Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-04-13 - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK Village Hall, 938 King Street Rye Brook, New York ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Tuesday,April 13, 2004 AGENDA 1) #04-332 Mr. & Mrs. Andrew Singer 8 Lawridge Drive Construct a second story addition over an existing front porch 2) #04-334 Mr. Joel Binstok 26 Bonwit Road Construct a second story addition to an existing single-story house and construct a one-story addition at the rear 3) #04-336 Mr. John Amorosano 12 Charles Lane Legalize as-built height and height set-back non-conformities 4) #04-337 550 Realty Corp. 550/552 Westchester Avenue Provide parking for the existing six-family house 5) #04-338 Mr. & Mrs. Eric Storch 44 Woodland Drive Remove an existing screened in porch and construct a two-story addition in its place 6) #03-326 Mr. Felipe Calderon 458 North Ridge Street Construct a new side/rear wood deck CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 7) Approval of March 2, 2004 Zoning Board Summary PRESENT BOARD: Mark Harmon, Chairman Salvatore Cresenzi Joseph Pellino Dorothy Roer Ronald Rettner Zoning Board of Appeal April 13,2004 Page 1 of 20 STAFF: Mr. Michael Izzo, Acting Building Inspector Jennifer Porter, Esq., Village Counsel Paula Patafio, Meeting Secretary Mr. Mark Harmon, Chairman welcomed everyone to the April 13, 2004 meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeal at 8:15 p.m. He apologized for the delayed start of the meeting, but noted that in order to proceed there needed to be four members of the Board present. Ms. Dorothy Roer, because of the change in date of the meeting, advised the Board at the last meeting that she would be a few minutes late. The meeting began with the arrival of Mr. Ronald Rettner. Ms. Roer arrived shortly after. Mr. Harmon thanked former member, Mr. Joel Hecker, who served the Village on the Zoning Board for the past 18 years, for his dedication, assistance, and advice. He welcomed Mr. Salvatore Cresenzi, a former Mayor of the Village of Rye Brook, to the Board. He also introduced Mr. Ronald Rettner, who replaced Ms. Joan Feinstein, as the final member of the Zoning Board. Mr. Harmon, and the Board, extended congratulations to Ms. Feinstein, now Trustee Feinstein. Mr. Harmon called for item 41: 1) #04-332 Mr. & Mrs. Andrew Singer 8 Lawridge Drive Construct a second story addition over an existing front porch Mary Faithorn Scott, Architect, addressed the Board as the architect for the applicants. She noted that the applicants are a young family with small children. The master bedroom and bath of this home are located on the second floor, with the remaining two bedrooms located on a level below. The applicants would like to have the children on the same level as them and hired her to create plans that would accomplish this. After review of the home and property, it was found that a gross floor area variance was required. The new bedrooms would be constructed over an existing front porch, with the two existing bedrooms being converted into a family room. This home, which was constructed in the 1950's, has a total square footage of approximately 4,000 square feet. When including the garage area, the total amount was 4,560 square feet. Ms. Faithhorn noted that the existing house was 1,294 square feet over the gross floor area. The proposed addition would add an additional 510 square feet which brings the total calculation to 1,804 square feet over the allowable amount. It was noted that the addition would not change the footprint. It would not bring the house closer to the property lines, or bring it over the height setback. In addition, the new appearance would be in keeping with the character of other two-story houses in the neighborhood. Ms. Faithorn Scott presented photographs of the home, and other homes in the area,which were made part of the record. Zoning Board of Appeal April 13,2004 Page 2 of 20 Ms. Faithorn Scott also presented three (3) letters in support of the application from neighboring property owners: For the record, it was noted that the following letters were received: a letter dated April 11, 2004 from Penny Bindo of 10 Lawridge Drive; a letter dated April 11, 2004 from Ann Fuchs of 6 Lawridge Drive; and a letter dated April 12, 2004 from Leon Joseph of 7 Lawridge Drive. Mr. Harmon called for anyone wishing to address the Board in support of the application. Mrs. Beth Singer, applicant, noted that her main reason for the application was to construct bedrooms that would move her children closer to her. She asked that the Zoning Board grant her a variance. Mr. Harmon called for anyone else wishing to address the Board in support or opposition to the application. There being no one, he turned to the Board for questions and comments. Mr. Joseph Pellino questioned prior renovations done to this home. The applicants stated that there were renovations in approximately 1985/86, but it was prior to their purchase of the home. It was noted that the home was conforming before the Village made recent amendments to the Zoning Code. Mr. Michael Izzo, Acting Building Inspector, addressed the recent changes. He stated that the purpose of the implementation of the Bulk Standard regulation was to stop the McMansion syndrome. He pointed out that adjoining municipalities also have gross area regulations. Mr. Salvatore Cresenzi noted that the Zoning Board was charged with minimizing the impact of variances on the Village. Variances are not"as of right"but rather a privilege. He noted that by minimizing the variances, the impact would also be minimized. Mr. Ronald Rettner asked if total cost presented with the application was the final cost. Ms. Faithorn Scott noted that the job has not yet gone out to bid and the numbers would change a bit. There being no further comments or questions, the public portion of the hearing was closed and the Board went into deliberation. Upon the Board's return, Mr. Harmon read the following resolution: Zoning Board of Appeal April 13,2004 Page 3 of 20 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Mr. & Mrs. Andrew Singer for an 1,804 square foot gross floor area ratio variance in connection with the proposed construction of an addition on property located at 8 Lawridge Drive in an R-15 District, on the south side of Lawridge Drive, approximately 100 feet from intersection of Lawridge Drive and Sleepy Hallow. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 1, Block: 5, Lot F3. WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on April 13, 2004, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and WHEREAS the Board, from the application and after viewing the premises and neighborhood concerned, finds: 1) The proposed addition will not increase the building's footprint and is within front height setback ratios, and all other setback requirements; 2) The addition conforms to the homes in the surrounding community; 3) The immediate neighbors have expressed their support for the requested relief, and 4) The addition represents a 510 square foot increase to the existing structure, and not an increase of 1,804 square feet. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the application is hereby granted on the following conditions: 1) Construction shall begin within one year of the granting of the variance. DATED: April 13, 2004 Mark Harmon, Chairperson 5 Ayes, 0 Noes Zoning Board of Appeal April 13,2004 Page 4 of 20 Mr. Harmon called for item 42: 2) #04-334 Mr. Joel Binstok 26 Bonwit Road Construct a second story addition to an existing single-story house and construct a one-story addition at the rear Laurence Mackler, representative for the applicant, addressed the Board. He began his presentation with photographs of the home, and that of neighboring homes, which were made part of the record. Mr. Mackler noted that the applicant was looking to construct a one-story addition at the rear of the home. He noted that currently the home was 1 �/2% over the permitted gross area coverage for the first floor and, therefore, required a variance. He reviewed the plans, noting that the addition conformed to the height, and all other setbacks. It was pointed out that the right front of the house will remain the same. The rear of the home will be extended. There is an existing family room, but it is very small. It is being increased by 6' to the side, and 6' to the rear. Ms. Dorothy Roer questioned whether the applicant would still require a variance if there were no extension proposed. It was noted that the variance was required because of the proposed addition, which would be an additional 338 square feet. Mr. Harmon stated that there were two variances required. Mr. Harmon called for anyone wishing to be heard in support of the application. Mr. Joel Binstok, applicant, addressed the Board. He asked that the Board grant relief by granting the variances. Mr. Harmon called for anyone wishing to be heard in opposition to the application. There being no one, and no further questions from the Board, the public portion of the hearing was closed and the Board went into deliberation. Upon the Board's return, Mr. Harmon read the following resolution: Zoning Board of Appeal April 13,2004 Page 5 of 20 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Mr. & Mrs. Joel Binstok for: 1) a 338 square foot gross floor area ratio; and 2) a 1.5% lot coverage variance, in connection with the proposed construction of a second story addition to an existing single-story house and construct an addition at the rear, on property located at 16 Bonwit Road in an R-12 District on the south side of Bonwit Road, at 300 feet from the intersection of Bonwit Road and Mohegan Lane. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 1, Block: 5C, Lot 80. WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on April 13, 2004, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and WHEREAS the Board, from the application and after viewing the premises and neighborhood concerned, finds: 1) The proposed use is reasonable; 2) The addition will not affect the character of the neighborhood; 3) The variance would not be required if the rear extension were not being added; and 4) The addition does not affect any setback requirements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the said application is hereby granted as amended herein on the following condition: 1) Construction shall begin within one year of the granting of the Variance. DATED: April 13, 2004 Mark Harmon, Chairperson 5 ayes, 0 Noes Zoning Board of Appeal April 13,2004 Page 6 of 20 The third matter on the agenda was called before the Board: 3) #04-336 Mr. John Amorosano 12 Charles Lane Legalize as-built height and height set-back non-conformities Mr. Harmon questioned whether or not 18 Pine Ridge Road was within the notification area as this property was owned by his law partner. As the response was that it was located within the notification area, Mr. Harmon offered to recuse himself from the application. Legal Counsel for the applicant stated that it would not be necessary. Mr. Harmon called for the presentation. Anthony Gioffre, Esq., of Cuddy & Feder LLP, addressed the Zoning Board as Legal Counsel for the applicant. He began by presenting the Board with the Affidavit of Posting, and two additional letters of support, to be added to those already received by the Village. The letters were from Ms. Tina Maitello of 1 Mark Drive, and Ms. Sally Fagin of 9 Charles Lane. Mr. Gioffre noted that the applicant was before the Zoning Board requesting two (2)variances. The first was in connection with maximum height of building. The second was in connection with front height/setback ratio. This property is located in an R-15 District. Maximum height for this zone is 30 feet. The applicant's house, as built, stands 30' 6 1/2". Therefore, a variance of 6.5" was sought in connection with Section 250-20.G.(2) of the Village's Code. In addition, pursuant to Section 250-20.H.(1) of said Code, the required front height/setback ratio is 0.60. The applicant's front height/setback ratio, as built, is 0.6185. Therefore, a variance of 0.0185 was sought. Mr. Gioffre noted that the applicant was attempting to legalize the existing home. The recent amendments to the Village's Code were put into effect after the original application was approved. A building permit was applied for, and subsequently issued. During the course of construction issues were raised. In February, 2004, the height setback ratio variance was requested. Field inspections were conducted, the field inspections and plans were found to be in compliance. Mr. Gioffre noted that this home has a pitched roof. Had the applicant been aware that he would require a variance, a different roof— that would not have required a variance — would have been constructed. It was noted that no useable space was gained as a result of the pitched roof. The property was re-graded prior to construction, however, the applicant was not aware of any problems while the work was being done. The lowest part of the home is at the driveway. Mr. Gioffre presented the Board with additional photographs of the property prior to the grading. Mr. Harmon noted that these photographs were also to be made part of the record. Mr. Gioffre noted that demolishing the roof is a financial hardship for the applicant. The home was built within Village regulations, except for the two Zoning Board of Appeal April 13,2004 Page 7 of 20 variances now being requested. He respectfully requested that the Zoning Board grant the variances required for his clients to be issued a Certificate of Occupancy. He noted that the Amorosano family is currently living in a hotel and are very anxious to move into their new home. He offered to answer any questions from the Board or members of the public. Ms. Roer noted that the two letters that were submitted in opposition to the application were from Nancy and Bill Nightingale of 2 Charles Lane, and Mr. Herbert Brunberg of 8 Hunter Drive. It was also noted that the Board was aware of concerns expressed by Mrs. Handel, and Mr. Gioffre was asked to respond to those concerns. Mr. Gioffre noted that the applicant made attempts to set up meetings with the neighbors who were opposed to the construction. They reached out several times, including earlier this evening. Mr. Rettner asked for clarification of Mrs. Handel's concerns. Mr. Gioffre responded that they included drainage concerns; the matter of a tree damaged on the Handel property; and the placement of the air conditioning unit. Mr. Gioffre noted that the applicant installed two dry wells, offered to replace the damaged tree, and offered to screen the air conditioning units. Unfortunately, no resolution was reached. Mr. Harmon asked for clarification regarding how the change in the Code affected the property. Mr. Gioffre stated that there was no height setback ratio previously and, but for the recent changes to the Code, no variance would have been required. Mr. Izzo responded that the Village's position was different. The previous Code did refer to the height of the building from the grade prior to construction. The problem was interpreting that portion of the Code and what the original grade was. The height setback ratio is new, but the definition of how to interpret the height of the building has not changed. Therefore, the 6 �/2" problem would have existed irrespective to the recent changes in the Code. Mr. Gioffre noted that there was no survey of the foundation before construction began. The property was graded, and a survey of the new foundation was taken. Documentation was submitted, and the lowest point of the foundation was used in calculating the height of the building. Mr. Harmon noted that a self-created hardship was not the basis for a variance. Mr. Gioffre disagreed in that the applicant did not feel that the hardship was self- created. He stated that if the applicant was informed that this would be an issue prior to the grading being done, a survey of the property would have been completed prior to the work commencing. He noted that the plans were approved, and a building permit was issued. Zoning Board of Appeal April 13,2004 Page 8 of 20 Mr. Harmon stated that anyone wishing to address the Board would be allowed time to do so. He noted that there would be no cross discussions, no speaking out of turn, and no speaking over the person who had the floor. He called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in support of the application. There was no one. He then called for those members of the public wishing to address the Board in opposition to the application. Ms. Handel of 11 Charles Lane addressed the Board. She presented the Board with a petition in opposition to the application, signed by neighboring property owners. She noted that two of the individuals that signed the petition also submitted letters in opposition. Mr. Harmon asked that the petition be made part of the record. Mrs. Handle stated that she was heartbroken because of this construction. At this time in her life she should be home enjoying her golden years, instead of being stressed from the work being done on an adjacent property. She stated that from the very beginning of this project, with the sounds of the first truck backing onto the Amorosano property, she questioned the extent of the project. At that time it was called an addition. Then the whole house was removed. The noise from the construction was unbearable. They worked Saturday and Sundays — and especially when the Village's offices were closed. She was told that she had no basis to complain because the project did not require any variances. Everything was legal. However, now she felt that the matter was misrepresented to her. This was not an addition to an existing house, but rather a new house. The applicant should never have been issued a building permit. The new home is only 15' from her property line, and does not conform to setback requirements. The grade was significantly raised and now this new house looks down on her property. Her entire sense of privacy was lost. There is no longer any place in her backyard that she can sit and relax, or stand, and not be seen from the new tower that was constructed. Ms. Handel noted that the drainage issue is of utmost importance. The property was cleared, and then 2' to 4' of fill was brought in. Topsoil is to be laid on top of that. The fill was trucked in over several months time, and the applicant created a hill upon which to build his new home. Fill was dumped over the entire property. She noted that she never had water problems and that for the first time ever she saw a mudslide that went right through the construction fence onto the adjoining property. Although the applicant states that this home is in character with the neighborhood, she noted that it was entirely out of character. She felt that the applicant and Village did their best to confuse her on the issues, and in review feels that many errors were made. This new home is totally objectionable, and totally out of character with the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Harmon noted that if the variance was not granted the applicant would have to remove the roof and put it 6 �/2" lower. He asked Ms. Handel to tell the Board what would make her life better. Her response was that she needed more time to think about it. Ms. Handel's attorney, Thomas Whyatt, Esq., addressed the Board. He noted that there were additional concerns beyond the ones listed by Zoning Board of Appeal April 13,2004 Page 9 of 20 Mr. Gioffre. A list of issues was reviewed with the applicants' counsel, and some progress was made. He noted that screening and drainage issues were addressed. Mr. Whyatt presented photographs of the home and surrounding area to the Board for review. A photograph of the previous residence was the first photograph. The next photograph presented showed Mrs. Handel's house and the new house, with its tower. It is the tower that most concerns Ms. Handel as it removes her sense of privacy. The final photographs were of the foundation, and fill. Mr. Whyatt thanked the applicant for their time and willingness to address the issues. He stated that the initial meeting, held earlier, was a good start. It was the beginning of the process. The applicant is eager to move into their new home, but time needs to be allotted to finalize all agreements. Mr. Harmon called for anyone else wishing to be heard either in support or opposition to the application. There was no one wishing to be heard. Mr. Harmon asked if the discussion between the applicant and Ms. Handel was leading towards a better understanding. Mr. Gioffre stated that there were four issues raised and that the applicant agreed to all four of Ms. Handel's requests. Ms. Handle requested, once again, more time. Mr. Gioffre noted that as the applicant and his family were staying in a hotel, further delays were a financial hardship. Mr. Gioffre noted that a landscape architect was brought in, and prior to coming to the meeting the applicant felt that all the matters were resolved. Mr. Amorosano noted that the plans were presented to the Architectural Review Board, where he obtained approval. He was subsequently issued a building permit and construction began. He followed the New York Stat Building Code which states that a property must be pitched a minimum of 5% from the house toward the street. He also followed Village Code and was fine until the height ratio setback was created. Therefore, he was before the Board requesting the variances needed to comply with the new ordinances. There being no one wishing to address the Board, and no further questions or comments from Board members, Mr. Harmon asked if the applicant, Ms. Handel, Counsel, and all other concerned members of the public would be willing to step outside and discuss the matter. He stated that the matter would be held in abeyance until both representatives returned with a decision. He suggested returning with a written agreement. Everyone agreed, and the discussion continued outside of the Conference Room. Mr. Harmon called for the next item on the agenda: Zoning Board of Appeal April 13,2004 Page 10 of 20 4) #04-337 550 Realty Corp. 550/552 Westchester Avenue Provide parking for the existing six-family house Mr. Harmon began by noting that this matter had been before the Zoning Board several months prior. The matter was referred by the Board of Trustees to the Planning Board, back to the Board of Trustees, and now to the Zoning Board of Appeal. During that time the plans have been revised in connection with comments from Village Staff, Consultants, and Board members. Trustee Dean Santon has raised issues regarding this property, and whether the property is a legal non-conforming property or a non-legal non-conforming property is in question. Jennifer Porter, Esq., Village Counsel, was asked to address this matter. Ms. Porter noted that with respect to the non-conformity issue, she reviewed the information discovered during the review of this application. The records confirmed that prior to the adoption of the first Zoning Law, the property that is the subject of this application was marked as a two-family dwelling. 550-552 was in a district where two and three family homes, and apartment buildings were `as of right.' The previous owners of this property noted that at the time they acquired this property in 1950, this property was a six-family residence. As of 1954, with the adoption of new Zoning Laws which changed the property to an R-217 District (two-family dwellings), the property became non-conforming. Ms. Porter noted that documentation indicates that the property, in 1950, was occupied by six families. Historical property cards noted that at a minimum four apartments existed in the late 1930's. Furthermore, Tax Assessment cards were issued to an apartment house. From 1931 to 1954 six families occupied the premises and it was also found that at one time one of the families occupied two of the dwelling units. A 1956 re-evaluation shows that this was a five family dwelling. The issue now is to what extent is this property non-conforming. An open building permit from 1970 has also been discovered, and the acting Building Inspector must go to the property to complete an onsite inspection. Mr. Harmon felt that the answers to the questions must be determined before a decision is rendered. He stated that the Zoning Board should not be granting a variance to a property that is not legally non-conforming, and that all illegalities should be corrected first. However, the Board would allow the applicant to present his application, ensuring that he was aware that no decision would be made at this meeting, or until the outstanding issues were resolved. Bernard Edelstein, Esq., Legal Counsel for the applicant, addressed the Board. He noted that the issue at this point is whether or not this property is a legal non- conforming five or six family home. It was noted that the Planning Board had determined that the Acting Building Inspector was to perform an inspection to Zoning Board of Appeal April 13,2004 Page 11 of 20 determine whether or not this home was a five or six family dwelling, but whether the house is a six or five family dwelling has nothing to do with the variances that are being requested. Mr. Edelstein noted that he understood that he could make his presentation at this meeting, but no decision would be rendered. Mr. Edelstein pointed out that his client is the owner of 548 Westchester Avenue, and the Corporate Majority owner of 550-552 Westchester Avenue. 548 Westchester Avenue is a two-family home, which conforms and has sufficient parking. 550/552 Westchester Avenue is the six family dwelling, and it has zero parking. Therefore, there are six families who have no on-site parking and they must park on the street. This is a dangerous condition for the tenants, especially when winter regulations are in effect. Mr. Edelstein noted that the Village changed parking regulations for Hawthorne Avenue, forcing his tenants to park further from the property. His tenants, who now have to park away from their residence, have to cross Westchester Avenue, which is a very busy street. The safety issue is what prompted the applicant's decision to create on-site parking. The proposal is to place parking, and a turn around area, in the rear of 550/552 Westchester Avenue, utilizing an easement from 548 Westchester Avenue for this shared driveway. Plans were submitted, and revised. When the amendments to the Impervious Surface portion of the Code went into effect, a balance was attempted to be reached. Regardless of the number of parking spaces being proposed, a variance is required as eleven spaces are required for dwelling of this size. Mr. Edelstein reiterated that parking is an extreme problem on Westchester Avenue, and the creation of five off-street parking spaces where none exists is a positive step. Mr. Edelstein noted that a driveway which runs along the easterly side of 548 will be removed. A new driveway will be constructed on the westerly side, which will service both 550/552 and 548 Westchester Avenue. The existing curb cut will be removed, and a new curb cut, already approved by Westchester County, will be constructed. There will be a perpetual easement. Mr. Joseph Pellino noted that the easement should run with the land in the case of future sale. Mr. Edelstein agreed, noting that this is the intent of the applicant. He also noted that the actual metes and bounds of the area have not been addressed, and the easement would be written when all the information was ready. Mr. Rettner felt that this request carried a monetary gain for the applicant. He could not understand why this matter was coming up now, some 50 or 60 years after the home was constructed. Mr. Edelstein noted that there was a concern for the safety of the tenants, and Mr. Van der Wateren was attempting to elevate the conditions for the tenants. He again noted that the changes in parking regulations on Hawthorne contributed to Mr. Van der Wateren's request. He stated that parking does enhance the property, but it also increases the safety of the tenants and benefits the Village by removing the cars from the street. It was also noted that the properties were only purchased by Mr. Van der Wateren in 1995 and Zoning Board of Appeal April 13,2004 Page 12 of 20 1997. Since that time, the applicant reviewed other solutions, with this being the best scenario. Mr. Pellino noted a letter was presented to the Village as proof that the home was a six family dwelling in 1994. However, the individual who signed the letter was the Assistant Building Inspector and not the Building Inspector. Mr. Harmon noted that if there was an error, it did not matter whether the Building Inspector or Assistant Inspector signed the letter. Mr. Rettner asked for an impact study for the area. Mr. Edelstein responded that the applicant agreed to remove one curb cut, that the County has reviewed the plans, and approved them, and that the end result is removing five cars from the street and placing them on site. It would not increase traffic on Westchester Avenue but rather create a benefit all around. Mr. Harmon noted that this matter came to the Zoning Board of Appeal for a variance on parking. The matter was deferred to the Planning Board. The Planning Board reviewed the application and issued a report. The Board of Trustees had now referred this matter to the Zoning Board for approval or denial of a variance in connection with constructing five parking spaces on 550/552 Westchester Avenue. During the process, impervious surfaces became an issue. The applicant agreed to remove the existing driveway at 548 Westchester Avenue, and the curb cut, in order to cut back on the amount of impervious surface. The Board was reminded that 548 Westchester is in conformance. Mr. Thomas Ahneman of J.A. Kirby addressed the Board. He stated that no formal study has been done. Currently the cars park on the street. New York State Department of Transportation has approved the plan. This is a betterment for the Village, the applicant, and the tenants and there is no increase in traffic. Cars are being removed from the street. In addition, he noted that the cars will not back out onto Westchester Avenue as there is ample space to turn around on the property before exiting. He also noted that the lines of site are enormous. Mr. Ahneman pointed out that drainage, screening, and planning features have been presented on plan SP 1. Mr. Ahneman noted that five parking spaces were proposed where there is zero. The parking results in an increase of 806 square feet of impervious surface — creating 3,305 square feet where 4,111 square feet is permitted. Mr. Harmon called for anyone wishing to address this matter in support or opposition. One of the tenants addressed the Board, noting that she was in support of the application. She thanked her landlord for putting this application in, and for considering the safety of the tenants—who are residents of Rye Brook. Mr. Pellino noted that the Planning Board, in its report, was attempting to strike a balance. Zoning Board of Appeal April 13,2004 Page 13 of 20 There being no further comments, the public portion of the hearing was closed, and the Zoning Board's decision was deferred. At 10:20 p.m., Mr. Harmon called for the next item on the agenda. 5) #04-338 Mr. & Mrs. Eric Storch 44 Woodland Drive Remove an existing screened in porch and construct a two- story addition in its place Mr. John Cotugno, Architect, addressed the Board as the representative for the applicant. He presented the Board with photographs, which were made part of the record. Mr. Cotugno noted that the applicant was requesting permission to remove an existing screened porch and construct a two-story addition. In order to construct the addition, the applicant required a variance. Mr. Harmon questioned exactly how much of the addition requires the variance as it seemed as if only a small portion to the rear of the property was affected. Mr. Cotugno noted that Woodland Drive is a series of curves and the house, when constructed, was not built parallel to the property line, but rather is skewed. Mr. Storch purchased this home three years ago, and the main purpose of the proposed addition is that this is a growing family. The home is currently a three bedroom house. The addition will fit right in with the neighborhood, which currently has four and five bedroom homes. It is not a detriment to the neighborhood and will not cause a negative impact to the neighborhood. Although other options were reviewed, the plans before the Board are the best fit for the applicant and the property. The property is located in an R- 20 zone. The proposed addition expands 3' from the footprint of the home on one side. Mr. Harmon called for anyone wishing to address the Board in support of the application. There being no one, he called for anyone wishing to address the Board in opposition. It was noted that Mr. Donald Shassian, of 42 Woodland Drive, had submitted a letter in opposition. Mrs. Rinalo of 46 Woodland Drive addressed the Board. She noted that the Storches were wonderful neighbors. The problem she had with the application was that gradually over the years the integrity of the neighborhood has been compromised by subdivisions and additions. The quality of life has been changed by crowding in homes, and removing more and more of open, green space. She felt that Rye Brook was losing the qualities that bring people into the Village. Expanding homes sideways affects neighbors. She noted that her property is now a lake which is the result of the construction of a very large home next door to Zoning Board of Appeal April 13,2004 Page 14 of 20 hers. This property that was once beautiful is now unusable. Mrs. Rinalo noted that prior to the Storches moving into this home, another addition was constructed. The side porch was constructed past the side yard setback. The stairway was 3' over the line. She hoped that the applicant could find another way to add these bedrooms. Mrs. Pam Shassian of 42 Woodland Drive addressed the Board. She noted that her objection had nothing to do with the Storches, who were wonderful neighbors. She noted that the home to her right added rooms on her side, closing her in. Now this application proposed the same effect for the other side. The feeling of open space was being taken from her. She hoped for a compromise. Dorothy Roer questioned whether or not the existing porch was 3' further out than it was supposed to be. Mr. Izzo stated that he was unaware of this problem and would have to research this matter. The architect noted that it was not a porch that Mrs. Rinalo was discussing but rather a set of steps that were set in the ground. Mr. Rettner asked if the architect could come up with another way to accommodate the flow of the house and build the extension. The architect responded that there were many reasons why the addition would not work in another area— structurally, and aesthetically. Mr. Izzo noted that in reviewing the plans he found that it is a landing that was referred to by Mrs. Rinalo, and it does encroach by 2'6". There being no further comments from members of the Board, or members of the public, the public portion of the meeting was closed and the Board went into deliberation. During the Board's deliberation, the applicant made a decision to amend the plans. The applicant stated that they were willing to construct the rooms using the existing footprint of the screen porch, thereby reducing the variance required, at its worst point, to 17'. The Board went back into deliberation, and upon its return, Mr. Harmon read the following resolution: Zoning Board of Appeal April 13,2004 Page 15 of 20 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Mr. & Mrs. Eric Storch for a 1.7' total side yard variance, in connection with the proposed construction of a two story addition, on property locate at 44 Woodland Drive in an R-20 District on the south side of Woodland Drive, 950 feet from the intersection of Woodland Drive and Beechwood Boulevard. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 1, Block: 6, Lot 22C. WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on April 13, 2004, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and WHEREAS the Board, from the application and after viewing the premises and neighborhood concerned, finds: 1) Applicant has modified their application to reduce the requested variance to 1.7' by maintaining the current exterior line of the house; 2) Applicant has agreed to place exterior air conditioning units so as not to encroach further on the side yard; 3) The house is irregularly situated on the property; and 4) Other possible construction alternatives are not reasonable. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the application is hereby granted on the following conditions: 1) Construction shall begin within one year of the granting of the variance; 2) The Acting Building Inspector confirms that the existing left side yard setback is not less than 15.4"; and 3) Applicant adopts finding 42 above in writing. DATED: April 13, 2004 Mark Harmon, Chairperson 5 Ayes, 0 Noes Zoning Board of Appeal April 13,2004 Page 16 of 20 6) #03-326 Mr. Felipe Calderon 458 North Ridge Street Construct a new side/rear wood deck CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING Mr. Harmon noted that amended plans were filed, and all Board members would be allowed to deliberate on this matter. Mr. Peter Klein, the architect for the applicant, addressed the Board. He noted that the previous plans for the deck required too large of a variance. The applicant reviewed the need, and was back with revised plans. With the revised plans, no side yard variance is required. Mr. Klein noted that when Mr. Calderon purchased the home he was told by the previous owner that she had removed the existing deck because it was in disrepair and could not afford to replace it. There are sliding doors that exist to the rear of the home that now lead to no where — with an 8' drop. Mr. Klein noted that the new plan called for a 10' rear yard variance. He pointed out that there is an existing retaining wall and that the proposed deck would not extend any further than the retaining wall. At the March meeting of the Zoning Board, the applicant was asked for information on the previous deck. He could not produce any plans, however, Mr. Izzo found a set of approved drawings from 1958 which showed that the deck was actually a balcony. Mr. Harmon called for anyone wishing to address the Board in support or opposition to the application. Mr. Calderon noted that currently his living room and dinning room have sliding doors that lead to no where. He asked that the Board please approve the variance so that he may construct the deck. There being no further comments, the public portion of the meeting was closed and the Board went into deliberation. Upon the Board's return, the matter was adjourned to permit the applicant an opportunity to further amend the plans, lessening the variance requested. Mr. Harmon recalled item 43: 3) #04-336 Mr. John Amorosano 12 Charles Lane Legalize as-built height and height set-back non-conformities Zoning Board of Appeal April 13,2004 Page 17 of 20 Mr. Gioffre announced that a resolution was reached. He presented the Board with a handwritten, signed and dated, agreement executed between the applicant and Ms. Arline Handel,which is made part of the record. Mr. Whyatt thanked the Board for being given the opportunity to resolve this matter. Mr. Harmon read the resolution: Zoning Board of Appeal April 13,2004 Page 18 of 20 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Mr. Amorosano for a 6.5" maximum height and 0.0185 height/setback ratio variance, in connection with the proposed construction of a home, on property located at 12 Charles Lane, in an R-15 District, on the east side of Charles Lane, 87 feet from the intersection of Charles Land and Mark Drive. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 1, Block: 51), Lot 7. WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on April 13, 2004, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and WHEREAS the Board, from the application and after viewing the premises and neighborhood concerned, finds: 1) The applicant would suffer a severe hardship were he required to comply strictly with the Code; 2) Recent changes to the Code contributed to confusion in the construction process; and 3) The requested variance is de minimus. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the application is hereby granted on the following conditions: 1) Construction shall begin within one year of the granting of the variance; and 2) Applicant has agreed to ameliorate construction issues pursuant to a written agreement annexed hereto, and will consent in writing to comply with that agreement. DATED: April 13, 2004 Mark Harmon, Chairperson 5 Ayes, 0 Noes The applicant is to submit a written agreement from the applicant, addressed to the Village of Rye Brook, accepting the agreement as a condition of the variance. Mr. Harmon called for the final matter on the agenda: Zoning Board of Appeal April 13,2004 Page 19 of 20 7) Approval of March 2, 2004 The summary was approved as submitted. There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 11:40 p.m. Zoning Board of Appeal April 13,2004 Page 20 of 20