Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-04-07 - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes [:AMM' VER VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK Te 938 King Street --�-,- Zoning Board of Appeals Tuesday, April 7, 20157 [ D E C 2 �n n Meeting at 8:00 pm IC v MAY - 6 2015 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK Agenda BUILDING DEPARTMENT 1. # 14-009 Cono Potignano 2 Phyllis Place Request for extension of approval of zoning variances under Village Code 250-13.H. 2. #15-002 Andres Gonzalez and Johanna Gonzalez 2 Country Ridge Drive Construct rear second-story addition, front portico, rear wood deck; rear masonry patio; and interior alterations. 3 # 14-023 8 Edgewood Drive LLC Mr. Frank Chiarello (Adjourned from 3/3/201 S) 8 Edgewood Drive Construct new single family modular dwelling. 3. Approval of March 3, 2015 Zoning Board Summary BOARD: Steven Berger Andrew Kaminsky Joel Simon Jeffrey Richman Donald Moscato, Chairman STAFF: Michael Izzo, Building Inspector Philip Butler, Village Counsel Fred Seifert, Public Access CoordinatorlIT Paula Patafio, Meeting Secretary Zoning Board of Appeals April 7,2015 1' nge 1 Mr. Donald Moscato, Chairman, welcomed everyone to the Zoning Board meeting of April 7, 2015. He introduced Village consultants and staff, and asked that anyone addressing the Board please come to the podium, use the microphone, and state their names and the nature of the application. Mr. Moscato addressed a letter received from Lawrence Engle, Esq., the attorney for applicant Michael Grandazzo, regarding application #14-021. The applicant has requested an adjournment to the May meeting of the Zoning Board so the applicant can submit additional documents. The Chairman noted that this matter has been going on for quite some time. He noted further that the Village Attorney has been corresponding with Mr. Engle to try to move this matter along. With the consensus of the Board, a final adjournment was granted to the May meeting by 5 ayes and zero nays. Mr. Moscato called for the first item on the agenda: 1. # 14-004 Cono Potignano 2 Phyllis Place Request for extension of approval of zoning variances under Village Code 250-13.H. Mr. Potignano has requested an extension of variances that were previously granted. Mr. Kaminsky asked if there has been any progress on the project. Mr. Izzo, Building Inspector, explained that the applicant had some contractor issues and that, along with the weather conditions this winter, put the construction behind schedule. He added that the applicant has indicated that he wants to go ahead with the project and has requested a six month extension. The consensus of the Board was to grant the extension. Mr. Moscato read the resolution: Zoning Board of Appeals April 7,2015 Page 12 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APR 08 2015 RESOLUTION VILLAGE CL xs oFFI�E WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Cono Potignano for an extension of certain approvals granted by the Zoning Board in connection with the proposed construction of a second story addition, one-story two-car garage, driveway expansion and interior improvements, 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# 135.73-111; and WHEREAS, on September 2, 2014, the Zoning Board adopted a resolution granting Mr. Potignano (i) .08 side height setback ratio variance from Section 250-22.H.(2) of the Village Code; (u) a .03 front height setback ratio variance from Section 250-22.H.(1) of the Village Code; (ilii) a 56 square foot gross floor area variance from Section 250-22.D of the Village Code; (iv) a 14.98' front yard setback variance from Section 250-22.F. of the Village Code; and (v) relief from Section 250-6.G.(1)(d)[2] of the Village Code prohibiting the creation of off-street parking within 25 feet of the front lot line; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Village Code §250-13.H, such approvals were due to expire on March 2, 2015; and WHEREAS, the applicant submitted a written request, dated March 5, 2015, seeking an extension of the aforementioned approvals; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of Appeals is willing to entertain the applicant's request for extension notwithstanding that the approval expired, pursuant to the Village Code, prior to the date of applicant's written request; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board discussed the applicant's request for extension at its meeting on April 7, 2015; and WHEREAS, the proposed action is a Type II action pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act, and accordingly, no further environmental review is required. 1313/12/468290v1 411115 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the apphca t [HAS S NOT] shown good cause for granting an extension of the variances approved by resolution dated September 2, 2014; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the said-VPhcatn for an extension of approval of the aforementioned variances is hereb GRANTED/ NIED], subject to any and all conditions placed on the original variance approval, for a period of 6 months to September 2, 2015. Dated: April 7, 2015 ,z�P, 222 Mr. Don Moscato, Chairman Chairman Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting t�Aye Nay Abstain Andrew Kaminsky Voting: �ye Nay Abstain Don Moscato Voting: Aye Nay Abstain Jeffrey Richman Voting: Aye Nay Abstain Joel Simon Voting. Aye Nay Abstain !Ayes d Nays Abstain 1313/12/468290v1 411115 -2- Mr. Moscato called for the first item on the agenda: 2. #15-002 Andres Gonzalez and Johanna Gonzalez 2 Country Ridge Drive Construct rear second-story addition, front portico, rear wood deck; rear masonry patio; and interior alterations. Raul Belo, architect from the firm of Belo Architecture, PLLC, Rye, New York, addressed the Board. He introduced Andres Gonzalez, the owner of 2 Country Ridge Drive. Mr. Gonzalez is proposing several renovations to the house. Mr. Belo presented the Board with photographs of the home. He noted that the application includes a second floor addition in the rear of the home for a master bathroom; the demolition of the existing deck and construction of a new deck; siding the whole house; new trim, and the addition of a portico. The portico is to be constructed over the front door of the house, which is the main entrance to the home. The portico would offer the owner and guests some protection from the elements. The applicant requires a 7 foot variance in order to construct the portico. The portico will be centered over the front door, and will extend out 7 feet over the front stoop. It will have two (2) columns and a gabled roof, The columns are set back at 6'4" and roof extends seven (7) feet off the front of the home. Mr. Simon asked how much distance there is from the door to the first step down off the stoop. He asked why seven feet is required, why can't the portico extend out a shorter distance from the front of the home. Mr. Simon asked for clarification on the length of the portico in relation to the stoop. Mr. Belo explained that the portico will be made wider than the existing stoop. Mr. Moscato noted that the Zoning Board's past view of porticos was that they are an impingement on the streetscape. Recently, the Board has taken a more relaxed view. However, the Board is still concerned with aesthetics. The applicant will not be allowed to enclose the portico if the variance is granted. Andres Gonzalez, applicant, addressed the Board. Mr. Moscato noted that the variances run with the property. He asked if the applicant was in agreement that this portico would not be enclosed. Mr. Gonzalez agreed with that condition. He also noted that the Board wanted to be sure that this is smallest variance possible while still achieving the needs of the applicant; this is Mr. Simon's question as well. Mr. Belo noted that he was trying to create a focal feature on the front of the home and would not want to reduce the size to the point that it is no longer a focal point. Mr. Simon felt that coming out seven feet is excessive. He felt that the applicant could still create a full entry way with less than seven feet. The portico could be accomplished with a smaller structure. The consensus of the Board was that five feet was sufficient. Zoning Board of Appeals April 7,2015 Page 14 The concern was about the projection and not the width. Reducing the size of the patio at the front door would reduce the variance required to 5 1/2 feet. Mr. Richman agreed that seven feet seems excessive. He opined that the same functionality could be achieved with four or five feet. Mr. Gonzalez agreed that five feet is an acceptable distance. Mr. Simon concurred. Mr. Belo explained that the variance would be five feet to the center line of the columns. The portico roof would extend outward an additional six inches. Mr. Izzo noted that generally speaking the survey is done from the structure. In this case, it would be from the end of the stoop. The seven foot variance could be reduced to 5 12 feet. Mr. Belo presented the Board with photographs of homes in the area with porticos. Mr. Izzo stated that he would take into account the intent of the Board when reviewing the new plans and would let the applicant know if the revised portico exceeds the variance granted by the Zoning Board. Mr. Kaminsky agreed that cutting the length of the portico down a foot and a half would mitigate the protrusion issue. The public hearing was opened and Mr. Moscato called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in support or opposition to the application. There being no one, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed. The Board reviewed the five factors for considering a variance. The variance would be granted on the condition that the variance is limited to the approved portico and cannot be used to expand any other portion of the home. Upon completion of the Board's review, Chairman Moscato read the following resolution: Zoning Board of Appeals April 7,2015 P abc °5 ' D APR 0 8 2015 VILLZONING BOOARD of BROOK VILLAGE CLERK'S OFFICE RESOLUTION Cvr- L ) WHEREAS, an application has been made to the Zoning oard of Appeals by Andres and Johanna Gonzalez (the "Applicants") fora ue, foot front yard setback variance from Section 250-20.G.(I) of the Village Code, requiring a minimum front yard setback of 40 feet, in connection with the proposed enclosure of an open air portico on the front of the residence located at 2 Country Ridge Drive in the R-15 zoning district. Said premises being further identified as Section 129.60, Block 1, Lot 3 on the Town of Rye Tax Assessor's Map; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on the application on April 7, 2015, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and s WHEREAS, the public hearing was then closed on April 7, 2015; and WHEREAS, the proposed action is a Type II Action pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act, and accordingly, no further environmental review is required; and WHEREAS, the Board, from the application, after viewing the premises and neighborhood concerned, and upon considering each of the factors set forth at Section 250-13(G)(2)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brook Code, finds with respect to the front yard setback variance: 1) The variance [%neigh(bro:r /WILL N` create an adverse impact to the character of the oo ; 2) The benefit the applicant seeks [C<ap N �`J be achieved through another method, feasible for thet to pursue, that does not require the variance; 2 3) The variance [I(IS NO ju ntial; 4) The variance [WILLenta WILL NU' create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmonditions of the neighborhood; and S) The need for the variance S NOT] self=created; anda NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that said application for oot �-00 front yard setback variance is hereby GRANTS /DENIED], provided tha the scope of the approved front yard setback variance is imited to4the entrance portico and does not authorize any other encroachment into the 40 foo front yard setback required on the property. an vnen��astA Dated: April 7, 2015 Don Moscato, Chairman Steven Berger Voting �t/ e Na Abstain Absent T.. Y . Andrew Kaminsky Voting. e Nay Abstain Absent Don Moscato Voting: ye Nay Abstain Absent Jeffrey Richman Voting: Nay Abstain Absent Joel Simon Voting: Aye Nay Abstain Absent _Ayes Q Nays Abstain Absent - - Mr. Moscato called for the first item on the agenda: 3. # 14-023 8 Edgewood Drive LLC Mr. Frank Chiarello Adjourned from March 3, 2015 8 Edgewood Drive Construct new single family modular dwelling. Due to the nature of the application, Chairman Moscato and Mr. Kaminsky, who reside in the notification zone, have recused themselves from this matter. That means that there will be three members of the Board remaining and, in order for the application to be approved, the applicant will require all three aye votes. Acting Chairman Steven Berger noted that if Mr. Moscato or Mr. Kaminsky speaks, they will be speaking as residents only. Rick LaMontane, Bibbo Associates, the engineer for the project, addressed the Board. He noted that the project consists of the demolition of the existing residence and the construction of a new residence. There were two variance required. The applicant has moved the proposed home back and this has reduced the size of the front yard setback variance. The setback is determined by taking the setback average of neighboring lots; and one of the adjacent homes is setback very far from the street. Pushing the new construction back means pushing into the wetland buffer. It was noted that the front of proposed house is moving 14' closer to the road. The proposed new home was re-designed and moved further back on the lot. A hip roof was added to the design. This eliminated the need for the side yard height setback ratio variance. Mr. Berger noted that water management was discussed at the prior meeting. There was a lot of public comment regarding storm water runoff. Mr. LaMontane noted that the overall storm water management plan has not changed a lot. They show a reduction in storm water runoff in all quarters. The Board discussed the placement of the home on the property based on the revised plans. The home will be only five feet closer to the street than the existing home. This is a reduction from the original front yard setback variance that was sought. Mr. Berger called for anyone wishing to speak in favor of or opposition to the application. Mr. Moscato addressed the Board as a neighboring homeowner. He noted that a variance is being granted for storage space and garage space. If the size was cut back, then a smaller front yard setback variance would be needed. Ed Lombardi, who Zoning Board of Appeals April 7,2015 Page 17 works with the applicant, addressed the Board. He noted that the space above the garage extension is storage space for the master bedroom. The first floor is garage space, which is a standard sized garage. The Board and applicant discussed whether the depth of the garage extension can be reduced to lessen the front yard setback variance further. Mr. Lombardi explained that if the garage were extended further into the home it would affect the size of the kitchen. The only way to push the garage back would be to lose living space in the kitchen. The applicant said the proposed garage would be 25'6" deep. Mr. Izzo directed the Board's attention to the plans. He noted the existence of a "drop zone" in the garage. Mr. Simon asked how deep the garage needs to be. Mr. Izzo said that it depends on the size of the cars you own. Mr. Moscato noted that the home is a modular. Whoever builds the garage still determines the depth because it is "stick built" and is not part of the modular construction. There will also be a mud room between the garage and the interior of the home. He asked if 26'5"' is the smallest variance necessary. Mr. Berger noted that the garage is 22-23 feet deep with the additional space being the mud room. Mr. Izzo explained that the mud room is part of the garage, but separated by a wall. If the room were reduced, it would be non-functional. Mr. Richman noted that you need room in a garage to move around. Mr. Izzo added that he can't move easily in his own garage because of the size of his car. The Board felt that it should not handicap the utility of the garage by making it too small. Mr. Simon noted that he really doesn't have any issue with the garage as proposed. Mr. Moscato raised the drainage issue posed by the pipe running under Edgewood Drive and noted that it is a planning issue that he will bring before the Planning Board. He is not against the variance application, but has this concern. Mr. Leo Goldman, 10 Edgewood Drive, addressed the Board. He asked for clarification on the location of the existing home and the proposed home. It was noted that the rear of the home would end in the same spot as the existing home. The patio will be constructed in the same area. The front of the proposed new home will be closer to the road. The rear of the home will have the same footprint, however, the side of the home facing Mr. Goldman's property will move 10 feet closer to him. There being no further comments, the public portion of the hearing was closed. Mr. Berger thanked the applicant for listening to the Zoning Board of Appeal's comments. Mr. Berger read the following resolution: Zoning Board of Appeals April 7,2015 Page 18 EDE#V VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK APR O$ Z015 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS VILLAGE C��RK► RESOLUTION S OFFICE WHEREAS, an application was made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Frank Chiarello (the "Applicant"), for: (i) a 0.41 side height setback ratio variance from Section 250-19.1.J(2) of the Village Code; and (ii) an 81.55 foot front-yard setback variance from Section 250-19.1.H(1)(a)[1] of the Village Code, in connection with the proposed demolition of an existing single-family residence and construction of a new single-family modular residence at 8 Edgewood Drive in the R-25 zoning district. Said premises being further identified as Section 135.28, Block 1, Lot 28 on the Town of Rye Tax Assessor's Map; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was opened on February 3, 2015, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and WHEREAS, on the Applicant's request, the public hearing was carried over to April 7, 2015, to give the Applicant an opportunity to revise the application to eliminate and/or mitigate the variances requested; and WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted revised plans on March 10, 2015, which eliminate the need for the side height setback ratio variance and reduces the front yard setback variance from 81.55 feet to 76.75 feet; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board considered the revised plans at the continued public hearing on April 7, 2015, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and WHEREAS, the public hearing was then closed on April 7, 2015; and WHEREAS, the proposed action is a Type II Action pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act, and accordingly, no further environmental review is required; and WHEREAS, the Board, from the application, after viewing the premises and neighborhood concerned, and upon considering each of the factors set forth at Section -7b.-7 250-13(G)(2)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brook Code, finds with respect to the foot front yard setback variance: 1) The variance [WILL/ LL N create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborE, 2) The benefit the applicant seeks [CAN CANN ] be achieved through another method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, that does not require the variance; 3) The variance @IS NOT] substantial; 4) The variance [WILL/ NO create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmental con itions of the neighborhood; and 5) The need for the varianc [IS S NOT] self-created. 7G•�� NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that said application for a 5 foot front yard setback variance is hereby GRANTS /DENIED], s e o owi g c l Gv.s �.. r•l "1 Z o l a `` tt MCG (� l'o � Loc►�`SU tce'C+C.� Dated: April 7, 2015 Chairman Variance: Front Yard Setback Variance Chairman Moscato called the roll: / Steven Berger Voting: y Aye Nay Abstain Absent Andrew Kaminsky Voting: Aye Nay Abstain Absent \ZC c-j j . Don Moscato Voting: Aye Nay Abstain Absent Jeffrey Richman Voting: ✓Aye Nay Abstain Absent Joel Simon Voting: 1/Aye Nay Abstain Absent Ayes Nays Abstain Absent -2- 3. Approval of March 3, 2015 Zoning Board Summary Chairman Moscato called for approval of the March 3, 2015 summary. On a motion made by Mr. Simon, and seconded by Mr. Kaminsky, the minutes were adopted and approved by a vote of five ayes to zero nays. There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Zoning Board of Appeals April 7,2015 Page 110