Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-07-01 - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK 938 King Street L TE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Tuesday,July 1, 2014 D E �/7 Meeting at 8:00 p.m. V ] 0 AGENDA AUG - 8 2m VILLAGE OF RYE BRp4K 1) #14-006 Mr. & Mrs. Thomas Lorys BUILDING DEPARTMENT Adjourned from 6/3/2014 14 Parkwood Place Legalize the driveway expansion and front retaining wall 2) #14-003 Makan Land Development II, LLC c/o David Makan 51 Hawthorne Avenue Construct a new single family dwelling on an existing non- conforming lot. 3) #14-008 Mr. & Mrs. Michael Richard 10 Rocking Horse Trail Construct 2"d story addition; one story addition and interior Alternations 4) #13-015 Rebecca & Scott Oling 2 Hillandale Road Request extension of approval of zoning variance, Village Code 250-13.1-1 5) Approval of June 3, 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 Patafto, Meeting Secretary Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting July 1,2014 Page 1 of 20 BOARD OF TRUSTEE LIAISON: Trustee David Heiser Mr. Donald Moscato, Chairman, welcomed everyone to the Zoning Board meeting of July 1, 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. Mr. Moscato called for the first item on the agenda: 1) #14-006 Mr. & Mrs. Thomas Lorys Adjourned from 61312014 14 Parkwood Place Legalize the driveway expansion and front retaining wall Mr. Donald Moscato, Chairman, noted that the applicant had requested an adjournment to the July meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals following their initial presentation at the June meeting. It was noted that there was no representative in attendance for the applicant this evening. However, the applicant submitted a letter requesting further adjournment to the September, 2014 meeting of the Board. For the benefit of the viewing public, Mr. Moscato reviewed the letter and reasons for the additional adjournment. Mr. Moscato stated that the main reason for the adjournment was that the applicants are looking for a new landscape architect, With the consensus of the Board, the adjournment was granted. Mr. Moscato called for item#2: 2) #14-003 Makan Land Development II,LLC c/o David Makan 51 Hawthorne Avenue Construct a new single-family dwelling on a vacant, existing non-conforming lot. The Chairman noted that there was no sign posted on the subject property. Village Attorney Philip Butler indicated receipt of an affidavit, dated July 1, 2014, was submitted indicating that the notice mailing was made on June 20, 2014, to the owners of all real property within the 250' radius of the subject property. The affidavit did not specify the date of posting, photograph of the sign, or a list of property owners. The Chairman and Mr. Kaminsky both attested to visiting the Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting July I,2014 Page 2 of 20 property and stated that no sign was present. The applicant contacted the company that installed the sign and requested that the representative return to the meeting. The consensus was to hear the applicant's presentation while waiting for the representative to return. Burt Dorfinan, Esq., legal counsel for the applicant, addressed the Board. He explained that he is counsel for the contract vendee for the subject property. THe current owner of the subject property is Mr. Vilca. Mr. Michael Miele, engineer, was also in attendance and available to answer questions. Attorney Dorfman began his presentation by noting that his client is seeking two variances. This is an existing non-conforming lot. The first variance is a lot merger variance. The second is lot size variance. Mr. Dorfman noted that the lot size variance is the only bulk area variance requested and that the proposed single family home would meet all other bulk zoning requirements. Attorney Dorfman reviewed the five factors used by the Zoning Board of Appeals to grant a variance. Mr. Dorfman called on Mr. Miele to answer a series of his questions relating to the five factors. Mr. Miele began by explaining the proposal and presented a drawing not before the Board. The Board allowed Mr. Miele to proceed with his presentation. Mr. Miele noted several non-conforming lots in the neighborhood. All of the homes in the neighborhood are single-family homes. Mr. Miele expressed his opinion that the construction of the single family home on the subject property would not result in an undesirable change in the neighborhood. Mr. Miele also expressed his conclusion that the applicant could not construct the single-family home on the subject lot without the variance requested. Mr. Kaminsky inquired why the applicant cannot simply acquire the needed square footage from the adjacent property also owned by Mr. Vilca. Aldo Vitagliano, Esq., legal counsel for the Vilcas, addressed the Board. The Vilcas contracted to sell the applicant the existing, non-conforming tax lot. The Vilcas are not in contract with the applicant to sell the adjacent property. Mr. Vitagliano represented that his client does not want to go through the hassle and expense of a subdivision application because the Vilcas spent a Iot of money on previously on applications to restore the farmhouse house on that property. In addition, if the farmhouse on the corner lot needs to be tarn down, the Vilcas may wish to situate a new house on that property differently. Therefore, conveying a portion of that lot to the applicant for the subject lot is not an option for the Vilcas. Zoning Board or Appeals Meeting July 1,2014 Page 3 of 20 Mr. Moscato questioned if the comer property could be subdivided. Mr. Michael Izzo, Building Inspector, noted that he had not done the calculation but on paper it is sub-dividable. Whether another house could be built on the property once subdivided is another question. Mr. Izzo noted that the existing farmhouse on the corner lot is non-conforming with the front yard set-back and it is in the scenic roads overlay district. There were setback variances granted for the vegetative buffer and a separate variance application for re-construction of the front porch on the farmhouse. The porch construction has been completed. However, the house is not habitable. Mr. Moscato recalled that the farmhouse is 100 years old and an intrinsical part of the streetscape of Rye Brook. The idea was to preserve it. Mr. Berger asked about a condition on the sale of the subject property. Mr. Vitagliano stated that the sale of the subject property is conditioned on the applicant receiving building permits for the new home,which means obtaining the requested variances. Mr. Izzo explained the lot merger requirement. W. Izzo explained that when an applicant seeks to develop a non-conforming lot adjacent to another lot owned by the same applicant, a merger or partial reapportionment must take place to make the non-conforming lot into a conforming one. Here, the applicant would need to file an application to take an area equal to 17.6 feet by 113.13 feet from the comer lot and add it to the subject lot to make that lot conforming. Mr. Moscato questioned whether or not there were any easements. Mr. Izzo noted that he has not come across any during his review. Mr. Berger asked whether the structure of the proposed house would change if the applicant was able to acquire the additional square footage to make the Iot conforming. Mr. Miele noted that if the property was reapportioned the proposed house would not change;nor would the positioning. Mr. Miele expressed his opinion that the non-conformity of the subject property is not substantial. He noted that there are several lots in this area that are undersized. Each of those lots has an existing house on it. However, those lots were not owned by a common owner when they were developed. Mr. Izzo stated that the 15A zoning district was created to limit the conversion of the lots in this area into flag lots. There are numerous flag lots on this street. Zoning Board of Appeak Meeting July 1,2014 Page 4 or 2.0 Mr. Moscato noted that the issue of the movement of the extra square footage must be considered. The total square footage needed to make the subject property conforming is 1,990 sq. ft., and he felt that this would not create an undue hardship. Mr. Izzo noted that the owner would have to do a subdivision if they wanted to convey the square footage from the comer lot to the subject property. He would need to go before the Planning Board and Board of Trustees. There are fees involved. Mr. Dorfman reiterated that his client, the applicant, has no right to the square footage needed from the corner lot unless the Vilcas agree to convey the area to his client. The Vilcas are saying no to the reapportionment. Mr. Kaminsky questioned the applicant's standing to bring this application considering he is not the owner of the subject property. It was noted that the code allows for applications by contract vendees, and it was pointed out that there is a signed contract for the sale of the subject property. Mr. Nicholas Sirriah, construction manager for the developer, appeared and addressed the Board. He stated that he installed the sign. However, prior to returning to the meeting he drove by the property and found the sign was gone. He contacted the realtor who informed him that the realtor had removed the sign as it was installed over his sign. The sign was posted on June 20, 2014, but was taken down three days later when the realtor removed his sign. The mailing requirement was satisfied. The Chairman asked the Board how it would like to proceed. Mr. Kaminsky expressed his feeling that the sign issue was an honest mistake. Mr. Richman noted that this is a very visible site and that residents should have had an opportunity to see the sign. Residents should have input. Mr. Kaminsky noted that a variance will be required to construct a home on the subject property no matter who purchases that lot in the future. Mr. Richman asked whether the Vilcas would be willing to limit the development of the corner lot to one house as a condition for the Board granting the variances for the subject property. Mr. Vitagliano represented that the Vilcas are willing to make the commitment and had represented that commitment to the Planning Board as well. Mr. Dorfman said that the Board can condition the variances on an agreement by the Vilcas that they will restrict development of the corner lot to a single home. Mr. Dorfman noted further that the Vilcas are signatories to the variance application submitted to Board. Mr. Butler asked for additional time to research the variance of conditions. Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting July 1,2014 Page 5 of 20 Mr. Moscato called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in connection with this application. Attorney Dorfman noted that only one person came to the Planning Board meeting for this application. The Board requested an estimate of the fees involved for a subdivision application and clarification of the conditions to be imposed if the variances are granted. The consensus of the Board was to adjourn the matter to the August meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Moscato called for item#3 on the agenda: 3) #14-008 Mr. & Mrs. Michael Richard 10 Rocking Horse Trail Construct 2"d story addition; one story addition and interior alternations W. Mark Mustacato, architect from the fine of Richard Mustacato Grippi Associates, addressed the Board. He noted that the applicant was requesting four variances. They are a minimum rear yard setback variance of 40 feet; a maximum allowable front height setback ratio of.27; a maximum allowable gross floor area variance of 1,603 square feet; and maximum number of stories variance for 112 a story. Mr. Mustacato presented the Board with photographs of the home and other homes in the area. This house is unique in that it only has one neighbor. Two of the other sides of the lot face the Hutchison River Parkway. There are two fronts, one side yard and a rear yard to this property. The footprint of the house would not change if the variances are granted; the building would just become taller. Mr. Mustacato presented other homes in the area with similar layouts and similar variances that were granted by the Board. Mr. Mustacato noted that this is a high ranch home. Therefore, the basement counts as a story and floor area. Once the F.A.R. regulation was enacted it made the house non-conforming. The hardship here is created by the way the zoning is written. This is the smallest variance needed to fulfill the needs of the applicants. This property is unique and not many people can see the house from the rear. The only neighbor who can see the rear of the home submitted a letter in support of the application,along with ten other neighbors. Zoning Board of Appeals Mating July 1,7014 Page 6 of 20 Mr. Moscato noted that the variances are substantial, but was in favor of granting them. Mr. Moscato noted that the granting of these variances is intertwined in that you need all of them in order to accomplish the applicant's goal. Thus, the application and the property are unique cases. Mr. Mustacato responded that he felt the variances are substantial by number,but not by their impact. Mr. Kaminsky expressed his opinion that this application is similar to another application granted by the Board. He noted, further, that there are a lot of trees around the house, so the additions will not have a big visual impact for neighboring houses. Mr. Richman, having visited the area, indicated his opinion that the application would make the house similar to other homes already in the area and that the application is an improvement. Mr. Kaminsky stated his opinion that all of the variances are substantial. Mr. Moscato agreed. The Board agreed the need for the variances is self-created. The Board agreed the environmental impact of the variances would not be substantial. Mr. Moscato called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in support or opposition to the application. There being no one, on a motion made by Mr. Kaminsky, and seconded by Mr.Berger, the public hearing was closed and the Board began its deliberation. Upon completion, Mr. Moscato read the following resolution: RESQLUTIQN WHEREAS, an application has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Michael and Elizabeth Richard for (1) a rear yard setback variance of 26.3 feet from §250-20.F.(3) of the Village of Rye Brook Zoning Code, requiring a minimum rear yard setback of 40 feet; (2) a front height setback ratio variance of 0.27 from §250-20.H.(1) of the Village of Rye Brook Code, prescribing a maximum allowable front height setback ratio of 0.60; (3) a 1,603 square foot gross floor area variance from §250-20.D of the Village of Rye Brook Zoning Code,prescribing a maximum gross floor area of 3,501.5 square feet; and(4)a 112 story from §250-20.G.(I) of the Village of Rye Brook Zoning Code, prescribing a maximum of two (2) stories in connection with the proposed construction of a second story addition; a one story addition and interior alterations on property located at 10 Rocking Horse Trail, in an R-15 zoning district at the intersection of Rocking Horse Trail and North Ridge Street. Said premises being known and Zoning Board of Appeab Meeting July 1,7014 Page 7 of 20 designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID# 129.83-1-3; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on July 1, 2014, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and WHEREAS, said public hearing on the application was then closed on July 1, 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 §250-13(G)(2)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brook Code, finds with respect to the rear 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 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 WHEREAS, the Board, from the application, after viewing the premises and neighborhood concerned, and upon considering each of the factors set forth at §250-13(G)(2)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brook Code, finds with respect to front height setback ratio 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; Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting July 1,2014 Page 8 or 20 2) The variance IS substantial; 3) The variance WILL NOT create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and 4) 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 §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; 2) The variance IS substantial; 3) The variance WILL NOT create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood;and 4) 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 as set forth at §250-13(G)(2)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brook Code, finds with respect to the 1112 story 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; 2) The variance IS substantial; 3) The variance WILL NOT create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood;and 4) The need for the variance IS self-created; and Zoning Board or Appeals Meeting July 1,2014 Nage 9 or 20 NOW, THEREFORE, BE 1T RESOLVED, that the said application for the rear yard setback variance is hereby granted; the said application for the front height setback ratio variance is hereby granted; said application for the gross floor area variance is hereby granted; and the said application for the 112 story variance is hereby granted. The roll was called for Variance#1: Rear Yard Setback Variance Steven Berger Voting Aye Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye Jeffry Richman Voting Aye Joel Simon Voting Aye Don Moscato,Chairman Voting Aye 5 Ayes 0 Nays The roll was called for Variance#2: Front Height Setback Ratio Variance Steven Berger Voting Aye Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye Jeffry Richman Voting Aye Joel Simon Voting Aye Don Moscato,Chairman Voting Aye 5 Ayes 0 Nays The roll was called for Variance#3: Gross Floor Area Variance Steven Berger Voting Aye Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye Jeffry Richman Voting Aye Joel Simon Voting Aye Don Moscato, Chairman Voting Aye 5 Ayes 0 Nays The roll was called for Variance#4: 112 Story Variance Steven Berger Voting Aye Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye Jeffry Richman Voting Aye Joel Simon Voting Aye Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting July I,2014 Page Io of 2O Don Moscato, Chairman Voting Aye 5 Ayes 0 Nays Dated: July 1, 2014 Don Moscato, Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting July 1,2014 Page 11 of 20 IMI VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK ZONING BOARD OF APPEAL RESOLUTION WHEREAS, an application has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Michael and Elizabeth Rich4for (1) a rear yard setback variance of 26.3 feet from § 250-20.F.(3) of the Village of Rye Brook Zoning Code, requiring a minimum rear yard setback of 40 feet; (2) a front height setback ratio variance of 0.27 from § 250-20.H.(1) of the Village of Rye Brook Zoning Code, prescribing a maximum allowable front height setback ratio of 0.60; (3) a 1,603 sq. ft gross poor area variance from S 250-20.13 of the Village of Rye Brook Zoning Code, prescribing a maximum gross floor area of 3,501.5 sq. ft; and (4) a '/s-story variance from§250-20.G.(1) of the Village of Rye Brook Zoning Code, prescribing a maximum of two (2) stories,in connection with the proposed construction of a second story addition; a one story addition and interior alterations on property Olocated at 10 Rocldng Horse Trail,in an R-15 zoning district at the intersection of Rocking Horse Trail and North Ridge Street Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID#929.83-I-3;and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on the application on July 1, 2014,at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity;and WHEREAS, said public hearing on the application was closed on July 1,2014; and WMREAS,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]-[c] of the Rye Brook Code, finds with respect to the rear yard setback variance: 1) The variance [WI WILL NO create an adverse impact to the character of the neighbor , i 1313.124697MI 7114 2) The benefit the applicant seeks [CAAMNO a achieved through another method, feasible for the applica ue, that does not require a variance; 3) The varian [I / S NOT] substantial;' 4) The variance [WILL N ate any adverse impacts to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood;and 5) The need for the variance IS S 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 front height setback ratio variance: 1) The variance [WIM/ NO'9 create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborho 2) The benefit the applicant seeks [CAN/ NOT be achieved through another method, feasible for the applican � Uc, that docs not require a variance; 3) The varianc<&NOT] substantial; 0 4) The variance [WILL NO create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmen con tions of the neighborhood;and 5) The need for the varianceVIS 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 NOVcreate an adverse impact to the character of the neigh , 2) The benefit the applicant seeks [CAN/CANNOT] a achieved through another method, feasible for the applicas e, that does not require a variance; 3) The variance ISIS NOT] substantial; 4) The variance [WJLL LL N T] create any adverse impacts to the physical or envitonmen con 'tions of the neighborhood;and 5) The need for the variancOl NOT] self-created;and '1 011 12,36g'l VI "-ld -2- 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 1/2-story variance: 1) The variance [WLL /WILL NO' create an adverse impact to the character of the neigh , 2) The benefit the applicant seeks [ CANNO be achieved through another method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, that does not require a variance; 3) The variant [IS IS NOT s bstantial; 4) The variance WILL. create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmentalDVS/" itions of the neighborhood;and 5) The need for the vari S NOTJ self-created;and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that said application for the rear yard setback variance is hereby GRAN D/DENIED]; and said application for the front height setback ratio variance is hereb G NTE DENIED];and said application for the gross floor area variance is hcreb [GRANTE /DENIED]; and said application for the 1/2-story variance is her y [GRAN NI> D],on the following conditions: 1. •and 2. Dated: July 1,2014 <� Don Moscato,Chairman 131311214687MI 7.4'14 -3- Variance#1: Rear Yard Setback Variance Chairman Moscato called the roil: Steven Berger Voting / e Nay Abstain Absent Andrew Kaminsky Voting�A 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#Z: Front Height Setback Ratio Variance Chairman Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting �ye Nay Abstain Absent Andrew Kaminsky Voting- Aye Nay Abstain Absent Don Moscato Voting:-Ayc Nay Abstain Absent Jeffrey Richman Voting. ye Nay Abstain Absent Joel Simon Voting. Aye Nay Abstain Absent Ayes d Nays Abstain Absent Variance#3: Gross Floor Arca Variance Chairman Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting. vl�e Nay Abstain Absent Andrew Kaminsky Voting✓r Nay Abstain Absent Don Moscato Voting Nay Abstain Absent Jeffrey Richman Voting:, a Nay Abstain Absent Joel Simon Voting e . Nay . Abstain Absent ,Ayes Nays Abstain Absent 1311 r2.4687Mr 7114 Variance#4: 1/2-story variance Chairman Moscato called the roll: / Steven Berger Voting✓ e Nay Abstain Absent Andrew Kaminsky Voting V Nay Abstain Absent Don Moscato Voting ✓ ye Nay Abstain Absent Jeffrey Richman VotingJ�Aye Nay Abstain Absent Joel Simon Voting AyeNay Abstain Absent Ayes Nays Abstain Absent 1313f11/468709vt 74.14 4) #13-015 Rebecca & Scott OGng 2 Hillandale Road Request extension of approval of Zoning variance, Village Code 250-13.14 Mr. Butler gave an overview of the matter for the benefit of the public. The applicants obtained a variance for their property in December, 2013. Under the Code, the variance was set to expire after six months unless the applicant pulled building permits. The applicant submitted a building permit application, but failed to request an extension of variance before it expired. The applicant has now submitted an application for the extension of the variance notwithstanding that the variance had already expired. Mr. Kaminsky asked whether this is properly an extension rather than a new application since the variance expired before the applicant submitted the request for the extension. Mr. Butler explained that it has been past practice of the Board to treat applications of this nature as an extension rather than a new application where a variance expires after a building permit application has been submitted. Rebecca Oling, applicant, addressed the Board. Ms. Oling noted the building permit application was submitted on May 2, 2014, after which there was back and forth between the Building Department and Architect. The applicant did not realize how much time the permit application would take and didn't realize they needed to request an extension. Mr. Izzo stated that the plans have been approved and the applicant is ready to pull their permit. Mr. Richman and Mr. Kaminsky both stated that they were uncomfortable granting the variance back in 2013 because they did not have plans for the property and that this would have been an opportunity for the Board to review those plans. Mr. Simon noted that the variance was already granted by the Board notwithstanding the absence of complete plans. Mr. Izzo noted that delay on granting the building permit application was due largely to the applicant's architect gathering necessary information. Mr. Moscato called for members of the public wishing to address the Board. As there was no one, the public hearing was closed and Mr. Moscato read the following resolution: Zoning Board or Appeals Meeting July 1,2014 Page 16 o(20 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, an application has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Scott and Rebecca Oling for an extension of approval of a 22.3 foot front yard setback variance from Village Code §205-19.1.G.1)(b)(1), in connection with the proposed construction of an attached two-car garage addition, on property located at 2 Hillandale Road, in an R-25 zoning district, on the east side of Hillandale Road, at the intersection of Loch Lane and Hillandale Road. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID# 135.28-I41; and WHEREAS, the above-listed variance was approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals by resolution dated December 3, 2013; and WHEREAS, such approval was scheduled to expire on June 3, 2014, pursuant to Village Code§250-13.H; and WHEREAS, such approval did expire on June 3, 2014, with no request for extension having been submitted by the applicant; and WHEREAS, the applicant submitted a written request for an extension of said approval on June 17,2014; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of Appeals is willing to entertain the applicants' request for extension notwithstanding that the approval expired, pursuant to the Village Code, prior to the date of applicant's written request;and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on July 1, 2014, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and WHEREAS, the proposed action is a Type 11 action pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act, and accordingly, no further environmental review is required; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the applicant has shown good cause for granting an extension of the variance approved by resolution dated December 3 2013 (note letter by applicant); BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the said application for an extension of approval of the aforementioned variance is hereby granted subject to Zoning Board or Appeals Meeting July 1,2014 Pege 17 or 20 any and all conditions placed on said variance approval, for a period of six 0 months to December 3, 2014. The roll was called: Steven Berger Voting Aye Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye Jeffry Richman Voting Aye Joel Simon Voting Aye Don Moscato, Chairman Voting Aye 5 Ayes 0 Nays Dated: July 1,2014 Don Moscato, Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting July 1,2014 Page 18 of 20 D VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK CCG�dC ZONING BOARD OF APPEAIS JUL -3 2014 REsoLUTioIvVILLAGE CLERK'S OFFICE WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Scott and Rebecca Oling for an extension of approval of a 22.3 ft front yard setback variance from Village Code §250-19.1.G.(1)(b)(1), in connection with the proposed construction of an attached two-car garage addition, on property located at 2 Hillandale Road,in an R-25 zoning district, on the east side of Hillandale Road, at the intersection of Loch Lane and Hillandale Road. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID#135.2&141; and WHEREAS, the above-listed variance was approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals by resolution dated December 3,2013;and WHEREAS, such approval was scheduled to expire on June 3, 2014, pursuant to Village Code§250-13.H;and WHEREAS, such approval did expire on June 3,2014,with no request for extension having been submitted by the applicant;and WHEREAS, the applicant submitted a written request for an extension of said approval on June 17,2014;and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of Appeals is willing to entertain the applicant's request for extension notwithstanding that the approval expired, pursuant to the Village Code,prior to the date of applicant's written request;and WHEREAS,a duly advertised public hearing was held on July 1,2014,at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity;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. 1313/12/46820v1 711114 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Applican(a/HAS NOT] shown good cause for granting an extension of the variance approved by resolution dated December 3, 2013„ BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the sai plication for an extension of approval of the aforementioned variance is hereby GRANTE /DENIED], subject to any and all conditions placed on said variance approval, for a period of 4 months to 6 � 2 2014. Dated: July 1,2014 Mr. Don Moscato,Chairman Chairman Moscato called the roll: ✓ Steven Berger Voting lye Nay Abstain Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye Nay Abstain Don Moscato Voting.-9A Aye Nay Abstain Jeffrey Richman Voting;, ye Nay Abstain Joel Simon Voting. Aye Nay Abstain S Ayes Nays Abstain 0 1313/12/468290r1 711114 . . Mr. Moscato called or the final item on the agenda: 5)Approval of June 3,2014 Zoning Board Summary Mr. Moscato called for a review of the June 3, 2014 summary. The Board approved the Summary, subject to revisions noted by Mr. Kaminsky, by a vote of five ayes and zero nays. There being no further business before the Board,the meeting was adjourned at 9:24 p.m. Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting July 1,2014 Page 20 of 20