Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-09-02 - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes tom-----�.-- VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK �sex"=r- " 938 King Street r-ATE Q Zoning Board of Appeals -' Tuesday, September 2, 2014 C Meeting at 8:00 p.m. L� �J Agenda OCT - 8 VILLAGE pF RYE BROOK 1. # 14-009 Cono Potignano BUILDING DEPARTMENT (adjourned from 8/5/2014) 2 Phyllis Place Construct 2nd story addition; 1 story two car garage addition; expand existing driveway and interior alterations. 2. # 13-019 66 Bowman Avenue Realty Corp. 66 Bowman Avenue Request extension of approval of Zoning variance, Village Code §250 - 1 3.H. 3. # 14-015 Mr. & Mrs. James Marshall 185 Country Ridge Drive Construct rear addition, finished basement, rear masonry patio & spa 4. # 14-013 Michael & Julie Leder Demolish existing garage; construct two story addition. 5. Approval of August 5, 2014 Zoning Board Summary BOARD: Andrew Kaminsky Joel Simon Jeffrey Richman Donald Moscato, Chairman Excused Steven Berger STAFF: Michael Izzo, Building Inspector Philip Butler, Village Counsel Fred Seifert, Public Access CoordinatorlIT Paula Patafio, Meeting Secretary Zoning Board of Appeals September 2,2014 Page 1 of 26 BOARD OF TRUSTEE LIAISON: Trustee David Heiser Minutes of Meeting Mr. Donald Moscato, Chairman, welcomed everyone to the Zoning Board meeting of September 2, 2014. He noted that there were only four members of the Board in attendance. Although there was a quorum, each applicant would require three aye votes in order to have their variances granted. Mr. Moscato offered each applicant the opportunity to request an adjournment to a date when there would be a full compliment of the Board. Mr. Moscato 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. Mr. Michael Izzo, Building Inspector, noted that a letter was received regarding 79 Tamarack Road. This information had not been reviewed by the applicant or the Board. Philip Butler, Esq., Village Counsel, felt that this information should not prevent the matter from moving forward. The letter was presented to the applicant for review, and Attorney Butler stated that it could be read into the record. Mr. Moscato called for the first item on the agenda: 1. # 14-009 Cono Potignano (adjourned from 8/5/2014) 2 Phyllis Place Construct 2nd story addition; 1 story two car garage addition; expand existing driveway and interior alterations. Mr. Moscato noted that this matter was adjourned from the August meeting. Mr. Tim Wetmore, architect, addressed the Board. He noted that the applicant is looking to construct a second floor addition. The front portion of the roof will be removed and the house wiII be expanded towards the front of the house. The applicant sought five variances. Mr. Timothy Wetmore, architect, reviewed the variances being requested and the size of each, noting that the largest variance is for the reconstruction of the existing carport. This property is a corner lot and has two front yards. The house was set on an angle, and although the applicant is not increasing the encroachment, it is substantial. The home would not come any closer to the road than what exists. The unenclosed carport would be replaced Zoning Board of Appeals September 2,2014 Page 2 of 26 with an enclosed garage. The house is Iocated 14' from the road, and was constructed on an angle on the property such that that any parking in the driveway is within the 25' setback. If the house was constructed straight on the property, in line with all the houses on the streets, two of the variances would not be needed. Mr. Moscato asked if an additional curb cut was needed when the work on the driveway is done. Mr. Wetmore responded that it was not. Attorney Butler noted that this is an expansion of an existing driveway, not the creation of a new structure. Mr. Moscato noted that the existing carport counts as impervious surface. The only additional impervious surface is the portion of the driveway. He questioned whether or not there were flooding issues in this area. Mr. Izzo, Building Inspector, stated that this property is not in the flood plain. The amount of impervious surface that is being added will probably not exacerbate flooding in the flood plain nearby. The expansion of the driveway would allow the applicant to park two cars side-by-side in the driveway. Andrew Kaminsky noted the carport is existing and basically the applicant is enclosing the space. He felt that this was a practical solution. Mr. Wetmore noted that this family has four cars; two will be in the garage and two will be in the driveway. Mr. Simon felt that the expansion of the driveway was not necessary as there would never be a need to back two cars out of the driveway at the same time. Mr. Moscato called for members of the public wishing to speak in favor or in opposition to the application. There being no one, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. On a motion made by Mr. Richman, and seconded by Mr. Kaminsky, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Moscato called the roll: Andrew Kaminsky Voting aye Jeffry Richman Voting aye Joel Simon Voting aye Don Moscato, Chairman Voting aye k Zoning Board of Appeals September 2,2014 Page 3 of 26 Mr. Moscato asked for the opinion of the Board of Trustee's Liaison, Trustee David Heiser. Trustee Heiser noted that he was concerned whether the addition to the driveway was necessary. There would never be two cars backing out at the same time. This addition impinges on the Village's right-of-way. Although a small impingement, it could set a precedent. Mr. Simon agreed with Trustee Heiser. Chairman Moscato felt that the size of the impingement was not substantial, however, the addition would impinge on the Village's right-of-way. Mr. Richman suggested that the matter be heard by the Board of Trustees. Mr. Moscato noted that variance being vetted has two pieces to it. Trustee Heiser felt that the best way to handle this application was to send it back to the Board of Trustees for its review and decision. Attorney Butler noted that there were three options: The Zoning Board could decide the variance tonight, the matter could be adjourned to next month's meeting, or the variance can be denied. Mr. Moscato asked if Mr. Izzo could make an administrative ruling that the applicant must go before the Board of Trustees. Mr. Izzo provided the Board with a brief explanation of his interpretation. He noted that when a home is built, a driveway is installed. You have to have access for the cars to get to the property from the road. Generally speaking, the width of the driveway has to do with the garage. If you have a one car garage, then you have a driveway that is a one-car width, a two car garage would require a driveway the width of two cars. However, the driveway must comply with the Code. Here, there is an existing driveway that was constructed years ago around some tree that is now gone. They are expanding the driveway into the Village's right-of-way, but this is not a three dimensional structure. It was his opinion that this would not require Board of Trustees approval. Mr. Simon stated that he was still uncomfortable with granting the variance unless the Board of Trustees approved it first. Mr. Kaminsky noted that this is really a technicality because of the way the house is situated on the property. He felt that it would be a burden for the applicant to go before the Board of Trustees and then return to the Zoning Board. Mr. Moscato also felt that referring the matter back to the Board of Trustees was not needed as this is a judgmental call. Given this discussion, Mr. Moscato read the resolution which addressed the variances separately. Zoning Board of Appeals September 2,2014 Page 4 of 26 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, an application has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Cono Potignano for: (1) a front height setback ratio variance of.03 from the Village Code §250-22.H.(1); 2) a side height setback ratio variance of .08 from Village Code §250- 22.H.(2); 3) a gross floor area variance of 56 square feet from Village Code §250-22.D; 4) a front yard setback variance of I4.98' from Village Code §250-22.F.(1); and 5) for relief from Village Code §250-6.G.(1)(d)(2), which prohibits the creation of unenclosed off-street parking within 25' of the front lot line, in connection with the proposed construction of a second story addition, one-story two-car garage addition, driveway expansion and interior alterations, on property located at 2 Phyllis Place, in an R-10 zoning district, at the intersection of Sunset Road and Phyllis Place. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID# 135.73- 1-11; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on September 2, 2014, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and WHEREAS, said public hearing on the application was then closed on September 2, 2014; 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 §250- 13(G)(2)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brook Code, finds with respect to the front height setback ratio variance: I) 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 a variance; 3) The variance is NOT substantial; 4) The variances WILL NOT create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and Zoning Board or Appeals September 2,2014 Page 5 of 26 5) The need for the variances IS self-created; and WHEREAS, the Board, from the application, after viewing the premises and neighborhood concerned, and upon considering each of the factors set forth at §250- 13(G)(2)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brook Code, finds with respect to the side height setback ratio variance: 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 a variance; 3) The variance is NOT substantial; 4) The variances WILL NOT create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and 5) The need for the variance IS self-created. WHEREAS, the Board, from the application, after viewing the premises and neighborhood concerned, and upon considering each of the factors set forth at §250- 13(G)(2)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brook Code, finds with respect to the gross floor area variance: 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 a variance; 3) The variance is NOT substantial; 4) The variances WILL NOT create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and 5) The need for the variance IS self-created. WHEREAS, the Board, from the application, after viewing the premises and neighborhood concerned, and upon considering each of the factors set forth at §250- 13(G)(2)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brook Code, finds with respect to the front yard setback ratio variance: 1) The variances WILL NOT create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood; Zoning Board of Appeals September 2,2014 Page 6 of 26 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 NOT substantial; 4) The variances WILL NOT create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and 5) The need for the variance IS self-created. WHEREAS, the Board, from the application, after viewing the premises and neighborhood concerned, and upon considering each of the factors set forth at §250- 13(G)(2)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brook Code, finds with respect to the unenclosed off- street parking variance: 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 a variance; 3) The variance is NOT substantial; 4) The variances WILL NOT create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and 5) The need for the variance IS self-created. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the said application for the front height setback ratio variance is hereby granted; and said application for the side height setback ratio variance is hereby granted; and said application for the gross floor area variance is hereby granted; and said application for the front yard setback variance is hereby granted, and said application for the unenclosed off-street parking variance is hereby granted. The roll was called for the front height setback ratio variance: Andrew Kaminsky Voting aye Jeffiy Richman Voting aye Joel Simon Voting aye Don Moscato, Chairman Voting aye Granted on a vote of four ayes to zero nays. The roll was called on the side height setback variance: Andrew Kaminsky Voting aye Jeffiy Richman Voting aye Joel Simon Voting aye Zoning Board of Appeals September 2,2014 Page 7 of 26 Don Moscato, Chairman Voting aye Granted on a vote of four ayes to zero nays The roll was called on the gross floor area variance: Andrew Kaminsky Voting aye Jeffry Richman Voting aye Joel Simon Voting aye Don Moscato, Chairman Voting aye Granted on a vote of four ayes and zero nays The roll was minimum required front yard setback variance: Andrew Kaminsky Voting aye Jeffry Richman Voting aye Joel Simon Voting aye Don Moscato, Chairman Voting aye Granted on a vote of four ayes and zero nays The roll was called on the unenclosed off street parking variance: Andrew Kaminsky Voting aye Jeffry Richman Voting aye Joel Simon Voting nay Don Moscato, Chairman Voting aye Granted on a vote of three ayes and one nay Dated: September 2, 2014 Don Moscato, Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals September 2,2014 Page 8 of 26 EDVILLAGE OF RYE BROOKZONING BOARD OF APPEALS RESOLUTION WHEREAS, an application has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Cono Potignano for (i) a front height setback ratio variance of.03 from Village Code 5250- 22.H.(1); (ii) a side height setback ratio variance of.08 from Village Code §250-22.H.(2); (iii) a gross floor area variance of 56 square feet from Village Code 5250-22.13; (iv) a front yard setback variance of 14.98' from Village Code §250-22.F.(1); and (v) for relief from Village Code §250-G.G.(1)(d)[2], which prohibits the creation of unenclosed off-street parking within 25' of the front lot line, in connection with the proposed construction of a second story addition, one-story two-car garage addition, driveway expansion and interior alterations, on property located at 2 Phyllis Place, in an R-10 zoning district, at the intersection of Sunset Road and Phyllis Place. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID# 135.73-1-11; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on September 2, 2014, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and WHEREAS, the public hearing on said application was then closed on September 2, 2014; 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 front height setback ratio variance : 1) The variance /WILL N create an adverse impact to the character of the neighbo , 1313/12/4705200 8/15/14 2) The benefit the applicant seeks [C /CANNO achieved through another method, feasible for the appiica ursue, that does not require a variance; 3) The variance [TSISN substa 'al; 4) The variance [WIL create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and 5) The need for the varian(!VS S NOT] self-created; and WHEREAS, the Board, from the application, after viewing the premises and neighborhood concerned, and upon considering each of the factors set forth at Section 250- 13(G)(2)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brook Code, finds with respect to the side height setback ratio variance: 1) The variance [WIL WILL7ND� create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood; 2) The benefit the applicant seeks [CA ANN be achieved through another method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, that does not require a variance; 3) The variance [1§118NO sub 4) The variance [WILL LL create any adverse impacts to the physical o en ' onmental conditions of the n7��orhoo a �� Va, 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 gross floor area variance: The variance [WILLWILL create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood; err J),-The benefit the applicant seeks [CAN be achieved through another method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, that does not require a variance; The variance [IS/ �NO2standal; The variance [WILL/ NO eate any adverse impacts to the hysical or environmental co ons of the neighborhood; and The need for the varian [IS S NOT] self-created; and 1313/12/470520x1 8125114 8) The need for the variance [IS/IS NOT] self-created; and WHEREAS, the Board, from the application, after viewing the premises and neighborhood concerned, and upon considering each of the factors set forth at Section 250- 13(G)(2)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brook Code, finds with respect to the front yard setback variance : The variance [WILL(WILL create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood; 2) The benefit the applicant seeks [C /CANN e achieved through another method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, that does not require a variance; The variant IS IS NO tial; The variance [WILL LL create any adverse impacts to the ysical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood;and The need for the varianyoS NOT] self-created; and WHEREAS, the Board, from the application, after viewing the premises and neighborhood concerned, and upon considering each of the factors set forth at Section 250- 13(G)(2)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brook Code, Finds with respect to the unenclosed off-street parking variance: The variance [WILL LL NO create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhoo ; f^The benefit the applicant seeks [CAN a achieved through another method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, that does not require a variance; The variancO�FVIS NOT] substantial; The variance [WI WILL N create any adverse impacts to the 13'hysical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and §)-The need for the varianc [o/IS NOT] self-created. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that said application for the front height setback ratio variance is hereb [GRA D/DENIED]; and said application for the side height setback ratio variance is hereb [G /DENIED]; and said application for the gross floor area variance is hereb RAN /DENIED]; and said application for the front yard setback variance is hereb RAN /DENIED]; and said application for 1313/12/47051ov2 8/29/14 the unenclosed off-street parking variance is hereby [GRANTE /DENIED], on the following conditions: 1. and 2. Dated: September 2, 2014 r Don Moscato, Chairman Variance#1: Front Height Setback Ratio Variance Chairman Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting `,,A3'e Nay Abstain t/Absent Andrew Kaminsky Voting:?Aye a Nay Abstain Absent Don Moscato Votinge Nay Abstain Absent Jeffrey Richman Voting: e Nay Abstain Absent Joel Simon Voting Nay Abstain Absent Ayes d Nays Abstain / Absent Variance #2: Side Height Setback Ratio Variance Chairman Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting ye Nay Abstain 'Absent Andrew Kaminsky Voting �e Nay Abstain Absent Don Moscato Voting r�.e�Kye Nay Abstain Absent Jeffrey Richman Voting_✓ ye Nay Abstain Absent Joel Simon Voting: Aye Nay Abstain Absent Ayes Nays Abstain Absent 0 1313111/47052W 8/13114 Variance #3: Gross Floor Area Variance Chairman Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting.-- a Nay Abstain 'Absent Andrew Kaminsky Voting %ve Nay Abstain Absent Don Moscato Voting j/ ye Nay Abstain Absent Jeffrey Richman Voting: e Nay Abstain Absent Joel Simon Voting: Aye Nay Abstain Absent Ayes .2 Nays Abstain Absent Variance #4: Front Yard Setback Variance Chairman Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting. ye Nay Abstain Absent Andrew Kaminsky Voting. , e Nay Abstain Absent Don Moscato Voting ye Nay Abstain Absent Jeffrey Richman Voting. Aye Nay Abstain Absent Joel Simon Voting.I.-Aye Nay Abstain Absent .Ayes -jL Nays Abstain { Absent Variance #5: Unenclosed Off-Street Parking Variance Chairman Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Votingye Nay Abstain t Andrew Kaminsky Voting ��e� Nay Abstain Absent Don Moscato Voting: ye Nay Abstain Absent Jeffrey Richman Voting: Aye Nay Abstain Absent Joel Simon Voting Aye Nay c/Abstain Absent �Ayes Nays Abstain Absent 131311214705200 a(25/14 2. # 13-019 66 Bowman Avenue Realty Corp. 66 Bowman Avenue Request extension of approval of Zoning variance, Village Code §250 - 1 3.H. Mr. Contadino, architect for the applicant, addressed the Board. He noted that earlier this year the applicant was granted an extension of two variances; one for lot coverage and the second in connection with parking. However, the applicant failed to obtain building permits within the six months after the extension was granted. There was some additional items that the Building Department requested and the deadline was missed. Mr. Moscato noted that this is the second time the applicant has allowed the variances to expire, and that the application has been drawn out unnecessarily. This was the last extension that would be granted. Mr. Kaminsky noted that he was comfortable with a six month extension of the variances, even though the applicant is about to pull building permits, as there could be no excuse in the event that the applicant fails to pull the permits for a third time. Mr. Moscato called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in support or opposition to the application. There being no one, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. On a motion made by Mr. Simon, and seconded by Mr. Kaminsky, the public hearing was closed. Andrew Kaminsky Voting aye Jeffry Richman Voting aye Joel Simon Voting aye Don Moscato, Chairman Voting aye Mr. Moscato read the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, an application has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by 66 Bowman Avenue Realty Corp for an extension of the approval of: 1) a total impervious surface coverage variance of 2,009.32 square feet; and 2) an off-street parking variance for 12 parking spaces, in connection with the proposed expansion of the existing parking area, on property located at 66 Bowman Avenue, in an R-2F zoning district on the south Zoning Board of Appeals September 2,2014 Page 14 of 26 side of Bowman Avenue, near the intersection of Barber Place and Bowman Avenue. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID# 141.27-1-24; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of Appeals originally approved the above-listed variances by resolution dated January 15, 2013 and WHEREAS, the approvals expired on July 15, 2013, pursuant to Village Code §250-13.H, without the applicant acquiring the necessary building permits or requesting an extension of said approvals; and WHEREAS, the applicant filed a second, identical application, which application was approved, in its entity, by resolution dated January 7, 2014; and WHEREAS, said variance approvals expired again on July 7, 2014, while the applicant's building permit application was partially complete and pending; and WHEREAS, the applicant submitted a written request for an extension of said approvals on July 25, 2014; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of Appeals is willing to entertain the applicant's - request for extension notwithstanding that the approvals expired prior to the date of the applicant's written request; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on September 2, 2014, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and WHEREAS, said public hearing on the application was then closed on September 2, 2014; 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 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that said applicant has shown good cause for granting an extension of the variance approved by resolution dated January 7, 2014, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that said application for an extension of approval of the aforementioned variances if hereby granted retroactively, subject to any Zoning Board of Appeals September 2,2014 Page I5 of 26 and all placed on said variance approvals on January 7, 2014 for a period of six months to January 7, 2015. The roll was called: Andrew Kaminsky Voting aye Jeffry Richman Voting aye Joel Simon Voting aye Don Moscato, Chairman Voting aye Granted on a vote of four ayes and zero nays Dated: September 2, 2014 Don Moscato, Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals September 2,2014 Page 16 of 26 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK E(CEOVED ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SEP 0 3 2014 RESOLUTION VILLAGE CLERK'S OFFICE WHEREAS, an application has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by 66 Bowman Avenue Realty Corp. (the "Applicant") for an extension of the approval of(1) a total impervious surface coverage variance of 2,009.32 square feet; and (2) an off-street parldng variance for 12 parking spaces, in connection with the legalization of an expanded parking area and rear flagstone patio with water feature, and proposed expansion of the existing parking area, on property located at 66 Bowman Avenue,in an R-2F zoning district on the south side of Bowman Avenue, near the intersection of Barber Place and Bowman Avenue. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID#141.27-1-24; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of Appeals originally approved the above-listed variances by resolution dated January 15, 2013; and WHEREAS, the approvals expired on July 15, 2013, pursuant to Village Code §250- 13.H, without the Applicant acquiring the necessary building permits or requesting an extension of said approvals; and WHEREAS, the Applicant filed a second, identical application, which application was approved, in its entirety,by resolution dated January 7,2014; and WHEREAS, said variance approvals expired again on July 7, 2014, while the Applicant's Building Permit application was partially complete and pending and WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted a written request for an extension of said approvals on July 25, 2014;and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of Appeals is willing to entertain the Applicant's request for extension notwithstanding that the approvals expired prior to the date of Applicant's written request, and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on September 2, 2014, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity;and 13131111471919v1 8125114 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. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Applicant(PHAS NOT] shown good cause for granting an extension of the variance approved by resolution dated January 7, 2014, in that, according to. the Applicant, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that said application for an extension of approval of the aforementioned variances is he y:GR.::T>F1EN'ED'Dretroactively, subject to any and all conditions placed on said vovals on January 7, 2014, for a period of six (G) months to January 7, 2015. Dated: September 2, 2014 Mr. Don Moscato, Chairman Chairman Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting: e Na Abstain g g � y Andrew Kaminsky Voting: Nay Abstain Don Moscato Voting: a Nay Abstain Jeffrey Richman Voting- ye Nay Abstain Joel Simon Voting Aye Nay Abstain Ayes d Nays 13131121471929v1 8125114 3. # 14-015 Mr. & Mrs. James Marshall 185 Country Ridge Drive Construct rear addition, finished basement, rear masonry patio & spa Mr. Frederic Zonsius, architect of FZAD Architectural and Design, addressed the Board. He noted that the variance required is in connection with bulk zoning requirements. The house is setback on the property by approximately 138 feet. This is a split level house. He presented the Board with photographs taken from the street, and noted that the second floor overhangs the first floor by two feet. This is the portion that will be filled in. He pointed the proposed changes on the blueprint, which includes the wood deck that is being replaced by a stone patio. There will be a hot tub added, and it will be on grade. The neighboring homes are further down a slope so the addition will not affect them. The addition changes the one and a half car garage to a two car garage. The functionality of the garage is a big part of the application. Mr. Moscato asked a procedural question concerning notice requirements affecting the application. Attorney Butler noted that under State and County law, when the property is within 500' from a municipal boundary, there must be notice or referral to the adjacent community and/or county under certain circumstances. Mr. Butler confirmed that notice and referral were not required under State or County Law for this application. However, the Village Zoning Ordinance requires notice to the adjoining municipality for all applications within 500 feet of the Village boundary. This was not done for this application. Therefore, the Board could adjourn the application or vote to waive the local notice requirement, which is unique to the Village Code. Mr. Izzo noted that the rear of the home, which extends towards Harrison, has the east branch of the Blind Brook behind it. The architect noted that the applicant was not increasing the encroachment, only extending the wall of the first floor outward to be flush with the overhanging second floor. In fact, the patio would be brought closer to the house by 6'. Trustee David Heiser noted that the Zoning Board has the discretion under the Code to make this decision. There is no reason why the ZBA should not exercise this discretion in this circumstance. The architect noted that the existing walk-out basement is bedrock. The additional two feet expansion makes the room functional. This is a pre-existing non- conforming house. The extension would run the entire width of the house and is going out two feet. Zoning Board of Appeals September 2,2014 Page 19 of 26 Mr. Moscato asked for additional comments from the Board. He called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in support or opposition to the application. There being none, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. On a motion made by Mr. Richman, and seconded by Mr. Kaminsky, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Moscato called the roll: Andrew Kaminsky Voting aye Jeffry Richman Voting aye Joel Simon Voting aye Don Moscato, Chairman Voting aye Mr. Moscato read the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, an application has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Mr. & Mrs. James Marshall for a 1,253 square foot q gross floor area variance from Village Code §250-20.D, prescribing a maximum gross floor area of 3,541 square feet, in connection with the proposed construction of a rear addition, finished basement, rear masonry patio and spa, on property located at 185 Country Ridge Drive, in an R-15 zoning district on the west side of Country Ridge Drive, at the intersection of Country Ridge Close and Country Ridge Drive. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID# 129.82-1-25; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on September 2, 2014, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and WHEREAS, said public hearing on the application was then closed on September 2, 2014; 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 Zoning Board of Appeals September 2,2014 Page 20 of 26 WHEREAS, the Board, from the application, after viewing the premises and neighborhood concerned, and upon considering each of the factors set forth at §250- 13(G)(2)(b)[2][a]-f e] of the Rye Brook Code, fids with respect to the lot merger variance and with respect to the gross floor area variance: 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 a variance; 3) The variance is NOT substantial; 4) The variances WILL NOT create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and 5) The need for the variances IS self-created; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that said application for the gross floor area variance is hereby granted. The roll was called: Andrew Kaminsky Voting aye Jeffry Richman Voting aye Joel Simon Voting aye Don Moscato, Chairman Voting aye Granted on a vote of four ayes and zero nays Dated: September 2, 2014 Don Moscato, Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals September 2,2014 Page 21 of 26 D EC�EUVE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK SEP Q 3 2014 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS VILLAGE CLERK'S OFFICE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, an application has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Mr. & Mrs.James Marshall for a 1,253 square foot gross floor-area variance from Village Code §250-20.D, prescribing a maximum gross floor-area of 3,541 square feet, in connection with the proposed construction of a rear addition, finished basement, rear masonry patio and spa, on property located at 185 Country Ridge Drive, in an R-15 zoning district on the west side of Country Ridge Drive, at the intersection of Country Ridge Close and Country Ridge Drive. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID# 129.82-1-25; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on September 2, 2014, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity;and WHEREAS, the public hearing on said application was then closed on September 2, 2014; 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 gross floor-area variance 1) The variance [WI nWILL NOT])cate an adverse impact to the character of the neighbo -� 2) The benefit the applicant seeks fCA A e achieved through another method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, that does not require a variance; 3) The variance [IIS NOT] s stantial;� 4) The variance [WI WILL NO Bate any adverse impacts to the physical or environmen n tions of the neighborhood; and 1313:12470520x2 8/27:`14 5) The need for the varian [I / self-created; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT SOLVED, that said application for the gross floor-area variance is here [GRANTED NIED],on die faH rir�� 1. • and 2. Dated: September 2, 2014 Don Moscato, Chairman Chairman Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting. ye Nay Abstain Absent Andrew Kaminsky Votingyc Nay Abstain Absent Don Moscato Voting- .ye Nay Abstain Absent Jeffrey Richman Voting: ye Nay Abstain Absent Joel Simon Voting:_K_Aye Nay Abstain Absent 4Ayes Nays Abstain Absent 1313/12/4705200 8127/14 4. # 14-013 Michael & Julie Leder Demolish existing garage; construct two story addition. John Scarlota, Jr., architect, addressed the Board. He stated that the applicant is looking to remove and rebuild the garage. The garage will be pulled four feet closer to the road, and a master bedroom will be constructed over the garage. The roof line will stay the same but extended outward over the garage. Mr. Izzo noted that the mail and sign posting notification was not received. Mr. Moscato responded that the application could be heard and then the Board would not close the public hearing, or the matter could be adjourned to the next meeting and the affidavit. could be submitted. Mr. Scarlota noted that the notice was done and the sign was installed, but the information was not sent to the Village. He requested that the matter be heard. Mr. Scarlota noted that the applicant also requires a side yard height setback. The variance is really just for the point of the roof. The first two variances being requested are not increasing the non-conformity. The goal is to keep with the home in character with the neighborhood. Attorney Butler noted that a letter from the neighbor that was sent to the Village can be provided to the applicant and the Board. This neighbor owns the adjacent home but is in California. The information and plans are available to the neighbor. Mr. Moscato noted that the homes in this area are very close together. Mr. Scarlota presented the Board with photo of other homes in the area that have rooms built over the garage. Mr. Moscato called for members of the public in support or opposition to the application. Leslie Bloom of 81 Tamarack Road addressed the Board. He noted that his family has resided in this home for 30 years. He stated that they have no objection to the work on the garage, however, the room over the garage will have an adverse effect on them and will affect their quality of life. He presented the Board with photographs of the homes on this block, depicting the spacing between the homes. He felt that the property value would go down and, more importantly, the room on top of the garage would block the light and air into their home. Mr. Simon stated that adding a second story in this neighborhood does change the character of this neighborhood. Zoning Board of Appeals September 2,2014 Page 24 of 26 Sally Bloom, 81 Tamarack Road, noted that the second story with or without windows above the garage will have an adverse effect on them. The addition will block the light and air to her bedrooms and living room. Mr. Moscato noted that this matter would be adjourned to the October meeting no matter what, and asked if there are any alternatives that could be considered. Mr. Kaminsky asked why the addition could not be built in the rear of the home. Mr. Scarlota noted that the master bedroom is in the front. The terrain of the lot prohibits an addition in the rear. Also, the configuration of the bathroom and kitchen prevent relocation of the addition. Mr. Moscato requested photos, and more information, to support the logic of why the room must be added over the garage. The Board was not satisfied with the application and would like to know whether this is the smallest possible variance necessary. The other issue is the effect on the neighbor. This addition would encroach on his property by going up. Mr. Moscato noted that there are certain things that an owner can do as-of-right. However, this application requires a variance and the Zoning Board must consider the five factors when granting or denying this application. Additional information must be submitted to the Village two weeks before the next meeting. On a motion made by Mr. Richman, and seconded by Mr. Simon, the public hearing was adjourned to the October ZBA meeting. Mr. Moscato called the roll: Andrew Kaminsky Voting aye Jeffry Richman Voting aye Joel Simon Voting aye Don Moscato, Chairman Voting aye Zoning Board of Appeals September 2,2014 Page 25 of 26 S. Approval of August 5, 2014 Zoning Board Summary On a motion made by Mr. Richman, and seconded by Mr. Simon, the summary was adopted as amended. Mr. Moscato called the roll: Andrew Kaminsky Voting aye Jeffry Richman Voting aye Joel Simon Voting aye Don Moscato, Chairman Voting aye There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Mr. Moscato called the roll: Andrew Kaminsky Voting aye Jeffry Richman Voting aye Joel Simon Voting aye Don Moscato, Chairman Voting aye Zoning Board of Appeals September 2,2014 Page 26 of 26