Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-08-04 - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK ;. 938 King Street Zoning Board of Appeals Tuesday, August 4, 2015 Meeting at 8:00 p.m. D NOV 17- 2015 Agenda VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK. 1. # 15-008 Thomas and Lorraine Lorys BUILDING DEPARTMENT 14 Parkwood Place Legalize the driveway expansion and new retaining wall 2. Approval of June 2, 2015 Zoning Board Summary BOARD: Steven Berger Andrew Kaminsky Joel Simon —Excused Jeffrey Richman Donald Moscato, Chairman STAFF: Michael Izzo, Building Inspector Philip Butler, Village Counsel Fred Seifert, Public Access Coordinator/IT Paula Patafio, Meeting Secretary BOARD LIAISON: Trustee David Heiser Mr. Donald Moscato, Chairman, welcomed everyone to the Zoning Board meeting of August 4, 2015. He introduced Village consultants and staff, and asked that anyone addressing the Board please come to the podium, use the microphone, and state their names and the nature of the application. Chairman Moscato called the only application on the agenda. Chairman Moscato noted for the applicants that one member of the Board was absent and, therefore, the applicants Zoning Board of Appeals August 4,2015 Page 1 of 1 will require four affirmative votes to obtain relief; otherwise, the applicants have the option of adjourning the matter to next month when a full complement of the Board may be present. 1. # 15-008 Thomas and Lorraine Lorys 14 Parkwood Place Legalize the driveway expansion and new retaining wall Steven Davis, Esq., of McCarthy Fingar, White Plains, NY, addressed the Board as legal counsel for the applicants. Mr, Davis explained that he has appeared to present the interpretation of the ordinance aspect of the application. Mr. Davis explained his interpretation of the Building Inspector's interpretation of the Village Code. He explained that the applicants are seeking to legalize a parking space which is more than 25 feet away from the street. He said the spot located at the rear of the driveway exceeds the dimensional requirements for a "parking space," as defined in the Village Code. He expressed the opinion that the Building Inspector has misapplied the Village Code to apply to a portion of the driveway which is not parking. He said the Village Coe does not apply to an area which merely facilitates parking within 25 feet of the street but which is not a parking space. The actual parking spaces in the driveway are more than 25 feet from the street. He further argued that the area of the driveway in question is merely access to the parking spaces located in the rear of the driveway. It is not unenclosed off- street parking. He seeks an interpretation from the Zoning Board of Appeals that the applicants do not violate the 25 foot setback for unenclosed off-street parking. He said the area of the driveway which is used for parking comply with all respects with the Village Code. Chairman Moscato asked what the bump out area on the driveway is, if not parking. Mr. Davis said it is access to the additional parking space. Chairman Moscato disagreed. He observed that direct access would mean travelling up the center of the driveway in front of the garages. He opined that Mr. Davis' distinction, calling the hatched area access, is an arbitrary argument. Mr. Kaminsky asked if a car can be parked in the hatched area noted on the applicant's plan. Mr. Davis responded that you could. Mr. Kaminsky added that, based on his reading of the code, that area is an illegal parking space. Mr. Davis argued that under the Village Code, the applicants must have access to a legal parking space and that is what was created. The hatched area on the plan is access, not parking. Mr. Berger noted that on other properties with bumped out driveways, the area nearer to the street is usually grass or landscaping which prevents parking within that area. Mr. Zoning Board of Appeals August 4,2015 Page 2 of 2 Davis responded that parking in this area of the driveway would be against the Code and the applicants wouldn't do it. Mr. Kaminsky expressed concern that the reason the application is before the Board is precisely because the applicants made these improvements to their property without seeking permits from the Village. Mr. Davis responded that the legality issue is irrelevant to the interpretation issue. Mr. Kaminsky responded that it is relevant with respect to the variance aspect of the application. Chairman Moscato asked about the distance from the corner of the garage to the retaining wall. Mr. Davis responded that it is 15 Meet. Chairman Moscato reiterated his opinion that the hatched area on the driveway is an additional parking space. He added that the areas in front of the garage are access space whereas the area within the bump out is capable of being used as parking. Mr. Richman recalled that this matter was previously addressed by the Building Inspector to eliminate the potential that this portion of the driveway be used for parking. Mr. Davis confirmed this was the case. He explained that the Building Inspector approved plans where there was curbing and grass in this area. However, he claimed this would have impeded use of the new parking space. Mr. Richman disagreed that access to the new prking space would have been prevented. Michael Izzo, the Building Inspector, reminded the applicant and the Board that he did not design the plan that came before him previously. The plan was submitted by the applicant's consultant, Charles Turofsky, after the work on the property was discovered by the Village. He added that neither he nor his deputy even suggested the idea for the plan. Mr. Davis responded that the issue is irrelevant. He said that all that is relevant is whether the driveway complies with the Village Code. He said all parking is more than 25 feet from the street and therefore the driveway complies with the Code and his applicants are entitled to a favorable interpretation from the Board. Philip Butler, the Village Attorney, addressed the Board. He explained that under the state Village Law and Village Code, the Zoning Board of Appeals has appellate jurisdiction only. The applicants can seek an appeal from an interpretation by the Building Inspector or another Village official, they cannot seek a decision on their own interpretation. Chairman Moscato asked Mr. Izzo to explain his logic behind the interpretation of the Code. Mr. Izzo directed the Board's attention to a plan submitted by the applicants and which was approved for a building permit, I2-035, on March 22, 2012. He showed the Board how the applicants were going to correct the issue for which the applicants were cited. He asserted that the applicants conceded that they were in violation of the Code because they submitted a plan to correct the issue by reintroducing the lawn area which Zoning Board of Appeals August 4,20I5 Page 3 of 3 they illegally removed, as shown on the plan. This is what the applicants were going to do to cure the violation. Mr. Izzo then referred to the new plan submitted to the Building Department and now before the Board. He noted the location of the cross-hatching. He noted there is nothing preventing the applicants from using the cross-hatched area as parking. He explained that the Code says you cannot create unenclosed off-street parking within 25 feet of the front lot line. He said because you can park on this area of the bump out, it is unenclosed off- street parking. He said the access is the area of the driveway directly in front of the garages. Anything else is additional parking area. Mr. Richman agreed that by starting the bump-out 9 feet from the front lot line, they created unenclosed off-street parking. Mr. Kaminsky addressed Mr. Davis. He noted that access to the new parking space can be achieved by using the other access ways on the driveway. He also recalled that since he has been on the Board, the issue of unenclosed off-street parking has come up several times. Every time, the Board is faced with the same interpretation and consistently applies the Code provision that same way. He felt the Code is clear on this issue. Mr. Berger suggested that if the retaining wall were moved away from the street, the applicants could still access the new parking space at the rear of the driveway without creating the area which is now being called additional parking. Mr. Davis asked the Board to rule on the interpretation issue. Mr. Butler advised that, before the Board acts, it should hear Mr. Izzo's articulation of his interpretation of the Code provision at issue. He also noted that the public hearing must be opened and then closed before the Board can take any action. Therefore, the Board should act on the interpretation and variance aspects of the application at the same time once the hearing is closed. Mr. Izzo addressed the Board. He explained that he and his predecessor both interpreted the Code the same way and that there is a history of precedent in the Village of applying the Code in this manner. If you bump out your driveway and are able to park a car in that area, it is unenclosed off-street parking, no matter where you claim you are going to park your car. Chairman Moscato asked for an informal poll from the Board members on the interpretation issue. The Board members all expressed their support for the Building Inspector's interpretation. On a motion by Mr. Berger, seconded by Mr. Richman, the public hearing was opened by unanimous vote of the Board members. Zoning Board of Appeals August 4,2015 Page 4 of 4 Mr. Berger expressed his opinion that there are viable options for preserving the new parking space at the rear of the driveway without creating the additional parking space within 25 feet of the street. Mr. Jeremy Rainato, agent for the applicants, addressed the Board. He explained that he has appeared to discuss the variances being requested. Mr. Rainato expressed his opinion that you might not be able to access the new parking space if the access is removed because there would not be as much turning radius. He added that if the applicants were to park in the prohibited portion of the driveway, the Village could issue them a ticket. Mr. Izzo responded that the Village can ticket for parking on the lawn, it cannot and does not issue tickets for people parking on certain parts of their driveways. AIso, the Building Department can determine what constitutes a parking facility, it does not police where cars are parked. Mr. Rainato presented a set of photographs to the Board of other properties in the neighborhood with bumped out driveways. He argued that bumped out driveways are common in the area. Some of them can accommodate parking within 25 feet of the street. Chairman Moscato asked if there driveways were permitted work. Mr. Rainato did not know. Mr. Kaminsky noted that the Board has no idea whether these driveways were permitted or not. He noted further that most of the driveways could not accommodate parking within 25 feet of the street. Mr. Rainato reiterated that he presented the photos to show that expanded driveways are common and that it may be related to a lack of on- street parking. Chairman Moscato recalled that the issue for the applicants is not that there is no parking but that they have five cars and the garage is filled with ATVs and jet skis. Mr. Kaminsky recalled the same information. Mr. Kaminsky recalled this history of the application and asked why the Board should consider granting variances when the applicants have delayed resolution of the issues by withdrawing their original variance application and waiting a year before coming back to the Zoning Board with the same application. Mr. Butler reminded the Board that the application must be reviewed in light of the five factors needed for a variance. The burden is on the applicants to present their case to the Board, which will determine if the applicants have met their burden based on the five factors. Any sentiment with respect to the history of the application should be minimized. Zoning Board of Appeals August 4,2015 Page 5 of 5 Chairman Moscato agreed and asked the applicants to come to the Board with a workable plan that is something both sides can work with. Mr. Rainato agreed that will be done, but asked to continue with his presentation of the application. Mr. Rainato reiterated his position that the bumped out driveway is a common feature of the neighborhood. The Board and Mr. Rainato discussed the character issue in some depth. Mr. Berger observed that nothing on the applicants' plan prevents the applicants from parking within 25 feet of the street. Mr. Rainato agreed. Mr. Berger explained that the Board is not looking to take away the parking space created at the rear of the driveway, it is looking for an option that preserves that space while eliminates the temptation to parking within 25 feet of the street. He added that there are feasible alternatives. Mr. Rainato agreed. Chairman Moscato expressed his opinion that these are substantial variances. Mr. Kaminsky said the applicant is seeking a 65% variance from the unenclosed off-street parking variance and a 10% variance on the impervious surface. Therefore, he felt the variances are substantial. Mr. Rainato conceded that the variances are substantial based on the Board's observations. Mr. Rainato presented a revised sketch plan to the Board showing the front portion of the bumped out driveway being returned to landscaping. Mr. Berger noted that this is exactly what the Board has been asking about. Mr. Izzo asked what is proposed for the restored area. Mr. Rainato said it will be plantings. Mr. Izzo asked if there will be a curb. Mr. Rainato said the might be. Mr. Izzo confirmed that this application will need to go before the ARB. Mr. Kaminsky asked what the issue was with the prior application in 2012. There was none; the application was approved by the ARB. Mr. Kaminsky expressed his opinion that the reduction of impervious area shown on the revised sketch plan is not enough. The property is still significantly over the maximum impervious surface coverage. Mr. Richman agreed the sketch plan is not sufficient. Mr. Kaminsky said a real plan is needed with calculations. Mr. Izzo asked what the impervious coverage would be if the entire improvement to the driveway were removed. Mr. Rainato estimated the area is approximately 400 square Zoning Board of Appeals August 4,2015 Page 6of6 feet. Mr. Izzo noted the applicants would still be over the impervious coverage maximum by 200 square feet. Mr. Rainato noted that the improvements to the rear yard were all permitted. Mr. Izzo confirmed that to be the case, but noted that the applicants provided the Building Department with inaccurate calculations. The Building Department learned that the calculations were inaccurate when the instant application was submitted. If the Building Department knew the actual impervious coverage, the improvements to the rear yard would have required a variance. Mr. Kaminsky asked whether the retaining wall is going to remain it its present location. Mr. Rainato responded that it will. Mr. Berger indicated that the Board needs to see a detailed plan showing the exact area that the applicants will return to landscaping. Mr. Kaminsky observed that, based on the revised sketch plan, the impervious surface coverage will only be reduced by approximately 48 square feet. Chairman Moscato asked about the rationale for the shape of the propsed landscaping. Mr. Rainato responded that the line from the retaining wall goes diagonally and matches up with the driveway pillar. Mr. Izzo observed that the line is very drastic and, in his experience, the ARB may take issue with the appearance of the proposed landscape area. The ARB will probably prefer to see something more graceful. Chairman Moscato added that restoring more of the driveway to Iandscaping will also shrink the size of the variance required. Mr. Rainato said making the landscaped area too Iarge will impact turning radius. Mr. Moscato responded that you don't turn around in a driveway. Mr. Moscato agreed that enlarging the landscape area will affect backing out of the driveway, but will not prevent it. He said the applicant can design a feasible alternative that enlarges the landscape area without blocking access to the new parking space. The Board felt the applicants are moving in the right direction, but that the proposal needs to be modified further to minimize the variance. Mr. Berger responded that the revised plan now before the Board is not sufficient information. The Board and applicants continued their discussion regarding possible modification of the driveway to decrease the variances. With respect to impervious surface coverage, Mr. Rainato proposed that the applicants will install a dry well or similar feature on the property to address storm water. Mr. Kaminsky asked whether storm water management would have been required if these Zoning Board of Appeals August 4,2015 Page 7 of 7 improvements were properly permitted. Mr. Izzo responded in the affirmative. The dry well would be installed in the rear of the property to catch storm water from the pool patio area. Mr. Moscato asked if this is intended to be an offset for the impervious coverage overage. Mr. Rainato responded in the affirmative. Mr. Kaminsky observed that the dry well will not do anything to combat run off on the front of the property unless its piped over. He questioned the utility of the proposed drain. Mr. Izzo suggested that the retaining wall can be moved instead of restoring a part of the driveway to landscaping. Mr. Rainato responded that relocating the wall would be more expensive and time-consuming because it is a moored wall. Chairman Moscato stated that the applicant should consider the Board's comments and come back with a concrete plan which addresses them. Mr. Berger agreed. The Board and Mr. Rainato discussed procedure going forward. Mr. Berger encouraged the applicants to come back as soon as possible and not to wait. Mr. Kaminsky added that the proposed dry well is not enough, in his opinion, and that the applicants should consider additional mitigation. Mr. Izzo confirmed that, if the impervious calculations on the rear yard improvements were correct, storm water management would have been required for the rear improvements. Mr. Moscato told Mr. Rainato to come back with a revised plan with calculations. The Board, with consent of the applicants, adjourned the public hearing to the September 2015 meeting. 2. Approval of June 2, 2015 Zoning Board Summary Mr. Moscato called for comments on the minutes. There being none, the minutes were approved by a vote of four ayes to zero nays. Steve Berger Voting Aye Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye Jeffrey Richman Voting Aye Don Moscato, Chairman Voting Aye Zoning Board of Appeals August 4,2015 Page 8of8 There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:28 p.m. Steve Berger Voting Aye Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye Jeffrey Richman Voting Aye Don Moscato, Chairman Voting Aye Zoning Board of Appeals August 4,2015 Page 9 of 9