Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-03-03 - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK DATE 938 King Street �"��• ,...,,,,,,�_� Zoning Board of Appeals Tuesday, March 3, 2015 MflollEE EE 0 V 2Meeting at 8:00 p.m. IS 14 2015 A ends F RYE BROOK DEPARTMENT 1. # 14-023 Mr. Frank Chiarello 8 Edgewood Drive LLC 8 Edgewood Drive Construct new single family modular dwelling 2. # 14-021 Mr. Michael Grandazzo 11 Maple Court Legalize the existing deck, pool, pool deck, shed and enclosed porch addition 3. # 15-001 Nicholas Megdanis & Angela Megdanis 148 Country Ridge Drive Construct a front 1-story addition 4. Approval of February 3, 2015 Zoning Board Summary BOARD: Joel Simon Jeffrey Richman Steve Berger, Acting Chairman Excused: Donald Moscato, Chairman Andrew Kaminsky STAFF: Michael Izzo, Building inspector Philip Butler, Village Counsel Fred Seifert, Public Access CoordinatorlIT BOARD OF TRUSTEE LIAISON: Trustee David Heiser Zoning Board of Appeals February 3,2015 Page 11 Steven Berger, Acting Chairman, welcomed everyone to the Zoning Board meeting of March 3, 2015. He introduced the 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 were only three members of the Board in attendance, which meant that applicants would require all three 'yes' votes in order for the application to receive approval. As a result, each application would be offered the opportunity to adjourn to the next meeting when there may be a full complement of the Board. Acting Chairman Berger called for the first item on the agenda: I. # 14-023 Mr. Frank Chiarello (adjourned from 2/3/2015) 8 Edgewood Drive LLC 8 Edgewood Drive Construct new single family modular dwelling. Mr. Berger noted that the applicant has requested an adjournment to the next Zoning Board of Appeals meeting scheduled for April 7, 2015. The matter was so adjourned upon request by the applicant. Mr. Berger called for item #2 on the agenda: 2. # 14-021 Mr. Michael Grandazzo 11 Maple Court Legalize the existing deck, pool, pool deck, shed and enclosed porch addition. Lawrence Engle, Esq., legal representative for the applicant, addressed the Board. He noted that the applicants were in attendance. He began his presentation by noting that the application before the Board requires several variances. He reviewed the variances required, noting that there is a pool in the rear yard and a pool deck, pool equipment and an enclosed porch. The variances being requested include the following: 4.6 foot side yard variance; 0.4 foot total of two side-yard setback variances; 7.6% deck coverage variance; 37 square foot impervious Zoning Board of Appeals # February 3,2015 Page 12 coverage variance; 4.5 foot swimming pool setback variance; and a 4.6 foot pool equipment setback variance. Mr. Berger asked that Attorney Engle review the history of the application. Mr. Engle explained that the applicants purchased the property in 1972 and constructed the pool and other relevant improvements in the mid-1980s. Mr. Engle argued that compliance with the single side-yard setback would require total dismantling of the pool and pool deck. Mr. Berger responded that the goal of the Zoning Board is to seek the minimally necessary variances. Mr. Simon asked why no one sought Village approval when all of these improvements were first built. Mr. Berger added that he would like additional information on the deck. The Zoning Board need not approve a variance for a structure that is not to code and will need to be removed anyway. Mr. Izzo indicated that the Building Department would accept the applicants' letter stating that the decks comply with state building requirements. However, as part of the building permit process, the Building Department would necessarily perform its own inspection of the decks, at which time the compliance with state codes would be determined independently. Mr. Engle discussed the total two-side yard setback variance and argued that the variance is de minimis. He added that there have been no complaints from neighbors concerning the backyard. Mr. Simon asked the applicant why the decks cannot simply be reconfigured to remove portions which unnecessarily encroach into the side yard setback. Specifically, Mr. Simon noted that the portions of the pool deck on the east side of the pool could be removed. This would reduce impervious surface coverage. Mr. Richman asked whether the impervious surface coverage includes the surface area of the pool. Mr. Izzo responded in the affirmative. The Board then reviewed photographs of the backyard from the Building Department's files. Zoning Board of Appeals February 3.2015 Pag,- 13 Mr. Berger asked whether there is any law requiring a deck around the pool. Mr. Izzo responded that there is no such requirement. Mr. Richman asked Mr. Engle if he had any examples of similar legalizations to this one. He did not. Mr. Richman noted that the deck coverage variance being sought is 300% more than the maximum allowed for the property. Mr. Engle stated that his client plans to demolish a concrete pad in the backyard, which will reduce the impervious surface coverage below the maximum. Mr. Simon asked why the pool equipment cannot be moved 5 feet to avoid variance. Mr. Engle and his client both responded that it could be. However, Mr. Engle was adamant that the pool itself cannot be moved because then it would have to be completely dismantled. Mr. Simon reiterated that the applicant should try to reconfigure the decks to reduce their size below or closer to the threshold. Mr. Berger reviewed the conclusions reached concerning the application. First, the Board asked the applicant to reduce and/or eliminate the single side-yard setback variance. This can be done by reducing the deck on the east side of the pool. Second, the Board agreed the two side-yard setback variance was de minimis. Third, the applicant will work to reduce the deck coverage. Fourth, the applicant will remove the concrete slab to reduce the impervious surface coverage. Fifth, the Board agreed the pool need not be moved. Sixth, the applicant would relocate the pool equipment. Steven Anderson, with Gabriel Senor's Office, addressed the Board concerning comments received from Michael Nowak, the Village Engineer, concerning stormwater. Mr. Anderson stated that the stormwater plan for the property will be submitted under seal. The Board noted that a memorandum will be needed from the Village Engineer or stormwater consultant confirming that the plan is adequate. Zoning Board of Appeals February 3,2015 P is g c 14 On a motion by Mr. Simon, seconded by Mr. Richman, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Berger called for members of the public wishing to give comment on the application. There were none. Mr. Berger confirmed with the applicants that they will submit revised plans for the backyard consistent with the discussion before the Board. Mr. Engle agreed. With the consensus of the Board and the applicant, the matter was adjourned to the April 7, 2015 meeting. Acting Chairman Berger called for the next item on the agenda. 3. # 15-001 Nicholas Megdanis & Angela Megdanis 148 Country Ridge Drive Construct a front 1 story addition. Angela Megdanis, applicant, addressed the Board. The applicant wishes to enclose a covered breeze on their home to expand the original galley kitchen and add a powder room. The applicant has elderly parents, who visit frequently, and grown children who also live at home. The additional room is needed to accommodate the family, and the bathroom is needed because the family currently has to go up to the second floor to use the bathroom. It is inconvenient and also difficult for the applicant's parents. Ms. Megdanis explained that she made the building permit application and it was at that time that she learned that the house has an existing non-conformity. There were three aspects of the application that required variances. The first variance is for the maximum allowable coverage for the main building. The second variance is for the maximum allowable gross floor area. The existing house is already over the gross floor area. Ms. Megdanis requested an addition of 460 square feet. The final variance would be for impervious coverage, and she would need an additional 282 square feet. The home is a split ranch, which means the basement counts toward the gross floor area. Mr. Izzo confirmed that this application presents the typical "raised ranch dilemma." Changes to the Village Code in 2006 made this home non-conforming. Zoning Board of Appeals February 3,2015 Page 15 He added that the variances being sought are typical of raised ranch situations. Ms. Megdanis noted that their goal was make the additional functional, but also to keep the variances as minimum as possible. On a motion by Mr. Simon, seconded by Mr. Richman, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Berger called for members of the public wishing to give comment on the application. There being none, the public hearing was closed on a motion by Mr. Simon, seconded by Mr. Richman. The Board then discussed the application further. Mr. Simon opined that the application is a reasonable request and that he had no issues with the proposal. Mr. Richman agreed. Acting Chairman Berger read the following resolution into the record: Zoning Board of Appeals February 3,2015 Page 16 D ECE#� V E VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK ;1. A;3 - :t ^r! _ ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS �� � VILLAGE CLERK'S OFFICE �F WHEREAS, an application has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Nicholas and Angela Megdanis (the "Applicants"), for a (i) a 2.2% main building coverage variance from Section 250-37.B of the Village Code; (ii) a 566.6 square foot gross floor area variance from Section 250-20.E of the Village Code; and (iii) a 963.25 square foot total gross floor area variance from Section 250-37.0 of the Village Code in connection with the proposed construction of a single-story addition to the front of the residence located at 148 Country Ridge Drive in the R-15 zoning district. Said premises being further identified as Section 129.74, Block 1, Lot 13 on the Town of Rye Tax Assessor's Map; and WHEREAS, the Applicants seek the above-stated variances in connection with a single-story addition to accommodate expansion of the existing kitchen and eating area and addition of a new powder room in the residence on the subject property; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on the application on March 3, 2015, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and WHEREAS, the public hearing was then closed on March 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 2.2% main building coverage variance: 1) The variance [ZLb4orE, O reate an adverse impact to the character of the 2) The benefit the applicant seeks [C CANNOT be achieved through another method, feasible for the apple pursue, that does not } require the variance- an The variance [IS S NOOC al; 4) The variance [ / Icreate any adverse impacts to the physical or environmens of the neighborhood; and 5) The need for the variance T] 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 566.6 square foot gross floor area variance: 1) The variance [WILL/ L NO create an adverse impact to the character of the neighbor , 2) The benefit the applicant seeks [CAJgANNO be achieved through another method, feasible for the applican o pursue, that does not require the variance; 3) The varian IS S NO substantial; 4) The variance [WIL / L NO create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmental con itions of the neighborhood; and 5) The need for the varianc [IS 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 963.25 square foot total gross floor area variance: 1) The variance [WILLL NO create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhoo ; 2) The benefit the applicant seeks [C ANNOT] a achieved through another method, feasible for the applican pursue, that does not require the variance; 3) The varian [I S NO tial; 4) The variance [ / L NOcreate any adverse impacts to the physical or environmenta ' ' ns of the neighborhood; and -2- 5) The need for the varian, [IS S NOT] self-created. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that said application pp cation for a main building coverage variance is hereb TE /DENIED]; said application for a gross floor area variance is hereby /DENIED]; and said application for a total gross floor area variance is hereb GRANTS /DENIED], subject to the following conditions: �p Dated: March 3, 2015 Chairman S'k-`en le'r" Variance No. 1: Main Building CoveragcVariance Steven Berger Voting: Aye Nay Abstainbsent 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 3 Ayes D Nays 4 Abstain Absent Variance No. 2: Gross Floor Area Varian e Steven Berger Voting: Aye Nay Abstain Absent Andrew Kaminsky Voting: Aye Nay Abstainsent Don Moscato Voting: ye Nay Abstain Absent Jeffrey Richman Voting: t�ye Nay Abstain Absent Joel Simon Voting:�ye Nay Abstain Absent 3 Ayes Nays Q Abstain -.�a Absent -3- Variance No. 3: Total Gross Floor Area Variance Steven Berger Voting: Aye Nay Abstain Absent Andrew Kaminsky Voting: Aye Nay Abstain _,Absent Don Moscato Voting: }ye Nay Abstain Absent Jeffrey Richman Voting: ✓Aye Nay Abstain Absent Joel Simon Voting: Aye Nay Abstain Absent Ayes Nays Abstain Absent -4- 4. Approval of February 3, 2015 Zoning Board Summary The minutes from the February 3, 2015 meeting were approved, without changes, by a motion and vote of three ayes to zero nays. There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned. Zoning Board of Appeals February 3,2015 Pagc 18