The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2015-10-06 - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes APPROVED VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK DATE / i ' 0/6 938 King Street Zoning Board of Appeals Tuesday, October 6, 2015 Meeting at 8:00 p.m. IR L�� C� �MC AGENDA DEC - 2 2015 1. # 15-004 Andrew Stetler& Concetta Stetler VILLAGE OF R`rE BRrJOK 22 Hawthorne Avenue BUILDING DEPARTMENT Legalize raised turret & gable roof 2. # 15-014 The Estate of Carolyn Bruenn 26 Rock Ridge Drive Legalize existing single family dwelling with attached garage 3. # 15-011 Antonio Castillo, Olga Castillo & Cesar Aparicio 252 South Ridge Street Construct 2nd story dormer additions 4. Approval of September 1, 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 October 6,2015 Page 1 of 1 Mr. Donald Moscato, Chairman, welcomed everyone to the Zoning Board meeting of October b, 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 were three applications on the agenda and pointed out that there was a full complement of the Board in attendance. He called for the first application on the agenda: 1. # 15-004 Andrew Stetter & Concetta Stetler 22 Hawthorne Avenue Legalize raised turret & gable roof Mail Affidavit Sign Affidavit Approvals (AIN) Adjournment Andrew Stetler, applicant, addressed the Board. He noted that he was before the Board for a variance for the height of the turret and gable roof. The turret and gable work was done approximately 13 years ago, along with substantial improvements. The plans were reviewed by the then Building Inspector, but no height restriction was imposed. The applicant was instructed to install a sprinkler system at that time, which was a financial hardship. The house is now for sale and it was discovered that there is no Certificate of Occupancy for the re-build of the turret and the gable. Mr. Michael Izzo, Building Inspector, noted that the median height is calculated by taking into consideration the height of the tallest point in the roof. The Code has not changed in this regard. As-built plans have been submitted to legalize the work. The plans were submitted in April 2011. Mr. Moscato stated there were only two options to rectify the situation: the house is left as-is and a variance is granted, or the turret is torn down. The height of the turret does not seem to be an issue for the neighbors and it does not adversely affect the character of the neighborhood. There does not seem to be culpability on the applicant's part. The applicant stated that tearing down the turret would not be financially feasible for him. He estimated that it would cost him $15,000-20,000 to tear it down, conservatively. z Zoning Board of Appeals October 6,2015 Page 2 of 2 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 The Board began deliberation, and reviewed the five factors used to determine whether or not to grant a variance. Based on the application documents, testimony and personal observation of the subject property, the Board members agreed that the variance will not create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood, the benefit the applicant seeks cannot be achieved through another feasible method that does not require a variance, the variance is substantial, it will not create any adverse physical or environmental impacts, and the need for the variance is self-created. Upon completion of the review, Mr. Moscato read the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, an application (Application #15-004) has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Andrew Stetler (the "Applicant") for an eight (8) foot height variance in connection with the proposed legalization of an existing roof turret at 22 Hawthorne Avenue, in the R-15A zoning district, which roof turret results in a median roof height of 38 feet where 30 feet is allowed pursuant to Section 250-20.1.H(2) of the Village Code. Said premises being known and designated as Section 135.35, Block 1, Lot 30 on the Town of Rye Tax Assessor's Map; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing on the application was opened on October 6, 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 October 6, 2015; and Zoning Board of Appeals October 6,2015 Page 3 of 3 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 WHEREAS, the Board, after viewing the application, the premises and neighborhood concerned, ad 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 height variance: 1) The variance WILL NOT create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood; 2) The benefit the applicant seeks CANNOT be achieved through another method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, that does not require a variance; 3) The variance IS substantial; 4) The variance WILL NOT create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and 5) The need for the variances IS NOT self-created; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the said application is hereby GRANTED on the condition that no permit or certificate of occupancy shall be issued until the Applicant has paid in full all application and consultant fees incurred by the Village in connection with the review of this application. Mr. Moscato called the roll: 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 October b,2015 Page 4 of 4 E::7- WHEREAS, VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS CLERK'S RESOLUTION an application has been made to the Rye Brook Zoning Board of Appeals by Andrew Stetler (the "Applicant") for an eight (8) foot height variance in connection with the proposed legalization of an existing roof turret at 22 Hawthorne Avenue in the R-15A zoning district, which roof turret results in a median roof height of 38 feet where 30 feet is allowed pursuant to Section 250-20.1.H.(2) of the Village Code. Said premises being further identified as Section 135.83, BIock 1, Lot 30 on the Town of Rye Tax Assessor's Map; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing on the application was opened on October 6, 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 October 6, 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 height variance: 1) The variance [WIL WILL create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood; a 2) The benefit the applicant seeks [CA ] be achieved through another method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, that does not require the vari nce; 3) The varian IIS NOT] substantial; 4) The variance [WILL%WILL N create any adverse impacts to the physical or environments conditions of the neighborhood; and 4 5) The need for the varianc [I NOT] self-created. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that said application is hereby [GRANTED ENIED] subject to the condition that no permit or certificate of occupancy issued until the Applicant has paid in full all application and consultant fees incurred by the Village in connection with the review of this application. Dated: October 6, 2015 '00ez' Don Moscato, Chairman Chairman Moscato called the roll: / Steven Berger Voting: ye Nay y Abstain Absent Andrew Kaminsky Voting: X4" Nay Abstain ~Absent Don Moscato Voting: e_Nay Abstain _ Absent Jeffrey Richman Voting _ Frye Nay Abstain _Absent Joel Simon Voting. Aye Nay Abstain Absent Ayes O Nays Recused Absent -2- # 15-014 The Estate of Carolyn Bruenn 26 Rock Ridge Drive Legalize existing single family dwelling with attached garage Mail Affidavit Sign Affidavit Approvals (AIN) Adjournment William Besharat, architect for the applicants, addressed the Board. He noted that the sons of Carolyn Bruenn were the applicants, and were present. Mr. Besharat reported the house was built in 1952 but no Certificate of Occupancy is on file with the Village for the house. In 1993, an application for a building permit was approved for a bedroom addition and a Certificate of Occupancy was issued for that addition only. A new survey has been prepared and it was found that the house is compliant in all aspects, with the exception of the front yard setback. The lack of a Certificate of Occupancy was discovered during inspections related to the house being placed on the market for sale. Andrew Kaminsky asked if the house will be torn down or renovated by the buyer. The architect stated that they believed the new owners would be doing renovations. The variances granted run with the property and Mr. Kaminsky asked that the variance be conditioned so that the potential of a tear down is considered. If additional work is done, the applicants will need to come before the Board for a variance. It was noted that at this time the applicant is only requesting legalization of the existing single family dwelling with an attached garage. The consensus of the Board was to apply conditions to the granting of the variance. 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 Mr. Moscato reviewed the five factors with the Board. Based on the application documents, testimony and personal observation of the subject property, the Board Zoning Board of Appeals October 6,2015 Page 7 of 7 members agreed that the variance will not create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood, the benefit the applicant seeks cannot be achieved through another feasible method that does not require a variance, the variance is substantial in terms of percentage deviation from the applicable requirement, it will not create any adverse physical or environmental impacts, and the need for the variance is self-created. Upon completion of the review, Mr. Moscato read the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, an application has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by the Estate of Carolyn Bruenn, c/o Automated Control Logic and Preston Bruenn (the Applicant") for a 2.2 foot single side yard setback in connection with the proposed legalization of an existing single-family residence and attached garage located at 26 Rock Ridge Drive in the R-10 zoning district, where a ten (10) foot single side yard setback is require pursuant to Section 250-22.1.G.(2)(a) of the Village Code. Said premises being known and designated as Section 135.35, Block 1, Lot 20 on the Town of Rye Tax Assessor's Map; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing on the application was opened on October 6, 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 October 6, 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 WHEREAS, the Board, after viewing the application, the premises and neighborhood concerned, ad 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 height variance: 1) The variance WILL NOT create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood; 2) The benefit the applicant seeks CANNOT be achieved through another method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, that does not require a variance; Zoning Board of Appeals October 6,2015 Page 8 of 8 3) The variance IS substantial; 4) The variance WILL NOT create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and 5) The need for the variances IS NOT self-created; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the said application is hereby GRANTED on the conditions that no permit or certificate of occupancy shall be issued until the Applicant has paid in full all application and consultant fees incurred by the Village in connection with the review of this application; and The single side yard setback variance shall apply exclusively to the single family dwelling and attached garage as they presently exist. Said variance shall lapse in the event either structure is demolished, re-built or altered to add one or more additional stories. Mr. Moscato called the roll: 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. i Zoning Board of Appeals October 6,2015 Page 9 of 9 D EEUVE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK OCT - 7 2015 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS VILLAGE CLERKS OFFICE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, an application has been made to the Rye Brook Zoning Board of Appeals by the Estate of Carolyn Bruenn, c/o Automated Control Logic and Preston Bruenn (the "Applicant") for a 2.2 foot single side yard setback in connection with the proposed legalization of an existing single-family residence and attached garage located at 26 Rock Ridge Drive in the R-10 zoning district, where a ten (10) foot single side yard setback is required pursuant to Section 250-22.G.(2)(a) of the Village Code. Said premises being further identified as Section 135-35, Block 1, Lot 20 on the Town of Rye Tax Assessor's Map; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing on the application was opened on October 6, 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 October 6, 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 [WIL WILL NO create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood; 2) The benefit the applicant seeks [CA /CANNOTh be achieved through another method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, that does not require the variance; 3) The variance IS/ S NOT] substantial; 4) The variance [WILLWILL ] create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmen a conditio the neighborhood; and S) The need for the variance [I /IS NOT self-created. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that said application is hereby [GRANTED )ENIED] subject to the condition hat no permit or certificate of occupancy ssued until the Applicant has paid in full all application and consultant fees incurrre-dam by the Village in connection with the review of Fthis�alppllication.oa;-N �rY. S4 '5�z sic e nprJ 3c.46 .IL vori-n L. yar4c X1011 gf)C)�y � -4he. s.1 - ac�,1�yJ dlv-6(i aar%6 Wacke,�.J ots -��1 J r�!�y 4��-nQ� l� Id 3C in-1¢ e4f, a�h �� is c r,. l�,S!►e,�_ �c bLo Dated: ctober 2015 mor>✓ add-�+ see /�m Don Moscato, Chairman Chairman Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting: ✓ Nay Abstain Absent Andrew Kaminsky Voting: ✓ ye Nay w Abstain _ Absent Don Moscato Voting: ye Nay _Abstain Absent Jeffrey Richman Voting: ye _ Nay Abstain Absent Joel Simon Voting: Aye Nay Abstain Absent Ayes Nays Recused Absent • - 3. # 15-011 Antonio Castillo, Olga Castillo & Cesar Aparicio ti 252 South Ridge Street Construct 2nd story dormer additions Mail Affidavit Sign Affidavit Approvals (A/N)_ Adjournment Oscar Ovalle from the office of D. Mayet, architect, addressed the Board. He reviewed the application, and noted the required setbacks and FAR limitations per Village Code. He also pointed out the size of the variances being requested. The applicants are looking to construct two dormers on unit one. He noted that the square footage of the property was reduced when South Ridge Street was widened and that affected the FAR. Mr. Moscato noted that when the County took some property from the applicants to enlarge Ridge Street the action effected the FAR on this property. All three variances being requested are substantial. The substantiality of the variances will need to be balanced with the other factors we are required to consider. South Ridge is a gateway into the Village. Although many properties along Ridge Street are part of the Scenic Roads Overlay District, this property does not fall within the C; SROD so the requirements of the SROD do not apply here. Mr. Izzo noted that there is no Planning Board review required for this application. In response to a question from Mr. Moscato, the architect reported that the applicant resides in Unit 1 and they have children that will reside in the proposed second story. Mr. Kaminsky questioned when Ridge Street was widened. Mr. Izzo said there is a note on the survey that references Map No. 479, Parcel No. 661, Filed Map 11425. Review of the Filed Map in the Westchester County Clerk's Office would reveal the property was taken for the widening of Ridge Street. The Board discussed the variances as they relate to Ridge Street and as they relate to Dixon Street. Mr. Izzo suggested that the Board consider referring the application to the ARB prior to acting on the variances, in case the ARB requires any revisions that affect the variances. Mr. Kaminsky recognized that the applicant is requesting an expansion of the nonconformity, but felt the increase is Zoning Board of Appeals October 6,2015 Page 12 of 12 not substantial. Mr. Richmond said it seems this project will improve the existing ' home which is important at this gateway to the Village. Chairman Moscato stated it makes sense to look at the variances as a whole, not individually. He said the proposed pians seem to be a significant physical improvement over the existing condition, but questioned whether it is acceptable from a bulk perspective. The proposed improvements will make the house more in character with the neighborhood. There was no one wishing to speak for or against the application. The public hearing was closed and all three variances were reviewed. Based on the application documents, testimony and personal observation of the subject property, the Board members agreed that the variance will not create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood, the benefit the applicant seeks cannot be achieved through another feasible method that does not require a variance, the variance is substantial, it will not create any adverse physical or environmental impacts, and the need for the variance is self-created. Mr. Moscato read the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, an application has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Cesar Aparicio (the "Applicant") for: 1) An 8.8 foot front yard setback variance where 20 feet is required pursuant to Section 250-25.G.(l) of the Village Zoning Code; 2) A 7.3 Foot front yard setback variance where 20 feet is required pursuant to Section 250-25.G.(1) of the Village Zoning Code; 3) A 0.72 front height setback ratio variance where the maximum front height setback ratio is 1.2 pursuant to Section 250-25.I.(1) of the Village Zoning Code. 4) A 1.27 front height setback ratio variance where the maximum front height setback ratio is 1.2 pursuant to Section 250-25.I.(l) of the Village Zoning Code. 5) A 1,270 square foot gross floor area variance where the maximum gross floor area is 2,275 square feet pursuant to Section 250-25.E of the Village Zoning Code. in connection with the proposed construction of two (2) new shed dormers on a two family residence located at 252 South Ridge Street in the R-2F zoning district. Said Zoning Board of Appeals October b,2015 Page 13 of 13 premises being known and designated as Section 141.35, Block 1, Lot 8 on the Town of Rye Tax Assessor's Map; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing on the application was opened on October 6, 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 October 6, 2015; 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 WHEREAS, the Board, after viewing the application, the premises and neighborhood concerned, ad 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 above-listed variances: 1) The variances WILL NOT create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood; 2) The benefit the applicant seeks CANNOT be achieved through another . method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, that does not require variances; 6) The variances ARE substantial; 7) The variances WILL NOT create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and 8) The need for the variances IS self-created; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the said application for an 8.8 foot front yard setback variance, a 7.3 foot front yard setback variance, a 0.72 front height setback ratio variance, a 1.27 front height setback ratio variance, a 1,270 square foot gross floor area variance is hereby GRANTED on the conditions that no permit or certificate of occupancy shall be issued until the Applicant has paid in full all application and consultant fees incurred by the Village in connection with the review of this application. Mr. Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting aye Andrew Kaminsky Voting aye Zoning Board of Appeals October 6,2015 Page 14 of 14 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 October 6,2015 Page 15 of 15 LOCT � VILLAGE OF RYE BROOKZONING BOARD OF APPEALS RESOLUTION FI�E WHEREAS, an application has been made to the Rye Brook Zoning Board of Appeals by Cesar Aparicio (the "Applicant") for: 1) An 8.8 foot front yard setback variance where 20 feet is required pursuant to Section 250-25.G.(1) of the Village Zoning Code; 2) A 7.3 foot front yard setback variance where 20 feet is required pursuant to Section 250-25.G.(1) of the Village Zoning Code; 3) A 0.72 front height setback ratio variance where the maximum front height setback ratio is 1.2 pursuant to Section 250-25.I.(1) of the Village Zoning Code; 4) A 1.27 front height setback ratiajvariance where the maximum front height setback ratio�i is 1.2 pursuant to Section 250-25.1.(1) of the Village Zoning Coder; and 5) A 1,270 square foot gross floor area variance where the maximum gross floor area is 2,275 square feet pursuant to Section 250-25.E of the Village Zoning Code, 2— in connection with the proposed construction of two (2) new shed dormers on a*ingt- family residence located at 252 South Ridge Street in the R-2F zoning district. Said premises being further identified as Section 141.35, Block 1, Lot 8 on the Town of Rye Tax Assessor's Map; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing on the application was opened on October 6, 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 October 6, 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 TXCLUI ole l►Sled Vof�anC�Ls 1) The varianc [WIL ILL NOT] c ate an adverse impact to the character of the neigh ood• 2) The benefit the applicant seeks [CA CANNOT be achieved through another method, feasible for the app 1c o pursue, that does not require the variance 3) The variance5[IS-7rS-N41] substantial;- AR /L RC NU if 4) The variances[WILL/WILL NOT] c ate any adverse impacts to the physical or environmental-"o i� of the neighborhood; and 5) The need for the variance I IS NOT] self-created; and '111T11 4m.—apoGai and neighborhood concerned, and upon considering each of the factors set f at Section 250-13(G)(2)(b)[2][a]-[ej of the Rye Brook Code, finds with re t to the second (7.3) front yard setback variance: 1) The variance [WILL/WILL Tj create an adverse impact to the character of the neighbor d; 2) The benefit the ap cant seeks [CAN/CANNOT] be achieved through another metho , feasible for the applicant to pursue, that does not require th riance; 3) The riance [IS/IS NOT] substantial; he variance [WILL/WILL NOT] create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and var nce - Yd• and ,2- eke—Beate; € �ppliav , oficr Viewing the neighborhood concerned, and upon considering each of the factors set forth at ction 250-13(G)(2)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brook Code, finds with respect to the rst (0,72) front height setback ratio variance: 1) The variance [WILL/WILL NOT] create an ad rse impact to the character of the neighborhood; 2) The benefit the applicant seeks [CAN/CA T] be achieved through another method, feasible for the applica to pursue, that does not require the variance; 3) The variance [IS/IS NOT] substantial; 4) The variance [WILL/WILL NOT create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmental condad ns of the neighborhood; and 5) The need for the variance [IS/ NOT] self-created; and WHEREAS, the Board, from t application, after viewing the premises and neighborhood concerned, and upon nsidering each of the factors set forth at Section 250-13(G)(2)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the R Brook Code, finds with respect to the second (1.27) front height setback ratio varian e: 1) The varia ce [WILL/WILL NOT] create an adverse impact to the characte of the neighborhood; 2) The nefit the applicant seeks [CAN/CANNOT] be achieved through an er method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, that does not r uire the variance; 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 e nee or a variance [IS/I se -crea e , �a#a��th nd neighborhood concerned, and upon considering each of the factors set fo Section 250-13(G)(2)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brook Code, finds with re t to the gross floor area variance: I} The variance [WILL/ ILL ] create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborho ; 2) The benefit the appl' nt seeks [CANICANNOT] be achieved through another metho easible for the applicant to pursue, that does not require the iance; 3) The riance [IS/IS NOT] substantial; 4) a variance [WILL/WILL NOT] create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and 5) Tzzvariance se -crew e . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that said application for an 8.8 foot front yard setback variance 7.3 foot front }-ard setback variance "PPliGa40fl for -a-- 0.72 front height setback ratio variance jQ r 4rjP HEM!; th�W,4al 1 applis Won—fop--a 1.27 front height setback ratio variance i ' —)) 1,270 square toot gross floor area variance is hereb [GRANT I�:DENIED] subject to the condition that no permits shall be issued A until t e Applicant pays, in full, all application and consultant fees incurred by the Village in connection with revie«v of'this Application. -4- Dated: October 6, 2015 Don Moscato, Chairman Chairman Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting: Y ye _ Y Na Abstain _ Absent Andrew Kaminsky Voting: Nay Abstain Absent Don Moscato Voting: ye_ Nay Abstain Absent Jeffrey Richman Voting: a Nay Abstain _ Absent Joel Simon Voting: Aye Nay Abstain Absent � AY es -- 1 Nays Recused Absent 4) Approval of September 1, 2015 Zoning Board Summary On a motion made by Mr. Berger, and seconded by Mr. Simon, the Summary was adopted . Mr. Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting aye Andrew Kaminsky Voting aye Jeffry Richman Voting aye Joel Simon Voting aye Don Moscato, Chairman Voting aye There being no additional business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. on a motion made by Mr. Simon, and seconded by Mr. Berger. Mr. Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting aye Andrew Kaminsky Voting aye Jeffry Richman Voting aye Joel Simon Voting aye Don Moscato, Chairman Voting aye Zoning Board of Appeals October 6,2015 Page 21 of 21