Red Hook WatchIndependent Community Resource

RESOLUTION TO GRANT AN AREA VARIANCE

↑Meetings/Resolutions/(operational)
Activeformal_resolutionongoingThe Zoning Board grants the applicant Nicholas Sperry an area variance to permit a carport at the property line with no side yard setback, subject to the condition that the door accessing the porch from the second floor be removed and the roof of the carport not be used as living space, with wooden railings permitted as a decorative element.
First seen
2021-07-22
Latest event
2021-07-22
adopted
Expires
—

Resolution text

RESOLVED

  1. that the Zoning Board of Appeals makes the following findings in accordance with Section 7-712-b of the Village Law regarding the Requested Variance: (1) The Requested Variance will not result in an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood but will result in a detriment to nearby properties. The Property contains a one-family dwelling served by a driveway located in the eastern portion of the parcel. The driveway has been covered by a carport located within 1.5 feet of the neighboring parcel for decades. The current iteration of the carport at the property line with railings has been in existence for approximately 3 years. Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals and the public have reviewed the constructed carport and have determined that the impact to the character of the community from the carport structure with railings is not significant. The neighborhood will retain its present residential character if the Project is allowed. The grant of the Requested Variance will have a detrimental impact on a nearby property. Impacts on the property the Project abuts, 24 Prince Street, will be mitigated due to a fence and existing vegetation between the properties. Nevertheless, a second-story living space would be higher than the fence and occupants of the porch would be directly adjacent to and elevated above the 24 Prince Street property. (2) The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some other method feasible for the applicant to pursue. The applicant seeks to utilize the existing carport which has been constructed closer to the lot line than permitted and to continue to use the roof of the carport as living space. The location for the carport is necessitated by the location of the driveway and the Zoning Board of Appeals finds that it is not reasonably feasible to construct the carport elsewhere on the Property because of the small size of the parcel and the requirement for a 15-foot side yard and a 25-foot rear yard. The Property is approximately 40 feet x 107 feet. The applicant's goal to construct and use a second-floor deck is also limited by the size of the Property. (3) The Requested Variance for the carport to extend to the property line is substantial numerically but the impact of the variance is minimized by an existing fence and the open nature of the carport structure. The Requested Variance for outdoor, second-floor living space with no setback from the property line is numerically substantial and will substantially impact the neighboring property. (4) The Requested Variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The Project has already been constructed and some iteration of the carport has been in existence for decades. (5) The alleged hardship is self-created. Second-floor decks are not common in the neighborhood and are not necessary for the enjoyment of a single-family home.
  2. that the Zoning Board hereby grants applicant the Requested Variance, subject to the following conditions: (1) Payment of all fees and escrow. (2) The door accessing the porch from the second floor of the dwelling shall be removed and the roof of the carport shall not be used as living space. The wooden railings may remain as a decorative element.
Show preamble — 11 WHEREAS clauses
  • WHEREAS, on or about December 11, 1986, the Village of Red Hook Zoning Board of Appeals granted an area variance to allow construction within the side yard setback for a carport over an existing driveway serving a one-family dwelling in the R10,000 Zoning District (the "1986 Variance") for property identified as 28 Prince Street, tax no. 6272-10-337721 (the "Property")
  • WHEREAS, the 1986 Variance permitted a side yard setback of 1.5 feet where a 15-foot setback was required
  • WHEREAS, the applicant, Nicholas Sperry, a subsequent owner of the Property, reconstructed the carport to be closer to the property lot line and constructed a deck/porch with railings above the carport with a door installed on the second floor of the dwelling to provide a means of access to the deck/porch to be used as living space (the "Project")
  • WHEREAS, by letter dated December 11, 2020, the Village of Red Hook Code Enforcement Officer issued a Notice of Violation and Order to Remedy to Nicholas Sperry regarding the Project, stating that the 1986 Variance did not permit the installation of a porch above the carport and that the Project impermissibly intensified the use within the side yard setback (the "Notice of Violation")
  • WHEREAS, the applicant submitted an appeal of the Notice of Violation (the "Appeal") and has alternatively submitted an application for an area variance to allow a side yard setback of 0 feet where 15 feet is required in order to permit the Project as constructed (the "Requested Variance")
  • WHEREAS, the Project is depicted on plans entitled, "Sperry Residence," prepared by Michael R. Berta, dated December 15, 2012
  • WHEREAS, the neighboring landowners, the Wheelers, have provided an uncertified copy of a survey depicting the deck, entitled "Lands of Wheeler" dated January 7, 2020, prepared by John H. Decker L.S., 050572 (the "Survey")
  • WHEREAS, on January 28, 2021, the Zoning Board of Appeals determined, pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617.5, that both the Appeal and the grant of the Requested Variance are Type II actions under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and that no further review under the Act is required
  • WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was opened on February 25, 2021, and closed on May 27, 2021, during remote meetings held by the Zoning Board of Appeals in accordance with New York State Governor Cuomo's Executive Order 202.1 and the subsequent extensions thereof, during which all those who wished to speak were heard
  • WHEREAS, by resolution dated July 22, 2021, the Zoning Board of Appeals upheld the Notice of Violation and determined that the Project, due to its location and intensified use, is not permitted under the 1986 Variance and constitutes a violation of the Zoning Law
  • WHEREAS, the applicable standards for considering an area variance are set forth in Village Law Section 7-712-b, which requires the Board to take into consideration the benefit to the applicant if the variance is granted, as weighed against the detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the general neighborhood or community by such grant

Document references

Cites or incorporates
Cited by

Lifecycle (1 event)

2021-07-22adoptedvote: unanimous
Grant an area variance to allow a side yard setback of 0 feet where 15 feet is required for the carport structure, subject to conditions that the door to the porch be removed and railings remain as decorative elements.
moved by Reilingh · seconded by Ou-Yang
Show text snapshot for this event
Resolved
  1. that the Zoning Board of Appeals makes the following findings in accordance with Section 7-712-b of the Village Law regarding the Requested Variance: (1) The Requested Variance will not result in an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood but will result in a detriment to nearby properties. The Property contains a one-family dwelling served by a driveway located in the eastern portion of the parcel. The driveway has been covered by a carport located within 1.5 feet of the neighboring parcel for decades. The current iteration of the carport at the property line with railings has been in existence for approximately 3 years. Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals and the public have reviewed the constructed carport and have determined that the impact to the character of the community from the carport structure with railings is not significant. The neighborhood will retain its present residential character if the Project is allowed. The grant of the Requested Variance will have a detrimental impact on a nearby property. Impacts on the property the Project abuts, 24 Prince Street, will be mitigated due to a fence and existing vegetation between the properties. Nevertheless, a second-story living space would be higher than the fence and occupants of the porch would be directly adjacent to and elevated above the 24 Prince Street property. (2) The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some other method feasible for the applicant to pursue. The applicant seeks to utilize the existing carport which has been constructed closer to the lot line than permitted and to continue to use the roof of the carport as living space. The location for the carport is necessitated by the location of the driveway and the Zoning Board of Appeals finds that it is not reasonably feasible to construct the carport elsewhere on the Property because of the small size of the parcel and the requirement for a 15-foot side yard and a 25-foot rear yard. The Property is approximately 40 feet x 107 feet. The applicant's goal to construct and use a second-floor deck is also limited by the size of the Property. (3) The Requested Variance for the carport to extend to the property line is substantial numerically but the impact of the variance is minimized by an existing fence and the open nature of the carport structure. The Requested Variance for outdoor, second-floor living space with no setback from the property line is numerically substantial and will substantially impact the neighboring property. (4) The Requested Variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The Project has already been constructed and some iteration of the carport has been in existence for decades. (5) The alleged hardship is self-created. Second-floor decks are not common in the neighborhood and are not necessary for the enjoyment of a single-family home.
  2. that the Zoning Board hereby grants applicant the Requested Variance, subject to the following conditions: (1) Payment of all fees and escrow. (2) The door accessing the porch from the second floor of the dwelling shall be removed and the roof of the carport shall not be used as living space. The wooden railings may remain as a decorative element.
Whereas
  • WHEREAS, on or about December 11, 1986, the Village of Red Hook Zoning Board of Appeals granted an area variance to allow construction within the side yard setback for a carport over an existing driveway serving a one-family dwelling in the R10,000 Zoning District (the "1986 Variance") for property identified as 28 Prince Street, tax no. 6272-10-337721 (the "Property")
  • WHEREAS, the 1986 Variance permitted a side yard setback of 1.5 feet where a 15-foot setback was required
  • WHEREAS, the applicant, Nicholas Sperry, a subsequent owner of the Property, reconstructed the carport to be closer to the property lot line and constructed a deck/porch with railings above the carport with a door installed on the second floor of the dwelling to provide a means of access to the deck/porch to be used as living space (the "Project")
  • WHEREAS, by letter dated December 11, 2020, the Village of Red Hook Code Enforcement Officer issued a Notice of Violation and Order to Remedy to Nicholas Sperry regarding the Project, stating that the 1986 Variance did not permit the installation of a porch above the carport and that the Project impermissibly intensified the use within the side yard setback (the "Notice of Violation")
  • WHEREAS, the applicant submitted an appeal of the Notice of Violation (the "Appeal") and has alternatively submitted an application for an area variance to allow a side yard setback of 0 feet where 15 feet is required in order to permit the Project as constructed (the "Requested Variance")
  • WHEREAS, the Project is depicted on plans entitled, "Sperry Residence," prepared by Michael R. Berta, dated December 15, 2012
  • WHEREAS, the neighboring landowners, the Wheelers, have provided an uncertified copy of a survey depicting the deck, entitled "Lands of Wheeler" dated January 7, 2020, prepared by John H. Decker L.S., 050572 (the "Survey")
  • WHEREAS, on January 28, 2021, the Zoning Board of Appeals determined, pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617.5, that both the Appeal and the grant of the Requested Variance are Type II actions under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and that no further review under the Act is required
  • WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was opened on February 25, 2021, and closed on May 27, 2021, during remote meetings held by the Zoning Board of Appeals in accordance with New York State Governor Cuomo's Executive Order 202.1 and the subsequent extensions thereof, during which all those who wished to speak were heard
  • WHEREAS, by resolution dated July 22, 2021, the Zoning Board of Appeals upheld the Notice of Violation and determined that the Project, due to its location and intensified use, is not permitted under the 1986 Variance and constitutes a violation of the Zoning Law
  • WHEREAS, the applicable standards for considering an area variance are set forth in Village Law Section 7-712-b, which requires the Board to take into consideration the benefit to the applicant if the variance is granted, as weighed against the detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the general neighborhood or community by such grant
Subject key: sperry_28_prince_street_area_variance