Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-06-03 - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK DATE as I 938 King Street ZONING a day,RD 0 3, 2014 CEN Tuesday, C Meeting at 8:00 p.m. JUL _ 9 2o,4 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BUILDING DEPARTMENT AGENDA 1} #14-004 RRC/LCS, Inc. 561 Westchester Avenue Legalization of commercial business and legalization of conversion to two family dwelling 2) #14-006 Mr. & Mrs. Thomas Lorys 14 Parkwood Place Legalization of driveway expansion and front retaining wall 3) Approval of May 6, 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 Pataf o, Meeting Secretary Mr. Donald Moscato, Chairman, welcomed everyone to the Zoning Board meeting of June 3, 2014. Mr. Moscato introduced Village 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. He called for the first item on the agenda: Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting June 3,2414 Page 1 of 8 1) #14-004 RRC/LCS, Inc. Adjourned from 3/4/2014 and 5/6/2014) 561 Westchester Avenue Legalization of commercial business and legalization of conversion to two family dwelling Demetrios Adamis, Esq., legal counsel for the applicant, addressed the Board. It was noted that a variance was required for the second floor apartment size. Whereas 750 square feet are required under the Village Code, the applicant proposed only 714 square feet. Therefore, a floor space variance of 36 square feet was required for the second-floor dwelling unit. The second variance dealt with rear service access. A two-family conversion in the R-2F Zoning District requires rear service access for a second-floor dwelling unit. The applicant requested relief from this section of the Village Code. The applicant proposed emergency egress in the form of a fire ladder and one or more casement windows, depending on the option selected. Mr. Adamis presented a photo of the rear of the home to the Board. He pointed out three windows in the rear of the second floor that the applicant earmarked for possible installation of escape casement windows. They were the second floor bathroom, hallway, and bedroom windows. The escape casement windows create space for emergency exits that complies with the State uniform fire and building code requirements. The windows have a latch the swings open to one side, allowing an adult or child, to exit the building in the case of an emergency. The applicant's first proposal involved the installation of two egress casement windows and purchase of a portable ladder that latches on over the window sill (Kidde Escape Ladder). This option gives a certain amount of flexibility to the occupants. The estimated cost for the first proposal was approximately $1,500, largely attributed to the cost of replacing of the windows. The second proposal involved a permanent, stationary fire ladder, which folds up and pops open when needed. Mr. Adamis presented photos of the apparatus to the Board. The ladder would be permanently attached to house on either side of the escape window. One egress casement window would be installed under this option. The cost for the second proposal was estimated at $3,000. Mr. Adamis expressed that the applicant preferred the first option, due to the lower cost, but was willing go with whichever proposal the Board approved. Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting June 3,2014 Page 2 of 8 Mr. Simon noted that finding the portable ladder, getting it out of the where it is stored and setting it up takes time. He preferred something more permanent and easier to access. Mr. Moscato noted that an entryway to the basement in the rear of the home extends out three feet. It is part of the house and he questioned whether it would be in the way of the escape ladder. Mr. Moscato noted further that he prefers the permanent ladder; however, he also expressed his concern over the ability of a normal person to climb down the ladder depending upon their age and physical shape. The Board agreed that safety is of paramount concern. Mr. Berger asked that a condition be placed on the approval such that the rear service access variance would expire if the physical structure of the rear of the second-floor dwelling unit were altered. Philip Butler, Esq., Village Counsel, noted that a condition to that effect could be imposed, with the applicant's consent, as a reasonable condition on the grant of the variance. Mr. Michael Izzo, Building Inspector, noted that there is no State Code requirement for fire access or means of egress for a one or two family home. This requirement is a local law only. Mr. Berger stated that there were several steps to use either proposal. Mr. Kaminsky felt that the fixed ladder was the better proposal. Mr. Moscato noted that the Board's consensus was that a fixed ladder was the better of the two. Mr. Kaminsky and Mr. Richman both felt comfortable with either option and were satisfied by the applicant's efforts to address the Board's safety concerns. Mr. Berger expressed the same support and added that the permanent ladder could not get lost and does not require instructions on use. Mr. Butler was asked to prepare conditions for the resolution (1) requiring the installation of a code-compliant egress casement window; and (2) providing that the rear service access variance will expire if the structure of the rear of the second-floor dwelling unit is altered. Mr. Moscato reviewed the application and variances. He called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in support or opposition to the application. There being no one, and no further comments from the Board, he read the following resolution. Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting June 3,2414 Page 3 of 8 RESOLUTION Mr. Moscato called the roll and the resolution passed as follows: Floor Space Variance: 5 ayes, 0 nays Rear Service Access Variance: 4 ayes, I nay Mr. Izzo noted that this application will be under the supervision of the Building Department. Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting June 3,2014 Page 4 of 8 p E C� ENE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK JUN C 5 2014 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS VILLAGE CLERK'S OFFICE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, an application has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by RRC/LCS, Inc. for (1) a 36 sq. ft. floor space variance from Village of Rye Brook Zoning Code § 250-25.L.(2)(a); and (2) a rear service access variance from Village of Rye Brook Zoning Code § 250-25.L.(2)(c), in connection with the proposed legalization of the conversion from a 1-family dwelling to a 2-family dwelling with a professional office, on property located at 561 Westchester Avenue, in an R-2F zoning district approximately 100 ft. east of the intersection of Westchester Avenue and North Ridge Street. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID# 135.83-1-11; and 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, said public hearing was twice adjourned, at the applicant's request, to June 3, 2014, for the purpose of allowing the applicant an opportunity to explore options for providing suitable emergency access to the rear of the second-floor dwelling unit on the premises; and WHEREAS, the public hearing on this application did continue on June 3, 2014, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity, and at which time the applicant presented options considered for emergency rear service access to the second-floor dwelling unit; and WHEREAS, at least one option presented to the Board suitably addressed the fire safety concerns raised by the Board on March 4, 2014; and WHEREAS, said public hearing on the application was then closed on,June 3, 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 ham, 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 floor space variance: 1} The variance [WELL ::�j create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood; 2) The benefit the applicant seeks [CAN/ NOT] achieved through another method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, that does not require a variance; 3) The variance [I /IS NO s tanti� 4) The variance [WILL/Lk any adverse impacts to the physical or environment co ons of the neighborhood; and 5) The need for the variance RK=NOff-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 rear service access variance: 1) The variance [\X/XLLNOT]icreate an adverse impact to the character of the neighbor d, 2) The benefit the applicant seeks [CAN NNO be achieved through another method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, that does not require a variance; 3) The variance [IS IS NO ' substantial- 4) The variance [WILL NO reate any adverse impacts to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and 5) The need for the variance /I5 NO ,self-created; and -2- NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the said application for the floor space variance is herebGRANT %DENIED]; and said application for the rear service access variance is here [GRAN D/DENIED], on the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall install and maintain a code-compliant egress casement window and permanent fire ladder, as depicted in the supplemental application materials submitted to the Board, in the bedroom of the second-floor dwelling unit, which ladder shall extend to the ground; and 2. The rear service access variance shall expire upon the performance of any work, except as required by this resolution, which modifies the exterior structure of the rear of the second-floor dwelling unit. The applicant or successor owner of the premises shall, upon expiration of the rear service access variance, install permanent rear service access to the second-floor dwelling unit if required under the Village Zoning Law in effect at that time. Dated: June 3, 2014 Don Moscato, Chairman Variance #1 Chairman Moscato called the roll: Andrew Kaminsky Voting.—�'y 'ye Nay Abstain Absent Don Moscato Voting. /�ye Nay Abstain Absent Jeffrey Richman Voting rJ Aye Nay Abstain Absent Joel Simon Voting. L/Aye Nay Abstain Absent Steven Berger Voting_:--Aye Nay Abstain Absent Ayes o Nays Abstain Absent Variance #2 Chairman Moscato called the roll: Andrew Kaminsky Voting.--!L"Aye I�Tay Abstain Absent Don Moscato Voting. Aye ✓Nay Abstain Absent Jeffrey Richman Voting Z7Aye Nay Abstain Absent Joel Simon Voting. ✓ Aye NayAbstain Absent Steven Berger Voting —Aye Nay Abstain Absent Ayes Nays Abstain Absent -3- Mr. Moscato called for the second item on the agenda: 2) #14-006 Mr. & Mrs. Thomas Lorys 14 Parkwood Place Legalize the driveway expansion and front retaining wall Mr. Turofsky, landscape architect, addressed the Board. He noted that the applicants required a variance for unenclosed off-street parking created when they expanded their driveway. They have five cars and there are overnight restrictions in their area. Therefore a wider driveway was needed to accommodate all of their cars. Mr. Kaminsky raised his concern that the applicant was before the Board only after being caught doing unpermitted work on their property. Mr. Moscato asked Mr. Michael Izzo, Building Inspector, to give an overview of the history behind the application. Mr. Izzo explained that, on September 12, 2011, Deputy Building Inspector Steven Fews discovered that work was being done on the premises without a permit. Specifically, the applicants were in the process of expanding their driveway, constructing a retaining wall along the driveway and adding concrete pillars within the Village right-of-way, all without a permit. The applicant was also in the process of making certain improvements in the backyard on the premises, but those issues were resolved and were not a part of the application before the Board. After the Village issued a stop work order for the work in the front of the house, the applicants were going to reconfigure the driveway and implement a new plan which did not require variances. The applicant wished to avoid going before the Zoning Board. Eventually, the applicant worked out a new plan with Mr. Izzo, and it was submitted to the Village and approved by the Building Department and Architectural Review Board. The un-enclosed off-street parking was going to be made code-compliant, not requiring a variance, and the pillars were going to be relocated to be within the applicant's property boundaries. A permit was issued in 2012 to begin this work. Mr. Izzo noted that unenclosed off-street parking cannot be created within 25' of the property line in the applicant's zoning district. Furthermore, no cars can be parked on a front lawn. A second permit was pulled for work in the rear of the home. When that work was completed, surveys were submitted in order to close out that permit. The surveys showed that the illegal conditions which existed in the front of the house in 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting June 3,2014 Page 6 of 8 still existed notwithstanding the agreed-to plan modify the work. Notice of Violation was issued. Now the applicant is seeking to legalize the work that was done. The rear yard work has been completed, and is not an issue. The Zoning Board of Appeals' focus is the unenclosed off-street parking, which violates the 25 foot setback for unenclosed off-street parking. The retaining wall that was constructed can stay as per Mr. Izzo. The concrete pillars are still within the Village right-of-way and are not within the Zoning Board of Appeals' purview. Mr. Moscato noted that someone made a conscious decision to construct something that was not approved. There was a plan negotiated with the Village after the applicant was caught the first time. It was noted that the permit on this matter was issued after the fact -- based upon the code-compliant plan that was submitted to Mr. Izzo. Mr. Kaminsky stated that he had a problem with this application as the applicants have no regard for the Village Code. They did the work without a permit and now have had two (2) years to rectify the problem and nothing has been done. Approval of the application would set a terrible precedent for the Board. The applicant, Lorraine Lorys, explained that there was a drainage problem, which necessitated reconfiguration of the driveway. The applicant claimed she and her husband were misinformed by their contractor that a permit would not be needed to widen the driveway. The applicant decided to widen the driveway. When they went from a driveway the width of one car, to a driveway the width of two cars, they created the additional off-street parking even though the curb cut was not touched. The applicant explained that the garage is full and not used for parking cars because the applicant's ATVs are stored there. Mr. Moscato noted that this is a self- created problem. Using the existing garage for parking would help mitigate the problem. It was noted that the Building Department has not received any letters from neighbors in support of or in opposition to the application. Mr. Berger expressed concern over the visual impact of having so many cars parked in the driveway. Mr. Simon expressed similar concern that so many cars would be in the driveway and none in the garage. Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting June 3,2014 Page 7 of 8 Mr. Kaminsky restated his concern with the history of the application. Mr. Richman agreed with Mr. Kaminsky's concern, but indicated he would be inclined to grant the application. Mr. Izzo explained for the Board what constitutes unenclosed off-street parking and when the expansion of a driveway constitutes the creation of unenclosed off- street parking. Mr. Izzo noted that the approved plan for the applicant's property was vetted and approved by both the Building Department and the Architectural Review Board. If a variance were not granted, any variation from the approved plans would mean the plans would need to be approved again. Thus, absent a variance, the applicant could either go with the approved plan, and modify the condition of the driveway accordingly, or modify the approved plan and seek re-approval. Mr. Moscato stated that the applicant has been advised of the options. The Board suggested that if the applicant did not wish to go ahead with the approved plan, the applicant could consider a modified plan that would at least mitigate the variances needed for the expanded driveway. The applicant was offered the opportunity to revisit the plan. It was noted that a code-compliant plan would require no action by the Zoning Board of Appeals. The applicant requested an adjournment to review and possibly revise the plan to either eliminate the need for a variance or to mitigate the variance required. Mr. Moscato called for the final item on the agenda: 3) Approval of May b, 2014 Zoning Board Summary Mr. Moscato called for a review of the May b, 2014 summary. The Board approved the Summary, as amended, by a vote of five ayes and zero nays. There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned. Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting June 3,2014 Page 8 of 8