Zoning Board of Appeals — June 27, 2011 (32 Front Street)

REGULAR MEETING

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

Nyack Village Hall                                                                                                                                                                             June 27, 2011

Nyack, New York

Present:           Catherine Friesen, Chair                                                         In Memoriam:

John Dunnigan                                                                        Raymond O’Connell

Robert Knoebel, Sr.

                        Ellyse Berg

Mary Ann Armano

Roger Cohen (alternate)

The following resolution was offered by Member  Friesen, seconded by Member  Armano, and carried based upon a review of the evidence presented at the public hearing held on June 27, 2011.              

BOARD OF APPEALS

VILLAGE OF NYACK, COUNTY OF ROCKLAND

——————————————————————–X

In the Matter of the application of Wesley and Ruth Chin (32 Front Street) for an Area Variance from VON Code  Section 360-4.3  (Table of Dimensional Standards)   to permit (1) a 16.1 foot front yard where 25 feet are required; (2) a 3 foot minimum side yard where 5.22 feet is required; and (3) a 13.5 foot combined side yard where 15.66 feet is required.

———————————————————————X

The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public meeting on the 27^th Day of June, 2011, and due deliberations having been made this day;

Now, upon said hearing and upon the evidence adduced thereat, it is hereby found and determined that:

FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

FIRST:           Applicant petitions the Zoning Board for the Variances noted above.              .

SECOND:      The ZBA, in reaching its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law has taken the following factual testimony and evidence under consideration:

1. The application and supporting documents submitted;
2. Testimony of Ruth Chin and Wesley Chin, Applicants, and Jane Slavin, Architect, on behalf of the Applicants.
3. Testimony of the following member of the public opposed to the application: Diane Jabis, 28 Front Street.
4. ZBA members knowledge of the site in question and site visits by all members.

THIRD:          The site in question is located in the TFR zoning district.  The Applicant purchased the property in approximately 1982 pursuant to the local zoning regulations.

FOURTH:      The applicant wishes to construct an addition to an existing single family home, which is currently non-conforming with respect to its front yard setback (currently 20.1 feet, where 25 feet is required); side yard setback (currently 4.2 feet where 5.22 feet are required) and total side yard setback (currently 14.7 feet where 15.66 feet are required).  The proposed renovations, which include the addition of a second story, the conversion of an existing, fully enclosed front porch to interior living area, and the installation of a new, unenclosed front porch, would increase those non-conformities to the degree set forth above. Specifically, the proposed front porch will decrease the front yard setback by four feet to 16.1 feet, and the installation of a new cellar door bulkhead on the south side will decrease the side yard setback to 3 feet and the combined side yard setback to 13.5 feet.  The main structure of the house on the sides is still within the existing setbacks.

FIFTH:           The addition of the new front porch, which is 4 feet deep by 12 feet wide, will not result in the removal of any significant trees.  The proposed front porch cannot, as a practical matter, be constructed any narrower and still balance functionality and aesthetics.  The existing cellar door cannot simply be moved because it does not meet the Building Code and the proposed cellar door bulkhead has the minimal depth required to meet the Code.  

SIXTH:           The ARB and the Planning Board both issued positive recommendations to this Board in relation to the variance requests.

SEVENTH:   This area variance is exempt from review under SEQRA as it involves a one or two family home.

These Findings of Fact were moved and passed 5-0.  

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:

Upon oral motion, the Board decided to consider the variances in an omnibus fashion.

The Zoning Board considered the factors set forth in Section 7-712-b of the Village Law of the State of New York as follows:

FIRST:           That the proposed variances do not create an undesirable change in the neighborhood.  (5-0)   

SECOND:      That no detriment to nearby properties will result from granting the variances.  (5- 0) .

THIRD:          That the Applicant has demonstrated that there are no other means by which she could achieve her purpose without the requested variances.  (5-0)

FOURTH:      That the variances are not substantial in light of the current conditions on the site. (5-0)

FIFTH:           That the hardship is self-created. (5-0)              

The Board has weighed the findings of fact and the conclusions of law against one another as required under Section 7-712-b of the Village Law of the State of New York and finds in the interest of justice that the variance(s) applied for should be GRANTED with the following condition, to which the applicant has consented.

(1)   The directives of the Architectural Review Board and Planning Board shall be followed.