Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-12-03 - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes i i i . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS �ATE 938 King Street Tuesday, December 3,2013 l Meeting at 8:00 p.m. J�1V 13 20% AGENDA VILLAGE OF RYE ROOK BU ILDING DEPARTMENT 1 #13-018 Mr. Joel Silverman 52 Lawridge Drive Front-yard fence height variance to install 6' high fence j, I! 2) #13-010 TD Bank,NA 101-5 South Ridge Street h Request for extension of variances; Village Code §250-13.H r 3) #13-015 Rebecca & Scott Oling 2 Hillandale Road Variance for front-yard setback to construct an attached two-car garage addition 4) Approval of the October 1,2013 Zoning Board Summary BOARD: Steve Berger Andrew Kaminsky I, Jeffrey Richman Joel Simon Don Moscato, Chairman f STAFF: Michael Izzo, Building Inspector Jennifer Gray, Esq., Village Counsel Phil Butler, Esq., Village Counsel Fred Seifert, Access Coordinator Paula Patafio, Meeting Secretary BOARD OF TRUSTEES " LIAISON: Trustee David Heiser Mr. Moscato, Chairman, welcomed everyone to the December 3, 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: Zoning Board of Appeals December 3,2013 Page 1 J i I i 1) #13-018 Mr. Joel Silverman 52 Lawridge Drive Install 6' high privacy fence Mr. Joel Silverman, applicant, addressed the Board. He noted that currently a 6' fence exists, however, the fence is in disrepair; some portions of the fence are falling down, and therefore, the fence needs to be replaced. Mr. Silverman explained that the people who owned the property previously did not apply for a variance. In addition it has now been noted that some of the fencing was installed in the wrong place. Mr. Silverman believes the fence is both a privacy and a safety issue as there is pool in the rear yard of the home. The pool is in the rear yard, about 20 to 25 feet from the back of the house. Because of the configuration of the lot, the lot has three front yards and one side yard. As a result, the applicable zoning would require a four foot high fence around the backyard. However, Mr. Silverman believes a four foot fence will not provide privacy or prevent teenagers from jumping the fence to go in the pool. Mr. Silverman's goal is to replace the existing fence with a new 6' stockade fence that will enclose the backyard. The proposed fence shown to the Board is a"good neighbor" fence, meaning the outward facing side of the fence is of the same i quality as the inward facing side. Mr. Berger and Mr. Simon noted that the 4' height fence is applicable to the front of this home; but as a corner lot, there are three front yards. Mr. Michael Izzo noted that this lot is a "peninsula lot." The applicants have, by definition of the Code, three front yards, and one side yard. There is no way to install a 6' fence and be Code compliant because of this. The State Code requirement is a 48" (4') fence for pool enclosures. P F Mr. Moscato asked when the Code went into effect. Mr. Izzo noted that the section was amended in 1994, and then again in 2004, but the relevant provision was probably in the Code prior to those years. Mr. Richman asked if any of the neighbors have commented about the application. Mr. Silverman stated all of the neighbors are aware, but no one has I' made any comments. Mr. Moscato noted that the fence will be reviewed by the Architectural Review y Board. The will review the e of fencing. The height of the fence is the issue Y � g g � before the Zoning Board. The Board discussed the Village and State Code requirements regarding a 4' fence versus a 6' fence. The Board agreed the 4' fence does not offer the privacy that a 6' fence does. The Board recognized further the unique configuration of Zoning Board of Appeals j December 3,2013 Page 2 I i _4 the property having three front yards and whether a safety issue exists as a result of a 4' pool enclosure, rather than 6'. Mr. Simon expressed his opinion that a 6' fence is already in place and has been there for many years as militating in favor of the application. The consensus of the Board was that a 6' fence was warranted under the unique circumstances of this application and was in favor of the variance. 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. 6 On a motion made by Mr. Richman, and seconded by Mr. Kaminsky, the public hearing was closed with a vote of five ayes. Mr. Moscato and the Board reviewed the application, and discussed the five factors whereupon a resolution was drafted. Upon completion, Mr. Moscato read the following resolution: X11 I RESOLUTION WHEREAS application has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Mr. Joel Silverman for a two (2) foot fence variance from the Village Code §250-6.B (1)(g)(3)(a), in connection with the proposed installation of a 6 foot high privacy fence, on property located at 52 Lawridge Drive, in an R15 zoning district on the north east side of Lawridge Drive, at the intersection of Lawridge Drive, Boxwood Place, and Fairlawn Parkway. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as parcel ID# 129.59.1-48; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on December 3, 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 §250- 13(G)(2)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brook Code, finds with respect to fence height variance: 1) The variance will not create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood; 2 The benefit thea applicant seeks cannot be achieved through another pp g method, feasible for applicant to pursue,that does not require a variance; Zoning Board of Appeals December 3,2013 Page 3 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 fence height variance is hereby granted, with no conditions. I Dated: December 3, 2013 Donald Moscato, Chairman i 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 The resolution passed on a vote of five ayes to zero nays, no one abstaining. �I Zoning Board of Appeals December 3,2013 Page 4 i fa II RVILLAGE OF RYE BROOK DEC - 4 2013 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS RESOLU'T'ION VILLAGE CLERK'S OFFICE ---__-._ WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Mr. Joel Silverman for a two (2) ft. fence height variance from Village Code §250-63.(1)(g)(3)(a), in connection with the proposed installation of a 6 foot high privacy fence, on property located at 52 Lawridge Drive, in an R-15 zoning district on the north east side of Lawridge Drive, at the intersection of Lawridge Drive, Boxwood Place and Fairlawn Parkway. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID# 129.59-1-48; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on December 3; 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 fence height variance: 1) The variance [WILL \WI,� LL _NOT] create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood; _ 2) The benefit the applicant seeks [CM-q-/C;ANNOT]Jbe achieved through another method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, that does not require a variance; 3) The varianc [IS/IS NO t ntigl; 4) The variance [WIL WILL -GT=�create any adverse impacts to the Ili physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and 5) The need for the variance [IS IS NOT] self-created. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the said application for the fence height variance is hereb [GRANTED�IDENI .I,or--the following conditions: 1• ; and 2. 1 1 'I Dated: December 3, 2013 1117/ I 1 Don Moscato, Chairman Chairman Moscato called the roll: ,� Steven Berger Voting: L/ ye Nay Abstain Absent Andrew Kaminsky Voting: , �e Nay Abstain Absent Jeffrey Richman Voting: L-' e Nay Abstain Absent Joel Simon Voting: _ ye Nay Abstain Absent Don Moscato Voting: Aye Nay Abstain Absent L' Ayes Nays Abstain I� Absent F I� 1 J 2) #13-010 TD Bank,NA 101-5 South Ridge Street Request for extension of variances; Village Code §250-13.H Janet J. Giris, Esq., attorney for TD Bank, addressed the Board. She stated that TD Bank was seeking an extension of the variances granted in July. Ms. Giris explained that while TD Bank does intend to commence construction of the bank branch in the spring, construction was delayed because the Bank had considered implementing the bank's new branch r design on the subject location which i g � s smaller than existing branches. However, after meeting with the Village staff, the Bank found that the site was not suitable for the new design and any attempt to incorporate the new model on the subject property would require several additional variances. Accordingly, TD Bank abandoned its attempt to construct a branch based on the Bank's new design and decided to go with the old design instead for which the subject variances were previously granted. Ms. Giris indicated that the completion of the construction drawings has taken a little longer than anticipated, and in order to build the building that was approved, an extension of the approvals is Ilf required. I ` Mr. Moscato asked if the bank has taken control of the site. Ms. Giris noted the s contractor who has been retained is in charge of maintenance of the property and the property was seeded and is currently covered over with grass. She stated further that a temporary fence will be installed, will stay up until the spring when construction is anticipated to begin. Mr. Berger asked if there is any limit to the number of extensions that can be granted. Attorney Gray noted that while there is no limit to the number of extensions granted to the applicants, extensions must be "for good cause shown." Mr. Izzo stated that the applicant has six months from issuance of the permit to commence construction. The building permit application has not yet been filed. Mr. Berger asked why TD Bank has not filed for a building permit. Ms. Giris responded that the construction drawings are not completed since TD Bank had contemplated incorporating the new branch design, but then abandoned that plan in favor of the old design. Mr. Moscato called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in support or �i opposition to the application. There being no one, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. On a motion made by Steven Berger, and seconded by Andrew Kaminsky, the public 'j hearing was closed with a vote of five ayes. The Board being unanimous, Mr. Moscato read the following resolution approving the extension: Zoning Board of Appeals December 3,2013 Page 8 4 i i RESOLUTION L WHEREAS application has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by TD Bank,NA for an extension of approval of the following variances: (1) 13.1 foot rear yard setback variance 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(K)/250-6(G)(1)(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 i Rye Brook as Parcel ID# 141.27-1-27; and I WHEREAS, the above-listed variances were approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals by resolution dated July 2, 2012 and i WHEREAS, such approvals are scheduled to expire on January 2, 2014, pursuant to Village Code §250-13.H; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on December 3, 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 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the applicant has shown good cause for granting an extension of the variances approved by resolution dated July 2, 2013 in that, according to the applicant, it recently considered seeking amended approvals to construct the new prototypical building at the property, instead of that which was previously approved. Because construction of the new prototypical building would have required a greater number of variances, the applicant ultimately determined that the property would not be suited for construction of its new prototypical building. However, according to the applicant, the process of considering a possible change in design delayed production of the construction drawings necessary to obtain a building permit. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the said application for extension of, approval of the aforementioned variances is granted for a period of six months to July 2, 2014. Dated: December 3, 2013 Donald Moscato, Chairman a Mr. Moscato called the roll: Zoning Board of Appeals December 3,2013 Page 9 I Steven Berger Y votingaye Andrew Kaminsky voting aye Jeffrey Richman voting aye Joel Simon voting aye Donald Moscato voting aye The resolution passed on a vote of five ayes to zero nays, none abstaining. i I Zoning Board of Appeals December 3,2013 Page 10 a — VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK 5ECEMED ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DEC - 14 2013 RESOLYJTION VILLAGE CLERK'S OFFICE WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by TD Bank, N.A. for an extension of approval of 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 §250-35(E)/250 Attachment 2; (3) variance from Village Code §250- 35(E)/250 Attachment 2j 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, granted by the Zoning Board on July 2, 2013, 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 I!,I tali map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID# 141.27-1-27; and WHEREAS, the above-listed variances were approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals by resolution dated July 2, 2013; and !i li WHEREAS, such approvals are scheduled to expire on January 2, 2014 pursuant to Village Code X250-13.14; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on December 3, 2013, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and 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. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Applican( [HAS HAS NOT] shown good cause for granting an extension of the variances approved by resolution dated July 2, 2013 in that, according to the applicant, it recently considered seeking amended approvals to construct its new prototypical building at the property, instead of that `which p �'p b P p >> was previously approved. Because construction of the new prototypical building would have required a greater number of variances, the applicant ultimately determined the property 1 would not be suited for construction of its new prototypical building. However, according to the applicant, the process of considering a possible change in design delayed production of the construction drawings necessary to obtain a building permit. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the said application for an extension of ap roval of the aforementioned variances is hereb,, [GRANTS/DENIED] for a period of ill months to � 'j t , 2014. Dated: December 3, 2013 Mr. Don Moscato, Chairman Mr. Moscato called the roll: Steen T Berger T oting. Aye Nay Abstain Andrew Kaminsky Voting: Aye Nay Abstain Jeffrey Richman Voting: Aye Nay Abstain Joel Simon Voting. Fie Nay Abstain Don Moscato Voting: V Aye Nay Abstain Ayes 4 Nays Abstain I 'i I i I J 3) #13-015 Rebecca & Scott Oling 2 Hillandale Road Construct an attached two-car garage addition i� i Mrs. Rebecca Oling introduced herself to the Board. Mrs. Oling noted that she requires a front-yard setback variance to facilitate the construction of an attached, one-story, two-car garage addition to their home. Mrs. Oling explained that when the front yard setback requirements of the Village Code were amended for the R- 25 District, only a small portion of the property remained developable. She noted that the buildable area is oddly shaped and much of the existing home is non- conforming. She further noted that the existing home, which is the original home 3 on the property, is very small; too small for a family of four. This is an oddly shaped lot and the proposed addition is a modest addition compared to the size of the lot and other homes in the neighborhood. Neighbors submitted letters of support, which Mrs. Oling presented to the Board, and were made part of the record. Ms. Oling averred that the addition will not have a negative impact on the character of the neighborhood, and requires the smallest possible variance in order to attain the applicants' goal. Mr. Moscato noted that this application has gone to the Planning Board, and was referred to the Zoning Board. Attorney Gray stated that the applicants were before the Planning, and the matter of the front yard variance was referred to the Zoning Board for review. If and when the variance is granted, the applicant will return to the Planning Board. Mrs. Oling represented that a stormwater management plan has been prepared. The Village's Consultant, Dolph Rotfeld, reviewed the plan, and a rain garden is part of the plan. But Mrs. Oling noted that because the variance is required for the proposed addition in any event, the applicants decided to seek the necessary variance before expending the money to have a stormwater management plan and other plans finalized and presented to the Planning Board. As soon as the applicant obtains Zoning Board Approval, the plans will be finalized and the application will be brought before the Planning Board for consideration. Attorney Gray noted that Dolph Rotfeld issued a memorandum in August 2013 regarding stormwater management on this property. There has not been an approval yet, but as noted by the applicant, the plans will be further reviewed once the applicant returns to the Planning Board. Mr. Moscato questioned whether the Planning Board would be reviewing the stormwater management plan. Attorney Gray noted that the Village Engineer and Village Consultant will review the plan, as well as the Planning Board. Ultimately, approval of the stormwater management plan is within the jurisdiction of the Village Engineer in consultation with Dolph Rotfeld's office. Zoning Board of Appeals December 3,2013 Page 13 I I Mr. Kaminsky asked if the applicant considered building up. Mrs. Oling noted that they have reviewed other plans with two to three architects and the plan before the Board is in character with the neighborhood, and requires the least number of variances. Ms. Oling believed that building up would also make the house look odd. Mr. Moscato noted that this lot fronts two streets; Loch Lane and Hillandale Road. It is an oddly shaped property, and there are wetlands on this property. Mrs. Oling noted that the house is U shaped. The patio in the rear will change. Small decks will be constructed in two locations to allow access through the back of the house where the grade is lower than in the front. The driveway will be flipped, but the curb cut will not change. The existing garage is too small to park two cars, and Mrs. Oling has damaged her car several times attempting to park inside. Mr. Kaminsky felt that the site plan was insufficient to make a decision at this time. He felt that additional information was needed before a decision could be made. Mr. Kaminsky expressed his opinion that the neighborhood is a very sensitive area, and there have been flooding issues over the years. He stated that he wanted more information, such as elevations, impervious surface measurements and a definitive stormwater management program. Mr. Richman said that he would also feel more comfortable with complete plans to review and suggested that the hearing be held over so Mrs. Oling could provide the plans fcurrently drafted. Mr. Moscato opined that on a setback variance application, full drawings and plans are not essential. If this were a gross floor area variance, they would be. Mr. Moscato inquired whether there is another means for accomplishing the applicants' goal other than a 30' x 30' garage. Mrs. Oling explained that a portion of the addition will actually be incorporated into a new master bedroom suit and will provide closets and storage space. The addition will be more than just garage space. Mr. Moscato asked for clarification on the impervious and lot coverage. This is a 31,145 square foot lot in an R-25 zone. The house's square footage is 1,925. Mrs. Oling explained that the applicants' house is dwarfed by other homes in the neighborhood and will still be smaller even with the proposed addition. Mr. Moscato noted that it is not the Zoning Board's purview to review the siding, or materials used. Approval of the front yard setback variance is what is before the Zoning Board. Mr. Moscato asked if there was another to satisfy the need of the family without granting the large variance. The applicant noted that this plan is the one chosen, and it is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. Zoning Board of Appeals December 3,2013 Page 14 i Mr. Moscato noted that the Village Engineer will approve the stormwater management plan. Mr. Berger pointed out that if the variance is approved, no C permit can be issued without an approved stormwater management plan. I It was noted that Marilyn Timpone Mohamed, Village Planning Consultant, has also reviewed the plans and noted that this is a modest addition. Mr. Moscato noted that the variance is substantial. The additional information sought does not affect the setback. Mr. Berger felt that it was not a necessity to have additional plans or elevations. Mrs. Oling noted that she was given a check list and she followed it in making this application. There are additional plans, but they were not on the check list and therefore not submitted. Mr. Moscato pointed out that this is a setback variance and this will be a small house for this area even after the proposed construction is completed. He opined that architectural issues are a matter for the Planning Board. 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. On a motion made by Steven Berger, and seconded by Jeffrey Richman, the public hearing was closed. The Board began its deliberation on the five factors. Mr. Moscato first noted that he valued the opinion of Mark Harmon, who was Chairman of the Zoning Board for many years, and who expressed support for the application. Mr. Moscato recognized that this home, with the addition, will not be "long and narrow." He asked the Board members to weigh in on the application, while reviewing the five factors, and preparing a resolution. It was felt that this addition will not create an adverse effect on the character of neighborhood based on the size of other homes and the size of the property on which the house sits. If the applicant decided to build up instead, a height ratio variance would likely be required. Stormwater management must be resolved before any permits are issued, so the variance will not have a substantial impact on the environment. Mr. Moscato noted that any change will have an impact, but the impact will be mitigated and will be deemed acceptable in the eyes of the Village Engineer. The Board noted that variance is substantial at 25.96%. The Board noted fiuther that the need for the variance is self-created. The majority of the Board felt that there was enough information to make a decision on this application, but felt a condition should be included limiting the front-yard setback variance to the addition as proposed to the Board. Attorney Gray drafted a condition, which was read into the record and included in the final resolution. Mr. Moscato asked if the applicants had a problem with the condition. They indicated they did not, whereupon Mr. Moscato read the following resolution into the record: Zoning Board of Appeals December 3,2013 jPage 15 u RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Rebecca and Scott Oling for 22.3 foot front yard setback variance from Village Code §250- 19.1.G.(1)(b)(1) in connection with the proposed construction of an attached two- car garage addition, on property located at 2 Hillandale Road, in an R-25 zoning district on the east side of Hillandale Road, at the intersection of Loc Lane and Hillendale Road. Said premises being known on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID # 135.28-1-41 and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on December 3, 2013, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; I, and WHEREAS, the proposed action is a Type II action pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act and, accordingly, no further environmental review is required; and WHEREAS, the Board from the application, after viewing the premises and neighborhood concerned, and upon considering each of the factors set forth at §250-13(G)(2)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brook Code, finds with respect to the 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 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 ISI front-yard setback variance is hereby granted, with the following condition: 1. The front yard setback variance shall apply only to the proposed construction of a one-story addition with two-car garage as currently proposed or as may be approved by the Planning Board, but the additional shall not be any larger than that shown on plans prepared by Ahneman Kirby entitled "Drainage Design and Site Plan" SP-1, dated May 23, 2013, last revised November 5, 2013. Zoning Board of Appeals December 3,2013 Page 16 c Dated: December 3, 2013 Donald Moscato, Chairman Mr. Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger voting aye Andrew Kaminsky voting nay Jeffrey Richman voting aye Joel Simon voting aye Donald Moscato voting aye The resolution passed on a vote of four ayes to one nay, none abstaining. Zoning Board of Appeals December 3,2013 Page 17 1 i �I VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK 5ECEWED ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DEC - 4 7013 ''+i RESOLUTION VILLAGE CLERK'S OFFICE WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Rebecca & Scott Oling for a 22.3 ft. front yard setback variance from Village Code §250-19.1.G.(1)(b)(1), in connection with the proposed construction of an attached two-car garage addition, on property located at 2 Hillandale Road, in an R-25 zoning district on the east side of Hillandale Road, at the intersection of Loch Lane and Hillandale Road. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID# 135.28-1- 41; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on December 3, 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 1 neighborhood concerned, and upon considering each of the factors set forth at Section 250- i, 13(G)(2)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brook Code, finds with respect to the front yard setback variance: 1) The variance [WIL /I,l WILL N�I] create an adverse impact to the character of the neighbo hood.' 2) The benefit the applicant seeks [CAN/; ANNO�]sbe achieved through another method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, that does not require a variance; 3) The varianc [IS IS NOT] substantial; 4) The variance [WILL WILL /OT] create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and 5) The need for the varia ce S NOT] self-created. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the said application for the front yard setback variance is hereby G NTED/DENIED], on the following conditions: ;-anal '1 _ Lel& ;�' i 1 Dated: December 3, 2013 Don Moscato, Chairman Chairman Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting: �'Aye Nay Abstain Absent Andrew Kaminsky Voting: ye �' 'Nay Abstain Absent Jeffrey Richman Voting: ye Nay Abstain Absent Joel Simon Voting: *e Nay Abstain Absent Don Moscato Voting: —Aye Nay Abstain Absent es Y 'I Nays Abstain Absent II 'l 9 4) Approval of the October 1,2013 Zoning Board Summary The consensus of the Board was to approve the summary of the October 1, 2013 meeting as amended. i 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 The resolution passed on a vote of five ayes to zero nays,none abstaining. 1 There being no further business before the Board, on a motion made by Mr. Simon, and seconded by Mr. Berger the meeting was adjourned at 9:12 p.m. I Mr. Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting Aye Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye Jeffrey Richman Voting Aye Joel Simon Voting Aye f Don Moscato Voting Aye I i d Zoning Board of Appeals December 3,2013 i Page 20