Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-03-04 - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK 938 King Street �'�PMhM4.F11 �IF4ar'.p Zoning Board of Appeals Tuesday, March 4, 2014 Meeting at 8:00 p.m. IM.,Agenda OKT 1. # 14-002 Jennifer Ashley 244 Betsy Brown Road i Construct a new front porch. 2. # 14-004 RRC/LCS, Inc. 561 Westchester Avenue Legalization of commercial business and legalization of conversion to two family dwelling. 3. Approval of January 7, 2014 Zoning Board Summary BOARD: Steven Berger Andrew Kaminsky Joel Simon Jeffrey Richman Donald Moscato, Chairman STAFF: Michael Izzo, Building Inspector Philip Butler, Esq., Village Counsel Fred Seirfert, Public Access Coordinator/IT Mr. Donald Moscato, Chairman, welcomed everyone to the Zoning Board meeting. Mr. Moscato introduced Village Counsel, Consultants and Staff. He asked that anyone addressing the Board please come to the podium and state their names and the nature of the application. The first item on the agenda was called before the Board: Zoning Board of Appeals Page 1 March 4, 2014 f I I l 1. # 14-002 Jennifer Ashley 244 Betsy Brown Road Construct a new front porch. John Cotugno, architect, provided a summary of the variances requested and the purpose. He noted that the applicant was proposing the construction of a new front porch. The minimum required front yard setback is 30 feet and the proposed construction will result in a 25 foot setback. Therefore, the applicant is applying for a 5 foot front yard setback variance. In addition, a variance of 2.03% for main building coverage is required as the proposed plans exceed the main building coverage of 20%. The applicant stated that the porch will provide protection over the front door, is aesthetically pleasing, and will act as a buffer between the home and the street. Mr. Moscato expressed his opinion that while the second variance is de minimus, the first variance is significant considering the proximity of the house to the street and the fact that the house is already an existing non-conformity. The architect noted that the porch will be completely open with only 8" decorative columns. The porch will be constructed to the smallest size possible. The Board discussed the possibility of granting the application subject to the condition that the porch remain open and not be enclosed. It was concluded that a condition for granting the variance could be that it remain open. The Board held a brief discussion on the possibility of adding vegetation in front of the porch, but concluded that such measures would only push the structure even closer to the street. Mr. Moscato noted that this application will be heard by the Architectural Review Board, which could consider the vegetation issue, if it wished. Mr. Kaminsky expressed concern over the proximity of the house to the street, but j agreed that the effect of the porch could be mitigated by conditioning the variances on the requirements that the porch remain unenclosed. Board members Berger, Richman and Simon concurred. The applicant, Jennifer Ashley, gave consent to the condition as proposed by the Board. Mr. Moscato called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in favor or opposition to this application. There being no one, and no further comments from the Board, with a motion and a second the public hearing was closed. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2 March 4,2014 I 1 Mr. Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting Aye Jeff Richman Voting Aye Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye Joel Simon Voting Aye Donald Moscato, Chair Voting Aye The Board briefly discussed the existing deck and having no connection to the proposed porch. Next the Board reviewed the factors for approving variances. The variances were taken separately, and Mr. Moscato read the following resolution: i RESOLUTION i Variances granted 5 ayes to 0 nays. i i i i i Zoning Board of Appeals Page 3 March 4,2014 i I © EEoVES VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK 5 2014 ( � ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS VILLAGECLERKS OFFICE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Jennifer Ashley for (1) a 5.0 ft. front yard setback variance from Village of Rye Brook Zoning Code 250-22.F.(1); and (2) a 2.03% main building coverage variance from Village of Rye Brook Zoning Code 5 250-37.B., in connection with the proposed construction of a front porch, on property located at 244 Betsy Brown Road, in an R-10 zoning district on the south side of the intersection of Betsy Brown Road and I"-nollwood Drive. Said premises being known and designated on the tax ma of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID# 135.43-1-39• and g p g Y WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on March 4, 2014, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and WHEREAS thep p ro osed action is a Type e 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 I nio [W / NO create an adverse impact to the character of the neighb ; 2) The benefit the applicant seeks [CA CANN be achieved through another method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, that does not require a variance; 3) The variance SSI 3d�6��] substantial; 4) The variance [WIWILL create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmentahcon-ditions of the neighborhood; and 5) The need for the variance/I self-created; and i WHEREAS, the Board, from the application, after viewing the premises and it neighborhood concerned, and upon considering each of the factors set forth at Section 250- 1 i F li 1 13(G)(2)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brook Code, finds with respect to the main building coverage variance: 1) The variance [WI L/WILL NO )create an adverse impact to the character of the neighb ,-- �rh 2) The benefit the applicant seeks [CAN/CAN ] be achieved through another method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, that does not require a variance; 3) The variance /IS NO ,s�ibsta 1 4) The variance [WILL ILL NOT],-(5reate any adverse impacts to the h sical or environmental con tions of the neighborhood; and physical g 5) The need for the varian [IS/ S NOT] self-created; and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that t the said application for the front yard setback variance is hereb [GRANTED/DENIED], and said application for the main building coverage variance is hereby RANTED/ ENIED], on the following i ' C�c4� onl c n v c-4ed -a v2x�-� o dttion : r�rle� � be res4 ti -�� -F s Sh«l ��e Argo n ce y of v -rte �9 i h2. A r -� n are-� d •ea ' h¢. 1 ca to c,�f � �d �n -} 1. a �� � nd opo 0 2. -'iFe -Pr lyt rc1n Shat\ noa 6-- en6c75e8 by walls, a�-Q i 5creen.to9 or ao� ocher of en el ta5vr�. Dated: March 4, 2014 Don Moscato, Chairman Chairman Moscato called the roll: Andrew Kaminsky Voting: _ e Nay Abstain Absent Don Moscato Voting: _ e Nay Abstain Absent Jeffrey Richman Voting: ye Nay Abstain Absent Joel Simon Voting: e Na J : Y g Y Abstain Absent Steven Berger Voting: Aye Nay Abstain Absent `J Ayes U I� _Nays Abstain Absent J -2- 1 Mr. Moscato called for the next item on the agenda: 2. # 14-004 RRC/LCS, Inc. 561 Westchester Avenue Legalization of commercial business and legalization of conversion to two family dwelling. i Demetrios Adamis, legal counsel for the applicant, addressed the Board. Linda li Seltman, the principal of the applicant, was also in attendance. Application is part of site plan for legalizing Ms. Seltman's professional office and a second floor apartment on the premises, which apartment is subject of two variance sought. Mr. Adamis provided background on the property. Ms. Seltman currently resides in first floor apartment. Her business is an accounting and bookkeeping business which she operates on second floor. The application before the Zoning Board is for two variances affecting the second floor apartment on the premises. The first is a floor space variance from the minimum requirement of 750 square feet. Current apartment is 714 square feet. The second is a variance from the requirement for rear service access for the second floor apartment. Mr. Adamis provided the Board with photographs of the front exterior of the building. Mr. Adamis noted there are two doors in the front of the building, so both floors have their own entrance. Mr. Adamis brought to the Board's attention that although Rye Brook Zoning Code requires rear service access, New York State Building Code does not. Mr. Adamis argued that addition of rear stair case would harm architectural aesthetic of building. Believes benefit to applicant would outweigh determinant to the neighborhood. Mr. Adamis represented that use and structure of building will not be changed if variances are granted. Mr. Kaminsky asked how application came before the Board. Mr. Adamis explained history of property: The applicant's mother purchased the property in 1985. She started j the business that Ms. Seltman now operates. In 1986, Ms. Seltman's mother obtained a use variance for four professional business operating out of the building. The second floor apartment has been there since the home was purchased. When Ms. Seltman's mother passed away, Ms. Seltman inherited the house and the business. Mr. Adamis acknowledged there was never a special use permit on file for the business, so the current application began as special use permit application before Board of Trustees, which was referred to the Planning Board. A site plan was prepared in connection with the referral to Planning Board at which time the applicant incorporated the variances needed to legalize the accounting business and second floor apartment into the site plan. i i Zoning Board of Appeals Page 6 March 4,2014 Mr. Richman asked if there is egress from the rear second floor window. Mr. Moscato brought to the Board's attention that there was never a permit or certificate of occupancy for converting this home to a two-family home; no permit or certificate of occupancy for finished basement; no permit or certificate of occupancy for finished third floor, and no special permit for business. Mr. Moscato inquired why these issues have been unaddressed for so long when they were known in 2010. Ms. Seltman addressed the Board on behalf of the applicant. She gave the Board background from the time her mother purchased the home, in 1985, to the present. When purchased in 1985, the second floor apartment and second floor accounting business were already there. Ms. Seltman's business moved onto the first floor. In 1990, Ms. Seltman's mother sold her other home in Rye Brook and moved into the first floor, moving her accounting business to the second floor. Two cubicles in the finished basement were rented to two separate businesses. Ms. Seltman's mother reportedly jneeded the income to keep the property at 561 Westchester Avenue while she still owned her home on Ridge Street. Ms. Seltman's mother was cited for violations for the businesses in the basement and thereafter obtained a temporary variance for those businesses for two years. Those businesses left after the variance expired. Ms. Seltman represented that third floor is storage only. Mr. Kaminsky asked if third floor is legal. Mr. Izzo confirmed third floor is legal based on the absence of evidence that third floor was not there when house was built. Mr. Kaminsky inquired about status of basement. Ms. Seltman represented that the basement is also used solely for storage, and there are no businesses or occupants. Mr. Moscato noted that there are smoke detectors that are monitored by a central station in the site plan. Mr. Seltman represented that house is already hard-wired to the fire department. Mr. Moscato noted that this is a wood framed home. Mr. Moscato noted that the Rye Brook Code is stricter than New York Building Code and believes it is more restrictive for a reason for safety issues. Mr. Moscato framed the inquiry for the Board of whether the wiring of smoke detectors into a central station is enough to address the safety issue compared to the installation of stairs or an access window for the second floor. The Board inquired whether options for second floor rear egress have been explored. The Board inquired further whether the double-hung window in the rear of the second floor apartment could be used as an access window. Mr. Moscato expressed his opinion that he would prefer to see a means of egress from the rear second floor. Mr. Berger concurred. The Board asked that the applicant come back with some options for egress from the rear of the second floor apartment. Mr. Adamis requested an adjournment. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 7 March 4, 2014 I 1 Mr. Moscato stated that, if the applicant wanted to get a decision on the application rather than adjourn the hearing, the approval of the variances could be conditioned on the Building Department's approval of the rear service access ultimately installed on the premises. Mr. Michael Izzo, Building Inspector, responded that he must follow the Village of Rye Brook Code and the New York State Building Code, and the Building Department is without authority to approve a means of egress not in compliance with those codes. The Board adjourned the application, at the applicant's request, to the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting on May 6, 2014. The Board requested options for egress from the rear of the second floor and photographs of the rear of the home. I i I Mr. Moscato called for the final item on the agenda: i i 3. Approval of January 7, 2014 Zoning Board Summary Mr. Moscato asked the Board for comments. None were given. It was noted that Attorney Philip Butler, Village Counsel, had reviewed the summary. The Board approved summary as presented. i Mr. Moscato requested a motion to adjourn. On a motion, and a second, the meeting was adjourned at 8:26 p.m. The roll was called: Steven Berger Voting Aye I Jeff Richman Voting Aye I Andrew Kaminsky Abstain Joel Simon Voting Aye Donald Moscato, Chair Voting Aye Zoning Board of Appeals Page 8 March 4, 2014