Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-08-05 - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes AE E"� , I GATE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK 938 King Street Zoning Board of Appeals �n Tuesday, August 5, 2014 Q E E V E Meeting at 8:00 p.m. SEP 2 2 ZOO DI Agenda VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BUILDING DEPARTMENT 1. # 14-003 Makan Land Development 1I, LLC (adjourned from 7/1/2014) c/o David Makan 51 Hawthorne Avenue Construct a new single family dwelling on an existing non-conforming lot. 2. # 14-009 Cono Potignano 2 Phyllis Place Construct 2nd story addition; 1 story two car garage addition; expand existing driveway and interior alterations. 3. # 14-011 Win Ridge Realty LLC 16-18 Rye Ridge Plaza Install one additional sign at Lester's 4. # 14-010 Mr. & Mrs. Stephen Fabrizi 6 Concord Place Construct a rear 2nd story addition . 5. Approval of July 1, 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 Zoning Board of Appeals August 5, 2014 P age 1 '. BOARD OF TRUSTEE LIAISON: Trustee David Heiser Mr. Donald Moscato, Chairman, welcomed everyone to the Zoning Board meeting of August 5, 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. # 14-003 Makan Land Development I1, LLC (adjourned from 71112014) c/o David Makan 51 Hawthorne Avenue Construct a new single family dwelling on an existing non- conforming lot Burt Dorfman, Esq., legal counsel for the applicant, addressed the Board. He noted that the plans have been amended in response to the Zoning Board's comments at the prior meeting. Aldo Vitagliano, Esq., legal counsel for the current owner of the property, addressed the Board. He read a statement from Mr. & Mrs. Vilca, the current owners of the subject lot. The statement indicated the Vilcas willingness to place a restriction on the other adjoining lot, prohibiting subdivision or construction of more than one single-family residence, as a condition for the approval of the variance application for the subject lot. Mr. Moscato, Chairman, noted that the zoning district in which the property is located was created by the Village for the purpose of preserving the appearance of the neighborhood. The Board must review this application carefully with that purpose in mind. There must be a balance of preserving what the Board of Trustees had in mind when the district was created and the needs of the applicant. Attorney Dorfman argued that this is a unique lot and that the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the neighboring home owners. He added that notice of the application had been given and that no one appeared to voice opposition. Mr. Moscato countered that a letter in opposition was received by the Village. He read Zoning Board of Appeals August S, 2014 Page 2 the letter from Gregory C. Masone, PE, owner of 48 Hawthorne Avenue, into the record. Attorney Dorfman reiterated that this is a pre-existing non-conforming lot. He asserted that the applicant meets all of factors that the Zoning Board is charged with reviewing. Andrew Kaminsky felt that the property owner could apply for the merger of the two lots. Attorney Dorfman questioned when the merger was put into the Code. The answer was 1995. Philip Butler, Esq., Village Counsel, read the merger provision of the Village's Code into the record: §250-6 Sub-Division 2(a). Chairman Moscato inquired as to the spirit of this provision. Mr. Butler explained that this application is precisely the scenario in which the provision is meant to be applied. Because the two lots are owned by the same owners, the owners (the Vilcas) have the ability to shave off a portion of one lot and adding it to the other to make two conforming lots. This would eliminate the need for the variances being requested. Joel Simon noted that he had not heard anything from the applicant as to why a variance should be granted other than the owner does not want to take the square footage from one lot and add it to the one being sold. Mr. Dorfman explained that the cost involved was the reason the owners did not take this option. Mr. Moscato read the letter from Attorney Dorfman regarding the cost of subdividing the lots into the record. Attorney Dorfman noted that his client is the applicant (Makan) who is under contract to buy the one lot. They have no contractual rights to the square footage on the other lot. He stated that he was not arguing with the provision, however, he reiterated that the house being proposed by his applicant will not require any other variance. Mr. Moscato noted that he checked with the Building Inspector regarding the costs of a subdivision application. There is a potential to subdivide the remaining lot, and there are costs involved, however, this cannot be ignored even though it is not before the Board. Attorney Butler noted Makan, the applicant, is purchasing the property with full knowledge of the Zoning and the conditions. If Makan purchased the property, then there would be two separate owners. However, the purchase of the property is conditioned upon the granting of the variance. Zoning Board of Appeals August 5, 2014 P age 3 Steven Berger noted that the zoning changed before the Vilcas purchased the property. Jeffrey Richman questioned if a condition of building only one home on the second lot would be valid. Attorney Butler noted that this condition could be recorded through a declaration of restrictive covenant, and that the owners of the two lots (the Vilcas) are co-applicants on the variance application and have expressed willingness to record the restriction as a condition of the variances being granted. Therefore, the answer is yes. Chairman Moscato inquired about whether the adjoining lot would be a buildable lot if the necessary square footage were given to the subject lot to make it conforming. Mr. Butler explained that he contacted the Village Planner, Marilyn Timpone- Mohamed, on July 31St, 2014, with the question that if the existing house was demolished would there be a building envelope to accommodate a single family residence on the corner lot. The current house on that lot is not occupied and is not stable. Mr. Moscato felt the Board cannot ignore the reason behind the zoning district changes in this area. The question, as stated by the Chairman, was whether Mr. Vilca should merge the two lots. Attorney Dorfman noted that many of the lots in the area are smaller than the required lot size. Mr. Simon countered that the change in zoning was enacted specifically to avoid the creation of more undersized lots. Mr. Kaminsky asked the Board and the applicant if this is the smallest possible variance that can be requested. He added that the merger provision is a very easy solution that would avoid the need for the variances. He added that the only reason the applicant has really stated for not wanting to do the merger is not wanting to spend the money. Attorney Dorfman expressed his position that his client (Makan) would suffer hardship if the variances are not granted. It was noted that the Vilcas purchased the property subject to the zoning and after the merger provision was added to the Village Code. There was no reason the Vilcas had to wait until now to seek relief to build on the second lot. It was noted that the Vilcas and Makan put themselves in this situation by conditioning the sale of the subject lot on Makan's ability to obtain building permits. Zoning Board of Appeals August 5, 2014 Page 4 -� The Board noted that allowing the applicant (Makan) as a contract-vendee to claim hardship in not being granted a variance from the subdivision requirement would allow applicants to circumvent the merger provision. Mr. Moscato noted that in some cases the applicant's hands are completely tied. That is not the case here. He added that he does not believe the applicant's estimate of cost for the subdivision is accurate. Attorney Dorfman noted that Mr. Vitagliano gave several reasons why his client would not merge the two lots. Mr. Moscato called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in favor or opposition to the application. There being no one he called for a motion to close the public hearing. On a motion made by Mr. Berger, and seconded by Mr. Simon, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting aye Andrew Kaminsky Voting aye Jeffry Richman Voting aye Joel Simon Voting aye Don Moscato, Chairman Voting aye Mr. Moscato and the Board reviewed the five factors used by the Zoning Board of Appeals to grant a variance. It was noted that there were two variances being requested, and they were intertwined. Upon completion of the review, Mr. Moscato read the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, an application has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Makan Land Development II, LLC c/o David Makan for (I) a variance from §250-6.A.(2)(a) of the Village of Rye Brook Zoning Code, requiring that two adjacent parcels (or a portion thereof) be merged to create a conforming lot where one parcel does not meet the minimum area, yard, setback, horizontal circle or other zoning requirement, and the owner of the substandard parcel -- wishing to develop said substandard parcel -- also owns other parcel(s) contiguous thereto; and (2) a minimum lot size variance of 1,990 square feet from Village of Rye Brook Zoning Code §250-201.E.(1), where a minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet is otherwise required, in connection with the proposed construction of a new single family Zoning Board of Appeals August 5,2014 P age 5 dwelling, on property located at 51 Hawthorne Avenue, in an R-15A zoning district approximately 304 feet southeast of the intersection of Hawthorne Avenue and North Ridge Street. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID# 135.75-1-82; 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, said public hearing was adjourned to and did continue on August 5, 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 August 5, 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 lot merger variance and with respect to the minimum lot size variance: 1) The variances WILL create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood; 2) The benefit the applicant seeks CAN be achieved through another method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, that does not require a variance; 3) The variances ARE substantial; 4) The variances WILL NOT create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and 5) The need for the variances ARE self-created; and Zoning Board of Appeals August 5, 2014 P age 6 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the said application for the lot merger variance is hereby denied and said application for the minimum lot size variance is hereby denied. The roll was called for Variance #1: Rear Yard Setback Variance Mr. Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting nay Andrew Kaminsky Voting nay Jeffry Richman Voting nay Joel Simon Voting nay Don Moscato, Chairman Voting nay The variances were denied on a vote of 5 nays to zero ayes. Zoning Board of Appeals August 5,2014 P age 7 IMIVILLAGE OF RYE BROOKZONING BOARD OF APPEALS RESOLUTION WHEREAS, an application has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Makan Land Development II, LLC c/o David Makan for (1) a variance from § 250- 6.A.(2)(a) of the Village of Rye Brook Zoning Code requiring that two adjacent parcels (or a portion thereof) be merged to create a conforming lot, where one parcel does not meet the minimum area, yard, setback, horizontal circle or other zoning requirement, and the owner of the substandard parcel — wishing to develop said substandard parcel - also owns other parcel(s) contiguous thereto; and (2) a minimum lot size variance of 1,990 square feet from Village of Rye Brook Zoning Code § 250-20.1.E.(1), where a minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet is otherwise required, in connection with the proposed construction of a new single family dwelling on property located at 51 Hawthorne Avenue, in an R-1 5A zoning district approximately 304 ft southeast of the intersection of Hawthorne Avenue and North Ridge Street Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID# 135.75-1-82; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on the application on July 1, 2014; and WHEREAS, said public hearing was adjourned to and did continue on August 5, 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 August 5, 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 1313/12/468687v 1 815114 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 lot merger variance fe}; .l 1) The variance /WILL NOT] create an adverse impact to the (ylltlif':"ur'1 -r-e- < character of the n ' borhood; ICA "I vQf��In�Z 2) The benefit the applicant seeks CAN CANN( T] be achieved through another method, feasible for the ap cant to pursue, that does not require a variance; 3) The variance DSIS NOT] substantial; 4) The variance [WILL/ NPns create any adverse impacts to the physical or environment of the neighborhood; and 5) The need for the variant l./ S NOT] self-created;and Ffication�./ ' neighborhood concerned, and upon considering each of the factors set forth at Sec ' n 250- 13(G)(2)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brook Code, finds with respect to the um lot size variance: 1) The variance [WILL/WILL NOT] cr an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood; 2) The benefit the applicant see [CAN/CANNOT] be achieved through another method, feasible r the applicant to pursue, that does not require a variance; 3) The variance /IS NOT] substantial; 4) The v ' ce [WILL/WILL NOT] create any adverse impacts to the Ph cal or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that said application for the lot merger variance is herebyr TED/DENIED]; and said application for the minimum lot size variance is herebyD/DENIED], on the following conditions: 1. • and 1313'121468687v1 8/3,74 - - 2. Dated: August 5, 2014 " 1 Don Moscato, Chairman Variance#1: Lot Merger Variance Chairman Moscato called the roll: / Steven Berger Voting e N Aye ' ay VAbstain Absent Andrew Kaminsky Voting. Aye Nay tain Absent Don Moscato Voting. Aye Nay bstain Absent Jeffrey Richman Voting. Aye NayAbstain Absent Joel Simon Voting. Aye Nay Abstain Absent Ayes Nays Abstain Absent Vnriance-##2. Minimum-Lot Size-Variance- Chairman Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting. Aye Nay stain Absent Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye Abstain Absent Don Moscato Voting A Nay Abstain Absent Jeffrey Richman Votin . ye Nay Abstain Absent Joel Simon o . —Aye—Nay Abstain Absent Ayes Nays be 13131121468687v1 815114 -3- 2. # 14-009 Cono Potignano 2 Phyllis Place Construct 2nd story addition; 1 story two car garage addition; expand existing driveway and interior alterations. Mr. Michael Izzo noted that there were additional variances needed in connection with this application in addition to those noticed for the meeting. The applicant is requesting a total of six variances. The application is to consider a second story addition, expansion of the existing driveway and to make interior alterations to the residence on the property. Only three variances were noticed, and all six variances tie together. The applicant was not in attendance. On a motion made by Mr. Berger, and seconded by Mr. Simon, the matter was adjourned to the Board's September P meeting. 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 3. # 14-011 Win Ridge Realty LLC 16-18 Rye Ridge Plaza Install one additional sign at Lester's Mr. Forbes, applicant, addressed the Board. Lester"s moved from Rye into the converted medical offices in the Rye Ridge Shopping Center. There are two entrances to the store. The store is wide and shallow. It is unusual size but the applicant has made it work. There is no sign on the second entrance. The other end caps in the shopping center do have two signs. The store is open until 6:00 and Thursdays until 8:00 p.m. The lights go off around 10:00 p.m. Zoning Board of Appeals August 5, 2014 Page 11 Mr. Kaminsky noted that the sign would face the residential neighborhood. Mr. Forbes noted the sign lighting is subtle. The sign is black by day and at night it turns white. Mr. Moscato asked if there could be a condition on when the lighting is turned off. Peter Stoltz from Win Ridge Property addressed the Board. He noted that the SoulCycle is lighted and does face the adjacent homes. A retail store needs a lighted sign. The signs are LED lit lights and are illuminated so they can be read at night. They don't stream light into the neighboring homes. The Board requested a cut off time for the sign. The lights are set on a timer for dusk and a timer will be set to shut the lights off. Mr. Moscato called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in support or opposition to the application. There was no one. He requested a motion to close the public hearing. On a motion made by Mr. Berger, and seconded by Mr. Simon, the public hearing was closed. The Board deliberated. Upon the Board's return, Mr. Moscato read the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, an application has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Win Ridge Realty, LLC for a variance from §250 , Attachment 2:10) of the Village of Rye Brook Zoning Code, in connection with the proposed installation of a second sign, where only one such sign is permitted, on property located at 16-18 Rye Ridge Plaza, in a C1-P zoning district, at the intersection of Bowman Avenue and South Ridge Street. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID# 141.27-1-7; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on August 5, 2014, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and WHEREAS, said public hearing was then closed on August 5, 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 Zoning Board of Appeals August 5, 2014 P age 12 WHEREAS, the Board, from the application, after viewing the premises and neighborhood concerned, and upon considering each of the factors set forth at §250- I3(G)(2)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brook Code, finds with respect to the additional sign 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 the said application for the additional sign variance is hereby granted on the following conditions: 1) See Planning Board Condition; and 2) The sign authorized pursuant to this variance shall be illuminated only between the house of dusk and 10:00 p.m. each night. 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 The variance was granted on a vote of 5 ayes to zero nays. Zoning Board of Appeals August 5, 2014 P age 13 RD VILLAGE OF RYE BROOKZONING BOARD OF APPEALS RESOL ION WHEREAS, an application has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Win Ridge Realty, LLC for a variance from Village Code §250 Attachment 2:10), in connection with the proposed installation of a second sign, where only one such sign is permitted, on property located at 16-18 Rye Ridge Plaza,in a C1-P zoning district, at the intersection of Bowman Avenue and South Ridge Street. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID# 141.27-1-7; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on August 5, 2014, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and WHEREAS, the public hearing on said application was then closed on August 5, 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 additional sign variance: 1) The variance PILqWILL NOT] create an adverse impact to the character of the neighbor , 2) The benefit the applicant seeks [ �CANNObeiachieved through another method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, that does not require a variance; 3) The variantOPS/ S NOIJ substantial; 4) The variance [WI WILL NOT] eate any adverse impacts to the physical or environmental con Mons of the neighborhood; and 5) The need for the varian a [IS/I NOT] self-created. 1313/121468290v1 81544 y 5 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that said application for the additional sign variance is here(y [GRANTEDH �IED], on the following conditions: 1. • and 2. I it u r+11 AAA Frf oe-Al b'-Ayw,Xas - hwr'� Ci' AL .):; Gnt3 t U#Pn eack 6��. Dated: August 5, 2014 a v Don Moscato, Chairman Variance #1: Additional Sign Variance Chairman Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting7 i/ a Nay Abstain Absent Andrew Kaminsky Voting. e Nay Abstain Absent Don Moscato Voting e Nay Abstain Absent Jeffrey Richman Voting:_, Lye Nay Abstain Absent Joel Simon Voting. Aye Nay Abstain Absent —� Ayes U' Nays Abstain Absent 1313112/4 68290 x 1 81544 4. # 14-010 Mr. & Mrs. Stephen Fabrizi 6 Concord Place Construct a rear 2nd story addition John Scarlato, architect, addressed the Board. The applicant is proposing to building a room over the patio. It will be 18 x 17.9. The entry and exit from the new addition will be thru the existing home. From the front you will not notice the addition. He noted that 7 Arlington has pretty much the same room, and presented the Board with a photo and information for 7 Arlington Place. It was noted that there is activity on this street as Con Ed is digging and making repairs. Mr. Scarlato noted that the sign was posted and proper mailing notifications were sent out. Mr. Fabrizi, applicant, addressed the Board. He noted that this is an upgrade. This plan involves enclosing the deck. Mr. Moscato 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 to close the public hearing. On a motion made by Mr. Simon, and seconded by Mr. Berger, the public hearing was closed. 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 The Board deliberated and reviewed the factors used by the Zoning Board to assess an application. Upon the Board's return, Mr. Moscato read the following resolution: Zoning Board of Appeals August 5, 2014 P age 16 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, an application has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Mr. & Mrs. Steven Fabrizi for a 222.94 square foot gross floor area variance from Village Code §250-22.1), in connection with the proposed construction of a rear second-story addition, on property located at d Concord Place, in an R-10 zoning district approximately 80 feet south from the intersection of Arlington Place and Concord Place. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID# 135.44-1-52; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on August 5, 2014, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and WHEREAS, said public hearing was then closed on August 5, 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 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 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 the said application for the gross floor area variance is hereby granted. Zoning Board of Appeals August 5,2014 P age 17 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 The variance was granted on a vote of 5 ayes to zero nays. Zoning Board of Appeals August 5, 2014 P age 18 11J VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK AUt; 0 6 2014 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS VILLAGE C RESOLUTION ��Gx s + 4FFjCE WHEREAS, an application has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Mr. & Mrs. Steven Fabrizi for a 222.94 square foot gross floor area variance from Village Code §250-22.D, in connection with the proposed construction of a rear second-story addition, on property located at 6 Concord Place, in an R-10 zoning district, approximately 80 feet south from the intersection of Arlington Place and Concord Place. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID# 135.44-1-52; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on August 5, 2014, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and WHEREAS, the public hearing on said application was then closed on August 5, 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 gross floor area variance: 1) The variance [WILL/ NO eate an adverse impact to the character of the neighbo ; 2) The benefit the applicant seeks [CA CANNO e achieved through another method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, that does not require a variance; 3) The variant1 S NO substantial; 4) The variance [WILL/WILL NO create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and 5) The need for the variance/ S NOT] self-created. ,r NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that said application for the gross floor area variance is her y [GR ANTE /DENIED], on a following conditions: 1. • and 2. Dated: August 5, 2014 Don Moscato, Chairman Variance #1: Gross Floor Area Variance Chairman Moscato called the roll: V/'*' Steven Berger Voting. ye Nay Abstain Absent Andrew Kaminsky Voting:—!� �cye Nay Abstain Absent Don Moscato Voting Aye Nay Abstain Absent Jeffrey Richman Voting.�ye Nay Abstain Absent Joel Simon Voting Aye Nay Abstain Absent Ayes Nays Abstain Absent -2- ,.rte5. Approval of July 1, 2014 Zoning Board Summary On a motion made by Mr. Berger, and seconded by Mr. Simon, the summaries were approved. 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 There being no further business before the Board, on a motion and a second, the meeting was adjourned at 9:21 p.m. 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 Zoning Board of Appeals August 5, 2014 P age 21