Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-05-05 - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK A 938 King Street LATE Zoning Board of Appeals --•------ _. �, Tuesday, May 5, 2015 IVILLAGE ���Q�nMeeting at 8:00 p.m. VJUN - 3 2015Agenda OF RYE BROOKILDING DEPgRTMENT 1. # 15-003 Prakash Krishnan & Raji Krishnan 29 Meadowlark Road Construct 2 story addition; side 2 story addition; side I story addition; front portico and interior alterations. 2. Approval of April 7, 2015 Zoning Board Summary BOARD: Steven Berger Andrew Kaminsky Joel Simon Jeffrey Richman Donald Moscato, Chairman STAFF: Michael Izzo, Building Inspector Philip Butler, Village Counsel Fred Seifert, Public Access Coordinator/IT Paula Patafio, Meeting Secretary BOARD LIAISON: Trustee David Heiser Mr. Donald Moscato, Chairman, welcomed everyone to the Zoning Board meeting of May 5, 2015. He introduced Village consultants and staff, and asked that anyone addressing the Board please come to the podium, use the microphone, and state their names and the nature of the application. He noted that there was an item that was not on the agenda but was a carry-over from the April meeting. The application for Michael Grandazzo, application #14-021, has been before the Board for some time now. The applicant has requested an adjournment at the April meeting and it was granted, which was granted with the consensus of the Board. A final adjournment date was set for May, but there have been extenuating circumstances. Zoning Board of Appeals May 5,2015 Page 1 of 5 Mr. Moscato called upon Village Attorney, Philip Butler, for an overview of the situation. Philip Butler, Esq. noted that the application is to legalize a number of items in the backyard on the subject property. An incomplete application was submitted and the Building Department was waiting on additional information before the application could be considered complete. Nevertheless, a review of the materials that were submitted showed that the applicant has taken the Board's prior recommendation into account and that the applicant has successfully eliminated the need for several of the variances and reduced others. A storm water management plan has now been submitted and the application is now complete. Therefore, it will be ready to come before the Board at its next meeting in June. The only option for the Board at this time would be to declare the application abandoned, however, it is evident that the applicant was attempting to meet the deadlines and move forward with the application in good faith. There are circumstances that caused the applicant to miss the deadline for the agenda. If the application does not move forward at the June meeting, then it can be declared abandoned. The consensus of the Board was to adjourn the matter to the June meeting except that if the matter does not move forward in June, for whatever reason, the application will be declared abandoned. Mr. Moscato called for the first item on the agenda: 1. # 15-003 Prakash Krishnan & Raji Krishnan 29 Meadowlark Road Construct 2 story addition; side 2 story addition; side 1 story addition; front portico and interior alterations. Mr. Moscato noted that Jeffrey Richman was within the notice area and will recuse himself from participating on this matter. Mr. Justin Minieri, Architect, addressed the Board. He introduced the homeowners/applicants. He noted that the application requires three variances. The first variance is a 51.33 foot front yard setback. This is an R-20 zone and the requirement is to average out the two adjoining properties. This is an existing non-conformity. The home fronts on Meadowlark. The construction will not further encroach upon the non- conformity. The expansion is needed to accommodate the applicants' growing family and to make room for the applicants' parents who will be moving into the home on a permanent basis. Mr. Minieri provided the Board with plans depicting the elevations of the home. The home is a dated, front to back split level. Part of the expansion includes renovation of the house. Granting the variance will not be out of character with the Zoning Board of Appeals May 5,2015 Page 2 of 5 1 neighborhood. A two-story addition will be added above the garage. The variances i. required include building coverage and F.A.R. Mr. Minieri reviewed the floor plan. The expansion on the Oriole Place side is a bedroom addition. A master bedroom and dining room are also being added. The dining room is a one-story addition facing Meadowlark. Mr. Andrew Kaminsky felt that the applicant was proposing large variances. Mr. Steven Berger noted that the expansion goes right up to the building envelope. He felt that the dining room was massive. He asked if the proposed additions could be made smaller in order to reduce the size of the variances requested and still meet the needs of the homeowner. Mr. Krishnan, the applicant, addressed the Board. He noted that he spoke with all of his neighbors. They love it in Rye Brook and want to remain here. His parents have health issues and will be moving in with him. The current dining room extension is going to replace the dining room and kitchen area that will be converted into a bedroom for his parents use. The construction will give them a bedroom and bathroom for their own use. There is a proposed wine cellar that will be added, and as the current master bedroom is small, the addition will include an expansion to the master bedroom and bath. The addition will add to the comfort of their family. Mr. Moscato noted that a variance granted for a property stays with theroe . He P P rty asked for clarification regarding the existing kitchen. It was noted that when the work has been completed there will still only be one kitchen in the house. Mr. Krishnan noted that these additions will give them the opportunity to stay in this home for the long term. Mr. Moscato felt that the extension on the Medowlark side increases the gross floor area significantly. The justification for the bedrooms is a separate issue. For the benefit of the viewing public, he noted that this property is in the R-20 zone. The front yard setback is governed by where the neighbors houses are. Mr. Krishnan noted that there is an additional variance because the property is a corner property, fronting on two streets. Mr. Michael Izzo, Building Inspector, clarified that only one kitchen will be in the house once the construction has been completed. He noted that the wine cellar will be 100 square feet. Mr. Krishnan stated that the wine area can be removed, but the size of the dining room is needed. He acknowledged that they may be able to reduce the size of the dining room slightly. Zoning Board of Appeals May 5,2015 Page 3 of 5 Mr. Moscato noted that letters were received on behalf of the applicant. He called for members of the public wishing to address the Board. Kathy Schiller of 26 Meadowlark noted the applicants have upgraded the home. She felt that the Village needed to encourage this type of variance. This will attract young professional families. She noted that there is water issue in this area, but she gave her wholehearted approval for the application. Mr. Moscato noted that the Code would need to be re-engineered to reduce the need for variances for these types of construction. That is a matter for the Board of Trustees. Dan Salinka, 31 Meadowlark Road, addressed the Board. The applicants approached the neighbors and explained the situation prior to submitting the application. He did express a concern regarding the existing generator. The applicant has offered to provide a buffer or move the generator. Mr. Minieri noted that the generator is screened. The current generator would need to be moved. Mr. Izzo noted that the generator must be co-located with other equipment. Mr. Minieri noted that the current HVAC equipment is on the Oriole PIace side. Generators and air conditioning units are not allowed in the front yard. Mr. Salinka noted that he was told that the construction would extend approximately 15 feet. Only a portion of the side of the home is being extended. It is not overly intrusive. There is a fence and shrubs that separate the two properties. He supported the application. Mr. Moscato noted that this application will go before the Architectural Review Board. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed and the Board began deliberation. Mr. Moscato reviewed the variances with the Board members. A water management plan will be required. Mr. Moscato reviewed the factors for approving a variance. The consensus of the Board was that the variances being requested are excessive. Mr. Moscato offered to suspend the discussion of the variances until the applicant and their architect meet. They will come back to the June meeting with a reduced plan. The application was adjourned to the June 2, 2015 Zoning Board meeting. All information must be submitted two weeks prior to the June meeting in order to be placed on the agenda. The notification sign must be change the date but no re-notification is necessary. Zoning Board of Appeals May 5,2015 Page 4 of 5 2. Approval of April 7, 2415 Zoning Board Summary Mr. Moscato called for comments on the minutes, there being none the minutes were approved by a vote of five ayes to zero nays. Mr. Moscato called for a motion to adjourn. The meeting was adjourned at 8:58 p.m. Zoning Board of Appeals May 5,2015 Page 5 of 5