Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-08-03 - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK Village Hall, 938 King Street Rye Brook, New York ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Tuesday,August 3, 2004 AGENDA 1) REVIEW OF MS. ARLENE HENDEL'S SUBMISSION 2) 404-344 MR. & MRS. JEFFREY WEINTRAUB 1 Latonia Road Completely demolish the existing building, and construct a new single-family swelling with an attached garage 3) 404-347 MR. & MRS. GOLDMAN 12 Fairlawn Parkway Finish the basement under the new sunroom addition and relocate laundry room and hallway 4) 404-348 MR. & MRS. BELKIN 8 Rockridge Drive Construct two additions and perform interior renovations 5) 404-350 MR. & MRS. WARREN GOZ 20 Jennifer Lane Demolish the entire existing house and construct a new two-story, single family dwelling with attached two-car garage 6) 406-351 MR. & MRS. SCOTT TALMADGE 40 Rockridge Drive Construct one second-story addition, two two-story additions, two one-story additions and a rear roofed porch 7) APPROVAL OF JULY 6, 2004 ZONING BOARD SUMMARY PRESENT BOARD: Mark Harmon, Chairman Salvatore Cresenzi Joseph Pellino Dorothy Roer Excused: Ronald Rettner Zoning Board of Appeals August 3,2004 Page 1 STAFF: Mr. Michael Izzo, Acting Building Inspector Paula Patafto, Meeting Secretary LIAISON: Trustee Dean Santon Mr. Mark Harmon, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 8:00 p.m. He welcomed everyone to the August 3, 2004 meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals, and noted that Mr. Ronald Rettner was excused from the meeting due to a prior commitment. Mr. Harmon began with a review of the agenda, noting that certain items would be taken out of order. He called for item 41. 1) REVIEW OF MS. ARLENE HENDEL SUBMISSION Mr. Harmon noted that this was a review of information submitted by Ms. Arlene Hendel of Charles Lane. He called for comments from the Board. There being no comments, Mr. Harmon stated, regarding Ms. Hendel's request, that the Zoning Board of Appeals made a ruling on this matter. The variances requested by the applicant of 12 Charles Lane were granted, and an agreement was put in place conditioned on compliance with an agreement between the parties which should be enforced. Ms. Dorothy Roer noted that as an agreement was put in place, it was very important that the Building Department follow up on this matter. Mr. Michael Izzo, Acting Building Inspector, agreed. Anthony Gioffre, Esq., the attorney on record for the owners of 12 Charles Lane, and who was in attendance at the meeting for another client, asked to be heard on this matter. Mr. Harmon refused his request, noting that no one would be heard on this matter as the Zoning Board was simply confirming the existing ruling. (Ms. Hendel, sitting a few rows behind Mr. Gioffre, made no comment at this time). Mr. Harmon stated that the Zoning Board had no further jurisdiction, and could not do more than that. Mr. Gioffre requested copies of the correspondence, and was referred to the Building Department, to which he should make a formal written request. Mr. Harmon noted that application 404-345 made by Mr. Dave Steinthal and Ms. Jen Schaefer of 190 Betsy Brown Road to enclose an existing first floor porch and construct a partial second floor addition had been adjourned from the July meeting to the August meeting but was not on the agenda. Ms. Roer stated that it was her understanding that the applicants' new plans had not yet been completed. Mr. Harmon asked that this matter be carried over to the next meeting scheduled for September. Mr. Izzo noted that the architect for the applicant had commented that the new plans may not require a variance at all. Mr. Harmon asked that Mr. Izzo review the matter and advise the Zoning Board prior to the September meeting of the status of the application. Mr. Harmon called for item 42 on the agenda: 2) #04-344 MR. & MRS. JEFFREY WEINTRAUB 1 Latonia Road Completely demolish the existing building, and construct a new single-family dwelling with an attached garage Anthony B. Gioffre, Esq., from the firm of Cuddy & Feder, addressed the Board on behalf of the applicant. He presented the Board with 25 photographs of the home and area, along with the original letters of support and one additional letter. Mr. Harmon asked that the letters and photographs be made part of the record. At this time, Ms. Arlene Hendel stood up and interrupted. She introduced herself and asked why her matter was skipped over. Mr. Harmon pointed out that the meeting was called to order at 8:00 p.m. and comments were called for from the Board. He then reiterated his previous statement regarding the obligation of the Building Inspector to enforce the written agreement written up and submitted by the owners of 12 Charles Lane. He again noted that the Zoning Board had no further jurisdiction on this matter and stated that it was now a matter to be addressed by the Building Department. He suggested that Ms. Hendel and/or her attorney contact the Building Department to discuss the matter. Ms. Hendel became very agitated, noting and said that she was told that she would be able to make a presentation, and that she spent several hours preparing the two pages she wished to read. She insisted that she entered the room at 8:00 p.m., sharp. Mr. Harmon respectfully noted there was no application before the Zoning Board. He explained the decision, once again, and noted that now the matter was now closed. Ms. Hendel persisted. Mr. Harmon calmly apologized to Ms. Hendel if she was misinformed about being able to address the Zoning Board and stated, once again, that there was nothing further for the Board to consider having previously ruled on that application. He stressed that the matter was no longer before the Board. Ms. Hendel questioned what application Mr. Harmon was referring to. Mr. Harmon responded that he was referring to the application of 12 Charles Lane. He reminded Ms. Hendel that the variance was granted subject to an agreement. Ms. Hendel responded that the agreement was not being complied with. Mr. Harmon suggested that Ms. Hendel to take this matter up with the Building Department, or her attorney. Ms. Hendel's response was that Zoning Board of Appeals August 3,2004 Page 3 her attorney instructed her to come to the Zoning Board meeting, as had Mr. Christopher Bradbury, Village Administrator. Mr. Harmon again stated that there was nothing further that the Zoning Board of Appeals could do on that matter. He pointed out that there were several applications before the Board, and a room full of people waiting. He asked that the attorney for application 404-344 continue. Mr. Gioffre was asked to begin his presentation again. As he began speaking, Ms. Hendel re-entered the meeting room. She screamed that she had walked in at 8:00 p.m. and that the Board was already on something else. Mr. Harmon calmly reiterated his early statements in an attempt to ensure that Ms. Hendel understood the Board's position. Ms. Hendel stated that she did not understand. She noted that she spent the entire day preparing the materials. Mr. Harmon noted that there was a room full of people who were in attendance during the discussion on that matter, which was properly addressed and closed. He pointed out that the Board was now hearing application 404-344. Ms. Hendel stated that she did not care that there was a room full of people, and insisted that she was there to make a presentation. She accused the Zoning Board of"pulling a fast one." She felt that it was unfair as she spent a lot of time preparing her presentation. Mr. Harmon apologized to Ms. Hendel, and once again noted that the matter was addressed. Ms. Hendel disagreed, accusing the Board of starting the meeting early and being in on the conspiracy with Mr. Izzo. Ms. Hendel continued to interfere with the meeting for several more minutes. Ultimately, Mr. Harmon requested that Ms. Hendel leave. Ms. Hendel exited the room. Mr. Harmon apologized to the members of the public in attendance. He asked that Mr. Gioffre begin his presentation again so that everyone would be clear of what was being presented and what was being made part of the record. Mr. Gioffre noted that he was presenting 25 photographs, letters of support, and two additional letters received after the submission of July 20, 2004. Mr. Gioffre noted that Dr. & Mrs. Weintraub were in attendance, along with the architect on the project, who were available to answer any questions that the Board or members of the public may have. The presentation finally continued and Mr. Gioffre noted that the application now before the board was seeking four variances in order to completely demolish the existing building located at 1 Latonia Road, and to construct a new single-family dwelling with an attached garage. He noted that this property is located in R-15 district, and that the existing home has substantial issues and needed extensive renovations. There are safety issues and, as a result, the Weintraubs are seeking permission to demolish the home and construct a new home on the premises. As part of the process, the Weintraubs gave considerable consideration to the constraints of the lot. It was found and determined that it is impossible to construct a home on the lot fully in compliance with the requirements of the Village's Code. Mr. Gioffre presented the Board with diagrams of the existing home. He noted that the existing home on the premises is non-conforming with respect to rear yard setback, front yard setback, height setback ratio (which is a new requirement), as well as the 100 foot horizontal circle requirement. The application brings the premises, and proposed home, more into conformity with the Code than the existing home. The front yard setback is 32.83 feet and the applicant proposes to maintain that same front yard setback. The existing rear yard setback is 15 feet, and it will be increased by 12 feet. This a non-conforming lot in regard to size, and is the smallest yard in the vicinity in regard to depth. It is important to note that the 90 foot horizontal circle cannot be changed. A member of the Board questioned whether this was a corner lot. Mr. Gioffre responded that it was not. He continued, noting that the proposed home will have the exact same height setback ratio as the existing home, and that the proposed home complies with bulk requirements. Mr. Gioffre pointed out that the measurements for the front yard setback ratio were taken from the front property line as required, however, there exists an additional 12 feet of lawn in between the front property line and Latonia Road. Although this cannot be used in calculations, if the applicant were allowed to use this 12 feet, the height setback ratio and front yard setback would comply with the zoning ordinance. These two requirements are used for visual buffering. Mr. Gioffre noted that the letters of support are from all of the most closely affected neighbors in the area. He also noted that the neighbor immediately to the rear of the applicants' property is currently in Europe and was unable to submit a letter, but is not opposed to the application. In summation, Mr. Gioffre stated that this application is consistent with the character of the neighborhood. The newly proposed home will be a center hall colonial. The plans increase the rear yard setback by 12 feet. There is no detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the community, and no impacts to the neighborhood. Any home constructed on this lot would not be compliance and would require variances and, therefore, the applicant respectfully requested that the variances be granted. Mr. Harmon called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in support of the application. There being no one, he asked if anyone wished to address the Board in opposition to the application. Again no one asked to be heard. He then turned to the Board for questions. Mr. Harmon began the Board's comments by asking when the Weintraubs purchased the property. Dr. Weintraub responded on May 22, 2004. He also noted that the existing home is not habitable. Mr. Harmon asked if the shadow study requested by a neighbor had been completed. Mr. Gioffre responded that it had. Photographs were taken, morning, noon and night and no shadows extend onto that property. Zoning Board of Appeals August 3,2004 Page 5 A question was raised regarding conformance with the height setback ratio. The response was that the current height setback ratio is the same as the proposed height setback ratio. There being no further questions, the public portion of the meeting was closed and the Board went into deliberation. Upon their return, Mr. Harmon read the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Mr. & Mrs. Jeffrey Weintraub for a 10' variance from the minimal horizontal circle requirement; a 7.17' variance from the front yard setback requirement; a 13' variance from the rear yard setback requirement; and a front height setback ratio variance of .17 in connection with the propose demolishing of the existing building and construction of a new single family dwelling with an attached garage on property located at 1 Latonia Road in an R-15 District, on the west side of Latonia Road 80 feet from the intersection of Latonia Road and Winding Wood Road. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 1, Block: 5, Lot 12CJ.4B. WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on August 3, 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 construction will reduce an existing non-conformity; 2) The property does not support construction of a home in conformance with all Zoning requirements; 3) The proposed construction is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood; and 4) There is support from the surrounding neighbors. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the application is hereby granted on the following condition: 1) Construction shall begin within one year of the granting of the variance. DATED: August 3, 2004 Mark Harmon, Chairperson 4 Ayes, 0 Noes Zoning Board of Appeals August 3,2004 Page 7 3) #04-347 MR. & MRS. GOLDMAN 12 Fairlawn Parkway Finish the basement under the new sunroom addition and relocate laundry room and hallway Mr. Peter A. Cole, Architect for the applicant addressed the Board. He noted that the property was located at 12 Fairlawn Parkway, and that the applicants were seeking a 291 square foot variance for gross floor area. There is an existing room, which is unfinished, that the applicant wishes to finish. Mr. Harmon called for members of the public wishing to address the application in support or opposition. There being no one, he turned to the Board for questions. Mr. Joseph Pellino questioned when the addition was constructed. Mr. Cole noted that it was a recent addition that did not require a variance to construct. Mr. Izzo responded that the applicant was finishing the basement. The new Code captures basements whose ceilings height are 5 feet above the average grade of the property need to be counted. As a result, the applicant now required a permit in order to comply with the new Code. There being no further questions, the Board went into deliberation. Upon their return, Mr. Harmon read the following resolution: Zoning Board of Appeals August 3,2004 Page 9 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Mr. & Mrs. Goldman for a 291 square foot variance from the maximum allowable gross floor area, in connection with the proposed construction of finishing the basement of the new sunroom addition, and relocating the laundry room and hallway on property located at 12 Fairlawn Parkway in an R-15 District, on the south side of Fairlawn Park, approximately 331 feet from the intersection of Fairlawn Parkway and Boxwood Place. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 1, Block: 5, Lot R-7. WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was continued on July 6, 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 construction is to finish already existing space and will not effect or enlarge the existing structure or footprint. 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: August 3, 2004 Mark Harmon, Chairperson 4 Ayes, 0 Noes Zoning Board of Appeals August 3,2004 Page 11 5) #04-350 MR. & MRS. WARREN GOZ 20 Jennifer Lane Demolish the entire existing house and construct a new two- story, single family dwelling with attached two-car garage Mr. Pellino noted that he resided within the notification area. Although he saw no reason, he offered to recuse himself from deliberation if the applicants wished. The applicants had no problem with Mr. Pellino voting upon their application. Mr. Mark Mustacato, Architect, addressed the Board. He noted that the property next door to the applicants' property, 22 Jennifer Lane, was recently before the Zoning Board for a variance which was granted in connection with front yard setback. Mr. Mustacato stated that this application required an area variance. This is an existing non-conforming lot, located on the curve of Jennifer Lane. The non-conformity pre-dates current Zoning regulations. Mr. Mustacato presented the Board with photographs of the property and surrounding homes, which were made part of the record. Mr. Mustacato noted that the proposed construct creates no detriment to the neighborhood, did not affect the health or safety of the neighbors, and the newly constructed home would be in character with the neighborhood. Mr. Harmon called for members of the public wishing to address the application in support or opposition. There being no one, he turned to the Board for questions. Mr. Pellino questioned if there were trees that would be removed in the rear of the property. Mr. Mustacato noted there were a few, and that they were marked on the site plan. Mr. Izzo stated that an applicant is allowed to remove trees if they are in the way of a lawful construct project. There being no further comments, the Board went into deliberation. Upon their return, Mr. Harmon read the following resolution: Zoning Board of Appeals August 3,2004 Page 13 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Mr. & Mrs. Warren Goz for a 15' variance from the minimum frontage required, in connection with the proposed demolition of the entire existing house and construction of a new two-story, single-family dwelling with attached two-car garage, on property located at 20 Jennifer Lane in an R-10 District, on the north side of Jennifer Lane, 110 feet from the intersection of Jennifer Lane and Beacon Lane. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 1, Block: 5A, Lot 10. WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on August 3, 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 construction will not enlarge any existing non- conformity 2) The property cannot be developed without a variance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the application is hereby granted on the following condition: 3) Construction shall begin within one year of the granting of the variance. DATED: August 3, 2004 Mark Harmon, Chairperson 4 Ayes, 0 Noes 4) #04-348 MR. & MRS. BELKIN 8 Rockridge Drive Construct two additions and perform interior renovations Mr. Paul Bialowas, Architect, addressed the Board. He presented the Board with a model of the proposed construction, and photographs of the home. Mr. Bialowas noted that based on the size of the lot, the square footage 3,230 square feet of floor area was allowed under the Bulk Regulations. The existing house is 3,397 square feet. The applicants are requesting a variance to add 87 square feet to the footprint of the building on the ground floor and 506 square feet on the existing second floor. The lot size is roughly 1/3 of an acre. All the homes in this area of Rockridge Drive are similar in design, and the lot sizes are similar. There is no house directly across behind the rear lot line. It was noted that there is sufficient screening to the rear of the property in the form of thick evergreen. The existing house was built in 1957, with no additions to the original structure since then. It is a split level. All bedrooms are located on same level. There is an existing screened porch at the rear, and existing half storage area on the second floor that has never been finished. The Belkins have two children and need more living space, and they would like to move the children's bedrooms to the second floor. They would also like to create a nice bedroom for their parents, who are senior citizens, and stay for extended periods of times throughout the year. The Belkins realize that this may need to be on a more permanent basis in the future. In addition, they would also like to update the kitchen which is from the 1950's and needs modernization as it does not meet the needs of the family. Mr. Bialows noted that there was existing attic space that would now be utilized. Mr. Bialows pointed out, on the model, that a dormer would be added to the front of the home. A second dormer is proposed for the rear of the home. On ground level, they propose to make the existing porch 6 feet wider. The existing oversized concrete basement stairs now located to the side of the porch will be replaced with a smaller staircase, and a new roof will be constructed over this area. There is no negative impact to the neighborhood, and the only change that will be visible from the street would be the front dormer. Mr. Bialows pointed out that the applicants had gone through a great effort when creating a design to ensure no negative impacts. Mr. Harmon asked whether or not notification was served on the neighbors. Trustee Santon noted that the property behind the home was Village property. Mr. Izzo stated that all notification requirements had been met. Zoning Board of Appeals August 3,2004 Page 15 Mr. Harmon called for members of the public wishing to address the application in support or opposition. Mrs. Talmadge of 40 Rockridge Drive noted that she was in support of the Belkins' application. Mr. Harmon made part of the record a letter in opposition to the application from Mr. Watkins of 20 Eagles Bluff. Mr. Harmon then turned to the Board for questions. Mr. Harmon sought clarification on the extent to which the roof line was being raised. Mr. Bialows stated that because existing attic space was being converted, the roof line would only have to be raised by approximately 1.5 feet. There being no further questions or comments, the public portion of the hearing was closed and the Board went into deliberation. Upon their return, Mr. Harmon read the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Mr. & Mrs. David Belkin for a 760 foot variance from maximum gross floor area requirements in connection with the proposed construction of two additions and performance of interior renovations, on property located at 38 Rockridge Drive in an R-10 District on the north side of Rockridge Drive, approximately 365 feet from the intersection of Rockridge Drive and Rockridge Drive/Blue Bird Hollow. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 1, Block: 6AA, Lot: 36. WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on August 3, 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 construction has been designed to make maximum use of existing unfinished space and effect a minimum addition of mass; 2) The front elevation will be increased on the backwards line by approximately 1.5 feet; 3) The new construction will be consistent with the surrounding neighborhood; and 4) The footprint of the house will be only minimally increased. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the application is hereby granted on the following condition: 1) Construction shall begin within one year of the granting of the variance. DATED: August 3, 2004 Mark Harmon, Chairperson 4 Ayes, 0 Noes Zoning Board of Appeals August 3,2004 Page 17 6) #06-351 MR. & MRS. SCOTT TALMADGE 40 Rockridge Drive Construct one second-story addition, two two-story additions, two one-story additions and a rear roofed porch Justin Mineri, Architect, addressed the Board. He noted that Scott and Alicia Talmadge were also in attendance and available to answer any questions that the Board might have. The proposed expansion includes a second floor addition, a rear expansion, and a bump out to the side of the home. The proposed construction complies with the current height setback ratio and lot overage, however, the FAR (Floor Area Ratio) requires a variance of 1002.32 square feet. Most of this square footage comes from finishing the existing attic, which is over the main living area. This three bedroom split level will now be made into a two- story colonial to give this growing family more living space. A front porch will be added. The footprint in the front will remain the same with the exception of the addition of the porch. Most of the expansion occurs in the rear, however the roof line changes and that would be visible from the street. There are no homes directly behind the applicants' property. Mr. Mineri presented the Board with photographs of the home and adjacent property. The addition consists of a master bedroom on the second floor, additional storage area, an increase to the dinning area, and an expansion of the family room. In addition, a small bump out will be added to the side of the home (the garage side) and it will serve as storage—bikes, etc. The house would also be given a face lift. The character of the home would be altered, but it was the applicants' opinion that it would be done in a very positive manner. Mr. Mineri noted that many of the homes on Rockridge have been expanded (prior to the changes in the Code). This proposal would not create a massive house. The Board was asked to grant the variances. Mr. Harmon called for anyone wishing to address the Board in support or opposition to the application. Mr. Harmon made part of the record a letter from Mr. Watkins in opposition to the application. Mr. Harmon noted that the photographs presented by Mr. Mineri were made part of the record. These photographs were of the applicants' home and adjacent homes/property. Mr. Harmon noted that one of his difficulties in reviewing the application was that there were no elevations provided on the plans showing the difference between the existing and proposed structure. He noted that it was hard to visualize the change from what was existing to what the extent of the proposed changes would look like. He questioned how much higher the roof would be in the front of the home. Mr. Mineri responded that the second page of the plans had a shaded Zoning Board of Appeals August 3,2004 Page 19 pictorial. He noted that an entire second floor would be added. From the current peak to the new peak there would be an additional 8 feet. An 8 foot high wall would be added versus just adding dormers. A new attic for storage would be created, but it would not be an attic that you cannot stand in. This second floor will be constructed above the current home and would extend from one end of the home to the other. In addition, a porch is proposed for the rear of the home, as was a bump out on the side of the garage. Mr. Harmon noted that this bump out would also be visible from the street. Mr. Talmadge stated that the existing garage is very tight. Mr. Harmon noted that this application would affect the character of the neighborhood. The consensus of the Board was that the variance requested was too large, and it was suggested that the applicants review the application and attempt to lessen the impact. There being no further discussion, the public portion of the meeting was closed and the Board went into deliberation at 9:30 p.m. After discussing the matter, the applicants agreed to review the plans further. The Board adjourned the application to the September meeting. Mr. Harmon noted that if the variance requested was lessened, the applicant would not have to complete the notification process again. The sign, however, would need to be corrected and posted. Mr. Harmon called for the final item on the agenda. 7) APPROVAL OF JULY 6, 2004 ZONING BOARD SUMMARY The summary was approved as submitted by a vote of four ayes to zero noes. There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m.