Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-10-07 - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes UATE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK - ---.._, WED 938 King Street Zoning Board of Appeals ME Tuesday, October 7, 2014 Meeting at 8:00 p.m. MOI/ - 8 2014 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK Agenda I BUILDING DEPARTMENT 1. # 14-013 (adjourned from 91212014) Michael & Julie Leder 79 Tamarack Road Demolish existing garage; construct two story addition. 2. # 14-018 Ms. Lara Feinsod 4 Hillandale Road Construct in-ground swimming pool; new circular driveway and install Belgian block apron; new pool patio; modify existing deck and new pool fence 3. # 14-017 Denver Brown &Alison Brown 4 Old Oak Road Construct 2nd floor addition; new rear patio; interior alterations; and new covered porch. 4. Approval of September 2, 2014 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 Coordinator4T Paula Patafo, Meeting Secretary BOARD OF TRUSTEE LIAISON: Trustee David Heiser Zoning Board of Appeals October 7,20[4 Page l of 16 Mr. Donald Moscato, Chairman, welcomed everyone to the Zoning Board meeting of October 7, 2014. 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 called for the first item on the agenda: 1. # 14-013 (adjourned from 91212014) Michael & Julie Leder 79 Tamarack Road Demolish existing garage; construct two story addition. John Scarlato, architect, addressed the Board. He reviewed the application for the Board. He noted that the applicant heard the comments from the Board and Village Staff, and they have now reduced the variances required. The side yard setbacks were reduced to the current non-conforming condition. The proposed roof line on the second story addition has been pulled down reducing the height setback ratio variance. Andrew Kaminsky questioned the height of the proposed second story. Mr. Scarlato noted that originally the new construction was going to match the house roof pitch. The proposed addition will add approximately nine feet on top of the existing one-car garage with squat roof. Chairman Moscato noted a letter with concerns about the chimney. Mr. Scarlato explained that the chimney is not an issue given the proposed new roof line. Chairman Moscato questioned the feasibility of a hip roof. Mr. Scarlato responded that a hip roof would be out of place and not in conformity with the rest of the house. Mr. Scarlato added that a hip roof would probably not significantly reduce the height setback ratio. Mr. Richman asked about the windows on the second story addition. Only one window would be installed, and no windows in the garage. Mr. Moscato called for members of the public wishing to speak in support or opposition to the application. Mr. & Mrs. Bloom of 81 Tamarack Road addressed the Board. The Blooms have lived there for 38 years. The Blooms argued that the homes on Tamarack Road are very close together. Although most of the homes are divided by a driveway, these two homes are not. The construction would negatively impact the view and light on one side of their home. Mr. Bloom presented photographs and illustrations to the Board. Mrs. Bloom noted that houses are very close and she noted that this will impact the house value, will reduce the light that comes into their home, and will change their quality of life. Zoning Board of Appeals October 7,2014 Page 2 of 16 Mr. Izzo, Building Inspector was asked to comment on the chimney of 79 Tamarck. He noted that there is no issue with the chimney as it is will rise more than 2' from the ridge of the roof and the distance between the homes is sufficient. Mr. Moscato noted that a letter in opposition was read into the record last month. On a motion made by Joel Simon, and seconded by Andrew Kaminsky, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed and the Board began deliberation. Mr. Simon noted that these are common variances but that the proximity of the homes makes this a unique situation. Other applications involve homes that are farther apart. Mr. Kaminsky agreed. Mr. Simon felt that if the variances were granted, it would adversely affect the character of the neighborhood and create a precedent for the neighborhood. The Board members felt that granting the variances, as proposed, would have a material impact on the neighbor's quality of life. Mr. Berger was troubled by the encroachment on the neighbor's air space. There was no objection to the improvement to the garage. The concern surrounds the addition over the garage. Mr. Moscato noted that as of right a resident can add an addition to their home, however, this proposal requires variances. Mr. Moscato offered the resident the opportunity to go back and review their design. The Building Inspector must review and approve the plan. A theoretical plan could not be reviewed. Mr. Scarlato took a brief break to review the documents. With the consensus of the Board and the applicant, the matter was adjourned to later in the meeting to allow for discussion between the applicants and Mr. Scarlato. The matter would be recalled later in the meeting. 2. # 14-018 Ms. Lara Feinsod 4 Hillandale Road Construct in-ground swimming pool; new circular driveway and install Belgian block apron; new pool patio; modify existing deck and new pool fence The applicants addressed the Board to discuss the impervious surface overage. Bob Tramantano, landscape architect, also appeared. The applicant stated that their existing driveway is very unsafe and dysfunctional and an eye sore. It is very difficult to see when backing out because it is narrow and long. Their son just recently started driving. The end of the driveway is shared with the neighbors. No one can park in the driveway. Mrs. Feinsod explained that they have a very active driveway because both she and her 2 Zoning Board of Appeals October 7,2014 Page 3 of 16 husband work from home. The applicants' assistants, partners, cleaning personnel, deliveries come and go from the property regularly. Mrs. Feinsod added that the Belgian blocks are constantly being run over and damaged. There is also nowhere to turn around or park in the back of the driveway. The applicants would like the turn-around for these reasons and so people don't have to park on the street. Mr. Tramantano noted that the proposed turn-around would be 12' wide. The existing portion of the driveway is 10'. Mr. Berger asked whether the turn-around needs to be that width. Mr. Tramantano explained that it would be to accommodate trucks and SUVs visiting the property. Mr. Berger changed the dimension of his driveway to resolve a similar issue to the applicants. He stated that he did not feel the turn-around circle is the only solution. He suggested a turn-around area for three-point turns. Mr. Feinsod added that they want the turn-around circle so they can use the front door to access the home rather than the side yard, which they use now. Mr. Tramantano noted that all of the storm water runoff on the property will be captured by the storm water management system proposed. tj Mr. Tramantano expressed the opinion that widening the driveway would create an alley that would have a bigger visual impact that adding the turn-around circle. He noted that other house on the street have semi-circle driveways. Mr. Tramantano stated that this is the best solution the applicant could come up with after considering all possibilities. Mr. Moscato asked about the proposed expansion of the rear of the driveway. Mr. Tramantano said that area will be widened to accommodate two cars. Mr. Moscato noted that cars leaving the garage could either back all the way out of the driveway or perform a three-point turn and exit the driveway going forward. The applicants said visitors, assistants and cleaning people come to the property every day. The applicants want to have somewhere for them to park. Mr. Simon inquired into drainage issues. Chairman Moscato responded that this issue was addressed at the Planning Board and was resolved. The Chairman was satisfied that the proposed application will not have an adverse environmental impact. Chairman Moscato had a problem with the other four factors, which he felt were not satisfied. Mr. Moscato felt the circular turn-around would negatively affect the character of the neighborhood because the turn-around would be large and very close to the street. Mr. Tramantano said there are other driveways with big driveways. Chairman Moscato Zoning Board of Appeals October 7,2014 Page 4 of 16 responded that those driveways would not get zoning board approval today. He added that he felt there are other alternatives for resolving the issue, not just a circular turn- around in the front. The need for the variance is also self-created. Mr. Moscato called for a motion to open the public hearing. On a motion made by Joel Simon, and seconded by Andrew Kaminsky, the public hearing was declared open. Anna Belle Gameson, of 6 Hillandale Road, the next door neighbor, addressed the Board. She noted that although she did not understand the plans completely, the property is going to be well landscaped. Mr. Michael Izzo, Building Inspector, clarified the impervious surface coverage for the Board. Mr. Kaminsky noted he has no issue with the impervious coverage in total, it is just that the location of the impervious coverage is the issue. It comes down to a discussion of aesthetics. Mr. Feinsod expressed his opinion that the landscaping will be beautiful. Mr. Richman asked about landscaping. Mr. Tramantano said the applicant is placing three trees in the Village right-of-way, at the Planning Board's suggestion, to create a canopy over the street. The turn-around will be curved and raised with a landscaped center mound with a tree. The Board and Mr. Tramantano discussed the street elevation in relation to the proposed circular turn-around. Mr. Simon said he would like to see a more detailed landscape plan. Mr. Feinsod said the applicants are planning extensive landscaping even if not required. Mr. Berger asked about the width of 12'. Mr. Tramantano said the width is necessary for vehicles to make the turn. Mr. Moscato read two letters into the record, one from Mark Harmon (16 Hillandale), the other from Scott and Rebecca Oling (2 Hillandale). Mr. Moscato noted that the concerns raised in the letters are not issues here. Anna Belle Gameson questioned the parking. There are always cars parked. The Board discussed parking in the driveway. Mrs. Gameson felt it would not be attractive to have so many cars parked there. Mr. Tramantano said people park in the street now, so having cars parked in the driveway will be an improvement. Zoning Board of Appeals October 7,2014 Page 5 of 16 Joel Simon made a motion to close the public hearing, Andrew Kaminsky seconded it. f The public hearing was closed. Joel Simon said he wouldn't be so concerned if there is adequate landscaping. Mr. Berger said he remains unconvinced that this is the only solution for the applicant. Mr. Kaminsky said he doesn't have an issue with the application and that he doesn't have an issue with the variance. He doesn't need a landscape plan. Chairman Moscato reviewed the five factors for an area variance. He stated that this is not the best way to resolve the parking issue. There are other ways to do it. He felt the safety issue was the applicant's perception. Many other people have to back out of their driveway. He mentioned flaring the bottom of the driveway could help solve the back out issue and would avoid people hitting the Belgian blocks. He felt the character of the neighborhood would be changed by added the circular turn-around. The variance is substantial. The Chairman was satisfied that the environmental impacts were addressed by the Planning Board. The need for the variance is self-created. Therefore, he was opposed to the proposal. Chairman Moscato read the resolution and reviewed the responses to the five factors with the Board members in order to obtain the consensus of the Board. VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Rye Brook Planning Board has referred to the Zoning Board of Appeals an application by Jonathan and Lara Feinsod requiring a front-yard impervious surface coverage variance of 7.5% from Section 250-37.0 of the Village Code, in connection with the proposed expansion of an existing driveway and addition of a new circular turnaround, in conjunction with construction of a new in-ground swimming pool, pool deck and other improvements, on property located at 4 Hillandale Road, in an R-25 zoning district. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID# 21-1-14; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on October 7, 2014, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and Zoning Board of Appeals October 7,2014 Page 6 of 16 WHEREAS, the public hearing was then closed on October 7, 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]-fe] of the Rye Brook Code, finds with respect to the front-yard impervious surface coverage variance: 1) The variance 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 substantial; 4) The variance 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; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that said application for a front-yard impervious surface coverage variance is hereby DENIED, on the following conditions: Dated: October 7, 2014 Don Moscato, Chairman Chairman Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting: Aye X Nay Abstain Absent Andrew Kaminsky Voting: X_Aye Nay Abstain Absent Zoning Board of Appeals October 7,2014 Page 7 of 16 Don Moscato Voting: Aye X Nay Abstain Absent Jeffrey Richman Voting: X Aye Nay Abstain Absent Joel Simon Voting: Aye X Nay Abstain Absent 2 Ayes 3 Nays Abstain Absent The application was denied by a vote of three nayes to two ayes. Zoning Board of Appeals October 7,2014 Page 8of16 FECEOVE ;l " 0 �U'll VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK VILLAGE CLERK'S OFFICE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Rye Brook Planning Board has referred to the Zoning Board of Appeals an application by Jonathan and Lara Feinsod requiring a front-yard impervious surface coverage variance of 7.5% from Section 250-37.0 of the Village Code, in connection with the proposed expansion of an existing driveway and addition of a new circular turnaround, in conjunction with construction of a new in-ground swim g pool, pool deck and other improvements onproperty located at 4 Hillandale A99,1 in an 0- 25 zoning district. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID#21-1-14; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on October 7, 2014, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and WHEREAS, the public hearing was then closed on October 7, 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-yard impervious surface coverage variance: 1) The variance [WIL WILL NOT] reate an adverse impact to the character of the neighbor oo , 2) The benefit the applicant seeks [CAC/CIEDe achieved through another method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, that does not require a variance; 3) The varian [IS/I NO subsra ial J 4) The variant LL/ NOT]. create any adverse impacts to the physical or environment tions of the neighborhood; and 5) The need for the variance NOT] self-created; and 1313111/474208vl 1012114 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that said a tion for a front-yard impervious surface coverage variance is hereby [GRANTED/ ENIED], nth pnaiet Dated: October 7, 2014 r Don Moscato, Chairman Chairman Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting: Xe r/Na Abstain Absent Andrew Kaminsky VotingyAye ay Abstain Absent Don Moscato Voting. ,4e Nay Abstain Absent Jeffrey Richman Voting: Aye ay Abstain Absent Joel Simon Voting Aye Nay Abstain Absent Ayes Nays Abstain Absent 13131121474208v1 10/2114 Chairman Moscato recalled item #1: 1. # 14-013 (adjourned from 9/2/2014) Michael & Julie Leder 79 Tamarack Road Demolish existing garage; construct two story addition. Mr. Scarlato, after speaking with the applicant, withdrew the third variance for a height setback ratio variance. The applicant can build up 9' but cannot violate the height setback ratio variance. Mr. Butler noted that the Board can take action on the two remaining variances and submit a revised site plan for approval by the Building Department. No Zoning Board approval would be required for the revised plan as long as the height setback ratio is not violated. Mr. Scarlato did not want to come back before the Board after another month. He noted he still needs architectural review. Chairman Moscato and M. Izzo clarified the variances being requested the reason they are needed. The variances are needed legalize the setback non-conformities. Legalizing the setbacks will enable the applicant to build upward. Chairman Moscato reviewed the five factors with the Board members. Chairman Moscato read the following resolution �v into the record: VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS RESOLUTION WHEREAS, an application has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Michael & Julie Leder for (i) a single side-yard setback variance of 5.5 feet from Section 250-23.F.(2)(a) of the Village Code; and (ii) a two side-yard setback variance of 0.5 feet from Section 250-12.F.(2)(b) of the Village Code, in connection with the proposed demolition of the existing attached garage and construction of a new attached garage with second story addition, on property located at 79 Tamarack Road, in an R-7 zoning district on the west side of Tamarack Road, approximately 300 feet from the intersection of Argyle Road and Tamarack Road. Said premises being Zoning Board of Appeals October 7,2014 Page 9 of 16 ` known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID# 135.52- 3-55; 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 was adjourned to October 7, 2014 to provide the applicant an opportunity to develop alternative plans for the proposed project; and WHEREAS, the public hearing was continued on October 7, 2014, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and WHEREAS, the public hearing was then closed on October 7, 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 single side- yard setback 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 these variances; 3) The variance IS NOT substantial; 4) The variance 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; 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 two side-yard setback variance: Zoning Board of Appeals October 7,2014 Page 10 of 16 ti 1) The variance 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 these variances; 3) The variance IS NOT substantial; 4) The variance 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. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that said application for a single side-yard setback variance is hereby GRANTED; and said application for a two side-yard setback variance is hereby GRANTED, on the following conditions: None. Dated: October 7, 2014 Don Moscato, Chairman Variance 1: Single Side-Yard Setback Variance 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 October 7,2014 Page I I of 16 Variance 2: Two Side-Yard Setback Variance 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 October 7,2014 Page 12 of 16 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK O�T - $ 2014ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS RESOLUTION VILLAGE CLERK'S OFFICE WHEREAS, an application has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Michael & Julie Leder for (i) a siva a side-yard setback variance of Q.5 feet from Section WN 250-23.F.(2)(a) of the Village Code; (ii) a two side-yard setback variance of 0.5 feet from Section 250-12.F.(2)(b) of the Village Code -0 9 From 4 the in connection with the proposed demolition of the existing attached garage and construction of a new attached garage with second story addition, on property located at 79 Tamarack Road, in an R-7 zoning district on the west side of Tamarack Road, approximately 300 feet from the intersection of Argyle Road and Tamarack Road. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID# 135.52-3-55; and is 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 was adjourned to October 7, 2014 to provide the applicant an opportunity to develop alternative plans for the proposed project;and WHEREAS, the public hearing was continued on October 7, 2014, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and WHEREAS, the public hearing was then closed on October 7,2014;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 single side-yard setback variance: r� 1) The variance( /WILL NO reate an adverse impact to the character of the neighbor oo ; 1313/121474205v1 1012114 2) The benefit the applicant seeks [ /CANN be achieved through another method, feasible for the ap%c o pursue, that does not require these variances; 3) The variancs BARE ARE N stantial; 4) The variances [WILL TJ create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmental con 'tions of the neighborhood; and 5) The need for the varianc s V / 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 25Q- 13(G)(2)(b)[2J[a]-[e] of the Rye Brook Code, finds with respect to the two side-yard setback variance: 1) The variances [WILL/ PNO �eate an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhoo 2) The benefit the applicant seeks [CA CANNO achieved through another method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, that does not require these variances; 3) The variances ARE NO s ndal; 4) The variances [WILL/ LL NO create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmental con 'tions of the neighborhood; and 5) The need for the variance's NOT] self-created; and neighborhood concerned, and upon considering each of the factors set forth at Section 2 - 13(G)(2)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brook Code, finds with respect to the side t/setback ratio variance: 1) The variances [WILL/WILL NOT] ate an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood; 2) The benefit the applic seeks [CAN/CANNOT] be achieved through another method, 1 le for the applicant to pursue, that does not require these varianc , 3) The ances [ARE/ARE NOT] substantial; 4 e variances [WILL/WILL NOT] create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and 5 r the va ' N • and 1313/12/47410Sv1 10/2/14 -2- NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that said application for a single side-yard setback variance is hereW[GR-AN /DENIED]; said application for a two side-yard setback variance is herebDENIED], ]� ons: Dated: October 7, 2014 Don Moscato, Chairman Variance 1: Single Side-Yard Setback Variance Chairman Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting Nay Abstain Absent Andrew Kaminsky Voting. ye Nay Abstain Absent Don Moscato Voting- ye Nay Abstain Absent Jeffrey Richman Voting: Nay Abstain Absent JoSimon Voting- Aye Nay Abstain Absent b Ayes -0-Nays Abstain Absent Variance 2: Two Side-Yard Setback Variance Chairman Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting: �ye Nay Abstain Absent Andrew Kaminsky Voting: a Nay Abstain Absent Don Moscato Voting- ye Nay Abstain Absent Jeffrey Richman Voting.LyAbstain e Nay Abstain Absent Joel Simon Voting: Aye Nay Absent Ayes Q Nays Abstain Absent 1313/1214 74105v 1 1012114 -3- V ce Chairman Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting: —Aye Nay stain Absent Andrew Kaminsky Voting: _Aye y Abstain Absent Don Moscato Voting. —A Nay Abstain Absent Jeffrey Richman Voting. Aye Nay Abstain Absent Joel Simon V ' g: Aye Nay Abstain Absent Ayes Nays ain A 13131121474205v1 1012114 -4- 3. # 14-017 Denver Brown & Alison Brown 4 Old Oak Road Construct 2nd floor addition; new rear patio; interior alterations; and new covered porch. John Scarlato, architect, addressed the Board. He presented photos of the home and a presentation of the proposed additions and renovations. There are two variances: main building coverage for front porch of 1.1% over 17%and the gross floor area variance. Mr. Scarlato presented comparable properties to the Board. Chairman Moscato opened the public hearing and asked for members of the public wishing to speak on the application. There being no public comment, the public hearing was closed. Chairman Moscato read the following resolution in to the record: VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS RESOLUTION WHEREAS, an application has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Denver and Alison Brown for (i) a main building coverage variance of 1.1% from Section 250-37.B. of the Village Code; and (ii) a gross floor area variance of 626 square feet from Section 250-21.D. of the Village Code, in connection with the proposed construction of a second story addition, new rear patio and new covered porch, on property located at 4 Old Oak Road, in an R-12 zoning district. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID# 135.51- 1-9; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on October 7, 2014, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and WHEREAS, the public hearing was then closed on October 7, 2014; and Zoning Board of Appeals October 7,2014 Page 13 of 16 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 main building coverage variance: 1) The variance 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 variance 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; 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 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 variance 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. Zoning Board of Appeals October 7,2014 Page 14 of 16 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that said application for a main building coverage variance is hereby GRANTED; and said application for a gross floor area variance is hereby GRANTED, on the following conditions: None. Dated: October 7, 2014 Don Moscato, Chairman Variance #1: Main Building Coverage Variance 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 #2: Gross Floor Area Variance 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 October 7,2014 Page 15 of 16 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK OCT - 8 2014 ZONING BOARD OF APPEAIS RESOLUTION VILLAGE CLERK'S OFFICE WHEREAS, an application has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Denver and Alison Brown for (z) a main building coverage variance of 1.1% from Section 250-37.B. of the Village Code; and (H) a gross floor area variance of 626 square feet from Section 250-21.1). of the Village Code, in connection with the proposed construction of a second story addition, new rear patio and new covered porch, on property located at 4 Old Oak Road, in an R-12 zoning district Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID# 135.51-1-9; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on October 7, 2014, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and WHEREAS, the public heating was then closed on October 7, 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)[21[a]-[e] of the Rye Brook Code, finds with respect to the main building coverage variance: 1) The variance [WILL/ N create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhoo ; 2) The benefit the applicant seeks jCANQC:A:N:N7M be achieved through another method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, that does not require a variance; 3) The variance [I IS NO substantial; 4) The variance [WILLOII.L NOTJ-reate any adverse impacts to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood;and 5) The need for the variant [iS/IS NOT] self-created; and 1313/12/4703211 x2 10/284 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]ja]-[e] of the Rye Brook Code, finds with respect to the gross floor area variance: 1) The variance [WILL/ N create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhoo ; 2) The benefit the applicant seeks [CAN N be achieved through another method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, that does not require a variance; 3) The varianc6/IS NOT] substantial; 4) The variance WELL create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and 5) The need for the varia a [I IS NOT] self-created. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that said application for a main building coverage variance is hereb [GDENIED]; and said application for a gross floor area variance is hereb [GRANTED.•%DENIED Dated: October 7, 2014 ftzA�. Don Moscato, Chairman Variance#1: Main Building Coverage Variance Chairman Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Vo - . �/A e Na Abstain Absent g g � y Andrew Kaminsky Voting. ape Nap Abstain Absent Don Moscato Voting. ✓- Nay Abstain ^Absent Jeffrey Richman Voting Aye Nay Abstain Absent Joel Simon Voting �ye Nap Abstain ^Absent Ayes Nays Abstain Absent 1313/11/470510x1 10/1/14 Variance#2: Gross Floor Area Variance Chairman Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting 11 e Nay Abstain Absent Andrew Kaminsky Voting. �/A a Nay Abstain Absent Don Moscato Voting. a Nay Abstain Absent Jeffrey Richman Voting. Aye Nay Abstain Absent Joel Simon Voting,, ZAye Nay Abstain Absent Ayes U Nays Abstain Absent 131311214705200 10/2114 4. Approval of September 2, 2014 Zoning Board Summary On a motion by Mr. Kaminsky, seconded by Mr. Berger, the September 2, 2014 minutes were approved without changes. The meeting was then adjourned. Zoning Board of Appeals October 7,2014 Page 16 of 16