Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-09-01 - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK 938 King Street Zoning Board of Appeals I... "ATE— l-W66 Tuesday, September 1, 2015 Meeting at 8:00 p.m. p EC ENE Agenda Nov 17 2015 1. # 15-008 (adjourned from 81412015) Thomas & Lorraine Lo VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK �'s BUILDING DEPARTMENT 14 Parkwood Place Legalize the driveway expansion & new retaining wall. 2. # 15-012 Jennifer Ashley 244 Betsy Brown Road Construct new elevated deck. 3. Approval of August 4, 2015 Zoning Board Summary BOARD: Steven Berger Andrew Kaminsky Joel Simon 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 Zoning Board of Appeals September 1,2015 Page 1 Mr. Donald Moscato, Chairman, welcomed everyone to the Zoning Board meeting of September 1, 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. He noted that there was a full complement of the Board. 1. # 15-008 Thomas and Lorraine Lorys Adjourned from August 4, 2015 14 Parkwood Place Legalize the driveway expansion and new retaining wall Jeremy Renato, Architect, appeared on behalf of the applicants Thomas and Lorraine Lorys. Mr. Renato reviewed the proposed changes to the application. First, the driveway is being modified to remove 86 square feet or paving at the northeast corner of the driveway. This area will be converted to lawn or landscaping. This modification will reduce the impervious surface coverage from 35% to 33%. In addition, the applicant proposes a dry well located in the back yard of the residence, which will provide stormwater management. Board Member Steven Berger asked whether the new landscaped area on the driveway will have a curb. Mr. Renato responded that there will be a curb. Board Member Andrew Kaminsky recalled the history of this application and inquired how there can be assurance that the work approved by the Village will be carried out in conformity with the plans. Building Inspector Michael Izzo responded that the applicants have six (6) months from the date the variance is granted in which to pull a building permit for the work. They then have 18 months to complete the work. Finally, the as- built survey of the property will need to reflect conformity with the approved plans. The work can then be field verified and matched to the as-built survey. Mr. Moscato called for questions or comments from members of the public wishing to be heard in support or opposition to the application. There being no one, Mr. Steve Berger made a motion, and it was seconded by Andrew Kaminsky, for the public hearing to be declared closed and the roll was called: Steven Berger voting aye Andrew Kaminsky voting aye Jeffrey Richman voting aye Joel Simon voting aye Donald Moscato, Chairman voting aye Zoning Board of Appeals September 1,20I5 Page 2 The Board began deliberation and reviewed the five factors used to determine whether or not to grant a variance. Mr. Moscato read the following resolution: VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS RESOLUTION 14 Parkwood Place— Lorys (Application#15-008) WHEREAS, an application (Application #15-008) has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Lorys (the "Applicants") seeking a 520.7 square foot total impervious surface coverage variance from Section 250-37.C. of the Village Code, in connection with the proposed legalization of a driveway expansion and front retaining wall on real property located at 14 Parkwood Place, in an R-15 zoning district on the south side of Parkwood Place, approximately 270 feet from the intersection of Parkwood Place and Lawridge Drive. Said premises being known and designated as Parcel 129.67-1-41 on the Village of Rye Brook tax map; and WHEREAS, on April 21, 2015, the Applicants submitted an application to the Rye Brook Building Department seeking to legalize a driveway expansion, new retaining wall and related improvements (collectively referred to herein as "the driveway improvements") in the front yard of the above-described property; and WHEREAS, on June 10, 2015, the Building Inspector denied said application on the grounds that, inter alia, the driveway improvements violated the Section 250- 6.G.(1)(d)[2] of the Village Code, prohibiting unenclosed off-street parking within 25 feet of the front lot line, and Section 250-37.0 of the Village Code, prescribing maximum impervious surface coverage of 6,123.3 square feet on the subject property; and WHEREAS, the Applicants submitted the instant application to the Rye Brook Zoning Board of Appeals appealing from the Building Inspector's interpretation of Zoning Board of Appeals September 1,2015 Page 3 Section 250-6.G.(1)(d)[2] of the Village Code, and in the alternative seeking relief from said provision, and seeking relief from Section 250-37.C. of the Village Code; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing on the application was opened August 4, 2015, at which time all persons wishing to be heard on the application were given such opportunity; and WHEREAS, in response to comments received by the Board, the Applicants amended their application to eliminate the need for the interpretation of/relief from Section 250- 6.G.(1)(d)[2] of the Village Code; and WHEREAS, the Applicants still require relief from Section 250-37.C. concerning the maximum impervious surface coverage; and WHEREAS, the Board closed the public hearing on the Application on September 1, 2015; and WHEREAS, the Proposed Action is a Type II Action pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), and accordingly, no further environmental review is required; and NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board, after viewing application, the premises and neighborhood concerned, and upon considering each of the factors set forth at Section 250-13(G)(2)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brook Code, finds with respect to the total impervious surface coverage variance: 1) The variance [WILL/WILL NOT] create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood; 2) The benefit the applicant seeks [CAN/CANNOT] be achieved through another method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, that does not require a variance; 3) The variance [IS/IS NOT] substantial; 4) The variance [WILL/WILL NOT] create an adverse impacts to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and 5) The need for the variance [IS/IS NOT] self-created; and Zoning Board of Appeals September 1,2015 Page 4 THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that said application for the total impervious surface coverage variance is hereby [GRANTED/DENIED] on the conditions that (1) the driveway shall be modified in accordance with the amended plan submitted to the Board by removing the Belgian blocks in the northeast corner of the driveway, replacing same with landscaping approved by the Village and installing of a curb delineating the newly landscaped area; and (2) the driveway on the subject property shall not be enlarged, reduced or otherwise modified—except for ordinary repair and maintenance—without prior approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Dated: September 1, 2015 Don Moscato, Chairman Chairman Moscato called the roll: Andrew Kaminsky Voting: Aye Nay Abstain Absent Don Moscato Voting: Aye Nay Abstain Absent Jeffrey Richman Voting: Aye _ Nay Abstain Absent Joel Simon Voting: Aye Nay Abstain Absent Steven Berger Voting: Aye Nay Abstain Absent Ayes Nays Abstain Absent Mr. Moscato called the roll on a motion to adopt the resolution approving the variance: Steven Berger Voting aye Andrew Kaminsky Voting aye Jeffry Richman Voting aye Joel Simon Voting aye Don Moscato, Chairman Voting aye The variance was granted on a vote of 5 ayes to zero nays. Zoning Board of Appeals September I,2015 Page 5 D E MWED VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK SEP - 2 205 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS VILLAGE CLERK'S OFFICE RESOLUTION 14 Parkwood Place—Lorys (Application #15-008) WHEREAS, an application (Application #15-008) has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Lorys (the "Applicants") seeking a 520.7 square foot total impervious surface coverage variance from Section 250-37.C. of the Village Code, in connection with the proposed legalization of a driveway expansion and front retaining wall on real property located at 14 Parkwood Place, in an R-15 zoning district on the south side of Parkwood Place, approximately 270 feet from the intersection of Parkwood Place and Lawridge Drive. Said premises being known and designated as Parcel 129.67-1-41 on the Village of Rye Brook tax map; and WHEREAS, on April 21, 2015, the Applicants submitted an application to the Rye Brook Building Department seeking to legalize a driveway expansion, new retaining wall and related improvements (collectively referred to herein as "the driveway improvements") in the front yard of the above-described property;and WHEREAS, on June 10, 2015, the Building Inspector denied said application on the grounds that, inter aiia, the driveway improvements violated the Section 250-G.G.(1)(d)[2] of the Village Code, prohibiting unenclosed off-street parking within 25 feet of the front lot line, and Section 250-37.0 of the Village Code, prescribing maximum impervious surface coverage of 6,123.3 square feet on the subject property; and WHEREAS, the Applicants submitted the instant application to the Rye Brook Zoning Board of Appeals appealing from the Building Inspector's interpretation of Section 250-6.G.(1)(d)[21 of the Village Code, and in the alternative seeking relief from said provision, and seeking relief from Section 250-37.C. of the Village Code; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing on the application was opened August 4, 2015, at which time all persons wishing to be heard on the application were given such opportunity; and 1313/12/5502250 8131115 w , } WHEREAS, in response to comments received by the Board, the Applicants amended their application to eliminate the need for the interpretation of/relief from Section 250- G.G.(1)(d)[2] of the Village Code; and WHEREAS, the Applicants still require relief from Section 250-37.C. concerning the maximum impervious surface coverage; and WHEREAS, the Board closed the public hearing on the Application on September 1, 2015; and WHEREAS, the Proposed Action is a Type II Action pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), and accordingly, no further environmental review is required; and NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board, after viewing application, the premises and neighborhood concerned, and upon considering each of the factors set forth at Section 250-13(G)(2)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brook Code, finds with respect to the total impervious surface coverage variance: 1) The variance FMWILL N W4create an adverse impact to the character of the neighbor ood; 2) The benefit the applicant seeks [CA /CANNON"] be achieved through another method, feasible for the applic o pursue, that does not require a variance; 3) The varian a [I / S NOT] substan 4) The variance [WILL/ NO create an adverse impacts to the physical or environmental con ons of the neighborhood; and 5) The need for the variancq5A NOT] self-created; and THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that said application for the total impervious surface coverage variance is hereby [GRANTED/DENIED] on the conditions that (1) the driveway shall be modified in accordance with the amended plan submitted to the Board by removing the Belgian blocks in the northeast comer of the driveway, replacing same with landscaping approved by the Village and installing of a curb delineating the newly landscaped area; and (2) the driveway on the subject property shall not 13131121550223v2 8131115 t i be enlarged, reduced or otherwise modified—except for ordinary repair and maintenance— without prior approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Dated: September 1, 2015 Don Moscato, Chairman Chairman Moscato called the roll: Andrew Kaminsky Voting Nay Abstain Absent Don Moscato Voting. !/ Nay Abstain Absent Jeffrey Richman Voting: y5,_Nay Abstain Absent Joel Simon Voting. ye Nay Abstain Absent Steven Berger Voting Aye Nay Abstain Absent Ayes Nays Abstain Absent 0 U 1313112/550225v1 8/3//15 .3- Z # 15-012 Jennifer Ashley 244 Betsy Brown Road Construction of a new elevated deck Mr. Kent Johnsson, Architect, addressed the Board. He noted that the applicant is looking to replace the existing deck. Chairman Moscato noted that the deck will come very close to the side yard lot line, which is the location of a waterway. The variances requested are substantial and self- created, and it may be out of character with the neighborhood. He also expressed concern about setting a precedent of allowing encroachments so close to waterways. Mr. Kaminsky asked whether the applicant has tried contacting any of her neighbors to see if they support or oppose her application. The applicant represented that she received no response to the notices sent. The Board asked about alternatives. Mr. Johnsson explained that they considered a cantilever deck, but that it would be around $64,000. Therefore, the only other option is cost prohibitive. Mr. Kaminsky asked why the deck could not be relocated to the rear of the home. Mr. Johnsson explained that the interior configuration of the home prevents moving the deck to the rear of the residence. Also, putting the deck in the back would intrude on the rear yard setback. Chairman Moscato noted that the existing deck is a pre-existing non-conforming structure and that the applicant is seeking to increase the non-conformities. This is generally a big concern for the Village. The Board continued deliberations on the application. The applicant represented that the existing deck presents a hardship and a safety hazard because accessing the garage with a vehicle requires a driver to navigate between two beams supporting the deck. The new construction will make accessing the garage much easier. Mr. Richman opined that this is a unique property and a unique situation. The Board agreed with Mr. Richman's assessment. Mr. Moscato called for members of the public who wished to address the Board in support or opposition to the application. There being no one, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. A motion carried closing the hearing: Zoning Board of Appeals September 1,2015 Page 9 Steven Berger voting aye Andrew Kaminsky voting aye Jeffrey Richman voting aye Joel Simon voting aye Donald Moscato, Chairman voting aye The Board vetted the application and reviewed the variances. The following resolution was read by the Chairman: VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS RESOLUTION WHEREAS, an application has been made to the Rye Brook Zoning Board of Appeals by Kent Johnsson, on behalf of Jennifer Ashley (the "Applicant"), for: (i) A nine (9) foot single-side-yard setback variance from Section 250- 22.G.(2)(a)of the Village Code; (ii) A 14.7 foot total-of-two side-yards setback variance from Section 250- 22.G.(2)(b) of the Village Code; and (iii) A 1.84% maximum deck coverage variance from Section 250-37.B. of the Village Code, in connection with the proposed construction of a new deck at 244 Betsy Brown Road in the R-10 zoning district. Said premises being further identified as Section 135.43, Block 1, Lot 39 on the Town of Rye Tax Assessor's Map; and WHEREAS, the subject property is currently improved with, among other things, an existing deck which is non-conforming with the above-listed Village Code provisions; and WHEREAS, the Applicant seeks permission to demolish the existing deck and construct a new deck which is larger than the existing, nonconforming deck; and Zoning Board of Appeals September 1,2015 Page 10 WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing on the application was opened on September 1, 2015, at which time all those wishing to be heard on the application were given such opportunity; and WHEREAS, the Board closed the public hearing on September 1, 2015; and WHEREAS, the proposed action is a Type II Action pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act, and accordingly, no further environmental review is required; and WHEREAS, the Board, from the application, after viewing the premises and neighborhood concerned, and upon considering each of the factors set forth at Section 250-13(G)(2)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brook Code, finds with respect to the single side- yard setback variance: 1) The variance [WILL/WILL NOTI create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood; 2) The benefit the applicant seeks [CAN/CANNOT] be achieved through another method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, that does not require the variance; 3) The variance [IS/IS NOT I substantial; 4) The variance [WILL/WILL NOTI create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and 5) The need for the variance [IS/IS NOT] self-created; and WHEREAS, the Board, from the application, after viewing the premises and neighborhood concerned, and upon considering each of the factors set forth at Section 250-13(G)(2)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brook Code, finds with respect to the total of two side-yards setback variance: 1) The variance [WILL/WILL NOTI create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood; 2) The benefit the applicant seeks [CAN/CANNOTI be achieved through another method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, that does not require the variance; Zoning Board of Appeals September 1,2015 Page 11 3) The variance [IS/IS NOT] substantial; 4) The variance [WILL/WILL NOT] create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and 5) The need for the variance IS/IS NOT] self-created; and WHEREAS, the Board, from the application, after viewing the premises and neighborhood concerned, and upon considering each of the factors set forth at Section 250-13(G)(2)(b)[21[a]-[e] of the Rye Brook Code, finds with respect to the maximum deck coverage variance: 1) The variance [WILL/WILL NOT] create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood; 2) The benefit the applicant seeks [CAN/CANNOT] be achieved through another method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, that does not require the variance; 3) The variance [IS/IS NOT] substantial; 4) The variance [WILL/WILL NOTI create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and 5) The need for the variance [IS/IS NOT] self-created; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that said application is hereby [GRANTED/DENIED] subject to the following condition that the approved deck shall not be enclosed except by a fence or railing not to exceed 38 inches in height. Dated: September 1, 2015 Don Moscato, Chairman Variance 2: Side Yard Setback Variance Chairman Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting: _X_Aye Nay Abstain Absent Andrew Kaminsky Voting: _X_Aye Nay Abstain Absent Zoning Board of Appeals September I,2015 Page 12 Don Moscato Voting: _X_Aye Nay Abstain Absent Jeffrey Richman Voting: _X Aye Nay Abstain Absent Joel Simon Voting: _X Aye Nay Abstain Absent _5_Ayes _0 Nays r Recused Absent Variance 1: Total of Two Side-Yards Setback Variance Chairman Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting: _X Aye Nay Abstain Absent Andrew Kaminsky Voting: _X Aye Nay Abstain Absent Don Moscato Voting: _X_Aye Nay Abstain Absent Jeffrey Richman Voting: _X Aye Nay Abstain Absent Joel Simon Voting: _X_Aye Nay Abstain Absent _5_Ayes _0 Nays Recused Absent Variance 3: Deck Coverage Variance Chairman Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting: _XAye Nay Abstain Absent Andrew Kaminsky Voting: _X__Aye Nay Abstain Absent Don Moscato Voting: _X_Aye Nay Abstain Absent Jeffrey Richman Voting: _X_Aye _ Nay Abstain Absent Joel Simon Voting: _X_Aye Nay Abstain Absent _5_Ayes Nays Recused Absent Zoning Board of Appeals September 1,2015 Page 13 D ECUEgVE SEP -z zot� VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS VILLAGE CLERKS OFFICE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, an application has been made to the Rye Brook Zoning Board of Appeals by Kent Johnsson, on behalf of Jennifer Ashley (the "Applicant"), for: (i) A nine (9) foot single-side-yard setback variance from Section 250- 22.G.(2)(a) of the Village Code; (ii) A 14.7 foot total-of-two side-yards setback variance from Section 250- 22.G.(2)(b) of the Village Code; and (iii) A 1.84% maximum deck coverage variance from Section 250-37.B. of the Village Code, in connection with the proposed construction of a new deck at 244 Betsy Brown Road in the R-10 zoning district. Said premises being further identified as Section 135.43, Block 1, Lot 39 on the Town of Rye Tax Assessor's Map; and WHEREAS, the subject property is currently improved with, among other things, an existing deck which is non-conforming with the above-listed Village Code provisions; and WHEREAS, the Applicant seeks permission to demolish the existing deck and construct a new deck which is larger than the existing, nonconforming deck; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing on the application was opened on September 1, 2015, at which time all those wishing to be heard on the application were given such opportunity; and WHEREAS, the Board closed the public hearing on September 1, 2015; and WHEREAS, the proposed action is a Type Il Action pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act, and accordingly, no further environmental review is required; and i r WHEREAS, the Board, from the application, after viewing the premises and neighborhood concerned, and upon considering each of the factors set forth at Section 250-13(G)(2)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brook Code, finds with respect to the single side- yard setback variance: 1) The variance [WI /WILL NROSTI create an adverse impact to the character of the neigh heed;-- { 2) The benefit the applicant seeks [CA /CANNOT] be achieved through another method, feasible for the app 'fit #Er Iiursue, that does not require the variance; 3) The varianc [ S/ S NOT' substantial; 4) The variance WIL /WILL NOTIc este any adverse impacts to the physical or environmen a ' 'ons of the neighborhood; and 5) The need for the varian [I /IS NOT] self-created; and WHEREAS, the Board, from the application, after viewing the premises and neighborhood concerned, and upon considering each of the factors set forth at Section 250-13(G)(2)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brook Code, finds with respect to the total of two side-yards setback variance: 1) The variance [WIL /WILL NOT create an adverse impact to the character of the neighbo 2) The benefit the applicant seeks [C /CANNOTI�� achieved through another method, feasible for the ap --te-'pursue, that does not require the variance; 3) The variance(MJlS NOTI substantial; 4) The variance [WI /WILL NO '1 create any adverse impacts to the physical or envof the neighborhood; and 5) The need for the varian *S NOT] self-created; and WHEREAS, the Board, from the application, after viewing the premises and neighborhood concerned, and upon considering each of the factors set forth at Section 250-13(G)(2)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brook Code, finds with respect to the maximum deck coverage variance: 1) The variance [WILICWILL NOT])create an adverse impact to the character of the neighbo�ho od; -2- 2) The benefit the applicant seeks [CAN ANNOTI' lie achieved through another method, feasible for the app,;'_ --w-pursue, that does not require the variance; 3) The variance *S NO]Dsubstantial; 4) The variance [WILLrCWILL NOT create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and 5) The need for the varianC[ IS NOT] self-created; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that said application is hereby [GRANTED/DENIED] subject to the following condition that the approved deck shall not be enclosed except by a fence or railing not to exceed 38 inches in height. Dated: September 1, 2015LJ Don Moscato, Chairman Variance 2: Side Yard Setback Variance Chairman Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting: _X_Aye _ Nay Abstain Absent Andrew Kaminsky Voting: _X_Aye Nay Abstain Absent Don Moscato Voting: _X_Aye Nay Abstain Absent Jeffrey Richman Voting: _X_Aye Nay Abstain Absent Joel Simon Voting: _X_Aye Nay Abstain Absent _5 Ayes Nays Recused Absent Variance 1: Total of Two Side-Yards Setback Variance Chairman Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting: _X Aye Nay Abstain Absent Andrew Kaminsky Voting: _X Aye Nay Abstain Absent Don Moscato Voting: _X Aye Nay Abstain Absent Jeffrey Richman Voting: _X_Aye Nay Abstain Absent -3- Joel Simon Voting: _X_Aye Nay Abstain Absent T5_Ayes _4 Nays Recused Absent Variance 3: Deck Coverage Variance Chairman Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting: _X Aye Nay Abstain Absent Andrew Kaminsky Voting: _X Aye Nay Abstain Absent Don Moscato Voting: _X Aye Nay Abstain Absent Jeffrey Richman Voting: _X_Aye Nay Abstain Absent Joel Simon Voting: �X Aye Nay Abstain Absent _5_Ayes Nays Recused Absent -4- 3. Approval of August 4, 2015 Zoning Board Summary Mr. Moscato called for comments on the August 4th meeting summary. There were none. The final version of the summary was approved without amendment. The roll was called: Steven Berger voting aye Andrew Kaminsky voting aye Jeffrey Richman voting aye Joel Simon voting aye Donald Moscato, Chairman voting aye There being no further business before the Board, on a motion and a second, the meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Zoning Board of Appeals September 1,2015 Page 18