Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-02-05 - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes I 7 i -I VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK 938 King Street UATE Zoning Board of Appeals ---• -- - x •. February 5, 2013 Meeting at 8:00 p.m. D AGENDA MAR 2 3 2013 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK 1) #12-011 Mr. Michael Grandazzo BUILDING DEPARTMENT (Adjourned from 9/4/2012; 11/6/12; 1115113) 11 Maple Court Legalize existing deck, swimming pool and enclosed porch addition 2) #13-003 Jeff and Dorianne Nardi _ 10 Rock Ridge Drive Construct a Second-Story Addition 3) #12-026 Daniel Berger and Elyse Echtman 69 Rock Ridge Drive Construct a Second-Story Addition 4) Approval of January 15, 2013 Zoning Board Summary BOARD: Steve Berger Andrew Kaminsky Jeffrey Richman Joel Simon Don Moscato, Chairman i STAFF: Michael Izzo, Building Inspector Jennifer Gray, Esq., Village Counsel 'I Fred Seifert, Public Access Coordinator Paula Patafio, Meeting Secretary Board of Trustees Liaison: Trustee David Heiser Zoning Board of Appeals I February 5,2013 I i Mr. Donald Moscato, Chairman, welcomed everyone to the February 5, 2013 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. He called the meeting to order and introduced Village Staff and Counsel. Mr. Moscato asked that individuals addressing the Board speak at the podium, state their names, application, position, and nature of the variance. Mr. Moscato called for the first item on the agenda: 1) #12-011 Mr. Michael Grandazzo (Adjourned from 9/4/2012, 11/6/2012, 1115/2013) 11 Maple Court Legalize existing deck, swimming pool and enclosed porch addition Mr. Moscato noted that counsel, Lawrence D. Engle, Esq., nor the applicant were in attendance. Jennifer Gray, Esq., Village Counsel, noted that she spoke with Attorney Engle prior to the meeting and he informed her that he would be requesting an adjournment orpossibly withdrawing the application all together. Mr. Moscato, with the consensus of the Board, noted that if this matter was adjourned this evening, that it will be the final adjournment. The Zoning Board has carried this application on its agenda for too long. The matter will be called again at the end of the meeting in the event that Attorney Engle is just running late. Mr. Moscato called for the second item on the agenda: 2) #13-003 Jeff and Dorianne Nardi 10 Rock Ridge Drive Construct a Second-Story Addition Mr. Stephen Marchesani, architect for the applicant, addressed the Board. He noted that a second floor addition is proposed over the existing footprint of the home. The home is currently non-conforming. It was also noted that the property is angled. The minimum required total of two side yards setback is 25 feet. The applicant's existing non-conforming total of two side yards setback is 21.2 feet. The proposed second story addition will align with this non-conformity. Therefore the total of two side yards setback variance of 3.8 feet is requested. Zoning Board of Appeals February 5,2013 I i Mr. Moscato called for questions or comments from members of the public, the Board, and Village Staff in connection with the application. Mr. Michael Izzo, Building Inspector, noted that the existing shed is on the property line. Mr. Marchesani noted that it will be moved, and will conform to Village Code. On a motion, and seconded, the public hearing was closed. The Board began its deliberation. Upon the Board's return, Mr. Moscato read the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Jeff and Dorianne Nardi for a 3.8 foot total of two side yards setback variance, in connection with the proposed construction of a second-story addition, on property located at 10 Rock Ridge Drive, in an R-10 zoning district on the south side of Rock Ridge Drive, approximately 300 feet from the intersection of Bobbie Lane and Rock Ridge Drive. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID #135.35-1-48; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on February 5, 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 total of two side yards 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 achieve 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. Zoning Board of Appeals February 5,2013 i NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the said application for the total of two side yards setback variance is hereby granted. DATED: 2/5/2013 Don Moscato, Chairman Mr. Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting Aye Joel Simon Voting Aye Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye Jeffrey Richman Voting Aye Don Moscato Voting Aye I The application was approved by five ayes and zero nays. i I Zoning Board of Appeals February 5,2013 I I �` `3 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK dy," I ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS VILLAGE ADMINISTRATOR RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Jeff & Dorianne Nardi for a 3.8 ft. total of two side yards setback variance, in connection with the proposed construction of a 2nd story addition, on property located at 10 Rock Ridge Drive, in an R-10 zoning district on the south side of Rock Ridge Drive, approximately 300 feet from the intersection of Bobbie Lane and Rock Ridge Drive. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID# 135.35-1- 48; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on February 5, 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 total of two side yards setback variance: 1) The variance [VR�/WILL NOT] create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood; 2) The benefit the applicant seeks [�1�/CANNOT] be achieved through another method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, that does not require a variance, 3) The variance [IS/T-9-N4 ] substantial; 4) The variance P-*+L4--/WILL NOT] create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and 5) The need for the variance [IS/4j self-created. i NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the said application for the total of two side yards setback variance is hereby [GRANTED/EC-444P], on the following i conditions: i 2. , and 3. Dated: February 5, 2013 Mr. Don Moscato, Chairman ! Mr. Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting: Aye Nay Abstain Absent Andrew Kaminsky Voting: Aye Nay Abstain Absent Jeffrey Richman Voting: V, Aye Nay Abstain Absent Joel Simon Voting: ��ye Nay Abstain Absent Don Moscato Voting. Aye Nay Abstain Absent 1� Ayes 0 Nays 0 Abstain ;) Absent I Mr. Moscato called for the next item on the agenda: 3) #12-026 Daniel Berger and Elyse Echtman 69 Rock Ridge Drive Construct a Second-Story Addition Mr. Berger noted that despite similar names there is no relation. Although Mr. Berger noted he is acquaintance with the applicant he felt that he could be impartial and review the application objectively. Therefore, he did not need to recuse himself from considering this application. The applicant had no objection. Mr. Daniel Koplowitz, architect, addressed the Board. He noted that the application exceeds the maximum gross floor area permitted. The property does not have a basement, and the applicants are seeking to add storage area in the home in the form of closets. The project is programmed to add a master bedroom suite above the existing garage without increasing the footprint of the home. The proposed addition will bring the gross floor area to 16% over the allowed. This is the smallest variance request possible in order to meet the needs of the applicant. The home currently has a small attic/storage area over the garage. The room that is being created also includes a storage area in the form of closets. The center area of the home, which is a study, will be extended out to the footprint of the home to allow for closet space. There is an existing two car garage. The peak of the addition is slightly higher than the roofline, but it conforms with the height setback ratio. Given the structure and the design of the home, the proposed addition is the most practical way to build the master bedroom suite. Mr. Koplowitz noted that 580 square feet is being added. The maximum allowable gross floor area is 3,016 square feet. The applicant's addition will result in gross floor area of 3,502 square feet. Therefore, a gross floor area variance of 486 square feet is needed. 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 and a second, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed. Mr. Moscato noted, and it was the consensus of the Board, that the proposed addition would not be out of character with the neighborhood. Although the 16% increase is substantial, it is a reasonable request. Mr. Moscato read the following resolution: Zoning Board of Appeals February 5,2013 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to'the Zoning Board of Appeals by Daniel Berger and Elyse Echtman for a 486 gross floor area variance, in connection with the proposed construction of a second-story addition, on property located at 69 Rock Ridge Drive in an R-10 zoning district on the west side of Rock Ridge Drive, approximately 90 feet from the intersection of Acker Drive and Rock Ridge Drive. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID #13 5.3 6-1-1; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on Feb. 5, 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 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 achieve 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. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the said application for the total of two side yards setback variance is hereby granted. DATED: 2/5/2013 Don Moscato, Chairman Mr. Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting Aye Joel Simon Voting Aye Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye Jeffrey Richman Voting Aye Don Moscato Voting Aye The application was approved by five ayes and zero nays. Zoning Board of Appeals February 5,2013 r n VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS VILLAGE ADMI(VISTRArOR RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Daniel Berger & Elyse Echtman for a 486 ft. gross floor area variance, in connection with the proposed construction of a 2nd story addition, on property located at 69 Rock Ridge Drive, in an R-10 zoning district on the west side of Rock Ridge Drive, approximately 90 feet from the intersection of Acker Drive and Rock Ridge Drive. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID# 135.36-1-1; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on February 5, 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 gross floor area variance: 1) The variance [W#--T;;L/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/Fj-tR� T] substantial; 4) The variance rv4f!5L/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. I NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the said application for the gross floor area variance is hereby [GRANTED/l� ], on the following conditions: 2. ; and 3. Dated: February 5, 2013 Mr. Don Moscato, Chairman Mr. Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting: V/ Aye Nay Abstain Absent Andrew Kaminsky Voting: 1,/, Aye Nay Abstain Absent Jeffrey Richman Voting: J Aye Nay Abstain Absent Joel Simon Voting. Aye NayAbstain Absent Don Moscato Voting Aye Nay Abstain Absent T Ayes Nays 1 Abstain Absent i r Mr. Moscato recalled item#1. Neither the applicant nor the applicant's representative was in attendance. The Board approved a motion to adjourn the application to March 5, 2013 and that this will be the final adjournment granted for this application. Mr. Moscato requested that Attorney Gray notify the applicant's legal counsel. 4) Approval of February 5, 2013 Zoning Board Summary It was noted that the Board did not receive the draft of the February 5, 2013 summary,and, therefore, review would be adjourned to the March meeting. On a motion made by Joel Simon, and seconded by Steve Berger, the meeting was adjourned at 8:29 p.m. Zoning Board of Appeals February 5,2013 i