Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-06-02 - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes DATE� ---01 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK 93$ King Street D (��RNE Zoning Board of Appeals Tuesday,June 2, 2015 AU62 5 ID2015Meeting at 8:00 p.m. VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK Agenda BUILDING DEPARTMENT 1. # 15-003 Prakash Krishnan & Raji Krishnan (Adjourned from 5/5/2015) 29 Meadowlark Road Construct 2 story addition; side 2 story addition; side 1 story addition; front portico and interior alterations. 2. #14-021 Mr. Michael Grandazzo (Adjourned from 3/3/2015) 11 Maple Court Legalize the existing deck, pool, pool deck, shed and enclosed porch addition 3. #15-005 Douglas Trokie and Leslie Dubin 21 Berkley Lane Construct 2 story rear addition, new deck, new front porch and new stone curbing. 4. #15-009 Bowridge Realty 80 Bowman Avenue Construct a 3-story mixed use building consisting of 2,400 square feet of retail space and 4 dwelling units on the first floor and six dwelling units, each, on the second and third floors 5. Approval of May 5, 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 Zoning Board of Appeals June 2,2015 Page 1 of 19 Paula Patafio, Meeting Secretary BOARD LIAISON: Trustee David Heiser Mr. Donald Moscato, Chairman, welcomed everyone to the Zoning Board meeting of June 2, 2015. He introduced the Village consultants and staff, and asked that anyone addressing the Board please come to the podium, use the microphone, and state their name and the nature of the application. He noted that there were four(4) full applications on the agenda. Mr. Moscato called for the first item on the agenda: 1. # 15-003 Prakash Krishnan & Raji Krishnan Adjourned from 5/5/2015 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 would be recusing himself from participation on this matter. Mr. Richman left the dais. Mr. Justin F. Minieri, AIA, architect, addressed the Board. He stated that the homeowners/applicants were in attendance. He noted that the application requires three variances. The building coverage and gross floor area have been reduced and new plans have been submitted to the Village. The footprint of the dining room expansion has been reduced thereby reducing the building coverage and increasing the side yard setback. The generator will also be moved. The generator will be moved toward the house; away from the property line. The gross floor area variance has also been reduced. The dining room as been reduced from 16'4" to 15" in width in response to comments from the Board. Impervious coverage will also be reduced. Mr. Minieri reviewed the new plans with the Board. Mr. Michael Izzo, Building Inspector, noted that the generator placement is not before the Zoning Board, however, the proposed location of the generator still is not code-compliant because it must be co-located with other mechanicals in the rear of the home. He added that this will need to be addressed separately before a building permit can be issued. Mr. Moscato called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in support or opposition to the application. Zoning Board of Appeals June 2,2015 Page 2 of 19 Daniel Salinka, of 31 Meadowlark Road addressed the Board. He noted that his home is one house up from the applicants' on Meadowlark. He was happy to learn that the generator will be relocated and that the noise will be reduced by the addition of landscaping. He requested an increase to the landscaping to block the view of the new addition. Mr. Moscato noted that the screening will fall under the purview of 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. The Board felt that the applicant has done a very good job addressing the Board's concerns. Mr. Moscato read the following resolution: VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS RESOLUTION WHEREAS, an application has been made to the Rye Brook Zoning Board of Appeals by Prakash and Raji Krishnan (the "Applicants"), for: (i) a 51.53 foot front yard setback variance from Section 250-19.H.(I)(b) of the Village Code, requiring a front yard setback of 92.65 feet; a 1.6% main building coverage variance from Section 350-37.13 of the Village Code, prescribing maximum coverage of 14%; and a 779 square foot gross floor area variance from Section 250-191 of the Village Code, prescribing maximum gross floor area of 4,082 square feet, in connection with the proposed construction of a two-story addition, side two-story addition, side one-story addition, front portico and interior alterations at 29 Meadowlark Road in the R-20 zoning district. Said premises being further identified as Section 135.28, Block 1, Lot 4 on the Town of Rye Tax Assessor's Map; and WHEREAS, the Applicants initially sought larger variances in connection with the above-described improvements to their home; and Zoning Board of Appeals June 2,2015 Page 3 of 19 WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing on the application was opened on May 5, 2015 at which time all those wishing to be heard on the application were given such opportunity; and WHEREAS, the Board, upon review of the initial application, opined that the variances for main building coverage and gross floor area were substantial, self-created and not the smallest variances feasible for the Applicants to pursue that would still accomplish the Applicants' objectives; and WHERERAS, the public hearing on the application was then adjourned, on the Applicants' request, to provide the Applicants time to revise the application to reduce the variances; and WHEREAS, the Applicants have since modified the application to reduce the main building coverage and gross floor area variances; and WHEREAS, the public hearing on the application was then continued on June 2, 2015, at which time all those wishing to be heard on the application were given such opportunity; and WHEREAS, the Board then closed the public hearing on June 2, 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 51.53 foot front yard setback variance: 1) The variance [WILL/WILL NOTI create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood; 2) The benefit the applicant seeks [CAN/CA^NNOT1 be achieved through another method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, that does not require the variance; Zoning Board of Appeals June 2,2015 Page 4 of 19 3) The variance IS/IS NOT] substantial; 4) The variance [WILL/WILL NOTI create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and 5) The need for the variance [ISAS NOT 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 Section 250-13(G)(2)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brook Code, finds with respect to the 1.6% main building coverage variance: 1) The variance [WILL/WILL NOTI create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood; 2) The benefit the applicant seeks [CAN/CANNOTI be achieved through another method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, that does not require the variance; 3) The variance [IS/IS NOT substantial; 4) The variance [WILL/WILL NOTI create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and 5) 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 779 square foot gross floor area variance: 1) The variance [WILL/WILL NOT] create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood; 2) The benefit the applicant seeks [CAN/CANNOTI be achieved through another method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, that does not require the variance; 3) The variance ISIS NOT] substantial; 4) The variance [WILL/WILL NOTI create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and 5) The need for the variance IS/IS NOT] self-created; Zoning Board of Appeals June 2,2015 Page 5 of 19 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that said application for a 51.53 foot front yard setback variance is hereby [GRANTED/DENIED]; and said application for a 1.6% main building coverage variance is hereby fGRANTED/DENIED]; and said application for a 779 square foot gross floor area variance is hereby [GRANTED/DENIED], subject to the following condition(s): _None. Dated: June 2, 2015 Don Moscato, Chairman Variance: Front Yard Setback Chairman Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting: _x_Aye Nay Abstain Absent Andrew Kaminsky Voting: _x_Aye Nay Abstain Absent Don Moscato Voting: _x Aye _ Nay Abstain Absent Jeffrey Richman Voting: Aye Nay _x_Abstain _ Absent Joel Simon Voting: _x_Aye Nay Abstain Absent _4_Ayes Nays �1 Recused Absent Variance: Main Building Coverage Chairman Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting: _x_Aye Nay Abstain Absent Andrew Kaminsky Voting: _x_Aye Nay Abstain Absent Don Moscato Voting: _x_Aye Nay Abstain Absent Jeffrey Richman Voting: Aye Nay_x_Abstain _ Absent Joel Simon Voting: _x_Aye Nay Abstain Absent _4_Ayes _0_Nays 5 Zoning Board of Appeals June 2,2015 Page 6 of 19 �1_ Recused Absent Variance: Gross Floor Area Chairman Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting: _x_Aye Nay Abstain Absent Andrew Kaminsky Voting: _x_Aye Nay Abstain _ Absent Don Moscato Voting: _x_Aye Nay Abstain Absent Jeffrey Richman Voting: Aye Nay_x Abstain ~Absent Joel Simon Voting: _x Aye Nay Abstain Absent _4_Ayes _CL Nays 1 Recused Absent Zoning Board of Appeals June 2,2015 Page 7 of 19 r 5 ' i VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK D ECEUVE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUN ` 3 2015 RESOLUTION VILLAGE CLERKS OFFICE F WHEREAS, an application has been made to the Rye Brook Zoning Board of Appeals by Prakash and Raji Krishnan (the "Applicants"), for: (i) a 51.53 foot front yard setback variance from Section 250-19.H.(1)(b) of the Village Code, requiring a front yard setback of 92.65 feet; a 1.6% main building coverage variance from Section 350-373 of the Village Code, prescribing maximum coverage of 14%; and a 779 square foot gross floor area variance from Section 250-19.17 of the Village Code, prescribing maximum gross floor area ofAT9-7l—square feet, '-P?2 in connection with the proposed construction of a two-story addition, side two-story addition, side one-story addition, front portico and interior alterations at 29 Meadowlark Road in the R-20 zoning district. Said premises being further identified as Section 135.28, Block 1, Lot 4 on the Town of Rye Tax Assessor's Map; and WHEREAS, the Applicants initially sought larger variances in connection with the above-described improvements to their home; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing on the application was opened on May 5, 2015 at which time all those wishing to be heard on the application were given such opportunity; and WHEREAS, the Board, upon review of the initial application, opined that the variances for main building coverage and gross floor area were substantial, self-created and not the smallest variances feasible for the Applicants to pursue that would still accomplish the Applicants' objectives; and WHERERAS, the public hearing on the application was then adjourned, on the Applicants' request, to provide the Applicants time to revise the application to reduce the variances; and 5 I WHEREAS, the Applicants have since modified the application to reduce the main building coverage and gross floor area variances; and WHEREAS, the public hearing on the application was then continued on June 2, 2015, at which time all those wishing to be heard on the application were given such opportunity; and WHEREAS, the Board then closed the public hearing on June 2, 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 51.53 foot front yard setback variance: 1) The variance [WIL /WILL NOT create an adverse impact to the character of the neigh 2) The benefit the applicant seeks [CAN/ be achieved through another method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, that does not require the variance; 3) The variance fS S NOT] substantial; 4) The variance [WILL WILL ] create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmental condi ' f the neighborhood; and 5) The need for the variene [ISMS NO 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 Section 250-13(G)(2)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brook Code, finds with respect to the 1.6% main building coverage variance: --, 1) The variance [ /WILL NO reate an adverse impact to the character of the nes borhoo� P� , 2) The benefit the applicant seeks [C�N/C � be achieved through another method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, that does not require the varianc�e , ,,,,� 3) The variance [IK�rJ substantial; -2- I 4) The variance [WIL WILL I create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmenta conditions of the neighborhood; and 5) The need for the varianc [ISI 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 779 square foot gross floor area variance: 1) The variance [=9z NOT] create an adverse impact to the character of the ; 2) The benefit the applicant seeks [CANT ANNO be achieved through another method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, that does not require the variance; 3) The varianc [IS/]S NOT] substantial; 4) The variance [WILLLL NO ] create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmenta con itions of the neighborhood; and 5) The need for the varianc [IS S NOT] self-created; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that said application for a 51.53 foot front yard setback variance is her elby[GRANT-D/DENIED]; and said application for a 1.6% main building coverage variance is here [GRANTED ENIED]; and said application for a 779 square foot gross floor area variance is hereby RANTE /DENIED], subject to the following condition(s): Dated: June 2, 2015 Don Moscato, Chairman -3- * h t Variance: Front Yard Setback Chairman Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting: V a Na Abstain g g MAv y Absent Andrew Kaminsky Voting: �V�A Nay Abstain Absent Don Moscato Voting: �KYe Nay Abstain Absent Jeffrey Richman Voting: Aye Nay Abstain Absent fuC Joel Simon Voting: dye Nay Abstain Absent Ayes Nays / A-bstarn�CL�� Absent Variance: Main Building Coverage Chairman Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting: t- Aye_ e Nay Abstain Absent Andrew Kaminsky Voting: a Nay Abstain Absent Don Moscato Voting: yNay Abstain Absent Jeffrey Richman Voting: ��ie Nay Abstain Absent Joel Simon Voting: ✓ Aye Nay Abstain Absent Ayes ,Nays Abstain Absent Variance: Gross Floor Area Chairman Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting: I a Y Na Abstain Absent Andrew Kaminsky Voting: Nay Abstain Absent Don Moscato Voting:TAyee Nay Abstain Absent Jeffrey Richman Voting: e Nay Abstain Absent Joel Simon Voting: Aye Nay Abstain Absent '-1 Ayes 4 Nays I Abstain I�'-& Absent -4- The Chairman called the next item on the agenda. Board member Richman returned to the dais. 2. #14-021 Mr. Michael Grandazzo Adjourned from 31312015 11 Maple Court Legalize the existing deck, pool, pool deck, shed and enclosed porch addition Lawrence Engle, Esq., legal counsel for the applicant, addressed the Board. He noted that initially six (6) variances were requested, but through a redesign, three (3) of the variances have been eliminated. The pool deck setback has been eliminated by removing 221 square feet of the pool deck. The impervious coverage will also be reduced below the maximum by removal of the pool deck and demolition of a cement slab, which has already been removed. Therefore, there will be no need for an impervious coverage variance. The pool equipment is being moved. Therefore, there will be no need for a pool equipment setback variance. The three remaining variances are for the total of two side yard setbacks, the swimming pool setback and the deck coverage. The total of the two side yards at present is 24.6' where 25' is required. Therefore, Mr. Engle felt this variance was de minimis. Mr. Engle noted that the maximum o g deck coverage for the property is 3.5/o. Existing 1s 11.1%. Once reduced, the deck coverage will be 8.68%. The final variance for the pool setback. The distance is 10.5' from the property line. Mr. Berger asked about the pool deck reconfiguration. Mr. Moscato inquired as to which portions of the pool deck will remain. He asked whether the applicant considered removing the portion of the deck that faces the back of the property. It was noted that the rear of this property faces the Rye Town Hilton. There is a steep slope and shrubbery that screens the property. Mr. Engle responded that removal of this portion of the deck would not result in a substantial reduction in the pool deck size because it is so narrow. It was estimated to be 30 square feet in area. Mr. Moscato noted that he was concerned about the impervious surface coverage on this property. The deck takes up a substantial portion of the rear yard notwithstanding that the impervious coverage will be below the maximum. He noted that if the application came before the Board brand new, the applicant would never receive a variance for the deck because it is so large. The variances should be kept as minimal as possible. Mr. Moscato acknowledged that the applicant has made a substantial reduction. Zoning Board of Appeals June 2,2015 Page 8 of 19 Mr. Kaminsky questioned what would happen if the deck needs to be reconstructed. He noted the deck is 2 '2 times the size of the maximum deck coverage. Philip Butler, Esq., Village counsel, noted that a condition could be placed in the resolution stating that if the deck is demolished or replaced, the variances will lapse. The Board asked Mr. Butler to draft conditions on the variances. Mr. Moscato called for members of the public wishing to address the application in favor or in opposition to the application. There being no one, the public hearing was closed. The board deliberated and Mr. Moscato read the following resolution: VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS RESOLUTION WHEREAS, an application has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Michael Grandazzo (the "Applicant") for: (i) a 0.4 foot total of two side-yards setback variance from Section 250- 22.F.(2)(b) of the Village Code, requiring minimum total setbacks of 25 feet; (ii) a 5.18% deck coverage variance from Section 250-37.B of the Village Code, prescribing maximum deck coverage of 3.5%; and (iii) a 4.5 foot swimming pool setback variance from Section 224-7.B of the Village Code, requiring a minimum setback of 15 feet, in connection with the proposed legalization of pool, pool deck, deck, enclosed porch addition and shed constructed on real property located at 11 Maple Court in the R-10 Zoning District. Said premises being further identified as Section 135.66, Block 1, Lot 77 on the Town of Rye Tax Assessor's Map; and Zoning Board of Appeals June 2,2015 Page 9 of 19 WHEREAS, the Applicant originally sought six (6) area variances needed to legalize an in-ground swimming pool, pool deck, deck, enclosed porch addition and shed constructed by the Applicant on the above-stated property; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing on the application was opened on March 3, 2015, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and WHEREAS, the public hearing on the application was then adjourned, on request by the Applicant, to provide the Applicant time to reduce and/or eliminate some of the variances requested; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has since modified the application to eliminate three of the six variances and reduced two others; and WHEREAS, the public hearing on the application was then continued on June 2, 2015, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and WHEREAS, the public hearing on the application was then closed on June 2, 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 0.4 foot total of two side-yards setback variance: 1) The variance [WILL/WILL NOT] create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood; 2) The benefit the applicant seeks [CAN/CANNOTI be achieved through another method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, that does not require the variance; 3) The variance [IS/IS NOT I substantial; Zoning Board of Appeals June 2,2015 Page 10 of 19 4) The variance [WILL/WILL NOTI create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and 5) 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 5.18% deck coverage variance: 1) The variance [WILL/WILL NOTI create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood; 2) The benefit the applicant seeks [CAN/CANNOTJ be achieved through another method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, that does not require the variance; 3) The variance [IS/IS NOT] substantial; 4) The variance [WILL/WILL NOTI create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and 5) The need for the variance [IS/IS NOT] 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 Section 250-13(G)(2)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brook Code, finds with respect to the 4.5 foot swimming pool setback variance: 1) The variance [WILL/WILL NOT] create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood; 2) The benefit the applicant seeks [CAN/CANNOTI be achieved through another method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, that does not require the variance; 3) The variance ISIS NOT] substantial; 4) The variance [WILL/WILL NOTI create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and 5) The need for the variance [IS/IS NOT] self-created. Zoning Board of Appeals June 2,2015 Page 11 of 19 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that said application for a total of two side-yards setback variance is hereby [GRANTED/DENIED]; and said application for a deck coverage variance is hereby [GRANTED/DENIED]; and said application for a swimming pool setback variance is hereby [GRANTED/DENIED], subject to the following condition(s): The variances granted with respect to the deck coverage and swimming pool setback are specific to the reconfigured backyard on the property, as depicted on the plans approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals, and shall lapse if the existing deck or pool is modified or demolished, except as authorized pursuant to the instant application. Dated: June 2, 2015 Don Moscato, Chairman Variance No. 1: Total of Two Side-Yards Setback Variance Steven Berger Voting: _x_Aye Nay Abstain Absent Andrew Kaminsky Voting: _x_Aye Nay Abstain Absent Don Moscato Voting: _x Aye Nay Abstain Absent Jeffrey Richman Voting: _x,._Aye Nay Abstain Absent Joel Simon Voting: _x_Aye __. Nay Abstain Absent _5_Ayes 0_Nays Abstain Absent Variance No. 2: Deck Coverage Variance Steven Berger Voting: _x_Aye Nay Abstain Absent Andrew Kaminsky Voting: _x Aye Nay Abstain Absent Don Moscato Voting: _x Aye Nay Abstain Absent Jeffrey Richman Voting: _x_Aye Nay Abstain Absent Joel Simon Voting: _x_Aye Nay Abstain Absent _S_Ayes _0_Nays Abstain Absent Zoning Board of Appeals June 2,2015 Page 12 of 19 DE EOVE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK JUN - 3 2015 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS VILLAGE CLERK'S OFFICE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, an application has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Michael Grandazzo (the "Applicant") for: (i) a 0.4 foot total of two side-yards setback variance from Section 250- 22.F.(2)(b) of the Village Code, requiring minimum total setbacks of 25 feet; (ii) a 5.18% deck coverage variance from Section 250-37.B of the Village Code, prescribing maximum deck coverage of 3.5%; and (iii) a 4.5 foot swimming pool setback variance from Section 224-7.B of the Village Code, requiring a minimum setback of 15 feet, in connection with the proposed legalization of pool, pool deck, deck, enclosed porch addition and shed constructed on real property located at 11 Maple Court in the R-10 Zoning District. Said premises being further identified as Section 135.66, Block 1, Lot 77 on the Town of Rye Tax Assessor's Map; and WHEREAS, the Applicant originally sought six (6) area variances needed to legalize an in-ground swimming pool, pool deck, deck, enclosed porch addition and shed constructed by the Applicant on the above-stated property; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing on the application was opened on March 3, 2015, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and WHEREAS, the public hearing on the application was then adjourned, on request by the Applicant, to provide the Applicant time to reduce and/or eliminate some of the variances requested; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has since modified the application to eliminate three of the six variances and reduced two others; and 1313/1248191W v2 5!28/15 WHEREAS, the public hearing on the application was then continued on June 2, 2015, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and WHEREAS, the public hearing on the application was then closed on June 2, 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 0.4 foot total of two side-yards setback variance: 1) The variance [WIL WILL create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood; _ 2) The benefit the applicant seeks [CANGAANNNN be achieved through another method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, that does not require the variance; _ 3) The variance [ /IS 193']substantial; 4) The variance [WIUI. LL _WT] create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and 5) The need for the varianc [I SAS 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 5.18% deck coverage variance: 1) The variance [WILWILL ] create an adverse impact to the character of the neighbor ood; ) 2) The benefit the applicant seeks [CACA�j be achieved through another method, feasible for the app icant to pursue, that does not require the variance; 3) The varianc [IS S NOT] substantial; 4) The variance [W /WILL N�'] create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmen a Aconditions of the neighborhood; and 1313111/481911 v7 5118115 -2- 5) The need for the variant&S NOT] 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 Section 250-I3(G)(2)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brook Code, finds with respect to the 4.5 foot swimming pool setback variance: 1) The variance [WILEWILL NO create an adverse impact to the character of the neighbo ; 2) The benefit the applicant seeks [C %CANNOT]-be achieved through another method, feasible for the -a plicant to pursue, that does not require the variance; 3) The varianceISIS NOT] substantial; 4) The variance [WILL*LL N create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and 5) The need for the varian �Iis S NOT] self-created. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that said application for a total of two side-yards setback variance is herebyGRANTE /DENIED); and said application for a deck coverage variance is hereb [GRA DID NIED]; and said application for a swimming pool setback variance is ere [GRANT /DENIED], subject to the following condition(s): at C a .i�vs'e L BVI -t' ri anc cs I a V-1- -k1%e. k Gwj- arrri ana a� c.k orr� apeoRr. con Nvrtd ackT ra) 4s d�c4-a cK% 4%L- kerns o��p+vvtd. �1 -:bcr vd and sV%,.� dap in � eJeA AL. �1S�i IL or ► %mlr� �o� IS rnocl!►ltic� or dQ ►ot�S �1 F 0,.5 a��nud b k►s�aK►{ , tin Dated: June 2, 2015 Zarn% o�scal . Don Moscato, Chairman 1313/1,7/481911x2 5118/13 -3- Variance No. 1: Total of Two Side-Yard back Variance Steven Berger Voting: e Nay Abstain .. Absent Andrew Kaminsky Voting. �ye Nay Abstain Absent Don Moscato Voting: �ye Nay Abstain Absent Jeffrey Richman Voting: ye Nay Abstain Absent Joel Simon Voting: Aye!Nay Abstain Absent Ayes a Nays Abstain Absent Variance No. 2: Deck Coveraize Varianc Steven Berger Voting: �e Nay Abstain Absent Andrew Kaminsky Voting: V'ye Nay Abstain Absent Don Moscato Voting: V, ye Nay Abstain Absent Jeffrey Richman Voting:�ye Nay Abstain Absent Joel Simon Voting: Aye Nay Abstain Absent Ayes 0 Nays Abstain Absent Variance No. 3: Swimming Pool Setback'Variance Steven Berger Voting: ye Nay Abstain Absent Andrew Kaminsky Voting: ye Nay Abstain Absent Don Moscato Voting: ye`Nay Abstain Absent Jeffrey Richman Voting: ye Nay Abstain Absent Joel Simon Voting: , Aye! Nay Abstain Absent 'Ayes 6 Nays Abstain Absent 1313/12/381911v7 5/18/15 4- Variance No. 3: Swimming Pool Setback Variance Steven Berger Voting: _x_Aye Nay Abstain Absent Andrew Kaminsky Voting: _x_Aye Nay Abstain Absent Don Moscato Voting: _x_Aye Nay Abstain Absent Jeffrey Richman Voting: _x Aye Nay Abstain _Absent Joel Simon Voting: _x Aye Nay Abstain Absent _5_Ayes Nays Abstain Absent 3. #15-005 Douglas Trokie and Leslie Dubin 21 Berkley Lane Construct 2 story rear addition, new deck, new front porch and new stone curbing. Mr. Justin Minieri, architect, addressed the Board. He presented floor plans and photographs of the home to the Board. The home is located on a cul-de-sac with significant distance between the homes. Another home on the cul-de-sac was before the Board for similar work a few years ago. The applicants are seeking similar improvements. The plans for the property involve expansion of an existing deck, expansion of an existing family room, a kitchen addition and a second-story addition which will provide a larger master bedroom. The plans also call for a new front portico. The first variance is for a new portico, which will replace an existing stoop which has no roof. Only a small canopy exists, with a wrought iron railing below. The existing stoop is 4 feet in depth. The portico will be 6.5' in depth. Mr. Minieri explained that the added depth will provide better sheltering from the elements. Mr. Minieri reviewed the rest of the proposed improvements with the Board. The reason for the improvements is that the family needs more living space. The home is a modest sized home. It is not a large home that the applicants are looking to make larger. Mr. Minieri reviewed the variances being sought by the applicants. He explained that the basement is counted toward the gross floor area because of the slope of the property. Most of the basement is the garage. Not counting the basement, the improvements would not exceed the maximum gross floor area. Zoning Board of Appeals June 2,2015 Page 13 of 19 Mr. Minieri presented the Board with five letters of support from neighbors on Berkley Drive. Mr. Moscato requested a definition of a porch versus a portico. Mr. Minieri answered that both are covered entrances, but you can fit a chair or chairs on a porch. The proposed construction is in keeping with the neighborhood. 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 and a second, the public hearing was closed. The Board deliberated and Mr. Moscato read the following resolution: VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS RESOLUTION WHEREAS, an application has been made to the Rye Brook Zoning Board of Appeals by Douglas Trokie and Leslie Dubin (the "Applicants") for: (iv) a 4.04 foot front yard setback variance from Section 250-20.G.(I) of the Village Code, requiring a front yard setback of 40 feet; and (v) a 503 square foot gross floor area variance from Section 250-20.E of the Village Code, prescribing maximum gross floor area of 3,478 square feet, in connection with the proposed construction of a 2-story rear addition, new deck, new front porch and stone curbing at 21 Berkley Lane in the R-15 zoning district. Said premises being further identified as Section 135.35, Block 1, Lot 62 on the Town of Rye Tax Assessor's Map; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was opened on June 2, 2015, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and WHEREAS, the public hearing was then closed on June 2, 2015; and Zoning Board of Appeals June 2,2015 Page 14 of 19 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 4.04 foot front yard setback variance: 6) The variance [WILL/WILL NOT create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood; 7) The benefit the applicant seeks [CAN/CANNOT I be achieved through another method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, that does not require the variance; S) The variance [IS/IS NOT I substantial; 9) The variance [WILL/WILL NOT] create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and 10)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 503 square foot gross floor area variance: 6) The variance [WILL/WILL NOT] create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood; 7) The benefit the applicant seeks [CAN/CANNOT I be achieved through another method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, that does not require the variance; 8) The variance [IS/IS NOT] substantial; 9) The variance [WILLIWILL NOT] create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and 10)The need for the variance [IS/IS NOT] self-created; Zoning Board of Appeals June 2,2015 Page 15 of 19 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that said application for a 4.04 foot front yard setback variance is hereby [GRANTED/DENIED]; and said application for a 503 square foot gross floor area variance is hereby [GRANTED/DENIED], subject to the following conditions: 1. The front yard setback variance is restricted to the proposed new front portico, as depicted on the approved plans, and shall not extend to any other portion of the front of the home. 2. The approved front portico shall not be enclosed. Dated: June 2, 2015 Don Moscato, Chairman Variance: Front Yard Setback Chairman Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting: _x Aye Nay Abstain Absent Andrew Kaminsky Voting: _x Aye Nay Abstain Absent Don Moscato Voting: _x_Aye Nay Abstain Absent Jeffrey Richman Voting: _x_Aye Nay Abstain ,Absent Joel Simon Voting: _x_Aye Nay Abstain Absent _5_Ayes _0_Nays Abstain Absent Variance: Gross Floor Area Chairman Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting: _x Aye Nay Abstain Absent Andrew Kaminsky Voting: _x Aye Nay Abstain Absent Don Moscato Voting: _x_Aye Nay Abstain Absent Jeffrey Richman Voting: _x_Aye Nay Abstain Absent Joel Simon Voting: _x—Aye Nay Abstain Absent _5_Ayes _0_Nays Abstain Absent Zoning Board of Appeals June 2,2015 Page 16 of 19 s flD ECEOVE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK JUN - 3 2015 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS VILLAGE CLERK'S LERK�S OFFICE WHEREAS, an application has been made to the Rye Brook Zoning Board of Appeals by Douglas Trokie and Leslie Dubin (the "Applicants") for: (i) a 4.04 foot front yard setback variance from Section 250-20.G.(1) of the Village Code, requiring a front yard setback of 40 feet; and (ii) a 503 square foot gross floor area variance from Section 250-20.E of the Village Code, prescribing maximum gross floor area of 3,478 square feet, in connection with the proposed construction of a 2-story rear addition, new deck, new front porch and stone curbing at 21 Berkley Lane in the R-15 zoning district. Said premises being further identified as Section 135.35, Block 1, Lot 62 on the Town of Rye Tax Assessor's Map; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was opened on June 2, 2015, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and WHEREAS, the public hearing was then closed on June 2, 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 4.04 foot front yard setback variance: 1) The variance [WILL/WILL NOT] create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood; _ 2) The benefit the applicant seeks [CAN'[CANNOT] Be achieved through another method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, that does not require the variance; 1313/11/545804v1 5177115 f 3) The variance [I /IS NO ubstantial; 4) The variance [WI L/ LL Nq ]---create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmental-conditions of the neighborhood; and 5) 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 503 square foot gross floor area variance: 1) The variance [WI�{L'1'WILLyNOT] create an adverse impact to the character of the neighbZrhood; 2 The benefit the applicant seeks C CANN be achieved through another method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, that does not require the variance; 3) The varianc '+[IS/I NOT] substantial; 4) The variance [WILL/�I�VILL N0TJ create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and 5) The need for the varianc IS S NOT] self-created; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that said application for a 4.04 foot front yard setback variance is hereb)( GRAN�ENIEDJ; and said application for a 503 square foot gross floor area variance is hereby RANTED ENIED], subject to the following conditions: f� A S P-0-13-0 Ca U.'2 Se L To 42 l• n afd 54"ck \larkon is m-0rt r- rd - ` 6n1 a Y80 r-o s s nt and does Z•`C�t g71d�[3 - Irony 1Go Dated. June 2, 2015 Don Moscato, Chairman 13131125458041 5/27115 Variance: Front Yard Setback Chairman Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting: ye Nay Abstain Absent Andrew Kaminsky Voting: ye Nay Abstain Absent Don Moscato Voting: ye Nay ,Abstain Absent Jeffrey Richman Voting: 'ye Nay _Abstain Absent Joel Simon Voting: Aye Nay Abstain Absent Ayes /Nays _ Abstain Absent Variance: Gross Floor Area Chairman Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting: " e Nay Abstain Absent Andrew Kaminsky Voting: t/tveNay Abstain Absent Don Moscato Voting: �y Nay Abstain Absent Jeffrey Richman Voting: Aye Nay Abstain Absent Joel Simon Voting: Aye Nay Abstain Absent Ayes 62 Nays Abstain Absent 13131:12-25458041 5/27/15 -3- 4. #15-004 Bowridge Realty 80 Bowman Avenue Construct a 3-story mixed use building consisting of 2,400 square feet of retail space and 4 dwelling units on the first floor and six dwelling units, each, on the second and third floors Katherine Zalantis, Esq., legal counsel for the applicants, addressed the Board. She noted that this is a mixed, retail and residential use. She noted a correction to the description of the project as described on the agenda. Ms. Zalantis reviewed the variances being requested and noted the applicant's letter submission to the Board. She noted that the first variance, seeking a front yard setback variance, is due largely to the shape of the lot. This is a narrow, corner lot and it would be difficult to construct an economically viable project on the property that complies with all of the setbacks. She noted, however, that the plan is consistent with the Village's newly adopted Comprehensive Plan, which calls for buildings to be situated closer to the street. Concerning the open space variance, Ms. Zalantis noted that there is some open space on the property; however, it cannot be counted toward the open space requirement because it does not meet the 20' by 20' requirement under the code. Additionally, each dwelling unit will have a 65 square foot terrace. She felt these accommodations better serve the open space intent than if open space were provided adjacent to the street. She acknowledged that no action could be taken by the Zoning Board that evening because the Lead Agency had not yet adopted a determination of significance pursuant to SEQRA. She asked, however, that the Board instruct counsel to prepare a possible resolution for the next meeting. Mr. Moscato asked about the intent behind the term "open space." Mr. Izzo, Building Inspector, noted that the Village acquired the Town Code from 1954 when it was incorporated and that the Village copied and pasted the Town's definition of open space. Mr. Berger asked if there is a generally accepted meaning of"open space." Mr. Butler explained that "open space" is as defined under the Village Code. Under the Rye Brook Code, "open space" is defined as requiring a minimum width of 20' in any direction. There is no universal definition. Mr. Izzo noted that the code requires minimum open space on any residential property is 200 square feet per dwelling unit. However, 20' by 20' is 400 square feet. Anything less than than 400 square feet would not comply with the 20' width requirement. k ! �.l Zoning Board of Appeals June 2,2015 Page 17 of 19 The Board continued its discussion of open space. Mr. Kaminsky noted that Rye Brook is a Tree Village and they do not want to create an urban landscape without open space. Mr. Butler read the definition of open space aloud for the Board. He explained that the newly adopted Comprehensive Plan does contemplate this area of the Village becoming a walkable streetscape in contrast to the suburban landscape elsewhere in the Village. This application faces a unique challenge because combining retail and residential uses requires additional parking and leaves little area on the property for open space which complies with the 20' dimensional requirement. Mr. Moscato concurred and noted that this is the first application for this area of the Village after adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. However, he felt that the Village Code should be amended to reflect the changes in the Plan rather than the Boards having to make accommodations on an application-by-application basis. Mr. Kaminsky felt the project is too large. He said the applicant should amend the design to reflect what the Code allows. Ms. Zalantis noted that there are substantial setbacks. This project does not go up to the property line on any side. She argued that the terraces will provide a greater connection to the outdoors than other options. Mr. Berger said he felt that terraces are an accommodation, not a replacement for open space. Ms. Zalantis also noted that the Code is not yet caught up to what is anticipated for the zoning district. She believes the intent is for multi-family and that is where the Village is going in the future. If this was a commercial project, there would be no open space requirement. Open space is required because the project includes residential units. Mr. Kaminsky felt the mixed use is nominal. He felt this is truly a residential project. Mr. Moscato asked about the future procedure for the application. Mr. Butler explained that two things will need to take place before the July meeting of the Zoning Board. First, the Planning Board will need to adopt a determination of significance with respect to the application. If a Negative Declaration is adopted, the Board of Trustees and Zoning Board of Appeals can act. The Board of Trustees will then need to act on the re- zoning component of the application to affirmatively change the zoning from FAH to C 1. Trustee Heiser noted that the Board of Trustees is meeting on June 23, 2015. This application will be on the agenda. Mr. Moscato felt that these things should be squared away before the application goes further. Mr. Kaminsky agreed. Zoning Board of Appeals June 2,2015 Page 18 of 19 The Board, on motion approved 5-0, adjourned the public hearing on the application to the July, 2015 meeting. 4. Approval of April 7, 2015 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. There being no additional business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:28 p.m. Zoning Board of Appeals June 2,2015 Page 19 of 19