Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-11-04 - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK 938 King Street Zoning Board of Appeals t13DING nnTuesday, November 4, 2014 E� V E Meeting at 8:00 p.m. SB 2 3 20�61 LLA Agenda RD PAR7�4VILLAGE OF RYE �K 1. # 14-020 Michael & Sarin Bachmann 92 Country Ridge Drive Construct 2nd story addition; two 1-story additions; new front porch; new rear deck & interior alterations. 2. # 14-019 Arbors Home Owners Association 173 V2 Ivy Hill Crescent Relief from requirement for fire suppression sprinkler system in new storage shed. 3. Approval of October 7, 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 Coordinator/IT Paula Patafio, Meeting Secretary BOARD OF TRUSTEE LIAISON: Trustee David Heiser Mr. Donald Moscato, Chairman, welcomed everyone to the Zoning Board meeting of November 4, 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. Chairman Moscato noted that Mr. Berger was excused from the meeting, and welcomed Mayor Paul Rosenberg who was in attendance. Zoning Board of Appeals November 4,2014 Page 1 of 12 As a result of Mr. Berger's absence, Mr. Moscato offered the applicants an opportunity to request an adjournment to the December meeting when there will be a full complement of the Board. With only four members of the Board in attendance, all applicants would require three aye votes in order to move forward; a tie vote counts as a negative. Both applicants chose to move forward. Mr. Moscato called for the first item on the agenda: 1. # 14-020 Michael & Sarin Bachmann 92 Country Ridge Drive Construct 2nd story addition; two 1-story additions; new front porch; new rear deck& interior alterations. Mr. Mark Mustacato, architect, addressed the Board. He noted that the applicants have spoken with many of their neighbors. He presented the Board with 15 letters in support of the application. Two variances are required. The house has a garage with two garage doors, but two cars cannot be accommodated due to the location of stairs, the home's foundation and duct work inside the garage. The proposed construction will extend the garage toward to the street, creating the need for a front yard setback variance of 5.5 feet. A gross floor area ratio variance is also required. Interior changes include taking the existing living room and converting it into the dining room; the kitchen will be expanded; and a family room will be added in the area that is now the rear deck. A master bedroom suite will be created on the second floor. The house is located on a corner lot and there are 40' setbacks on both streets (two sides of the property). The addition will have no impact on any other property owner. A covered front porch is being added for aesthetics. The porch would be set back farther than the garage, as extended, and will require no variances. Mr. Mustacato noted that having reviewed other plans, these are the minimum variance needed to satisfy the applicants' needs. Chairman Moscato questioned how extension of the garage would look. Mr. Mustacato noted that the new garage is an improvement from what currently exists. The applicants do not plan on adding a second floor above the garage. Mr. Kaminsky suggested putting a condition on the granting of the variance. Mr. Mustacato noted that this application has been before the Planning Board. The property is very well screened, and there has been a lot of development in this area. Zoning Board of Appeals November 4,2014 Page 2of12 Mr. Michael Izzo, Building Inspector, questioned whether the existing garage was part of the original structure. Mr. Mustacato stated that it was and that the entrance to the basement is from inside the garage. Chairman Moscato opened the public hearing on the application and 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 and second to close the public hearing. On a motion made by Joel Simon, and seconded by Andrew Kaminsky, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed and the Board went into deliberation. The Village Attorney, Philip Butler, was asked to write a condition for the resolution. Chairman Moscato read the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, an application has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Michael & Sarin Bachmann for (i) a front yard setback variance of 5.5 feet from Section 250-23.F.(1) of the Village Code; and (ii) a gross floor area variance of 602.44 sq. ft. from Section 250-20.1) of the Village Code, in connection with the proposed construction of a second story addition, two one-story additions, new front porch, new rear deck and interior renovations, on property located at 92 Country Ridge Drive, in an R-15 zoning district on the east side of Country Ridge Drive at the intersection of Dorchester Drive and Country Ridge Drive. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID# 129.67-1-14; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on November 4, 2014, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and WHEREAS, the public hearing was then closed on November 4, 2014; and Zoning Board of Appeals November 4,2014 Page 3 of 12 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 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 the 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 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 the 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. Zoning Board of Appeals November 4,2014 Page 4 of 12 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that said application for a front yard setback variance is hereby GRANTED; and said application for a gross floor area variance is hereby GRANTED, on the following condition: The scope of the front yard setback variance is limited to the garage extension as depicted in the Proposed Additions & Alterations prepared by Richau, Mustacato, Grippi Associates, dated June 18, 2014. Dated: November 4, 2014 Don Moscato, Chairman Variance #1: Front Yard Setback Variance. Chairman Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting: _X—Aye Nay Abstain X 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 Variance #2: Gross Floor Area Variance Chairman Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting: _X Aye Nay Abstain X 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 Variances were granted on a vote of 4 ayes to 0 nays, and 1 absentia. Zoning Board of Appeals November 4,2014 Page 5 of 12 EC E E01VED VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK NOV 4 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS VILLAGE CLERK'S OFFICE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, an application has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Michael & Sarin Bachmann for (i) a front yard setback variance of 5.5 feet from Section 250-23.F.(1) of the Village Code; and (ii) a gross floor area variance of 602.44 sq. ft. from Section 250-20.D of the Village Code, in connection with the proposed construction of a second story addition, two one-story additions, new front porch, new rear deck and interior renovations, on property located at 92 Country Ridge Drive, in an R-15 zoning district on the east side of Country Ridge Drive at the intersection of Dorchester Drive and Country Ridge Drive. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID# 129.67-1-14; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on November 4, 2014, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and WHEREAS, the public hearing was then closed on November 4, 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 setback variance: 1) The variance [WILL/WILL NO��reate 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; 3) The variance [ISIS NOT] substantial; 4) The variance [WILL/WILL NOT], late any adverse impacts to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and 5) The need for the variance'9SS 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 gross floor area variance: 1) The variance [WILWILL po create an adverse impact to the character of the neighb o 2) The benefit the applicant seeks [CAN ANNO a achieved through another method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, that does not require the varia ce; 2 3) The variance JIS NOT] substantial; 4) The variance [WILL/WELL NOTJJ Bate any adverse impacts to the physical or environmentaloc nditions of the neighborhood; and 5) The need for the variance IS/I NOT] self-created. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that said application for a front yard setback variance is hereby GRANTEE /DENIED]; and said application for a gross floor area variance is hereby NIED], on the following conditions: +1Tc is 4ka ord scA 'ck or ian ce i5 l '-fed c, !' r e kon ciLin e� 4&44W - $ A ' -Pre-gtrecl bn-t «-,au Mus-6co4o Gr►,ppi Amoacp - Cj&W '�Je 11, Dated: November 4, 2014 Don Moscato, Chairman _ M Variance 1: Front Yard Setback Variance Chairman Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting: ye Nay Abstain Absent Andrew Kaminsky Voting:� ee Nay Abstain Absent Don Moscato Voting: �/ a Na Abstain Absent g Y Jeffrey Richman Voting: e Nay,Abstain _Absent Joel Simon Voting: Aye Nay ,Abstain Absent qAyes a Nays - Abstain Absent ,Kc o Variance 2: Gross Floor Area Variance Chairman Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting: Aye Nay Abstain Absent Andrew Kaminsky Voting: A Nay Abstain Absent Don Moscato Voting: a Nay Abstain Absent Jeffrey Richman Voting: Aye Nay Abstain Absent Joel Simon Voting: Aye Nay Abstain Absent Y' Ayes C Nays Abstain Absent -3- 2. # 14-019 Arbors Home Owners Association 173 1/: Ivy Hill Crescent Relief from requirement for fire suppression sprinkler system in new storage shed. Ms. Laurie Zimmerman, a Board Member of the Homeowners Association, addressed the Board. A metal shed had been built on the HOA property. The shed cannot melt. The contractor has built many of these sheds, and has never been required to install a fire suppression system. The applicant has been asked to install a fire suppression sprinkler system, and is claiming a financial hardship. The applicant stated that New York State does not require a fire suppression system for a shed. A rider has been instituted in connection with the construction of the shed forbidding the storage of flammable materials in the shed. The Home Owners Association is willing to purchase fire extinguishers to place in the shed. It was noted that a water connection is located near the shed, however, it is not large enough to support a sprinkler system. The Home Owner Association has removed equipment and flammable items from the shed and will inspect the shed to be certain that nothing is stored in it that should not be in there. The landscaper has been directed not store flammable equipment, or containers of gasoline, in this shed. Weekly inspections will ensure that this does not happen. Mr. Simon noted that Village ordinance requires a fire suppression sprinkler system. Even if a metal shed won't burn, he felt that the applicant was asking the Zoning Board to read an exception into the Zoning Code for metal buildings. Chairman Moscato noted that the Village Board of Trustees deliberately made the Village standards more stringent than the State law requires. Therefore, the less stringent requirement under State law is moot. Mr. Izzo, Building Inspector, explained that the water line running toward the shed is insufficient for a fire suppression sprinkler system. A 4' dedicated line would need to be installed running the shed. Mr. Jeffrey Richman noted that the purpose of this portion of the Village Code is safety and the protection of lives. Exceptions have been made, and each situation must be looked at individually, but safety issues raise the threshold. He mentioned a prior example concerning a tennis building. Mr. Kaminsky explained that the building in that case was not for storage and was short term. Zoning Board of Appeals November 4,2014 Page 9 of 12 Mr. Moscato noted that units #1 and #9 are the closest to the shed. The closest unit is 120' from the shed. He expressed concern that no one would know about a fire at night and there would be no sprinkler system or alarm system to extinguish the fire or alert anyone. He mentioned a letter submitted by a tenant from one of the units closest to the shed. Mr. Izzo reviewed the discussions that took place prior to construction the shed. Mr. Izzo discussed with the applicant and agreed that extending a 4' water line for a traditional sprinkler system is very expensive. The Building Department at that time made a decision that an alternative type of fire suppression system could be installed that would not require water. The Building Department agreed to installation of a "dry chem" sprinkler system, which is similar to those installed in gas stations. This system would be a less costly than a traditional water sprinkler. The HOA agreed to install a dry chem system, and the applicant pulled the permits to install the system in the shed. Now the HOA has changed the plans and is claiming a financial hardship for any fire suppression system. Mr. Kaminsky asked what the dry chem system would cost. Mr. Izzo noted that the cost of the system is $11,000.00. Stretching a 4' copper pipe would be much more expensive. ` Mr. Kaminsky asked if a variance would be required for a dry chem fire Y suppression system. He also questioned whether there is a true financial hardship here if, based on the number of units, the cost of the system would be approximately $44.00 per unit. Chairman Moscato said the cost would likely come out of a capital improvements fund or levied against the units as a special assessment. Mr. Kaminsky opined that spreading $11,000 over 250 households means the financial burden per unit is low. Trustee David Heisner addressed the Board. He opined that if a dry chem system is installed, a variance should be required if the Code requires a sprinkler system. Philip Butler, Village Counsel, after reviewing the Village Code, noted that the Village Code calls for a sprinkler system. However, the Code does not specifically require that a fire suppression sprinkler system use water. It requires that the sprinkler system installed meet the requirements of the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention Building Code. Mr. Izzo agreed that a dry chem sprinkler system would meet those requirements. Therefore, no variance is required if the applicant installs a water-fed sprinkler system or a dry chem sprinkler system in the shed, provided the system installed meets the State's fire Zoning Board of Appeals November 4,2014 Page 10 of 12 safety standards. An alarm system would require a variance since it is not a suppression system. Chairman Moscato asked the Building Inspector if flammable equipment can be stored in the shed if a dry chem fire suppression system is installed. Mr. Izzo said you can store whatever you want in a shed up to certain quantities. Ms. Hilary Silver, Board Treasurer noted that no chemicals or gasoline can be stored in the shed. No chemicals are left anywhere on the property; they are removed from the premises every day by the landscaper. Mr. Izzo noted that the shed is subject to inspection by the Building Department every three years. On a motion made by Mr. Simon, and seconded by Mr. Kaminsky, the public hearing was opened. The roll was called: Steven Berger Excused Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye Jeffrey Richman Voting Aye Joel Simon Voting Aye Don Moscato, Chairman Voting Aye Mr. Moscato called for anyone wishing to address the Board in support or opposition to the application. Philip Butler noted, again, that no variance will be required for the dry chem system. Then there is no need for the application. If the applicant wants to go for a variance for relief from installing a fire suppression system, then a variance is still required. Hilary Silver addressed the Board. She indicated that the HOA changed its position and will agree to install the dry chem system in the shed. Accordingly, the applicant withdrew its variance application. Chairman Moscato allowed public comment notwithstanding that the application was withdrawn. Sophia Brenerman, a resident of the Arbors, addressed the Board and spoke against the variance request. Zoning Board of Appeals November 4,2014 Page 1 I of 12 I Approval of October 7, 2014 Zoning Board Summary On a motion made by Mr. Kaminsky, and seconded by Mr. Simon, the minutes were approved. The roll was called: Steven Berger Excused Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye Jeffrey Richman Voting Aye Joel Simon Voting Aye Don Moscato, Chairman Voting Aye There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 8:59 p.m. Zoning Board of Appeals November 4,2014 Page 12 of 12