also the impact on neighbors and block it. This We had in the past where additions were blocking views of of of neighbors. This doesn't seem to be the case

• in this instance.

And it's

it is quite an ice storm.

Right.

• I go up there. It's four to five. I'm gonna get there before it got dark so I can see.

It's a cold side. And I I do think it's important to

• architecturally to try to match,

• you know, contextually try to make make a work with the existing structure. Yeah. That's that's It kinda looks like a

shed.

Right. So so I think that's important. Going with it. You know, it'll it'll be improvement.

And and, you know, I think it's

• I'm trying to promote

• ADUs

• in the in the village as a public

• policy

• initiative.

• And this wasn't.

Is it still

permit It it it was a It was a cottage. Was a cooking. It was a guest whatever you it was a it was like a But it was a place somewhere It was like a Cato Kalein Yeah.

Was like a summer guest house according to the

• the documents from 1962.

From back in the day. Yes.

Alright. Let's go through the five factors.

• The

variance for the accessory structure in front of the building, those don't typically come with dimensions. It's either you're approving it in

• in front or not.

• I don't I don't think I don't think we should

• Right. Prove the variance based on the distance. It's just the fact that it's in front of the primary. Right. And It's either or. It's not a distance.

It's a yes, no, and and and it's in accordance with the documents submitted. So there's two variances. The yes, no, and the height. Correct. Yep. Okay.

• So do we need to consider

I was gonna ask, do people feel that they would vote differently based on the two different variances that are needed

• such that we should vote on them separately?

I personally don't. I don't need to. I don't need to. I don't need to.

Alright. So I will make the motion for a variance

• for a structure,

• an ADU structure

• ahead of the primary structure

• and a height variance of

• it says three

• three foot three inches or three point three? Three foot three inches. Alright. Let's say three foot five three foot five inches to be safe

• for the heights.

• Could I get a second? I'll second. Alright. Second. All

Sorry hear. Sorry to hear about your dad and your husband. I was on the board with him for a number of years. I didn't I didn't I didn't know that.

Alright.

• Let's

• go over the five factors. I think I heard everyone say no undesirable change,

• and in fact, be an improvement.

• Benefit saw can

be achieved by method that well Yeah. It could've because Yeah. It could could could could have been a 15 foot. Is there proposed a 15 foot height,

but the proposed

• structure

• the

• thing. The

• then the

thing.

And, you know, it conforms with the ADU

• limitation on square footage. It's Right. We use these.

That would have been a bitter in terms of precedent. They were asking for a variance on that. That would have been a Yeah. The 800 square feet. Yes.

Because that's where you create a person. Yes. Like, oh, now. I believe that's something that This was 900. I want a thousand. Right? It's authorized to go over that 800 square foot. Mhmm. So Is there a limitation on bedrooms, or is it it's just square foot? So you could do a two bedroom, 800 square foot. Yes.

I think it is substantial generally. Just a yes, no. We say yes. Substantial.

• Yes. Yes. Substantial. Is it substantial? Is it substantial? I don't think I don't think it's substantial.

• I think the accessory structure part is substantial. Front of the primary residence. Usually like a carport or something smaller. This is like a cottage. So it is I think it's substantial. Correct? I think I might have responding to a different question than Doug was answering. Oh, so and and I was going towards it. It's all so taking apart the two variances in terms of the this this

• cottage now being

• in front of the primary structure. Okay. That is generally approach that. It's like a yes, no. It's yes. It's Yeah. The height,

• I think, is on the cusp. I

think it's a technical. I mean, we're talking about 3% of interest in that. It's a pitched roof. It's a pitched

• Right.

• Yeah. Think it's important to be a document.

Like, the y here. Yeah.

• Like,

• Will not have an adverse effect or impact? Yes.

• And was self created. I know the thing's falling down, but designed for a close. Oh, real? Mhmm. Yeah.

• Alright. Steph, apologies.

• Can help you. Alright.

• That brings us to approval of the minutes from last meeting,

• which is a whole single piece of paper. Very

• nice. And I didn't have a single edit. Yeah. I didn't either.

You joined me.

Alright.

Do you want me to hold while you take a look?

No. No. I was actually looking at this.

Oh, okay. It

• is. It is. Alright. So I'll make a motion to approve the meeting minutes for the October 28 meeting.

• I'll second. Perfect.

• All in favor? Aye. And we're all here. Love it.

• Alright.

• And our final item, rules and procedures.

• I do have some recommended adjustments to this one that I can walk through when folks are ready and then anyone else as well. I see some markups.

• So if I want to go section by section

• through these,

• first, the first one I have is in section one.

• Anyone have to the intro part?

• Any edits to the intro? The whereas statements.

• No. My

• proposal for the first section is to remove

• the specification that it's on the third Tuesday of each month by 7PM because at times, we do have to change that. If we're going to change it in this official document, you have to repass it every time.

• So I propose something more generic that regular meetings will be held once a month, except in August. We do have to clarify that as well.

• Yep. They are held at a consistent day and time as detailed on the website, and then it goes back to any deviation will be announced in advance. Right. Does that work? I did. Yeah. Yeah. I Sounds good. Yep. Does that work for everyone? Yeah. Mhmm.

You

know, if I made the last couple of motions, it's okay. Anything

• in two, three, four

• from anyone? Any proposed edits on 02/03, four?

• Alright. Five, I propose removing subsection c.

• I know the board trustees does it, but we don't have liaisons to anything.

• We don't appoint anyone to be

• a member on anything else. So I think we just that seems more of a board of trustees thing. Yeah. Yeah.

• That makes that. Everyone good with that?

• Who by the way, who drafted this? So it's a combination. I know we had had some inputs in it. Board of trustees have had some inputs on it. I think the village manager

• yeah. Staff worked on it. And and

• this is a brand new document. It is. It wasn't a previous person. It wasn't, and this would be helpful to someone coming on the board. Yeah. Didn't

• we pass it, like, yeah, like, a year ago or nine months? So it's new. It's new to this year.

• Mhmm.

• Got it. Mhmm. Okay. Thank you.

• Yeah.

• No. No. No. No. There is the applicant has the time limit. Any commenters have the ten minutes to

• Oh, yeah. That's in. That I'm sorry. That

• is on it's on f. It's six f. I just want the time ten minutes.

• The applicants don't have a time limit then but then six f. Right. Speakers other than applicants shall limit their remarks to ten minutes.

• Right. The

• next section I have something on is seven, if anyone has anything before that.

• I just proposed the second sentence of a

• is it talks about what should be included in the meeting minutes, but that's really part of subsection b

• is what should be included in the meeting minutes. That's too tough. So I just want to move that second sentence

• to number six,

• and then six becomes seven. So that

• it's subsection b that talks to what should be in the minutes as opposed to it being this weird kind of thing in a or miss Westminster last time I heard.

So they gave up on this whole idea of

No. No. That's what the board of trustees do.

• Right. The the alternate member is it's it was never part of this document. That that's a separate thing that's still with the board of justice.

• Oh. Yeah. So this has nothing to do with the alternate member. Oh, so they're still discussing. Mhmm. And

• then we can probably hear from the liaison. Shouldn't that be part of this? At some point, maybe. Yeah.

Because there's rules and

procedures to that person. Yeah. Once we get the clarification, maybe it's not in the one thing they passed, but we can get some clarifications Right. Right. In later.

• Yeah.

• I was like, Christina.

• My only other edit is to nine.

• It says meeting shall be adjourned by motion.

• And I recommend I mean, generally, we don't do that. It's that the residing officer just ends the meeting when agenda the items are completed.

• So I just recommend changing that to meeting shall be adjourned by the presiding officer once all agenda items have been completed.

• And

• I didn't see anything I checked in, like, New York State laws and rules procedure, any of that stuff that require us to put you in the meeting by motion.

• So that should be fine. But, obviously, if the village manager has an issue, he can he can say as much, but it should be fine just the providing officer to end it.

• Fine. Any

• other proposed edits?

• And I will make a motion to

• pass the zoning board of appeals rules and procedures as we amended as we just described.

• Doug seconded. All in favor? Aye.

• Aye. Unanimous.

• That is it.

• I will officially adjourn the meeting. Alright.

Thank you. Alright. Thank your service. Thank

you all for making it