Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-10-01 - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes �RlYK.avYneJn N.:a.-s:l.y:S/MgM'P„F%A:iTMuv. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 938 King Street DAME, 1� Tuesday, October 1, 2013 Meeting at 8.00 p.m. is DEC • 3 2013 AGENDA VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK Ih 1) #13-017 Peter Sommers and Jalaine Sommers BUILDING DEPARTMENT 3 Winthrop Drive Construct a rear two-story addition; front %2 story addition over existing two-story house. 2) Approval of the July 2,2013 Zoning Board Summary i 'j BOARD: Steve Berger Andrew Kaminsky Jeffrey Richman Joel Simon Dori Moscato, Chairman i STAFF: Michael Izzo, Building Inspector Jennifer Gray, Esq.,Village Counsel Phil Butler, Esq., Village Counsel Fred Seifert, Access Coordinator Paula Patafio, Meeting Secretary Mr. Moscato, Chairman, welcomed everyone to the October 1, 2013 meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. He called the meeting to order, and introduced the Board, Village Staff, and Counsel. Mr. Moscato asked that individuals speak at the podium, state their names, application, position, and nature of the variance. He called for the first item on the agenda: 1) #13-017 Peter Sommers and Jalaine Sommers 3 Winthrop Drive Construct a rear two-story addition; front %2 story addition over existing two-story house. Mr. Mark Mustacato, of Richau, Mustacato, Grippi Associates, architect, addressed the sill Board. He stated they are proposing an addition to the house to create a master bedroom suite. He noted that various alternatives to the proposal were reviewed by the applicant prior to advancing this proposal. He noted that this house is a high ranch. The basement u Zoning Board of Appeals October 1,2013 N Page j a 1 i a 1 counts as a story because the basement ceiling is about 6 feet above the average grade and affects the floor area ratio, so it handicaps the applicants in their ability to put on an addition. Several different ways to create the needed space were looked at. Building out in the rear would take away from the back yard and would impinge on the privacy of the neighbors. The alternative of raising the roof and adding the master suite in the rear worked the best. However, b definition the house becomes a 21/2 story home which Y rY r creates the need for a %2 story variance. Other variances requested are for gross floor area and height-setback ratio. It was noted that the height of the house when measured in feet is below the allowable height in that area. Mr. Mustacato submitted photos of homes in the area that are taller than this house. He also submitted a letter prepared by the applicants and distributed to their neighbors for their signature in support of the application. Mr. Moscato noted that the size of the deck was being reduced. Mr. Mustacato responded that there is a portion of the deck that will be removed in order to accommodate the addition. Some impervious surface coverage will be added, but they are still below the maximum permitted. Mr. Moscato questioned whether there was anything that can be done to reduce or eliminate the height-setback ratio variance. Mr. Mustacato responded that they cannot. Mr. Moscato noted that he viewed internet aerials of the site and visited the site and noted that the rear yard is adjacent to Pine Ridge Park. He also noted that the neighbor most affected by the application has signed a letter in support of the application. Mr. Kaminsky asked for clarification regarding the front yard setback variance. Mr. Mustacato confirmed they are not pushing farther into the front yard, but they are raising the roof and building on top of the existing setback. 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 with a vote of five ayes. Mr. Moscato noted that he would not consider the front yard setback to be substantial since it is a little under a 4%variance. But he considers the height-setback ratio variance to be substantial at a 28% variance. The GFA variance is approximately 20% which he considered substantial and the 1/2 story variance is substantial from a proportional point of view. He further considered each of the variances to be self-created. Mr. Moscato noted that the visual impact of the neighborhood was addressed by Mr. Mustacato, and further noted that he drive through the neighborhood and found a wide k Zoning Board of Appeals jOctober 1,2013 Page 4 variety of sizes of house. He stated his opinion that the addition would not cause this house to stand out in the neighborhood. Mr. Kaminsky agreed and noted that he also drove through the neighborhood and believes this house will not be out of character. He also noted that the area is relatively �I isolated because of Pine Ridge Park. F; Mr. Moscato asked the Board whether they thought there would be an environmental impact to the neighborhood. Mr. Berger responded that the opposite is true because the I� proposal adds the least amount of impervious surface coverage as compared to other t alternatives. Mr. Moscato asked Mr. Mustacato whether the variances requested are the minimum necessary and Mr. Mustacato confirmed that they are. k Mr. Kaminsky asked whether granting the 1/2 story variance may later allow the applicant to build an additional 1/2 story across the entire structure, not just the,limited area now proposed. Attorney Gray responded that unless a limiting condition is placed on the variance, the 1/2 story variance would be applicable to the entire structure. Discussion ensued regarding the %2 story variance and the possibility of imposing a limiting condition. Upon completion Mr. Moscato read the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS application has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Peter Sommers and Jalaine Sommers for (1) a 1.41 foot front yard setback variance from Village of Rye Brook Zoning Code §250-20.F.(1); (2) a 0.17 front height setback ratio variance from Village o Rye Brook Zoning Code §250-20.H.(1); (3) a 7.47 square foot gross floor area variance from Village of Rye Brook Zoning Code §250-20.D; and (4) a 1/2 story variance from Village of Rye Brook Zoning Codes §250-20.G.(1), in connection with the proposed construction of a rear two story addition; front /2 story addition over existing two story house, on property located at 3 Winthrop Drive, in an R15 zoning district on the west side of Winthrop Drive, approximately 200 feet from the intersection of Berkley Drive and Winthrop Drive. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as parcel ID# 135.42-1-48; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on October 1, 2013, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and P Zoning Board of Appeals i October 1,2013 Page WHEREAS, the proposed action is a Type II action pursuant to the New York a 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 i 250-13 G 2 b 2 a - e of the Rye Brook Code finds with respect to the front yard setback variance: 1 1) The variance will not create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood; M 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 jenvironmental conditions of the neighborhood; and 5) The need for the variance is self-created; and WHEREAS, the Board from the application, after viewing the premises and neighborhood concerned, and upon considering each of the factors set forth at Section 250-13(G)(2)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brook Code, finds with respect to the front height setback ratio variance: 1) The variance will not create anadverse impact to the character of the neighborhood; 2) The benefit the applicant seeks cannot be achieved through another method, feasible for the applicant to pursue,that does not require a variance; 3) The variance is substantial; 4) The variance will not create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and 5) The need for the variance is.self-created; and WHEREAS, the Board from the application, after viewing the premises and neighborhood concerned, and upon considering each of the factors set forth at 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; Zoning Board of Appeals October 1,2013 Page u 2) The benefit the applicant seeks cannot be achieved through another method, feasible for the applicant to pursue,that does not require a variance; 3) The variance is substantial; 4) The variance will not create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and 5) The need for the variance is self-created; and WHEREAS, the Board from the application, after viewing the premises and neighborhood concerned, and upon considering each of the factors set forth at Section 250-13(G)(2)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brook Code, finds with respect to the half-story variance: 1) The variance will not create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood; 2) The benefit the applicant seeks cannot be achieved through another method, feasible for the applicant to pursue,that does not require a variance; 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 front yard setback variance is hereby granted; said application for the front height setback ratio variance is hereby granted; said application for the gross floor area variance s hereby granted; and said application for the 1/2 story variance is hereby granted, on the following conditions: 1) The 1/2 story variance is limited to the front Half-story addition, as proposed. Dated: October 1, 2013 Donald Moscato, Chairman Mr. Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger, Acting Chairman Voting Aye Joel Simon Voting Aye Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye Jeffrey Richman Voting Aye Don Moscato Voting Aye h Zoning Appeals Board of A eals October 1,2013 Page ;I The resolution passed on a vote of four ayes to zero nays. I I. P I, i u I� l 'i i N ,I I, f i Zoning Board of Appeals October 1,2013 i Page is I - - J 5 � ECE5 i VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK '= T r: t' V ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS VILLAGE ADMINISTRATOR RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Peter Sommers and JaWne Sommers for (1) a 1.41 ft. front yard setback variance from Village of Rye Brook Zoning Code 5250-20.F.(1); (2) a 0.17 front height setback ratio variance from Village of Rye Brook Zoning Code §250-20.H.(1); (3) a 734.7 s.f. gross floor area variance from Village of Rye Brook Zoning Code §250.20.D.; and (4) a 1/2 story variance from Village of Rye Brook Zoning Code §250-20.G.(1), in connection with the proposed construction of a rear 2 story addition; front 1/z story addition over existing 2 story house, on property located at 3 Winthrop Drive,in an R-15 zoning district on the west side of Winthrop Drive, approximately 200 feet from the intersection of Berkley Drive and Winthrop Drive. Said I premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID# 135.42-1-48; and . 1 ' WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on October 1, 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 [WILWILL NO create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhoo ; 2} The benefit the 'applicant seeks jCAN NNA NNA be achieved through another method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, that does not require a variance; 3) The variance IS NOT]�stantilal; "4) The variance [W WIcreate any adverse impacts to the physical or environments tions of the neighborhood; and i -i j i 1 ' i �} 5) The need for the variance [IS//!S NOT] self-created; and t U WHEREAS, the Board, from the application, after viewing the premises and neighborhood concerned, and upon considering each of the factors set forth at Section 250- 13(G)(2)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brook Code, finds with respect to the front height setback ratio variance: 1) The variance [WIneiLL WILL NO create an adverse impact to the character of the ghbo i 2) The benefit the applicant seeks [CAN ECA2NNO-Q_l e achieved through another method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, that does not require a variance; 3) The variance [IS IS NOT] substantial; 4) The variance [WILL/ ILL NO create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmenta n tions of the neighborhood; and 5) The need for the varian [IS IS NOT] self-created; and WHEREAS, the Board, from the application, after viewing the premises and neighborhood concerned, and upon considering each of the factors set forth at Section 250- • 13(G)(2)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brook Code, finds with respect to the gross floor area variance: 1) The variance [WILL,LL �Ng3 'create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood; 2) The benefit the applicant seeks [CA CANNOT] e achieved through another method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, that does not require a variance; 3) The varianckf�/IS NOT] substantia 4) The variance [WILL LL NOS create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and 5) The need for the varia e [Il/IS 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 '/z story variance: 1) The variance [WILILL NOT] create an adverse impact to the character of the neigh od- I i f I� II f -.� 2) The benefit the .applicant seeks [CA CANNO be achieved through another method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, that does not requite � I a variance; 3) The variana6V/IS NOT] substantial; 4) The variance [WILL ILL NO create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and 5) The need for the variancdOIS NOT] self-created. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the said application for the front yard setback variance is hereb G �/DENIED]; said application for the front height setback ratio variance is hereb D/DENIED]; said application for the gross floor area variance is here /DENIED]; and said application for the 1/2 story variance is hereb GRA TE /DENIED],on the f o g con ditio s: 77 -Al �� ; and 515;:b/1- 2. Dated: October 1, 2013 { ) Don Moscato, Chairman I Chairman Moscato called the roll: ! Andrew Kaminsky Voting: t/ e Nay -Abstain Absent Don Moscato Voting: dye Nay Abstain Absent Jeffrey Richman Voting: ,/—� Nap Abstain Absent Joel Simon Voting: �/ - e Nay Abstain Absent Steven Berger Voting IZApe Nay Abstain Absent 5 Ayes C9 Nays Abstain Absent � 1 s . i 2) Approval of the July 2,2013 Zoning Board Summary The consensus of the Board was to approve the summary as amended. i Mr. Moscato called the roll: I Steven Berger Voting Aye Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye Jeffrey Richman Voting Aye Joel Simon Voting Aye Don Moscato Voting Aye u The resolution passed on a vote of five ayes to zero nays. I There being no further business before the Board, on a motion made by Mr. Simon, and +, seconded by Mr. Kaminsky,the meeting was adjourned at 8:33 p.m. Mr. Moscato called the roll: I Steven Berger Voting Aye g g Y Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye Jeffrey Richman Voting Aye Joel Simon Voting Aye Don Moscato Voting Aye 7 Zoning Board of Appeals October 1,2013 Page i