Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-04-03 - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK 938 King Street """'�"" - - • Zoning Board of Appealsj��JJ April 3, 2012 5 IE U �`f u �/ E Meeting at 8:00 p.m. U) LUL 17 2012 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK AGENDA BUILDING DEPARTMENT 1) #09-583 MR. THOMAS J. MCGOWAN,JR. (Adjourned from I1/1/11, 12/6/11; 1/3/12, 2/7/12, 3/6/12) 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 11/1/11, 12/6111; 217112, 316112) 558 Westchester Avenue Legalize the existing commercial office use 3) # 12-004 MR. HERMAN OTERO & MS. ROSSANA ESCOBAR-VIERA 6 Winding Wood Road Construct a 1 story rear addition &new rear patio. 4) Approval of February 7, 2012 & March 6, 2012 Zoning Board Summaries BOARD: Steve Berger 'k Andrew Kaminsky Joel Simon l Don Moscato, Chairman STAFF: Michael Izzo, Building Inspector Jennifer Gray, Esq., Village Counsel Fred Seifert, Public Access Coordinator '.i ISI Mr. Donald Moscato, Chairman, welcomed everyone to the April 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. He called the meeting to order and noted that one member's term has expired and the Village has not yet appointed a new member. As a result, there were only four members in attendance. All applicants were offered the ability to request an Zoning Board of Appeals April 3.2012 Page 1 I adjournment to the next meeting, when there may be a full complement of the Board. If the applicants decide to move forward at this meeting, Mr. Moscato noted that the PP g� Y would need three "yes" votes in order for the applications to be approved. Y PP PP Mr. Moscato introduced Village Staff and Counsel. He 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: 1) #09-583 MR. THOMAS J. MCGOWAN,JR. (Adjourned from -11111201-1, -121611-1, 1113120-12 217112, 316112) 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. He noted that the last time the Board met he was asked to submit a plan that removed a portion of the driveway. After debate, the decision was made to remove the rear end of the driveway versus the entrance. Mr. McGowan presented the Board with a rendering, and it was noted that the curbing and curbstones will remain as is. The rendering proposes a reduction of the rear end of the driveway from 32' to 25'8". Mr. Moscato noted that the Board's concern was the streetscape. The Board was looking for a way to soften to look of the opening of the driveway. Mr. McGowan noted that he offered to add landscaping to soften the visual impact of the driveway and the sheds. Mr. Moscato read conditions for approval of the driveway for the applicant's review. The applicant was comfortable with the conditions. Mr. Michael Izzo, Building Inspector, noted that a permit must be issued to begin the work. The Certificate of Occupancy must be issued when the work has been completed, depending on compliance. Once the permit is issued, the permit holder has 18 months to complete the work. The applicant will be able to wait for a planting season for the landscape work. Mr. Moscato called for members of the public wishing to speak in favor or in opposition to the application. There being no one, the public hearing was closed and the Board began deliberation. Zoning Board of Appeals April 3.2012 Page 2 i The Board noted that the landscape and streetscape issues have been addressed. I Mr. Moscato asked that each variance be taken and voted upon separately. i Mr. Moscato read the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Mr. Thomas J. McGowan, Jr. for (1) an 8.1 foot swimming pool side yard setback variance; (2) a 3.3 foot side yard setback variance for the existing front shed; (3) a 1.4 foot rear yard setback variance for the existing rear shed; and (4) a 25 foot unenclosed off-street parking front yard setback variance, in connection with the proposed legalization of an above-ground swimming pool; two sheds; and unenclosed off-street parking, on property located at 8 Wilton Road, in an R-10 zoning district on the east side of 'Wilton Road, at the intersection of Beacon Lane and Wilton Road. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID# 135.58-1-17; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on November 1, 2011, . December 6, 2011, February 7, 2012 and April 3, 2012, 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 swimming pool side 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 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 i I Zoning Board of Appeals April 3.2012 Page 3 i 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 side yard setback variance for an accessory structure: 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 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 for an accessory structure: 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 II method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, that does not require a variance; �I 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 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 unenclosed off-street(parking front yard setback variance: 1) The variance will not create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood; Zoning Board of Appeals April 3.2012 Page 4 i 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. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the said application for the swimming pool side yard setback variance is hereby granted; the said application for the side yard setback variance for an accessory structure is hereby granted; the said application for the rear yard setback variance for the an accessory structure is hereby granted; and the said application for the unenclosedoff-street parking front yard setback variance is hereby granted, on the following conditions: 1. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or Certificate of Completion, 5 ft. arborvitae ora functionally similar equivalent evergreen plant species approved by the Building Inspector in consultation with the Village Planner, shall be planted along the west elevation of the front shed to screen the view of the shed from the street; and 2. To mitigate the visual impacts of creating unenclosed off-street parking the size of the driveway shall be reduced as shown on the plan submitted to the Board on-April 3, 2012 and grass shall be planted where asphalt is proposed to be removed. Dated: April 3, 2012 Don Moscato, Chairman Mr. Moscato called the roll for the swimming pool side yard setback variance: Steven Berger Voting Aye Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye Joel Simon Voting Aye i Don Moscato Voting Aye Zoning Board of Appeals April 3.2012 Page 5 Mr. Moscato called the roll for the side yard setback variance for an accessory structure: Steven Berger Voting Aye Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye Joel Simon Voting Aye Don Moscato Voting Aye Mr. Moscato called the roll for the rear yard setback variance for an accessory structure: Steven Berger Voting Aye Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye Joel Simon Voting Aye Don Moscato Voting Aye Mr. Moscato called the roll for the unenclosed off-street parking front yard setback variance: Steven Berger Voting Aye Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye Joel Simon Voting Aye Don Moscato Voting Aye II Zoning Board of Appeals April 3.2012 Page 6 lil E( VILLAGE OF RYE BROOKAPR ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 20112 RESOLUTION tt/i}' ZIf_�) Vtk_�...!`i vim:�.> r'i L.:i��!(�}( j „�'', WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Mr. Thomas J. McGowan, Jr. for (1) an 8.1 foot swimming pool side yard setback variance; (2) a 3.3 foot side yard setback variance for the existing front shed; (3) a 1.4 foot rear yard setback variance for the existing rear shed; and (4) a 25 foot unenclosed off-street parking front yard setback variance, in connection with the proposed legalization of an above-ground swimming pool; two sheds; and unenclosed off-street parking, on property located at 8 Wilton Road, in an R-10 zoning-district on the east side of Wilton Road,at the intersection of Beacon Lane and Wilton Road. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID# 135.58-1-17; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on November 1, 2011, December 6, 2011, February 7, 2012 and April 3, 2012, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and WHEREAS, thep p Type ro osed action is a T II action pursuant to the New York State i 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 swimming pool side yard setback variance: �- 1) The variance [ I'LL/WILL NOT] create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood; 2) The benefit the applicant seeks [A'N/CANNOT] be achieved through another method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, that does not require a variance; 3) The variance,011 IS NOT] substantial; 4) The variance WKI/WILL NOT] create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and 5) The need for the variance [IS415.�T] self-created; and -1- WHEREAS, the Board, from the application, after viewing the premises and i neighborhood concerned, and upon considering each of the factors set forth at Section 250- 13(G)(2)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the R3%e Brook Code, finds with respect to the side yard setback variance for an accessory structure: 1) The variance ,[WILL/WILL NOT] create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood; 2) The benefit the applicant seeks [!�,-AN%CANNOT] be achieved through another method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, that does not require a variance; 3) The variance��S%IS KNOT] substantial; 4)' The variance [AXI-I6/WILL NOT] create any ,adverse impacts to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood;and 5) The need for the variance [IS/I�S,IC�lam"] 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 rear yard setback variance for an accessory structure: 1) The variance [WI-rL/WILL NOT] create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood; 2) The benefit the applicant seeks [AA/CANNOT] be achieved through another method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, that does not require a variance; 3) The vj rianc%,PS/IS NOT] substantial; !i 4) The variance L/WILL NOT] create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and 5) The need for the variance [IS/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 unenclosed off-street I parking front yard setback variance: 1) The variance [TIL-L/WILL NOT] create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood; -2- 2 The benefit the applicant seeks 1 /CANNOT] be achieved through another method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, that does not require a variance; 3) The variance [IS/IS t':�„�� substantial; 4) The variance I)YATI/WILL NOT] create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and 5) The need for the variance [IS/IS'w ] self-created. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the said application for the swimming pool side yard setback variance is hereby [GRANTED the said application for the side yard setback variance for an accessory structure is hereby [GRANTED/DE� 16]; the said application for the rear yard setback variance for the an accessory structure is hereby [GRr�NTED/DiD]; and the said application for the unenclosed off-street".., parking front yard setback variance is hereby [GRANTED/DIED], on the following conditions: 1. 0- � � .� 2. ; and 3. Dated: April 3, 2012 Mr. Don Moscato, Chairman I Mr. Moscato called the roll for the swimming pool side yard setback variance: Steven Berger Voting: Aye Nay Abstain ,I Ii�l red nn' ,,-Voating: le Nay Abstain V 6C O-7-;fi Andrew Kaminsky Voting: �e Nay Abstain Joel Simon Voting: �A Na Abstain J Y Don Moscato Voting: Aye Nay Abstain Ayes CP Nays Abstain i -3- i Mr. Moscato called the roll for the side yard setback variance for an accessory structure: Steven Berger Voting: V/Aye Nay Abstain 11•ice� iedta�°r Voting: ,F1'ye Nay Abstain V - '"""' � Andrew Kaminsky Voting: ye Nay Abstain Joel Simon Voting: A,ef Nay Abstain Don Moscato Voting: Aye Nay Abstain Ayes Nays Abstain Mr. Moscato called the roll for the rear yard setback variance for an accessory structure: Steven Berger. Voting: Aye Nay Abstain c I � Icicle- ret Voting: Aye Nay Abstain i�' Andrew Kaminsky Voting: Aye Nay Abstain Joel Simon Voting: e Nay Abstain Don Moscato Voting: Aye Nay Abstain Ayes a Nays Abstain i Mr. Moscato called the roll for the unenclosed off-street parking front yard setback variance: I � Steven Berger Voting: Aye Nay Abstain i lieh�i r-�dx Voting: fe Nay Abstain Andrew Kaminsky Voting: , Aye Nay Abstain Joel Simon Voting: "' fie Nay Abstain Don Moscato Voting: '✓ Aye Nay Abstain Ayes Nays Abstain -4- i I I l VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS I CONDITIONS FOR 8 WILTON ROAD (MCGOWAN): 1) Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or Certificate of Completion, 5 ft. arborvitae or a functionally equivalent evergreen plant species approved by the Building Inspector in consultation with the Village Planner, shall be planted along the west elevation of the front shed to screen the view of the shed from the street. 2) To mitigate the visual impacts of creating unenclosed off-street parking the size of the driveway shall be reduced as shown on the plan submitted to the Board on April 3, 2012 and grass shall be planted where asphalt is proposed to be removed. i II i 2) #11-640 AVENTURA REALTY CORP./STEVEN LINDER (Adjourneditom 11/1/11, 12/6/11, 217/12, 3/6112) 585 Westchester Avenue Legalize the existing commercial office use Leo NaPfor, Esq., al representative for the applicant, addressed the Board. He summarized the variances requested. He noted that there are no changes to the outside of the structure. The number of professionals has been reduced. The Board inquired as to the administrative staff occupying the structure. Jennifer li Gray, Village Counsel, noted that as part of the Board of Trustees' review of the Special Use Permit they can condition such permit on the number of non- professional employees occupying the premises: , The Board discussed the number of parking spaces, and the Village Code's requirements. Attorney Gray offered clarification that pursuant to the Village Code the number of required parking spaces is not based on occupancy, but rather the number of offices and suites of offices provided at the premises. Mr. Izzo, Building Inspector, noted that he reviewed this matter and 12 parking spaces are required pursuant to the Village Code based on the number of offices and suites of offices at theP remises. Mr. Moscato called for questions from the Board. There being none, he turned to members of the public, asking for anyone wishing to speak in favor or opposition to the application. Sarah Marshall, 547 Westchester Avenue, addressed the Board. She noted that the parking and traffic on Westchester Avenue is very heavy. She felt that adding P g rY Y g more cars and parking on this road was too much. The clients park across the street, right at the end of her driveway, which makes it difficult to get in and out of her driveway. Mr. Kaminsky noted that the applicant was not requesting parking on Westchester Avenue, but rather a reduction in the number of parking spaces required for his property. The Village has no control over who parks on Westchester Avenue, and who parks in front of a resident's home. The cars could be visitors from a neighboring home or clients from the business across the street. The Village's Planning Consultants have reviewed this application. They have j rendered their professional opinion on the sufficiency of the proposed number of parking spaces in the applicant's parking lot. It was determined that the parking was adequate to handle the needs of the applicant. The Village understands that there is a parking issue on Westchester Avenue, but it was not determined that the parking issue results from the applicant's business. Everyone has the right to park on Village Streets where parking is permitted. Zoning Board of Appeals April 3.2012 Page 11 The parking area was discussed b the Board. Mr. Kaminsky noted that some of p g Y Y the spaces are ass areas which he does not consider to be parking spaces. The � p �' P g p lot should be improved to delineate the spaces. A condition of approval of the variance regarding striped parking spaces was discussed by the Board. Mr. Moscato felt that adding this type of condition makes sense and protects the Village. He asked Attorney Gray to draft this condition. Mr. Izzo noted that since this is a commercial office, there must be ADA compliance. A designated handicapped parking spot and point of access must be created. The parking area must be improved in order to be ADA compliant. The Board asked what the process is for the applicant after a determination from the Zoning Board. Attorney Gray responded that the matter would ultimately return to the Board of Trustees for determination regarding the Special Use Permit. A public hearing will be held. The Board discussed whether the need for the variance is self-created and whether the variance is substantial. Attorney Gray noted that the application has been classified as an Unlisted action in connection with SEQRA and the Board needs to determine whether a Positive Declaration or Negative Declaration should issue based on the degree of the environmental impacts, if any. She reviewed a draft Negative Declaration with the Board. A discussion concerning the criteria for determining the degree of environmental impacts took place. The proposed Resolution includes a clause adopting the Negative Declaration. There were no additional questions or comments, and the public hearing' was closed. Mr. Moscato noted that two conditions were added to the proposed resolution. Mr. Moscato read the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Aventura Realty Corp./Steven Linder for a use variance to allow a total of six (6) professional persons to occupy the premises (which request was later reduced to five (5)professional persons and subsequently withdrawn altogether) and an off-street parking variance for five (5) off- street parking spaces, in connection with the proposed legalization of the existing commercial office use, on property located at 558 Westchester Avenue, in an R2-F zoning district on the south side of Westchester Avenue, approximately 110 feet from the intersection of Division Street and Westchester Avenue. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID# 135.83-1-44; and i Zoning Board of Appeals April 3.2012 Page 12 I i I� WHEREAS, on August 2, 2011 the Zoning Board acted on a previous application by Aventura Realty Corp./Steven Linder for the same property by granting a variance permitting parking access to be provided from Division Street, but denying a use variance to allow a total of eight (8) professionals persons to occupy the premises, and denying an area variance for five (5)parking spaces; and WHEREAS, the current application reduces the total number of proposed professional persons from eight (8) to four (4) thereby eliminating the use variance, and again requests an area variance for five (5)parking spaces; and WHEREAS, on March 26, 2012 the Applicant withdrew its request for a use variance; and WHEREAS, the proposed action is an Unlisted action undergoing an uncoordinated review pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on December 6, 2011, March 6, 2012 and April 3, 2012 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 requested parking variance: 1) The requested variance will not have an adverse impact on the character of the neighborhood; 2) The benefit sought by the Applicant cannot be achieved by another by method, feasible for the Applicant to pursue, that does not require a variance; 3) The requested variance is substantial; 4) The requested variance will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and 5) The Applicant's difficulty is not self-created; and I i I I i Zoning Board of Appeals April 3.2012 Page 13 i' NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Village of Rye Brook Zoning Board of Appeals, in accordance with Article 8 of the State Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617, and upon review of the EAF and all other application materials that were prepared for this Unlisted action undergoing an uncoordinated review, hereby adopts the attached Negative Declaration; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that said application for a parking variance is hereby granted on the following conditions: 1. No permits shall be issued until the Applicant has paid to the Village all applicable fees including professional review fees incurred in connection with this application; and 2. All parking spaces shall be striped and improved as shown on Sheet SY-001, prepared by Leonard H. Brandes, Architect, dated January 2012. Mr. Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting Aye Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye Joel Simon Voting Aye Don Moscato Voting Aye I I I I Zoning Board of Appeals April 3.2012 Page 14 Ll TE Fin) VILLAGE OF RYE BROOD � ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 1 1; IPPR - 4 2012 . RESOLUTION fiILL t . . WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Aventura Realty Corp./Steven Linder for a use variance to allow a total of six (6) professional persons to occupy the premises (which request was later reduced to five (5) professional persons and subsequently withdrawn altogether) and an off-street parking variance for five (5) off-street parking spaces, in connection with the proposed legalization of the existing commercial office use, on property located-at 558 Westchester Avenue, in an R2-F zoning district on the south side of Westchester Avenue, approximately 110 feet from the intersection of Division Street and Westchester Avenue. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID# 135.83-1-44; and I WHEREAS, on August 2, 2011 the Zoning Board acted on a previous application by Aventura Realty Corp./Steven Linder for the same property by granting a variance permitting parking access to be provided from Division Street, but denying a use variance to allow a total of eight (8) professionals persons to occupy the premises, and denying an area variance for five (5) parking spaces; and WHEREAS, the current application reduces the total number of proposed W ....4 professional persons from eight (8) to It eby rec��c''i fiYr� the use variance, and again requests an area variance for five parking spaces; and WHEREAS, on March 26, 2012 the Applicant withdrew its request for a use variance; and WHEREAS, the proposed action is an Unlisted action undergoing an uncoordinated review pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Acta�-tl��rf n p Q ty � g Boar-d.herebyadopts_.the-atxaGhed-I�leg t e-D l ratio -k�ec-apse the propb d-ac-tion i]l�ot have a-significant adrerse-impact-ori-dfe efivironment;ani' 1 -1- WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on December 6, 2011, March 6, 2012 and April 3, 2012 at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and WHEREAS, the Board, from the application, after vieving 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 requested parking variance: I 1) The requested variance 1�-I- L/WILL NOT] have an adverse impact on the character of the neighborhood; 2) The benefit sought by the Applicant [�;A-N—lCANNOT] be achieved by another by method, feasible for the Applicant to pursue, that does not require a variance; 3) The requested variance [IS/kSCST] substantial; 4) The requested variance DX1I3"f/WILL NOT] have an l adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions of 1 the neighborhood; and 5) The Applicant's difficultyX/IS NOT] self-created; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Village of Rye Brook Zoning Board of Appeals, in accordance with Article 8 of the State Environmental I Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617, and upon review of the EAF and all other a lication materials that . were prepared for this Unlisted action undergoing an PP P P g g uncoordinated review, hereby adopts the attached Negative Declaration; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that said application for a parking variance is hereby [GRANTED/DEI 4 D] on the following conditions: n 1. �� !C ��irrS �f r (( Iz (J� � I.j,;7r l ' ' j/E«�:;�� !1J✓? �,�. �t /� n + 2. t hv;i Ni 6 Sheer 0 A QU ec-f, d0(d ROWAY � a �.r '1 �3• G 1 ��� 7f.��i �I Dated: April '), 2012 Mr. Don Moscato, Chairman Mr. Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting: Aye Nay Abstain Ali'-r�r^i-ri A3i3 -Z gra Andrew Kaminsky Voting. �-'r ye Nay Abstain Joel Simon Voting: lye Nay Abstain Don Moscato Voting: Aye Nay Abstain Ayes Nays Abstain i SII i I -3- i 3) # 12-004 MR. HERMAN OTERO & MS. ROSSANA ESCOBAR-VIERA 6 Winding Wood Road Construct a 1 story rear addition&new rear patio. Tim Wetmore, architect for the applicants, addressed the Board. He noted that the applicants required a gross floor area variance of approximately 80 square feet above what is permitted by the Village Code. He gave a brief history of the development of the project and noted the house is a modem design. The area above the garage is the area of the proposed construction. The applicants are looking to add livable space to the home. The design is symmetrical. In addition, the patio area has been centralized, and moved further away from the neighbors' home. The applicants feel that this is a non-substantial variance. The proposed space will be a multipurpose area. The plan is an improvement, and will not affect the character of the home or the neighborhood. The requested variance is the smallest possible variance required in order to meet the applicants' needs. A much more generous space was considered, and then the application was reduced to what is now before the 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, the public hearing was closed and the Board began deliberation. Mr. Moscato read the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Mr. Herman Otero & Ms. Rossana Escobar-Viera for a gross floor area variance of 79 square feet, in connection with the proposed construction of a 1-story rear addition and rear patio, on property located at 6 Winding Wood Road, in an R=15 zoning district on the south side of Winding Wood Road, at the intersection of Winding Wood Road and Old Orchard Road. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID# 129.89-1-12; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on April 3, 2012, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and W$EREAS 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 Zoning Board of Appeals April 3.2012 Page 17 i it 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(6)(2)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brook Code, finds with respect to the gross floor area variance: 1) The variance will not create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood; 2) The benefit the applicant seeks cannot be 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 gross floor area variance is hereby granted. Mr. Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting Aye Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye l Joel Simon Voting Aye Don Moscato Voting Aye i I i Zoning Board of Appeals April 3.2012 Page 18 I VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK #`' s'` APR — 4 2012 ±;f �1 `} ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS E, RESOLUTION Vj L 17 M.t-. '., i��lE) .� I WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Mr. Herman Otero & Ms. Rossana Escobar-Viera for a gross floor area variance of 79 square feet, in connection with the proposed construction of a 1-story rear addition and rear patio, on property located at 6 Winding Wood Road, in an R-15 zoning district on the south side of Winding Wood Road, at the intersection of Winding Wood Road and Old Orchard Road. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID# 129.89-1-12; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on April 3, 2012, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and i WHEREAS, the proposed action is a Type II action pursuant to the New York State i Environmental Quality Review Act and accordingly, no further environmental review is required; and WHEREAS, the Board, from the application, after viewing the premises and neighborhood concerned, and upon considering each of the factors set forth at Section 250- ' 13(G)(2)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brook Code, finds with respect to the gross floor area variance: 1) The variance WLLL/WILL NOT] create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood; 2) The benefit the applicant seeks [jA-N/CANNOT] be 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/WILL NOT] create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and 5) The need for the variance [IS/IIS OT] self-created; and i I f NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the said application for the gross floor area variance is hereby [GRANTED/DENIED], on the following conditions: 2. ; and 3. . .,�- Dated: April 3, 2012 t- Mr. Don Moscato, Chairman Mr. Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting: Aye Nay Abstain p Andrew Kaminsky Voting: dye Nay Abstain Joel Simon Voting: 'Aye Nay Abstain Don Moscato Voting: Aye Nay Abstain Ayes Nays Abstain i i I I I I i �I i Mr. Moscato called for the final item on the agenda: 3) A�proval of February 7, 2012 and March 6, 2012 Zoning Board Summary Minor amendments were distributed to the Board members. Mr. Moscato called the roll for the February 7, 2012 Zoning Board Summary, as amended: Steven Berger Voting Aye Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye Joel Simon Voting Aye Don Moscato Voting Aye Mr. Moscato called the roll for the March 6, 2012 Zoning Board Summary, as amended: Steven Berger Voting Aye Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye Joel Simon Voting Aye Don Moscato Voting Aye The summaries were adopted as amended. Mr. Moscato thanked Ms. Michele Fredman for her years of service, and noted that the Board would welcome a new member in May. jThere being no further business before to the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. i �I I i Zoning Board of Appeals April 3.2012 Page 20