Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-01-15 - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK 013 938 King Street �-°-- ..�....,.:, Zoning Board of Appeals S January 15, 2013 U Lt 0 Meeting at 8:00 p.m. MAY - 8 2013 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK AGENDA BUILDING DEPARTMENT 1) #12-024 MR. JOSEPH BIONDO 10 Lawridge Drive Construct three 1 story additions; a new rear deck; in-ground swimming pool and pool patio; new front portico. 2) #12-025 HEDY CARDOZO AND MICHAEL ROSENBLUT 14 Holly Lane Rear addition and interior alterations 3) #12-021 MS. SUZANNE DENAT 1 Bishop Drive North Legalize existing two car detached garage 4) #12-029 RALEIGH & PATRICK LEAHY 33 Argyle Road Legalize the existing rear deck 5) #12-001 66 BOWMAN AVENUE REALTY CORP. 66 Bowman Avenue Modifications to Existing Special Use Permit and Site Modifications 6) #12-011 MR. MICHAEL GRANDAZZO 11 Maple Court Legalize existing deck, swimming pool and enclosed porch addition 7) Approval of November 6, 2012 Zoning Board Summary BOARD: Andrew Kaminsky Jeffrey Richman Joel Simon Don Moscato, Chairman Excused: Steve Berger Zoning Board of Appeals January 15,2013 Page 1 I i STAFF: Michael Izzo, Building Inspector Jennifer L. Gray, Esq., Village Counsel Fred Seifert, Public Access Coordinator I Mr. Donald Moscato, Chairman, welcomed everyone to the January 15, 2013 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. He called the meeting to order and introduced Village Staff and Counsel. Mr. Moscato asked that individuals speak at the podium, state their names, application, position, and nature of the variance. He noted that as there was member of the Board absent so each applicant has the opportunity to adjourn their application to the February meeting, when there would be a full compliment of the Board. In order to have the resolution pass, the applicant would need three of the four votes. No one wished to exercise their right to an adjournment. He called for the first item on the agenda: 1) #12-024 MR. JOSEPH BIONDO 10 Lawridge Drive Construct three 1 story additions; a new rear deck; in-ground swimming pool and pool patio; new front portico. Brad DeMotte, architect for the applicant, addressed the Board. He noted that this project was before Zoning Board of Appeals about two years ago in May 2011. At that time two variances were approved. One was for an encroachment to the front yard setback, and the second related to the maximum allowable gross floor area. For health/medical reasons, the project was put on hold. The project was revisited a few months ago, and scaled down. Due to the amount of time that elapsed without seeking the issuance of a building permit, the approval of the variances has expired. The plan before the Board this evening is a slightly modified version of the originally approved plans/variances. In order to build a covered entry over the existing front stairs, a front yard setback variance is required. This variance is the same as the original front yard setback variance. The second variance originally granted by the Board in 2011 was needed because the proposed construction exceeded the allowable gross floor area by 474 square feet— 14% above the maximum allowable. The new plans show 196.5 square feet — 5.8% above the maximum allowable. The floor area was reduced by 277.5 square feet. The same reasons for granting the variances still apply. Mr. DeMotte turned to the Board for questions and comments. Mr. Andrew Kaminsky asked if the storm water management system was modified. Mr. DeMotte noted that it was slightly modified. Zoning Board of Appeals 1 January 15,2013 J Page 2 J '1 f r f i r Mr. Moscato noted that one of the criteria for approval of a variance is that the variances applied for are the smallest necessary. He noted that he did not have any issues with the amended plans. Mr. DeMotte reiterated that the original plans submitted in 2011 required four variances. The plans were revised during the course of the Board's review of those 2011 plans resulting in a need for only two variances, which were both granted. 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 and second to close the public hearing, and the Board began its deliberation. Mr. Moscato stated the analysis in terms of the 5 statutory factors is relatively straight forward for this application. He and the rest of the Board agreed that there would be no adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood or the environment,.the variance is not substantial, but it is self-created. Mr. Moscato read the following resolution: RESOLUTION Mr. Moscato called the roll for the front yard setback variance: Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye Jeffrey Richman Voting Aye Joel Simon Voting Aye Don Moscato, Chairman Voting Aye Mr. Moscato called the roll gross floor area variance: Zoning Board of Appeals January 15,2013 Page 3 i ISI VILLAGE OF RYE BROOKA1 ti ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS VILLAGE ADM IN RESOLUTION -�- WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Mr. Joseph Biondo for a 3.5 ft. front yard setback variance and a 196.5 s.f. gross floor area variance, in connection with the proposed construction of three 1 story additions; a new ti rear deck; in-ground swimming pool & pool patio; new front portico, on property located at 10 Lawridge Drive, in an R-15 zoning district on the east side of Lawridge Drive, I� approximately 300 feet from the intersection of Lawridge Drive and Sleepy Hollow Road. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID# 129.67-1-59; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on January15 2013 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; 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 Itrl;4WILL NOT] create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood; 2) The benefit the applicant seeks [C /CANNOT] be achieved through another method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, that does not require a variance; 3) The variance [I-a— IS NOT] substantial; 4) The variance r#-It/WILL NOT] create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and 5) The need for the variance self-created; and I i -I i ,1 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: i j1) The variance [W44�-rP--fWILL NOT] create an adverse impact to the C character of the neighborhood; 2) The benefit the applicant seeks [G�f CANNOT] be achieved through another method,t od f easible for the applicant to pursue, that does not require a variance; 3 The variance :9- 57IS NO substantial; 4) The variance [k' /WILL NOT] create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and 5) The need for the variance self-created. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the said application for the front yard setback variance is hereby [GRANTED ] and the gross floor area variance is hereby [GRANTED Dated: January 15, 2013 Mr. Don Moscato, Chairman Mr. Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting: Aye Nay Abstain -021 8 Andrew Kaminsky Voting: V Aye Nay Abstain Jeffrey Richman Voting: ✓ Aye Nay Abstain Joel Simon Voting: '%,/ Aye Nay Abstain Don Moscato Voting: Aye Nay Abstain Ayes 0 Nays i Abstain i Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye Jeffrey Richman Voting Aye Joel Simon Voting Aye Don Moscato, Chairman Voting Aye The variances were approved by four ayes to zero nays. Mr. Moscato called for the second item on the agenda: 2) #12-025 HEDY CARDOZO AND MICHAEL ROSENBLUT 14 Holly Lane Rear addition and interior alterations Anthony Gioffre, Esq., from the law firm of Cuddy & Feder, LLP addressed the Board as legal counsel for the applicants. He noted that this application seeks a single variance in connection with the allowable maximum gross floor area. A maximum of 3,221 square feet of gross floor area is permitted by the Village Code; and 3,015 square feet of gross floor area is currently existing. The proposal brings the total gross floor area to 3,259 square feet to accommodate a modest addition to the rear of the home. The applicant requires a 3 8 square foot variance. This is less than 1.25% of the maximum allowable gross floor area. This variance will permit functionality to the proposed addition. As part of the submission, an aerial photograph was submitted. The proposed addition is consistent with the character of the neighborhood. Attorney Gioffre submitted several letters from. neighbors in support of the application (32 Country Ridge Drive; 36 Country Ridge Drive; 11 Holly Lane; 13 Holly Lane; 12 Holly Lane). Mr. Moscato thanked Attorney Gioffre for his presentation. He concurred that there was a de minimus variance and has no adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Kaminsky agreed because the addition can barely be seen. Mr. Moscato called for members of the public, or the Board, that wished to address the Board in support or opposition to the application. There being none, he called for a motion and second to close the public hearing. Mr. Moscato read the following resolution: RESOLUTION Zoning Board of Appeals January 15,2013 s Page 4 i VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK rVILLAGEADMUSTRATOR ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ,�Py ] 6 2TRESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Hedy Cardozo & Michael Rosenblut for a 38 s.£ gross floor area variance, in connection with the proposed rear addition & interior alterations, on property located at 14 Holly Lane, in an R-15 zoning district on the west side of Holly Lane, approximately 600 feet from the intersection of Fairlawn Parkway and Holly Lane. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID# 129.59-1-34; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on January 15, 2013, 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; and WHEREAS, the Board, from the application, after viewing the premises and l 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 [04#4,-t/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 SIS NOT] 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/t n@q self-created. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the said application for the gross floor area variance is hereby [GRANTED Dated: January 15, 2013 ��- , �f 1 Mr. Don Moscato, Chairman i i Mr. Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting: Aye Nay—Abstain -t1' �3 Andrew Kaminsky Voting: -7 Aye Nay Abstain Jeffrey Richman Voting: V Aye Nay Abstain Joel Simon Voting: Aye Nay Abstain Don Moscato Voting.�Aye Nay Abstain Ayes 0 Nays � Abstain ( l , i i i Mr. Moscato called the roll: Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye Jeffrey Richman Voting Aye Joel Simon Voting Aye Don Moscato, Chairman Voting Aye The variance was approved by four ayes to zero nays. 3) #12-021 MS. SUZANNE DENAT 1 Bishop Drive North ,Legalize existing two car detached garage Agnes Fidelibus, Esq., legal counsel for the applicant, addressed the Board. In March 1965 an addition was built to this home — a two-car detached garage. Last fall the applicant put the house on the market and the survey showed that the building permit for the garage was still open. The garage has existed for 36 years. Mr. Moscato noted that he reviewed the original building permit which indicated the garage would have a 5 ft. setback. It is apparent that the garage was not constructed according to the approved plans but instead was constructed a couple inches too close to the property line. In his opinion, this application is a matter of "housekeeping." Mr. Kaminsky agreed. Mr. Moscato called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in support or opposition to the application. There being no one, and no comments Zoning Board of Appeals January 15,2013 Page 5 i i VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK ffE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 1RESOLUTION VILLAGAO MI J N1STRAtOR WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Ms. Suzanne Denat for a 0.6 ft. rear yard setback variance, in connection with the proposed legalization of existing two car detached garage, on property located at 1 Bishop Drive North, in an R-15 zoning district on the north side of Bishop Drive North, at the intersection of Bishop Drive North and King Street. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID# 130.69-1-9; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on January 15, 2013, 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; 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 yard setback variance: 1) The variance [ I#t/WILL NOT] create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood; 2) The benefit the applicant seeks [C -- /CANNOT] be achieved through another method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, that does not require a variance; 3) The variance [T:9VIS NOT] substantial; 4) The variance [=:t-t-/WILL NOT] create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and 5) The need for the variance [IS/T559R self-created. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the said application for the rear yard setback variance is hereby [GRANTED/-DE:NT-R'H]. Dated: January 15, 2013 Mr. Don Moscato, Chairman i i Mr. Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting: Aye Nay Abstain ' Andrew Kaminsky Voting: Aye Nay Abstain Jeffrey Richman Voting: ✓ Aye Nay Abstain Joel Simon Voting: Aye Nay Abstain Don Moscato Voting:�L Aye Nay Abstain Ayes y Nays 0 Abstain i k i y from members of the Board, he called for a motion and second to close the public hearing. Mr. Moscato read the following resolution: RESOLUTION Mr. Moscato called the roll: Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye Jeffrey Richman Voting Aye Joel Simon Voting Aye Don Moscato, Chairman Voting Aye The variance was approved by four ayes to zero nays. 4) #12-029 RALEIGH & PATRICK LEAHY 33 Argyle Road Legalize the existing rear deck The applicant, Raleigh Leahy, addressed the Board. She noted that they have learned that their deck is in violation of the Village Code and they are before the Board in order legalize it. Mr. Michael Izzo, Building Inspector, noted that in February 2005 the then-owners of the home submitted a building permit to construct a deck. The proposed construction was not in conformance with the Zoning Code and required a variance. In March 2005, the application for a variance was heard by the Board and was continued to the next meeting. In April 2005, the applicant learned that it Zoning Board of Appeals January 15,2013 Page 6 P R I was likely the variance was not going to be granted, and modified the plans and scaled back the size of the deck so that no variance was needed, and the Building Permit was issued. Now the applicant is selling the home and they learned that it was not built in compliance with the Village's Code. Had they known, they would have applied for the variance. Mr. Moscato noted that a second portion of the deck was built without a permit. Ms. Leahy noted that the deck was very dangerous prior to the additional section of the deck being constructed. She noted that she was now before the Board to legalize the deck. She wanted this matter settled prior to the sale of the home so that the new owners would not be in the same position as they were. Mr. Izzo noted that there may be some modifications that need to be made on the plans. He also noted that he had issues with the footings, but there is no way to put footings in rockledge. An inspection must be made, and the deck must meet the State Code. In 2006 when the Leahy's put in their application for the deck, two variances were requested. The proposed deck was about the same size as the one previous owner attempted to construct. Mr. & Mrs. Leahy reduced the size of the deck, and it did not need a setback variance but does need a small deck coverage variance. Mr. Moscato called for comments from the public or the Board. There being none, he called for a motion and second to close the public hearing. The Board went into deliberation. The Board agreed that there will be no adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood and no adverse environmental impact. The Board also agreed that the variance was not substantial, but that the difficulty is self-created. Mr. Kaminsky requested clarification from Village Counsel that if the deck fails its inspection with respect to compliance with the applicable State Code provisions, the applicant would be able to reconstruct the deck at the same size without returning to the Board for another variance. Village Counsel confirmed that as long as the deck remains the same size, no additional deck coverage variance would be necessary. Mr. Moscato read the following resolution: RESOLUTION Zoning Board of Appeals P' January 15,2013 1 Page 7 -1 i VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK r�sfZ�j ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS VILLAGE AD i RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Raleigh & Patrick Leahy for a 0.23% deck coverage variance, in connection with the proposed legalization of the existing rear deck, on property located at 33 Argyle Road, in an R-7 zoning district on the north side of Argyle Road, approximately 100 feet from the intersection of Windsor Road and Argyle Road. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID# 135.52-3-19; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on January 15, 2013, 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; and WHEREAS, the Board, from the application, after viewing the premises and i ) 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 deck coverage variance: 1) The variance =/WILL NOT] create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood; 2) The benefit the applicant seeks [C; CANNOT] be achieved through another method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, that does not require a variance; 3) The variance /IS NOT] substantial; 4) The variance [ I /WILL NOT] create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and 5) The need for the variance self-created. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the said application for the deck coverage variance is hereby [GRANTED Dated: January 15, 2013 Mr. Don Moscato, Chairman i I --I ill ,j I I i Mr. Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting: Aye Nay Abstain Andrew Kaminsky Voting: V Aye Nay Abstain Jeffrey Richman Voting: ✓ Aye Nay Abstain Joel Simon Voting: ✓ Aye Nay Abstain Don Moscato Voting Aye Nay Abstain Ayes Nays Abstain I I ;I Mr. Moscato called the roll: Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye Jeffrey Richman Voting Aye Joel Simon Voting Aye Don Moscato, Chairman Voting Aye The variance was approved by four ayes to zero nays. Mr. Moscato asked that the photographs presented to the Board at this meeting be made part of the record. 5) #12-001 66 BOWMAN AVENUE REALTY CORP. 66 Bowman Avenue Modifications to Existing Special Use Permit and Site Modifications Paul Noto, Esq., Attorney for the applicant, addressed the Board on behalf of the applicant. At the request of Mr. Moscato, Jennifer Gray, Esq., Village Counsel, gave an overview of the procedural history of the application for the Special Use Permit and the scope of the variance application before this Board. She noted that the applicant is requesting an amendment of their Special Use Permit that was granted in 1998. They are also requesting an amended site plan. Two variances are required, and that is where the Zoning Board of Appeals has jurisdiction. The first variance is in regards to parking; 12 spaces are proposed where 24 are required. The second variance is in connection with impervious surface; approximately 8,000 square feet is proposed where approximately 6,000 square feet is allowed. The Zoning Board does not have jurisdiction with respect to the Special Use Permit. Once the Zoning Board has made its decision, the application will ultimately go back to the Board of Trustees for a decision on the Special Permit and Site Plan application. The application has been reviewed by the Planning Board, and the Village's Consultants. In December 2012, the Planning Board provided its input to the Zoning Board regarding planning considerations relevant to the variances. Once the variances have been addressed, the application i # Zoning Board of Appeals January 15,2013 Page 8 '6 i i goes back to the Planning Board for Report and Recommendation, and then back to the Board of Trustees. If the variances are denied the applicant will need to re- design their plans. Mr. Izzo, Building Inspector, was asked for his input on the application. He discussed the parking, and what amount of parking was required for professional use in this zone. Mr. Noto and Mr. Izzo discussed the interpretation of the Code regarding parking, and the number of spaces required. Mr. Noto noted that there is an existing non-conformity. The business has grown and the initial Special Use Permit was for seven employees, and the firm is now up to 17. If the business grew any further, they would need to look for office space elsewhere. There is a pre-existing problem in the area with a Village drain. Dolph Rotfeld, Village Engineering Consultant, has reviewed the application. The changes to this application will not make the storm water runoff from this property any worse. Mr. Kaminsky noted that an additional 1,400 square feet of impervious surface was added. The impervious surface was increased from approximately 6,600 square feet to approximately 8,000 square feet. It was noted that there is a shared driveway between 66 Bowman Avenue and 62 Bowman Avenue. Whatever portion of the driveway is on the applicant's property is included in the impervious surface count for the application before the Board. Between 1998 and the present time work was done on the property. That brought the impervious surface coverage up to the 8,000 square feet. In order to add the handicapped parking, there will be a small increase to the impervious surface coverage over what is currently existing. Attorney Gray noted that if the variance is not approved, the applicant would have to rip up a portion of the impervious surface. It has been recommended by the Village's Planning Consultant that the 12 parking spaces is sufficient based on the use of the property as documented by the Parking Study submitted by the applicant and reviewed by the Village Planning Consultant. If the number of employees exceeds 17 in the future, the applicant would need to come back before the Board of Trustees for another amendment of the Special Permit. Mr. Moscato noted that he walked the property. The garage is not accessible because cars park in front of it. He asked what the function of the garage was. It was noted that there was a car parked inside, but the garage has not been included in the number of parking spaces provided. Zoning Board of Appeals I January 15,2013 9 Page 9 I Mr. Kaminsky noted that there is a sitting area, and a small flagstone patio with a water fountain, for the use of the employees. This is included in the impervious surface coverage calculation. He questioned whether the patio should be removed. 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 and a second to close the public hearing. During the Board's deliberation the members discussed the parking and the parking study. The study was submitted by the applicant and reviewed by the Planning Board and the Village Planning Consultant who indicated that the number of parking spaces was sufficient for the current use of the property. The Board was comfortable with the Planning Board's recommendation that the number of parking spaces was adequate for the 17 employees. Also discussed was the environmental impact. The Village Engineering Consultant has opined in a December 2012 memorandum that based on percolation tests, the lot cannot absorb any additional water. The Village Engineering Consultant noted in the December 2012 memorandum that the issue is not on the lot itself but rather the location and the drainage system of the Village. One neighbor of 66 Bowman Avenue did come forward previously concerning the drainage and the amount of runoff that ends up on his property. (Mr. Szerejko, 11 Barber Place). The Planning Board has weighed in on the subject of storm water runoff. Mr. Izzo noted that drainage patterns must be taken into account. The paving has changed the absorption on this property. When the plans for the paving are submitted, the Village's Engineer will address the runoff. Attorney Gray noted that a storm water management plan will need to be submitted. The consensus of the Board was that the parking area needed to be paved and striped. Attorney'Gray noted that a SEQRA negative declaration has been prepared for the Board's review. She reviewed the Action and environmental impacts required to be reviewed pursuant to SEQRA, including air quality, surface and ground water quality, noise levels, solid waste levels, natural resources, community character, subsequent development, and impact on the vegetation. It was noted that this is the smallest possible variance that the applicant could submit. It was also noted that the lighting on the property was also reviewed by the Planning Board.. Mr. Moscato read the following resolution: RESOLUTION Zoning Board of Appeals January 15,2013 Page 10 -I i i rVILLAGE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK 1 � 2,0$3ZONING BOARD OF APPEALSN11iViSTfiATOR J RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application g Board has been made to the Zonin Bd b 66 Bowman Pp Y Avenue Realty Corp. for (1) a total impervious surface coverage variance of 2,009.32 square feet; and (2) an off-street parldng variance for 12 parldng spaces, in connection with the proposed modification of an existing Special Use Permit to increase the number of employees from 7 to 17, legalization of an expanded parking area and rear flagstone patio with water feature, and proposed expansion of the existing parking area, on property located at 66 Bowman Avenue, in an R-2F zoning district on the south side of Bowman Avenue, near the intersection of Barber Place and Bowman Avenue. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID# 141.27-1-24; and WHEREAS, on November 22, 2011 the Board of Trustees classified the proposed action as an Unlisted action planning considerations concerning the and determined it will undergo an uncoordinated review pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act; and WHEREAS, on March 6, 2012 the Zoning Board of Appeals referred the application to the Village of Rye Brook Planning Board pursuant to Village Code §250- 13(G)(5)(a) for input regarding the planning considerations concerning the adequacy of the proposed stormwater management plan and adequacy of the proposed number of off-street parking spaces to meet the demand associated with the use of the property as a professional office with 17 employees; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of Appeals is in receipt of a resolution from the Planning Board dated December 13, 2012 which provides the Planning Board's input on the relevant planning considerations; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on March 6, 2012 and January 15, 2013, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and I i 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 total impervious surface coverage variance: 1) The variance [`•CSD,/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/PS= ] substantial; 4) The variance `[=:t1-7/WILL NOT] create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and 5) The need for the variance [IS/I; 3j 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 off-street parking ( ) variance: 1) The variance [ :tE—/WILL NOT] create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood; 2) The benefit the applicant seeks [ems/CANNOT] be achieved through another method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, that does not require a variance; 3) The variance [IS/tS#4'e6Fj substantial; 4) The variance [ L�/WILL NOT] create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and 5) The need for the variance [IS/ice"] self-created; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Village of Rye Brook Zoning Board of Appeals, in accordance with Article 8 of the State Environmental Conservation Lav and 6 NYCRR Part 617, and upon review of the EAF and all other application materials that were prepared for this Unlisted action undergoing an uncoordinated review, hereby adopts the attached Negative Declaration; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that said application for -the total impervious surface coverage variance is hereby [GRANTED/� :54tD] and said application for the off-street parking variance is hereby [GRANTED/D-�1t1IF;14], on the following conditions: .1 t f1! i 'Ut VY t', 9 /J t t 2• { ; and 3. Dated: January 15, 2013 Mr. Don Moscato, Chairman Mr. Moscato called the roll for the 9 iy� i l= variance. Steven Berger Voting: Aye Nay Abstain --Qin&Used Michele Fredman Voting: Aye Nay Abstain Andrew Kaminsky Voting: ✓ Aye Nay Abstain Joel Simon Voting: ✓ ye Nay Abstain Don Moscato Voting: Aye Nay Abstain L; Ayes { Nays Abstain i i 1 SEQR State Environmental Quality Review NEGATIVE DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance Project Number: Date: January 15, 2013 This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act) of the Environmental Conservation Law, The Village of Rye Brook Zoning Board of Appeals, as an Involved Agency in an uncoordinated review, has determined that the Proposed Action described below will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment and a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not be prepared. Name of Action: 66 Bowman Avenue Realty Corp., Special Use Permit, Site Plan and Variance Application for 66 Bowman Avenue SEAR Status: Type I Unlisted X Conditioned Negative Declaration: Yes No X Description of Action: The proposed action is the approval of an Amended Special Use Permit, Site Plan and Area Variances to legalize existing offices and parking on property located in an R-2F Zoning District, so as to increase the number of employees permitted to occupy the premises from 7 to 17, legalize existing site improvements, and permit 12 off-street parking spaces where 24 off-street parking spaces are required. i I ation: 66 Bowman Avenue, Village of Rye Brook, Westchester County I I i _ a _IQR Negative Declaration Page 2 Reasons Supporting This Determination: COULD THE PROPOSED ACTION RESULT IN ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FOLLOWING: 1. Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems? The proposed action will not result in any significant adverse.impacts to air quality, surface or ground water quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or cause flooding problems because the impervious surface coverage variance is the minimum necessary for this property and proposed action will require approval of a Stormwater Management Plan pursuant to the standards and specifications set forth in the Village Code. 2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archaeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources, or community or neighborhood character? The proposed action will not result in any significant adverse impacts to aesthetic, agricultural, archaeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources, or community or neighborhood character. 3. Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species? The proposed action will not result in any significant adverse impacts to vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitat, or threatened or endangered species. 4. A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources? The proposed action will not result in any significant adverse impacts to officially adopted plans or goals of the Village of Rye Brook. 'growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action? The proposed `-_pion will not induce growth, subsequent development, or related activities. 6. Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified in#1 through #5 above? The proposed action will not result in significant adverse long-term, short-term, cumulative or other effects. 7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy)? None. Involved Agency: Village of Rye Brook Zoning Board of Appeals Village Hall j 938 King Street Rye Brook, New York 10573 For Further Information: Contact Person: Christopher Bradbury, Village Administrator Address: Village Hall 938 King Street Rye Brook, NY 10573 Telephone Number: (914) 939-1121 FAX (914) 939-0242 For Unlisted Actions, a copy of this notice has been filed with: Village of Rye Brook i I i I I _-i i I it I i i I Mr. Moscato called the roll: i Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye Jeffrey Richman Voting Aye Joel Simon Voting Aye Don Moscato, Chairman Voting Aye The resolution was granted on a vote of four ayes and zero nays. 6) #12-011 MR. MICHAEL GRANDAZZO 11 Maple Court Legalize existing deck, swimming pool and enclosed porch addition Mr. Moscato noted that the applicant's counsel has requested an adjournment to the February meeting. Mr. Moscato called for a motion and second to adjourn this matter to the February 5, 2013 meeting. Mr. Moscato called the roll: Zoning Board of Appeals January 15,2013 Page 11 - I i Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye Jeffrey Richman Voting Aye Joel Simon Voting Aye Don Moscato, Chairman Voting Aye The resolution was granted on a vote of four ayes and zero nays. 7) Approval of November 6, 2012 Zoning Board Summary Mr. Moscato called for approval of the November 6, 2012 Zoning Board Meeting summary. On a motion and second, the summary was approved. Mr. Moscato called the roll: Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye Jeffrey Richman Voting Aye Joel Simon Voting Aye Don Moscato, Chairman Voting Aye The resolution was granted on a vote of four ayes and zero nays. There being no further business before the Board, Mr. Moscato called for a motion and second to adjourn the meeting. The roll was called: Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye Jeffrey Richman Voting Aye Joel Simon Voting Aye Don Moscato, Chairman Voting Aye Zoning Board of Appeals January 15,2013 Page 12 I i