Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-02-03 - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes L��yn GATE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK '-•----•.�.. 938 King Street Zoning Board of Appeals E /7 Tuesday, February 3, 2015 V Meeting at 8:00 p.m. - 6 2015 BUILDING Dip RTMENT Agenda 1. # 14-022 George Wood & Melissa Wood 25 Lincoln Avenue Construct a two-story side addition, a second story addition and driveway expansion 2. # 14-023 8 Edgewood Drive LLC Mr. Frank Chiarello 8 Edgewood Drive Demolish existing residence and construct a new single-family modular residence 3. Approval of November 4, 2014 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 BOARD OF TRUSTEE LIAISON: Mr. Donald Moscato, Chairman, welcomed everyone to the Zoning Board meeting of February 3, 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. Zoning Board of Appeals February 3,2015 Page I Mr. Moscato called for the first item on the agenda: 1. # 14-022 George Wood & Melissa Wood 25 Lincoln Avenue Construct a two-story side addition, a second story addition and driveway expansion Sam Vieira, project architect, addressed the Board. He noted that the applicants, Mr. & Mrs. Wood were also in attendance. He noted that the project entails expanding the existing second floor above the existing footprint of the first floor. The garage will be expanded approximately 5 112 feet to make it a true two car garage. This property is in the Scenic Overlay District, therefore any expansion of the home requires site plan approval. A 35 foot vegetative buffer is required. The existing house is 34 feet from the property line. The second floor addition increases this non-conformity, requiring a 1 foot vegetative buffer variance. Chairman Moscato confirmed that the expansion of the home will be right up to the 10' side yard setback. The expansion will not violate the side yard height setback ratio. Chairman Moscato noted that where project goes right up to the minimum setback line, Vthere is the potential that the structure actually built may accidentally go over the setback. Mr. Vieira indicated that the applicant could have its surveyor stake out the setback and then pour the foundation, which would then be inspected for compliance. That way, any potential issue is addressed before the structure is extended. M. Izzo confirmed it is standard procedure for the Village that where a structure is proposed to go to the setback line, the Village requires a foundation survey before it will allow the builder to erect any sort of structure. Chairman Moscato called for a vote to open the public hearing on the application. The Chairman called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in favor or opposition to the application. There being no comments, he requested a motion, and second, to close the public portion of the meeting. On a motion and a second, the public portion of the hearing was closed. Chairman Moscato noted that the houses in this area of Rye Brook were constructed on slabs and were small. Over time many have been torn down or expanded. This is part of the evolving cycle. He did not perceive any visual or environmental issues. He Board concurred. There was no opposition to the application. Chairman Moscato read the following resolution: Zoning Board of Appeals February 3,2015 Pa ., r 2 D EEOVED VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS VILLAGE CLER r i RESOLUTION WHEREAS, an application has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Samuel F. Vieira, on behalf of George and Melissa Wood (the "Applicants"), for a one (1) foot vegetative buffer variance from Section 250-7.F(6)(c) of the Village Code in connection with the proposed construction of a two-story side addition, a second story addition and a driveway expansion at 25 Lincoln Avenue in the R-10 zoning district. Said premises being further identified as Section 135.65, Block 1, Lot 46 on the Town of Rye Tax Assessor's Map; and WHEREAS, said premises is located within the Scenic Roads Overlay District ("SROD"); and WHEREAS, Village Code §250-7.F(6)(c) requires a minimum thirty-five-foot wide vegetative buffer in the front yard of properties within the SROD; and WHEREAS, the Applicants propose a second-story addition with a proposed one (1) foot incursion into the vegetative buffer; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on February 3, 2015, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and WHEREAS, the public hearing was then closed on February 3, 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 one (1) foot vegetative buffer variance: 1) The variance [WILIS/WILL NO ] create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhoo ; y J 2) The benefit the applicant seeks [CANbe achieved through another method, feasible for the appliNNcanl to pursue, that does not require the variance; 3) The variance substantial; 4) The variance [WILLMILLNOS create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and S) The need for the variance �IS IS NOT] self-created. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that said application for a one (1) foot vegetative buffer variance is hereby [GRANTED/DENIED], subject to the following conditions: r Dated: February 3, 2015 Don Moscato, Chairman Steven Berger Voting: ye.. Na Abstain Absent Y Y Andrew Kaminsky Voting: a Nay Abstain Absent Don Moscato Voting: � Nay Abstain Absent Jeffrey Richman Voting:-'Ye Nay Abstain Absent Joel Simon Voting: Aye Nay Abstain Absent Ayes © Nays Abstain Absent -2- 2. # 14-023 8 Edgewood Drive LLC Mr. Frank Chiarello 8 Edgewood Drive Demolish existing residence and construct a new single-family modular residence Due to the nature of the application, Chairman Moscato and Mr. Kaminsky recused themselves from this matter as they reside within the 200' notification zone. There will be three members of the Board remaining and in order for the application to be approved the applicant will require all three aye votes. Acting Chairman Steven Berger noted that if Mr. Moscato or Mr. Kaminsky speak either in favor of or opposed to the application, they will be speaking as residents only. Rick LaMontaine, Bibbo Associates, project engineers, addressed the Board. Mr. LaMontaine explained the application. Two variances are required. Mr. Berger asked for the difference between the front-yard setbacks of the existing and proposed residences. The existing residence is 91 feet from the front property line. The proposed residence would be 77 feet from the front property line. Mr. LaMontaine said the back of the proposed residence will be in the same location as the existing residence, give or take a foot. The front of the proposed residence will be closer to the street. Mr. Berger asked why this setback is necessary. Mr. Berger and Mr. Richman asked why the proposed residence cannot simply be kept within the footprint of the existing residence. Mr. Berger asked Building Inspector Izzo whether the house could be moved back further into the wetland buffer with mitigation. Mr. Izzo said it is possible, but the Planning Board discourages wetlands disturbance. Mr. LaMontaine explained that the Planning Board did not want the applicant placing the new residence within the wetlands buffer. The rear right corner of the home would be closer to the wetland buffer. Ed Lombardi, representing the applicant, said the Planning Board did not ask that they move the house forward, but did not seem to have a problem with moving the house forward. The applicant stated that proposed home will be 3,200 square feet, while the existing residence is 2,000 square feet. Mr. Berger asked why the proposed residence could not be made smaller. Mr. Lombardi replied that making the Zoning Board of Appeals February 3,2015 rage 5 house smaller would mean the applicant would not get as much square footage as is allowed in the neighborhood. Mr. Lombardi explained that this home is in a unique situation. The required setback is determined by taking the setback average of neighboring lots; and one of the adjacent homes is setback very far from the street. Pushing the new construction back would mean pushing into the wetland buffer. Mr. Berger asked what variances would be required if the proposed home were pushed back and to the right to mirror the existing residence. Mr. LaMontaine discussed the height of the proposed residence and the need for the side yard/height setback ratio variance. Mr. Berger asked what the applicant has done to reduce the need for this variance. Mr. LaMontaine said the size of the house was reduced and the roof was lowered. Mr. Izzo asked about the change to the existing grade and whether the applicant is proposing a basement. Mr. LaMontaine said the front lawn is being raised to create a positive pitch away from the home. The raised grade also will allow for installation of infiltration units. Mr. Izzo confirmed the grade will be 3 feet higher. 1 Mr. Berger asked what the applicant is proposing to manage storm water runoff. Mr. LaMontaine said storm water will either be captured on-site or will run into a culvert that runs under and across the street into a wetland across the street. Mr. Izzo stated his belief that the pipe referenced by the applicant is a clogged drain that terminates across the street. Mr. Izzo said there is no catch basin across the street. He explained there is a large tin culvert pipe that crosses Edgewood Drive and terminates in a wetland right next to the house across the street. Mr. Izzo asked about the basement. Mr. Lombardi said there is a basement in the existing house and the proposed home will have an unfinished basement. Mr. Lombardi said the foundation will be waterproofed and the storm water management will capture the water. Mr. Izzo said there is going to be a problem if the excavation cannot be drained for construction. Zoning Board of Appeals February 3,2015 Page 6 Mr. Richman said moving the proposed residence forward will worsen the appearance of the house to the left being back so far from the street. Mr. Izzo noted that the applicant has a lot of flexibility in terms of reducing or eliminating the side yard height/setback ratio variance. The applicant is proposing a whole new residence. Just because the plans show one house does not mean that is the home that has to be built. He suggested that the applicant may have to build a home that fits on the lot rather than taking a stock home and trying to make it fit. Mr. Berger asked the applicant if they tried to redesign the home at all to mitigate the variances. Mr. Lombardi responded that they were moving forward with a specific design in mind, but that they could redesign the proposed residence. Mr. Simon suggested that if the roof of the proposed residence is lowered and the house is kept within the footprint of the existing home, it will avoid the need for variances, or reduce the size of them. Mr. Lombardi confirmed that the home can be redesigned to reduce and/or eliminate these variances. Specifically, the Mr. Lombardi said he can change the roof Iine to eliminate the side yard height/setback ratio. He would reposition the proposed residence to reduce the front yard setback variance. Mr. Lombardi requested time to come back with revised plans. Chairman Berger called for a motion to open the public hearing. On motion by Mr. Simon, seconded by Mr. Richman, the public hearing was opened. Leo Goldman, 10 Edgewood Drive, appeared before the Zoning Board of Appeals. He asked for clarification on the application. The proposed residence will be 9 feet closer to his shared property line with the applicant's property, but no variance is required. Daniel Levine, 7 Edgewood Drive, addressed the Board. He noted that the proposed home is beautiful and much nicer than the one that they look at now. However, the increased elevation of the front yard concerns him greatly. Now the water sits in yard and it goes nowhere. The thought of more water coming onto his property concerns him greatly because he has young children. Mr. LaMontaine noted that the existing home has no storm water mitigation. After construction, less water will leave the property since infiltration units are being proposed. Mr. Berger countered that the increased grade of the front yard Zoning Board of Appeals February 3,2015 Page 17 may exacerbate run off He added that a water management plan will need to be approved by the Rye Brook engineers. Mr. Goldman addressed the Board again. He said he is concerned about the future of development on the street. He said allowing this house to move closer to the front property line may encourage future tear downs and requests for variances. He said that open space in the neighborhood should be preserved. Steven Greenberg, 12 Edgewood Drive, addressed the Board. He said he is Iooking forward to a beautiful new house on the property. His initial response was that the house is too big and too close to the road. He agreed with prior comments that the proposed house should fit on the property. He asked that the character of the neighborhood be maintained. Don Moscato, 5 Edgewood Drive, addressed the Board. He noted that he too wants to see a beautiful house on the subject property, but said there were several misstatements on the record that he would like to correct. Mr. Moscato walked the Zoning Board through the two variances required and the required factors the Board is to consider. First, "does the house stay out of the buffer and move closer to the street?" He agreed there is some hardship because of the wetlands buffer. However, moving the home 14' closer to the street will change the streetscape. He felt that the applicant should keep the new house where the existing house is located. It's a new house, so you can build the house however you need to stay within the code. Allowing the home to move closer to the street will create a "creeping effect" of future homes moving closer to the street. If the new home is placed in the wetland buffer, the Planning Board has authority to require mitigation measures. He suggested that if the house is kept where it is, and moved back only a little, the applicant can simply increase the mitigation measures. The Planning Board never told the applicant he cannot move back into the wetland buffer. Mr. Moscato opined that these are not the smallest variances required. The applicant can reduce the size of the proposed home and still build an attractive colonial. The topography of the property must be considered, and the proposed home needs to reflect the topography of the property. The applicant bought the lot knowing how much space he had to work with. Zoning Board of Appeals February 3,2015 Page 19 The front yard setback variance is a substantial variance. Mr. Moscato opined that the proposed residence will have an adverse environmental impact on the neighborhood because of increased storm water. The metal culvert under Edgewood Drive was put under the street in 1975, he believes, as part of the construction of his home and 7 Edgewood. Since then, he has had to personally unclog and dig out the metal culvert on multiple occasions. The wetland the culvert flows into is standing water inhabited by frogs, turtles and mosquitos. The water has to actually flow uphill to Rich Manor Park to get out of the basin. As a result, the water stops at 7 Edgewood and never gets to the Blind Brook or Acker Drive. The water creates a safety hazard because it causes standing water on 3, 5 and 7 Edgewood Drive. This issue will be exacerbated if more water from 8 Edgewood is channeled through that pipe. The previous Village Engineer, Mr. Carossi, was not aware of this pipe. It was former Trustee Dean Santon that corrected the deeds for these properties. Part of the mitigation may be that the applicant or the Village may have to move the water that stands at the end of the pipe. Finally, Mr. Moscato noted that the need for the variance is self-created. Therefore, none of the five criteria for an area variance is satisfied. Therefore, the request for the variance should be denied. Regarding the second variance, Mr. Moscato questioned why this variance is needed. There is a sizeable amount of dirt being brought in to house the cultec. Two things will happen: The applicant will end up with a bigger basement which can now be constructed because by raising the grade, the basement ends up below grade and is not counted in G.A.F. The second thing is that a two story house on top of a grade pushes the bulk view higher. The neighbors will see a bigger house. Mr. Moscato said that adding all of the dirt to the front of 8 Edgewood will create a storm water issue for other properties. Mr. Moscato noted that several members of the Planning Board objected to the premature sending of this application to the Zoning Board because of numerous storm water issues. Mr. Moscato opined that this house will negatively affect the character of this neighborhood. He said the benefit being sought can be achieved through other means, as evidenced by the applicant stating that he can redesign the house to Zoning Board of'Appeals February 3,2015 ]' alie 19 reduce and/or eliminate the need for these variances. The need for the variance is also self-created. Mr. Moscato said the applicant's request for variances should be denied. Acting Chairman Berger asked for the applicant to provide responses to the storm water issues raised. Acting Chairman Berger stated that at the least a report from the Village Engineer is needed. Acting Chairman Berger called for a motion to adjourn the public hearing to the March 3, 2015 meeting. On a motion made by Mr. Simon, and seconded by Mr. Richman, the public hearing was adjourned to the Board's March 3, 2015 meeting. The applicant will come back with a new proposal and a response to address water issues. Mr. Izzo noted new plans were needed in two weeks for his review. The applicant was directed to re-post the sign. Chairman Moscato noted that the Zoning Board received a Notice of Intent from the Rye Brook Planning Board stating that the Planning Board would like to be Lead Agency for review of an application by Bowridge Realty for a mixed-use building at 80 Bowman Avenue. Attorney Butler noted that if the Planning Board does not receive any -' objections, it will become Lead Agency for SEQRA purposes. By no action, the Zoning Board gives its approval. 3. Approval of November 4, 2014 Zoning Board Summary Chairman Moscato called for approval of the November 4, 2014 summary. The November 4, 2014 minutes were approved by majority vote of the Board. There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned. � 5 Zoning Board of Appeals February 3,2015 Pagc 110