Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-02-07 - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Agenda VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK °VIN4 938 King Street DATE f Zoning Board of Appeals •w February 7, 2012 -�- -- Meeting at 8:00 p.m. ' MAY 2012 AGENDA VILLAGE 60 RYE BROOK 1) #09-583 MR. THOMAS J. MCGOWAN, JR. IBUILDING DEPARTMENT Adjourned from 11/1/2011 8 Wilton Road Legalize the above-ground swimming pool; legalize two sheds and legalize the newly created unenclosed off-street parking 2) #11-640 AVENTURA REALTY CORP./STEVEN LINDER Adjourned from 111112011 558 Westchester Avenue Legalize the existing commercial office use 3) Approval of December 6, 2011 Zoning Board Summary BOARD: Steve Berger Michele Fredman Andrew Kaminsky Joel Simon Don Moscato, Chairman STAFF: Michael Izzo, Building Inspector Jennifer Gray, Esq., Village Counsel Fred Seifert, Public Access Coordinator Paula Patafio, Meeting Secretary Mr. Donald Moscato, Chairman, welcomed everyone to the February 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. He called the meeting to order and introduced Village Staff and Counsel. Mr. Moscato asked that individuals who 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 February 7,2012 Page 1 1) #09-583 MR. THOMAS J. MCGOWAN, JR. (Adjourned from 1 11112 0 1 1) 8 Wilton Road Legalize the above-ground swimming pool; legalize two sheds and legalize the newly created unenclosed off-street parking Mr. Thomas McGowan, the applicant, addressed the Board. He noted that he was before the Board to legalize the pool, two sheds and off-street parking. Mr. Moscato asked if there was any new information that came from the discussion at the last meeting. Mr. McGowan presented the Board with a handout which depicted a scaled down version of the driveway. He pointed out that a portion of the driveway will be cut out, the cobble stone will be moved, and the area will be replanted. This will reduce the amount of impervious surface on the property, while lessening the size and visual impact of the driveway. Mr. Michael Izzo, Building Inspector, referred to the original drawing submitted in November from John Annuziata, a licensed P.E. He noted that the layout is dimensioned on the drawing which indicates the widths at intervals as you go up and down the driveway. These measurements appear on the handout from Mr. McGowan. He noted that the applicant has stated that he will remove approximately 6.3 feet of driveway. The Building Inspector noted there is sufficient information regarding measurements on the handout to enable him to issue a building permit. Mr. Moscato noted that the objective was to soften the view of the driveway from the street. Removing a portion of the driveway and adding landscaping would accomplish that, however, he felt that the opening of the driveway should be minimized. Mr. Kaminsky felt that the applicant was making a good faith effort, and there was a cost attached to this change. He suggested putting shrubbery in front of the sheds to screen the view from the street. He noted that the applicant has agreed to add trees in the rear of the property. Mr. Moscato asked for a review of the drainage system on the property. Mr. Izzo stated that Mr. McGowan and Mr. Victor Carosi, the then Village Engineer, worked together to capture the runoff from the property. Everything that runs off the McGowan property runs into the storm drain. The driveway is pitched in a way that the runoff from the driveway runs into the same system. There is virtually no runoff coming from this property. In addition, Mr. McGowan has agreed to add a small trench drain near the patio in the rear of the property. Zoning Board of Appeals February 7,2412 Page 2 Mr. Moscato noted that the only problem he had with the application was aesthetics. He was hoping to soften the view from the street. The widest point of the driveway should be at the back. He suggested that the applicant consider reducing the width of the driveway at the opening. Mr. Moscato questioned how the conditions could be worded regarding the driveway reduction and landscape screening. Mr. Izzo noted that as he is not a landscape architect, and the landscape plan needs to be specific. Mr. Simon felt that noting that an evergreen species covering 65%o of the shed would be sufficient for a condition for the shed in the front yard. Mr. Moscato noted that the Board seems to be inclined to grant parts of the application. Mr. Simon questioned the legality of the curb cut. He noted that if this is an illegal curb cut, then that needs to be corrected. Attorney Gray noted that there is no evidence that shows that the curb cut is illegal. Mr. Kaminsky questioned whether or not Mr. McGowan received permission to widen the curb cut. Mr. Izzo noted that there was a photo of the property prior to work being done, however, it does not clearly show the size of the curb cut. Attorney Gray noted that in absence of proof of an illegal curb cut, it is to be considered a legal curb cut. Ms. Michele Fredman asked the size of a normal parking spot. Mr. Izzo noted that a parking space is generally 8' wide and 21' long. Mr. McGowan noted that he reviewed other driveways in the neighborhood. Ms. Fredman suggested that the area in the front of the driveway could be reduced while still fitting three cars in a line in the back of the driveway. Mr. McGowan noted that you need to leave room to open the car doors and Ms. Fredman pointed out that the front of the driveway is for ingress and egress, not parking, so opening doors is not important. . Mr. Izzo questioned the width of the driveway at the curb cut. Mr. McGowan stated that he believed that the width was 22'. Mr. Izzo stated that a single driveway at the curb cut is between 10' and 16'. Mr. McGowan noted that he viewed several driveways in his neighborhood and found them to be similar in size to his. Attorney Gray noted that the characteristics of the existing neighborhood are taken into account when the Zoning Board makes decisions regarding the granting of variances. Mr. Moscato suggested a site visit. He called for the consensus of the Board as to the action to be taken. Mr. Simon felt that removing the Belgium Blocks which run along the property line carried with it a cost factor. Zoning Board of Appeals February 7,2012 Page 3 Mr. Moscato noted that the only structural work that needs to be done is in the driveway. The purpose is not to keep cars parked at the curb cut, because that would be creating illegal parking. The mouth of the driveway is used for ingress and egress. If the driveway was narrowed at that point, and shrubbery was planted it will lessen the impact of the driveway. The Board suggested an adjournment to allow time for a site visit, and to allow the applicant the time needed to review the ideas discussed during the meeting. Attorney Gray stated that any revised plans should be submitted at least one week before the meeting. The plans should include landscaping. The applicant requested an adjournment and, with the consensus of the Board, and on a motion made by Ms. Fredman, and seconded by Mr. Kaminsky, the adjournment was granted to the March 6, 2012 meeting of the Zoning Board. 3) #11-640 AVENTURA REALTY CORP./STEVEN LINDER 558 Westchester Avenue Legalize the existing commercial office use Mr. Moscato noted the Board received a request to adjourn Attorney Gray noted that the she has been in contact with the applicant's attorney and they have been working to prepare a supplemental application package.. She has been told by the applicant's attorney that parking study has been completed, a revised plan has been submitted for the Building Inspector's review, and the financial information is being compiled. The applicant is preparing to submit the supplemental material well in advance of the March meeting. The Village's planning consultant will be reviewing the parking study, and it is anticipated that the Board will have a complete package before them for the March meeting. Although adjournments are at the discretion of the Board, the applicant's attorney has been diligently working on preparing a complete package for the Board. Mr. Kaminsky noted that there have been previous adjournments and he had understood that no additional adjournments would be granted.. Mr. Moscato noted that he did not want to waste the Board's time in hearing the application unless they had the information before hand for review. The Board was looking for a written assessment from F.P. Clark regarding the parking study Zoning Board of Appeals February 7,2012 Page 4 review, which they would have by the March meeting. He felt that the adjournment was warranted. Mr. Steve Berger felt that the applicant is working and communicating with the Village. However, if they do not appear before the Board in March, then the Board would need to discuss the granting of any additional adjournments. Mr. lzzo stated that the information could be sent to the Board as it is received, versus waiting for.the package to be-complete. Attorney Gray noted that the Board may request additional information after reviewing the supplemental information. When the Board receives the packets and if they feel they need additional time for review, then the application can be adjourned. This is at the discretion of the Board. On a motion made by Mr. Simon, and seconded by Mr. Berger, the requested adjournment to the March 6, 2012 Zoning Board meeting was approved on a vote of four ayes and one nay (Andrew Kaminsky). Mr. Moscato called for the final item on the agenda: 3) Approval of December 6, 2011 Zoning Board Summary It was noted that Attorney Gray has submitted changes to the summary. The Board approved the final version of the summary, as amended by Attorney Gray. Mr. Moscato noted that there was a change in the law that resulted in the requirement of placing draft minutes and application materials on the website. Attorney Gray noted that certain information must be posted on the website prior to the meetings. This information includes anything that is obtainable through the Freedom of Information Law as well as proposed resolutions. The website now has an additional column that will include the proposed resolutions, and information submitted by the applicant in digital format. The key to what is posted is that the requirement states, "...as far as practical." All agenda items will be posted. if the minutes are on the agenda to be approved, then the ininutes are to be posted on the website. Once the minutes are approved, then the approved version replaces the draft. Mr. Fred Seifert, Public Access Coordinator, who was taping the meeting called Mr. Moscato to note that the approved minutes, and all Zoning Board of Appeals February 7,2012 Page 5 other information, are posted in PDF format. Residents are able to access this information indefinitely. There being no further business before the Board, Mr. Berger made a motion to adjourn, which was seconded by Mr. Simon. The meeting was adjourned at 9:07 p.m. Zoning Board of Appeals February 7,2012 Page 6