Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-07-02 - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS �T 938 King Street Tuesday, July 2,2013 D V Meeting at 8:00 p.m. V L� AGENDA QCT 2 5 2013 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK 1) #13-011 Michael and Lisa Marks BUILDING DEPARTMENT 18 Mohegan Lane Construct a one story addition and expand the existing deck. 2) #13-013 Pat Lovallo 4 Argyle Road Legalize the conversion of the attached garage to living space, and legalize the side roofed patio. i 3) 13-010 TD Bank,N.A. 101-5 South Ridge Street Construct a bank building with parking area and drive-thru banking kiosk. 4) 13-012 Rye King Associates j 900 King Street Replace the existing monument signs at King Street and Arbor Drive, and Arbor Drive and 900 King Street parking lot entrance, and install additional wall signage to the existing office building. 5) Approval of the June 4,2013 Zoning Board Summary BOARD: Steve Berger Andrew Kaminsky Jeffrey Richman Joel Simon Don Moscato, Chairman STAFF: Stephen Fews, Assistant Building Inspector Jennifer Gray, Esq.,Village Counsel Fred Seifert, Access Coordinator Paula Patafio, Meeting Secretary LIASON BOARD OF TRUSTEES: Trustee David Heiser Zoning Board of Appeals j July 2,2013 Page 1 I Mr. Donald Moscato, Chairman, welcomed everyone to the July 2, 2013 meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. He called the meeting to order, and introduced the Board, Village Staff, and Village Counsel. He noted that there were four (4) items on the agenda, and he asked that individuals who speak on behalf of the applicants' speak at the podium, state their names, application,position, and nature of the variance. He called for the first item on the agenda: 1) #13-011 Michael and Lisa Marks j 18 Mohegan Lane Construct a one story addition and expand the existing deck. Mary Faithorn Scott, the architect for the applicants, addressed the Board. She noted that the applicants were not in attendance because of a vacation that was scheduled prior to the application being submitted. The Marks' home was hit by a tree and in the process of repairing the damage they decided to enlarge the kitchen. The space will be taken from the deck, and then the deck will be redesigned. Ninety-seven square feet was taken from the deck to add to the kitchen. The maximum allowable total impervious coverage is 6,569 square feet. The existing non-conforming house is 6,902 square feet; which is already exceeds the maximum permitted impervious surface coverage by 330 square feet. Adding the square footage for the proposed deck redesign increases the impervious surface coverage to 7,248 square feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a 679 square foot total impervious surface coverage variance. Ms. Faithom Scott noted that the building coverage, height, setbacks and bulk are all within Code. Because of the extra- ordinary circumstances, this application has already been reviewed by the Architectural Review Board(roof is open). Mr. Moscato noted that the rear yard is almost all impervious surface. The expansion of the deck contributes to additional impervious surface. He asked if there was any way to eliminate any of the impervious surface on the property. Mr. Berger felt that making the deck smaller would not prohibit them from enjoying their backyard. Mr. Kaminsky noted that there is a pool with a concrete deck around it. There is also a stone walk. It was suggested that the applicants remove some of the existing impervious surface on the property. Ms. Faithorn Scott noted that all of the neighbors have been notified and the applicants spoke with them. The neighbors have no objection to the application. Regarding the removal of impervious surface, she would need to discuss this with the applicants. She noted that a permit to close the roof or start the small addition cannot be issued without the granting of the variance. Mr. Moscato suggested that. the architect contact the applicants by phone to discuss the possibility of removing some of the existing impervious surface. He suggested that the matter be adjourned to the end of the meeting to allow Ms. Faithorn Scott the time needed to contact the applicant, and discuss this Zoning Board of Appeals July 2,2013 Page 2 issue. With the consensus of the Board, the matter was adjourned to a later time in the meeting. Mr. Moscato called for the next item on the agenda: 2) #13-013 Pat Lovallo 4 Argyle Road Legalize the conversion of the attached garage to living space, and legalize the side roofed patio. John Sorbella, co-owner of the property, addressed the Board with Pat Lovallo. He noted that the previous owner converted the garage to living space years ago. A patio was also constructed at the same time. As the new owners, they would like to legalize both. The house is 1,150 square feet and with the addition of the garage it is approximately 1,330 square feet. Mr. Kaminsky noted that the side patio is open. The patio has an iron railing around it and there are shrubs. There is a covered roof and that is the area that requires the side yard setback variance. Mr. Moscato noted that no permits were taken out for the conversion of the garage or the construction of the patio. He pointed out that the off-street parking is a few feet from the street. The variances requested are significant variances. He noted that there is a rear yard and if the patio is removed, a parking space could be made in the area of the existing patio. This would also eliminate the need for a side yard setback variance. Mr. Sorbella stated that this is a small house and the patio is one of the best features. The patio is a concrete base with a roof that is in very good shape. No work was being done to this area other than painting. Mr. Moscato asked the applicants when they became aware when that there were no permits. John Sorbella noted that it was late in the negotiations. The house has two bedrooms, living room, family room, dining room and a kitchen. The family room was created when the previous owner closed in the one-car garage. Mr. Kaminsky noted that there is a lot of work going on in the house. The applicant replied that the work being done is cosmetic.- There are no plans to close-in the patio. Mr. Kaminsky noted that the granting of the variances could require conditions. Mr. Moscato noted that he had no problem legalizing the garage as living space, but he did have a problem with the parking. Jennifer Gray, Esq., Village Counsel,noted that the conversion of the garage to living space created the need for the off-street parking variances since it eliminated a code compliant parking space. 1 Zoning Board of Appeals July 2,2013 i Page 3 i �) 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. Berger, and seconded by Mr. Kaminsky, the public hearing was closed. The Board began deliberation. Regarding the single side yard setback variance, Mr. Kaminsky noted that it was not create an adverse impact to the neighborhood since it has been there for many, many years. It was also noted that the benefit the applicant seeks to achieve with the granting of the side yard setback variance cannot be achieved without substantial modification to the existing house. Mr. Moscato, Mr. Kaminsky and Mr. Richman agreed that the variance was self-created because the applicants purchased the house with knowledge of the nonconformity. I Regarding the 2 off-street parking variances, the consensus of the Board was that the variance would not create an adverse impact to the neighborhood, it was substantial, the benefit the applicant seeks could not be feasibly achieved in a way that did not require a li variance, the variances would not create an adverse physical or environmental impact to the neighborhood, and the need for the variance was self-created. The Board discussed conditioning the single side yard setback variance to be limited to an unenclosed roofed patio of the same size and shape as the existing patio. Mr. Moscato read the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Pat Lovallo for (1) a 3.1 foot single side yard setback variance from Village of Rye Brook Zoning Code §250-23.F.(2)(a); (2) a variance from Village of Rye Brook Zoning Code §250-6.G.(1)(c)(1) for two (2) off-street parking spaces; and (3) an 18 foot front yard unenclosed off-street parking setback variance from Village of Rye Brook Zoning Code §250-6.G.(1)(d)(2), in connection with the proposed legalization he conversion of the attached garage to living space, and legalization of the side roofed patio, on properly located at 4 Argyle Road, in an R-7 zoning district on the south side of Argyle Road, approximately 80 feet from the intersection of Argyle Road and North Ridge Street. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID# 135.51-1-76; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on July 2, 2013, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and 1 Zoning Board of Appeals July 2,2013 Page 4 i i ill i it 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, ad upon considering each of the factors set forth at j Section 250-13(G)(2)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brook Code, finds with respect to j the single 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 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, ad 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 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, ad 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 unenclosed off-street parking 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 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the said application for the single side yard setback variance is hereby granted; said application for the parking space Zoning Board of Appeals July 2,2013 Page 5 P I variance is hereby granted; and said application for the front yard unenclosed off-street parking setback variance is hereby granted on the following conditions: • The single side yard setback variance is subject to the patio remaining an unenclosed roofed patio of same size and shape. Dated: July 2, 2013 Donald Moscato, Chairman Mr. Moscato called the roll for the single side yard setback variance: Steven Berger Voting Aye Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye Jeffrey Richman Voting Aye Joel Simon Voting Aye Don Moscato Voting Nay 4 ayes; 1 nay Mr. Moscato called the roll for the off-street parking space variance: Steven Berger Voting Aye Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye Jeffrey Richman Voting Aye Joel Simon Voting Aye Don Moscato Voting Nay 4 ayes; 1 nay Mr. Moscato called the roll for the front yard unenclosed off-street parking setback variance: Steven Berger Voting Aye Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye Jeffrey Richman Voting Aye Joel Simon Voting Aye Don Moscato Voting Nay 4 ayes; 1 nay Zoning Board of Appeals July 2,2013 Page 6 I VVIILLEAGE W E VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK 1ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ADMINISTRATOR RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Pat Lovallo for (1) a 3.1 foot single side yard setback variance from Village of Rye Brook Zoning Code �250- 23.F.(2)(a); (2) a variance from Village of Rye Brook Zoning Code X1250-6.G.(1)(c)(1) for 2 off-street parking spaces; and (3) an 18 foot front yard unenclosed off-street parking setback variance from Village of Rye Brook Zoning Code X250-6.G.(1)(d)(2), in connection with the proposed legalization of the conversion of the attached garage to living space, and legalization of the side roofed patio, on property located at 4 Argyle Road, in an R-7 zoning district on the south side of Argyle Road, approximately 80 feet from the intersection of Argyle Road and North Ridge Street. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel IIS# 135.51-1-76; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on July 2, 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 single side yard setback variance: 1) The variance [WILL I.IL'L Ocreate an adverse impact to the character of the neighbo 2) The benefit the applicant seeks [CA CANNO be achieved through another method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, that does not require a variance; 3) The variane S/-IS NO substantial; 4) The variance [R'jIL /tiY1ILL NO create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmenta con 'tions of the neighborhood; and _, 5) The need for the varian e [I SS NOT] self-created; and J WHEREAS, the Board, from the application, after viewing the premises and 1 neighborhood concerned, and upon considering each of the factors set forth at Section 250- 1 13(G)(2)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brook Code, finds with respect to the off-street parking space variance: 2) The variance [WILL �IILL �16 create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood; 2) The benefit the applicant seeks [CA CAl�TNO ' be achieved through another method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, that does not require a variance; 6) The varian [IS/ S NOT] substantial; 7) The variance [WILL(?ILL Nicreate any adverse impacts to the physical or environmentzl-cun itions of the neighborhood; and 8) The need for the varianps� NOT] self-created; and WHEREAS, the Board, from the application, after vie«ring 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 unenclosed off-street parking setback variance: 3 The varianceIL _V LL -,create an adverse impact to the LW p character of the neighborhood; 2) The benefit the applicant seeks [CA /CANNO --be achieved through another method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, that does not require a variance; 9) The varianc S/ S NOT] substantial; 7T. create any adverse impacts to the 10)The variance [WILLCw:,L:L physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and 11)The need for the variane [�S)/IS NOT] self-created. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the said application for -the single side yard setback variance is herebyeGRANTE_/ /DENIED]; said application for the off-street parking space variance is herebyDENIED]; and said application for the front yard unenclosed off-street parking setback variance is hereby on the following condition/ 1. , 1�1 f �N C r 4 v 6 c�. 7 " FM71141and t �fi S �-f' 2. 1 Dated: July 2, 2013 O+ Don Moscato, Chairman Chairman Moscato called the roll for the single side yard setback variance: Andrew Kaminsky Voting: �-)7 Abstain Absent Don Moscato Voting: —Aye V Nay Abstain Absent Jeffrey Richman Voting: /Aye Nay Abstain Absent Joel Simon Voting: ye Nay Abstain Absent Steven Berger Voting: i�ye Nay Abstain Absent - Ayes Nays Abstain Absent Chairman Moscato called the roll for the off-street parking space variance: Andrew Kaminsky Voting: ✓Aye ay Abstain Absent — Don Moscato Voting: _Aye:eNay Abstain Absent Jeffrey Richman Voting: ✓ye Nay Abstain Absent Joel Simon Voting: Aye Nay Abstain Absent Steven Berger Voting: Aye Nay Abstain Absent Ayes Nays _Abstain Absent Chairman Moscato called the roll for the front yard unenclosed off-street parking setback variance: Andrew Kaminsky Voting: Ayeay Abstain Absent Don Moscato Voting: _Aye Nay Abstain Absent Jeffrey Richman Voting: / Aye Nay Abstain Absent Joel Simon Voting: y_Aye Nay Abstain Absent Steven Berger Voting: ► Aye Nay Abstain Absent Ayes i Nays Abstain Absent -I 3) 13-010 TD Bank,N.A. 101-5 South Ridge Street Construct a bank building with parking area and drive-thru banking kiosk. i Janet Giris, Esq., attorney for the applicant, addressed the Board. They were before the Board 11 months ago, received four area variances,but did not realize that the variances would expire. She noted that the plans for the bank remain the same. This will be a 2,943 square foot bank on the property located at 101 South Ridge Street at the Southeast corner of South Ridge and Bowman Avenue in a C-1 District. In August of last year, four variances were granted for construction of the bank. The project has been before the Planning and Board of Trustees,plus consultants and staff. The number of variances and the magnitude of the variances were reduced through the review process. Site plan approval was granted by the Board of Trustees. The Architectural Review Board approved the architectural design of the project January 2013. The Building Permit was not applied for in February, so the variances expired because a Building Permit was not issued within 6 months of this Board's August 2012 approval. The application before the Zoning Board is the exact same application that was approved by this Board almost a year ago. Mr. Berger questioned what the applicant has done to move the project along after receiving the last approval from the Village in January. Mr. Kaminsky followed up by asking what the intended timeframe is for construction. Ms. Giris, Esq. noted that there is demolition work that needs to be done on the site and construction drawings have been submitted to the Building Department for review. The jproject is in the TD Bank construction pipeline and TD Bank is looking forward to being part of the Village. Things have been moving, but in May the applicant became aware that the variances had expired. i Mr. Moscato noted that the Board has reviewed the first application, meeting minutes, videos, etc. and is familiar with the application. He 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. Berger, and seconded by Mr. Kaminsky, the public hearing was closed. The Board went into deliberation. Mr. Moscato noted the conditions of the August 2012 approval resolution would also apply to the current resolution. Mr. Moscato read the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by TD Bank for the following variances: (1) 13.1 foot rear yard setback variance I Zoning Board of Appeals July 2,2013 Page 10 I I i I from Village Code §250-32(F)(3); (2) 8.5 feet freestanding sign setback variance from Village Code §250-35(E)/250Attachment 2; (3) variance from Village Code 250-35 (E)/250 Attachment 2 to permit one additional wall sign; and (4) variance from Village Code 250-32(x)/250-6(G)(1)(c)(9) to permit 20 parking spaces in connection with the proposed construction of a bank building with parking area and drive-thru banking kiosk, on property located at 101-5 South Ridge Street, in a C-1 zoning district on the east side of South Ridge Street, 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# 141.27-1-27; and WHEREAS, notice of the application was sent to the Westchester County Planning Department on June 19, 2013 pursuant to General Municipal Law 239-m and Westchester County Administrative Code 277.61; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on July 2, 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, ad 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 will not create an adverse impact to the character of the ( i 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, ad 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 freestanding sign front 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 Zoning Board of Appeals July 2,2013 i Page 11 II it WHEREAS, the Board from the application, after viewing the premises and neighborhood concerned, ad 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 wall sign variance: 1) The variance will not create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood; j 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, ad 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 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 rear yard setback variance is hereby granted; said application for the freestanding sign setback variance is hereby granted; said application for the wall sign variance is hereby granted; and said application for the off-street parking variance is hereby granted on the following conditions: (1) The drive-thru shall remain an unenclosed canopy; and (2) Variances shall apply for as long as the use of the property remains a bank. Dated: July 2, 2013 Donald Moscato, Chairman Mr. Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting Aye Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye Jeffrey Richman Voting Aye i Zoning Board of Appeals July 2,2013 Page 12 i I Joel Simon Voting Aye Don Moscato Voting Aye 5 ayes, 0 nays i Zoning Board of Appeals July 2,2013 Page 13 i VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS VILLAGE ADMINISTRATOR RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by TD Bank, N.A. for the following variances: (1) 13.1 feet rear yard setback variance from Village Code �250- 32(F)(3), (2) 8.5 feet freestanding sign setback variance from Village Code 5250-35(E)/250 Attachment 2; (3) variance from Village Code 5250-35(E)/250 Attachment 2j to permit one additional wall sign; and (4) variance from Village Code §1250-32(x)/250-6(G)(1)(c)(9) to permit 20 parl�dng spaces, in connection with the proposed construction of a bank building with parking area and drive-thru banking kiosk, on property located at 101-5 South Ridge Street, in a C-1 zoning district on the east side of South Ridge Street, 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# 141.27-1-27; and WHEREAS, notice of the application was sent to the Westchester County Planning Department on June 19, 2013 pursuant to General Municipal Law 5239-m and Westchester County Administrative Code 5277.61; 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, a duly advertised public hearing was held on July 2, 2013, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; 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 [WI /WILL No an adverse impact to the character of the neighbor , 2) The benefit the applicant seeks [CA /CANNbe achieved through another method, feasible for the applican ursue, that does not require 1 a variance; 3) The varian e [IS/_,S NOT] substantial; ' 4) The variance [WILL WILL�Nin] create any adverse impacts to the physical or envitonmenta con 'tions of the neighborhood; and 5) The need for the varian e [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 freestanding sign front yard setback variance: 1) The variance [WI /WILL NOT]Jcreate an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood; 2) The benefit the applicant seeks [CA CANNO be achieved through another method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, that does not require a variance; 3) The variancR,9IS NOT] substantial; 4) The variance [WILL ILL NO 'create any adverse impacts to the 1 physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and 5) The need for the varianc(W8 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 wall sign variance: 1) The variance [WIL /IS WILL.__lOT]'create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood; _ 2) The benefit the applicant seeks [CA 1/CANNOT,]� be achieved through another method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, that does not require a variance; 3) The varian eW S NOT] substantial; 4) The variance [WILLA�gL NOr[=f' create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and 5) The need for the varianca-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 off-street parking variance: 1) The variance [WILI-/WILL create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood; _ 2) The benefit the applicant seeks [CANQCANNOT achieved through another method, feasible for the applicant o pursue, that does not require a variance; 3) The varianccgPIS NOT !aa b tial; 4) The variance [WILL/(X1ILL N,91 I create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmentzr conditions of the neighborhood; and 5) The need for the varian ectgS/XS NOT] self-created; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVER, that the said application for the rear �1 yard setback variance is hereby [GRANTE.I'D/DENIED]; said application for the freestanding sign setback variance is here '"[lxy GRA TNID/DENIED]; said application for the wall sign variance is hereby-'G-RANTt-D/—D—ENIED]; and said application for the off- - � ...---_---;,. street parking variance is hereby'�G�A,N-.ED' /DENIED], on the following conditions: 1. The drive-thru shall remain an unenclosed canopy; and 2. The variances shall apply for so long as the use of the property remains a bank. Dated: July 2, 2013 Mr. Don Moscato, Chairman Chairman Moscato called the roll: / Steven Berger Voting. y/Aye Nay Abstain Andrew Kaminsky Voting: dye Nay Abstain Jeffrey Richman Voting: �ye Nay Abstain Joel Simon Voting: A� Nay Abstain Don Moscato Voting: v- Aye Nay Abstain Ayes C� Nays Abstain I i I I 4) 13-012 Rye Ding Associates 1 900 King Street Replace the existing monument signs at King Street and Arbor Drive, and Arbor Drive and 900 King Street parking lot entrance, and install additional wall signage to the existing office building. Steve Ketchabaw, Vice President of George Comfort & Sons, Inc., owners and operators of 900 King Street, and also Rye Brook resident, and Rick Parisi, landscape architect from MPFP LLC, addressed the Board. The applicant is looking to make minor adjustments to the monument signs on the property. In addition, they hope that it would be possible for new tenants to put some type of branding on the sign. I Mr. Parisi noted that there are a lot of planting upgrades being done. The goal is to brand the building while not trying to make it look too corporate. The applicants want to make the building visible. The intent is to be able to tell a prospective tenant that they could brand the sign. This application will be before the Architectural Review Board. Jennifer Gray, Esq. Village Counsel, noted that there are existing wall signs that are legally permitted and pointed out that the applicants are applying for an additional wall sign. The monument signs are not before this Board. The Board cannot regulate the text or copy of the sign. The Village Code regulates the size of the sign and the number of signs,but not the message written on the sign. 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. Berger, and seconded by Mr. Kaminsky, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Moscato noted that many commercial buildings do have signage facing the Parkway. He stated the signage should remain non-illuminated to protect residents on the other side of the Parkway. Mr. Simon stated the variance was unnecessary since there are other ways to notify the public of the location of 900 King Street, such as signs along the Parkway. Mr. Kaminsky was in favor of the sign if it is non-illuminated because it may help bring jobs to Rye Brook. The Board discussed the whether the variance would create an adverse impact on the neighborhood, whether there was another feasible method for the applicant to pursue other than a variance, whether the variance is substantial, whether the variance will create an adverse physical impact and whether the need for the variance is self-created. Zoning Board of Appeals July 2,2013 Page 17 1 Attorney Gray crafted the text for the resolution; and Mr. Moscato read the resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Rye King Associates for a variance from the Village of Rye Brook Zoning Code §250-35(E)/250Attachment 2:1 to permit one (1) additional wall sign beyond the two (2) legally existing wall signs for a total of three (3) wall signs where one (1) wall sign is permitted by Village Code in connection with the proposed installation of additional wall signage to the existing office building replacement of the existing monument signs at the intersections of King Street and Arbor Drive and Arbor Drive and the 900 King Street parking lot entrance, on property located at 900 King Street, in a PU.D. zoning district on the east side of King Street, at the intersection of King Street and Arbor Drive. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID# 129.68-1-13; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on July 2, 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, ad 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 wall 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 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 self-created; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,that the said application for the wall sign variance is hereby granted on the following conditions: (1) The signs shall remain not illuminated Dated: July 2, 2013 Donald Moscato, Chairman Mr. Moscato called the roll: Zoning Board of Appeals July 2,2013 Page 18 I I I Steven Berger Voting Aye Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye Jeffrey Richman Voting Aye Joel Simon Voting Aye Don Moscato Voting Aye 5 ayes, 0 nays i i I i Zoning Board of Appeals July 2,2013 Page 19 i ,I I I VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK E "" ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS VILLAGE ADMINISTRATOR RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Rye King Associates for a variance from Village of Rye Brook Zoning Code 5250-35.E, Attachment 2:1 to permit one (1) additional wall sign beyond the two (2) legally existing wall signs for a total of three (3) walls signs where one (1) wall sign is permitted by Village Code, in connection with the installation of additional wall signage to the existing office building and replacement of the existing monument signs at the intersections of King Street & Arbor Drive and Arbor Drive & the 900 King Street parking lot entrance; on property located at 900 King Street, in a P.U.D. zoning district on the east side of King Street, at the intersection of King Street and Arbor Drive. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID# 129.68-1-13; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on July 2, 2013, at which time 1\ ) 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 wall sign variance: 1) The variance FIR-95;�--/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 WIS NOT] substantial; 4) The variance [WILL NOT] create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and i 5) The need for the variance [IS743*-24d@6T] self-created. E -i I NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the said application for the wall sign variance is hereby [GRANTED ;on the following conditions: and Dated: July 2, 2013 Don Moscato, Chairman Chairman Moscato called the roll: Andrew Kaminsky Voting: Aye Nay Abstain Absent Don Moscato Voting: V Ave Nay Abstain Absent Jeffrey Richman Voting: ,%Aye Nay Abstain Absent Joel Simon Voting: Aye Nay Abstain Absent Steven Berger Voting: Aye ✓ Nay Abstain Absent i� Ayes Nays 0 Abstain U Absent 1 i �I Mr. Moscato re-called item number 1 on the agenda: 1) #13-011 Michael and Lisa Marks 18 Mohegan Lane Construct a one story addition and expand the existing deck. I, Mary Faithorn Scott, architect for the applicants, noted that she contacted the applicants and explained that the Board inquired whether any impervious surface coverage can be removed from the property. She stated that the applicants are willing to remove a portion of the walkway and the stepping stones to the pool. The total of 212 square feet of impervious surface can be reduced, thus reducing the size of the variance requested. 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. Berger, and seconded by Mr. Kaminsky, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Moscato polled the Board to get a sense from members of the Board of their thoughts on the reduction of the variance. Mr. Kaminsky stated the applicants made a good faith effort. Mr. Kaminsky and Mr. Simon agreed that the options for reducing the impervious coverage were limited without cutting into the pool decking. The applicants must submit revised plans showing the reduction in impervious surface coverage. The variance now being requested was a 467 square foot impervious surface variance. Mr. Moscato read the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Michael and Lisa Marks for a 679 square foot total impervious coverage variance from Village of Rye Brook Zoning Code §250-37.C, in connection with the proposed construction of a one-story addition and expansion of the existing deck, on property located at 18 Mohegan Lane, in an R-15 Zoning District on the south west side of Mohegan Lane, approximately 300 feet from the intersection of Mohegan Lane and Bonwit Road. Said premise being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID #135.42-1-19; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on July 2, 2013, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and Zoning Board of Appeals July 2,2013 Page 22 - 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 applicant has agreed to reduce impervious surface on the property by 212 square feet and thus the applicant is seeking a variance of 467 square feet; and WHEREAS, the Board from the application, after viewing the premises and neighborhood concerned, ad 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 impervious surface coverage 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 total impervious coverage variance is hereby granted. Dated: July 2, 2013 Donald Moscato, Chairman Mr. Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting Aye Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye Jeffrey Richman Voting Aye Joel Simon Voting Aye Don Moscato Voting Aye 5 ayes, 0 nays Zoning Board of Appeals July 2,2013 i Page 23 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS VILLAGE. ,A'"�Cv�ll`dISTRATOR RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Michael & Lisa Marks for 679 sq. ft. total impervious coverage variance from Village of Rye Brook Zoning Code §250-37.C, in connection with the proposed construction of a one story addition and expansion of the existing deck, on property located at 18 Mohegan Lane, in an R-15 zoning district on the south west side .of Mohegan Lane, approximately 300 feet from the intersection of Mohegan Lane and Bonwit Road. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID# 135.42-1-19; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on July 2, 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 1 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- �QQ T J /✓'1/�• 13(G)(2rI)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brook Code, finds with respect to the total imper�Ts'ous 71 coverage variance: G �Opl i Cr,,-1'{ 1) The variance PFv�/WILL NOT] create an adverse impact to the /aAe/KI`If character of the neighborhood; _ V C- j'0j l tt+j 2) The benefit the applicant seeks [' /CANNOT] be achieved through `� �'L� another method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, that does not require a variance; 3) The variance [ISS] 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 impervious coverage variance is hereby [GRANTED�], on the following conditions: 1, z ; and 2. ; Dated: July 2, 2013 I Don Moscato, Chairman Chairman Moscato called the roll: Andrew Kaminsl:y Voting: V/Aye Nay Abstain Absent Don Moscato Voting: Aye Nay Abstain Absent Jeffrey Richman Voting: ✓ Aye Nay Abstain Absent Joel Simon Voting- Aye Nay Abstain Absent Steven Berger Voting Aye Nay Abstain Absent Ayes d Nays 0 Abstain 0 Absent i i I 5) Approval of the June 4,2013 Zoning Board Summary i Mr. Moscato called for review of the June 4, 2013 summary, which was approved as amended. Mr. Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting Aye Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye Jeffrey Richman Voting Aye Joel Simon Voting Aye Don Moscato Voting Aye 5 ayes, 0 nays I On a motion made by Mr. Simon, and seconded by Mr. Kaminsky, the meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Zoning Board of Appeals July 2,2013 Page 26