The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2012-06-05 - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK 938 King Street Zoning Board of Appeals June 5, 2012 D Meeting at 8:00 p.m. �J OCT - 4 2012 AGENDA VrLLAGE OF RYE K BROO 8UILDING DEP E BROOK 1) #12-006 Mr. Joseph Decicco NT 27 Westview Avenue Legalize the conversion from a one-family dwelling to a two-family dwelling, legalize the rear one-story addition, legalize the rear deck and rear paver patio. Additional construction if proposed for a rear second-story landing and steps to grade, and reconfigure paving to facilitate additional off-street parking. 2) #12-009 Mr. Bryan Salvatore 9 Edgewood Drive Construct rear one-story addition; second story addition, and new roofed front and rear porches 3) #12-008 Mr. & Mrs. Michael Spencer 2 Eagles Bluff Construct a second-story rear addition 4) #12-007 Guiliano Del Peschio 67 Valley Terrace Legalize the in-ground pool and pool patio 5) #11-645 Cerebral Palsy of Westchester 1186 King Street Zoning variance timetable extension request, Village Code § 250- 13.H. 6) Approval of April 3, 2012 Zoning Board Summary Zoning PP Board of Appeals Page 1 June 5,2012 BOARD: Steve Berger l Andrew Kaminsky Jeffrey Richman Joel Simon Don Moscato, Chairman STAFF: Michael Izzo, Building Inspector Jennifer Gray, Esq., Village Counsel Fred Seifert, Public Access Coordinator Paula Patafio, Meeting Secretary Board of Trustee Liaison: David Heiser Mr. Doii�ld Moscato, Chairman, welcomed everyone to the June 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. He called the meeting to order and introduced Village Staff and Counsel:. Mr. Moscato asked that individuals addressing the Board speak at the podium, state their names, application, position, and nature of the variance. He called for the first item on the agenda: 1) #12-006 Mr. Joseph Decicco 27 Westview Avenue Legalize the conversion from a orie=family dwelling to a two-family dwelling, legalize the rear one-story addition, legalize the rear deck and rear paver patio. Additional construction if proposed for a rear second-story landing and steps to grade, and reconfigure paving to facilitate additional off-street parking. Anthony Gioffre, Esq., from the firm of Cuddy. & Feder, addressed the Board as legal counsel for the applicant. He noted that the applicant was seeking a single variance for lot coverage for a deck. This home is in an R2F zoning district. The applicant is looking to legalize prior construction. The building permit application includes the legalization of the conversion from a one-family dwelling to a two- fa4nily dwelling, the rear one story addition, and the rear deck and rear paver patio. Additional construction is proposed for a rear 2nd story addition above the existing house, a second story addition above the existing garage, a new rear two-story landing and steps to grade, and reconfigure paving to facilitate additional off-street parking. The Rye Ridge Shopping Center is directly behind the applicant's property and the property slopes upward. There is an existing and mature 'I vegetative buffer. The applicant has submitted supporting letters for their Zoning Board of Appeals P2 age June 5,2012 i 7 i 7 I application from the residents of 29 and 12 Westview (the adjacent neighbor and the neighbor directly across the street). AttorneyGioffre noted that removing a portion of the deck would create a g k financial hardship for the applicant. The applicant seeks to legalize the existing deck coverage which is 3.6% of the lot where the maximum allowable lot coverage for any deck is 3.5%. Mr. Andrew Kaminsky asked how the non conformity was discovered. The applicant, Mr. Joseph Decicco, noted that he hired a contractor who said that he would apply for all permits. The deck was constructed three years ago. Now, with the new application, it was found that there was no Certificate of Occupancy for the deck. Mr. Michael Izzo, Building Inspector, noted that the deck will be inspected once the permit is issued. Mr. Moscato noted that this is a deminimus request. There is no way to bring the deck into conformity without removing a portion of the deck. Mr. Decicco, noted there was an additional portion of the deck in the rear and it was removed when tke violation was issued. Attorney Gioffre noted that the applicant has met with Mr. Izzo several times. Mr. Joel Simon noted there was other work done on the house that needed to be legalized, however, the only thing before the Zoning Board is the deck. The deck is 16' x 18'. This is not an extremely large deck. Mr. Izzo noted that the other work is Code compliant. 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. I On a motion made by Mr. Steven Berger, and.seconded by Mr. Joel Simon, the ,I public portion of the hearing was closed and the Board began deliberation. Mr. Moscato noted that the question he had regarding the application has been addressed and that is whether the applicant can do anything to reduce the size of I the variance. Mr. Moscato read the following resolution: RESOLUTION Zoning Board of Appeals Page 3 June 5,2012 f , i A it WHEREAS, application has been to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Mr. Joseph 1 Decicco.for a 0.1% lot coverage variance for a deck; in connection with the proposed legalization of the conversation variance from a one_family dwelling to a two-family dwelling;'.legalize the rear one-story addition, legalize the rear deck and rear paver patio. Additional construction is proposed for a rear second=sto addition above the existing p P rY g home, a.-second-story addition above the existing garage, a new rear two-story landing and steps to grade, and reconfigured paving to facilitate additional off-street parking on property'located at 27 Westview Avenue, in an R-2F zoning district on the east side of Westview Avenue, approximately 360 feet from the intersection of Westview Avenue and Dixon Street. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village'&Rye Brook as Parcel ID # 141.35-2-3; and 1�43EREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on June 5, 2012, at which time all' se 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 1H EREAS, 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 lot coverage variance for a deck: 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. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the said application for the lot coverage variance for a deck is hereby granted. Dated: rune 5, 2012 Donald Moscato, Chairman Mr. Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting Aye Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye Jeffrey Richman Voting Aye Zoning Board of Appeals Page 4 June 5,2012 1 p 1 Joel Simon Voting Aye Don Moscato Voting Aye 3 s Resolution adopted with five aye votes, 0 nays. i i i l I i Zoning Board of Appeals Page 5 June 5,2012 I r ff 1 l� FD� E VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK --' ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 4 RESOLUTION u '. WHEREAS, application has .been made to the Zoning Board by Mr. Joseph Decicco for a 0.1% lot coverage variance for a deck, in connection with the proposed legalization of the conversion from a one family dwelling to a two family dwelling legalize the rear one story addition, legalize the rear deck and rear paver patio. Additional construction is proposed for a rear 2nd story addition above the existing house, a 2111 story addition above the existing garage, a new rear 2 story landing & steps to grade, and reconfigured paving to facilitate additional off-street parking on property located at 27 Westview Avenue, in an R2-F zoning district on the east side of Westview Avenue, approximately 360 feet from the intersection of Westview Avenue and Dixon Street. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID# 141,35-2-3;and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on June 5, 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 lot coverage variance for a deck: 1)The variance [W-I-L-L/WILL NOT] create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood; 2) The benefit the applicant seeks [C--A-N/CANNOT] be achieved through another method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, that does not require a variance; 3) The variance.-S/IS NOT] substantial; 4}The variance [ /WILL NOT] create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood;and i I 5) The need for the variance RS/TSNIn l] self-created. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the said application for the lot 'I coverage variance for a deck is hereby [GRANTEDJ4;��lEB;-an-th@-€a•log iu&. nnrlitinnG• 2. - and 3. Dated: June 5,2012 �f � �✓� ,�' Mr. Don Moscato,Chairman Mr.Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting: .��ye Nay Abstain Andrew Kaminsky Voting: " Aye Nay T Abstain Jeffrey Richman Voting: Aye Nay Abstain Joel Simon Voting. e Nay Abstain Don Moscato Voting i/Aye Nay Abstain Ayes Nays _Abstain a 1 I 2) #12-009 Mr. Bryan Salvatore 11 9 Edgewood Drive Construct rear one-story addition; second story addition, and new roofed front and rearp orches I� Mr. Mark Mustacato, architect, addressed the Board. Mr. Moscato noted that two (2) of the Board members reside within the notification area. Per the Ethics Code, both members offered to recuse themselves. Mr. Kaminsky noted that the Salvatores are their neighbors. Mr. Mustacato stated that it was not necessary to recuse unless the Board member fe1:t that they would benefit from the application or that they could not review the matter unbiased. Mr. Kaminsky and Mr. Moscato noted that they can be objective in reviewing the application. Mustacato noted that the renovation of the existing house requires two variances. A front yard setback variance of 30:03 feet and a front yard impervious surface coverage variance of 4.9%. Mr. Mustacato reviewed the process for calculating a front yard setback in the R-15 District. He noted that granting these variances would not cause a negative impact on the neighborhood. The impervious surface coverage was over the allowed by 4.9% because of the front porch and stairway construction. Mr. Moscato noted that the front yard setback variance is due to the fact that this property became non-conforming when Rye Brook changed its Code. Mr. Berger noted that the driveway will be ripped up and repav ed. He asked if the dt=ivewaY could be reduced in size. Mr. Mustacato stated that when the work on the driveway is being done the applicant could address making the driveway smaller. The driveway is approximately 15 wide at the street end. A portion of the driveway is gravel, and gravel is an impervious surface. After discussion, the variance request was decreased to a 4.1% variance by a. reduction in the size of the driveway. It was noted that the driveway is being replaced with flexi-pave. This will help to mitigate the impact of additional impervious surface. A bed of crush stones goes underneath the flexi-pave and the crashed stone is about 12" deep. Mr. Simon inquired about stormwater runoff. He noted that there have been instances of flooding in this area. Mr. Kaminsky noted that this side of the street does not flood. A detention basin was constructed in this area to mitigate the s'iormwater runoff. Mr. Mustacato noted that a drywell system will be constructed Zoning Board of Appeals Page 8 June 5,2012 on this property. The applicant is installing a series of drywells (8 in total) in the front of the home and the result will be no new runoff. Mr. Moscato felt that the granting of the variance should be conditioned on the front portico only being used as a portico. Jennifer Gray, Esq., Village Counsel, crafted a resolution with conditions. The intent of the conditions was to ensure that the front porch shall remain unenclosed. 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. Steven Berger, and seconded by Mr. Andrew Kaminsky, the public portion of the hearing was closed and the Board began deliberation. Mr. Moscato reviewed the five points used for approval of a variance. The required front yard setback is 118.03 feet. The proposed construction will result in a 'front yard setback of 88 feet. Therefore a front yard setback variance of 30.03 feet is required. The Board felt the variance is self-created, but the variance would riot impact the character of the neighborhood, would not have an adverse environmental impact and would not be substantial. Tie maximum allowable front yard impervious coverage is 20%. The proposed construction will result in a front yard impervious coverage of 24.9%. The aplicant agreed to changes which reduced the amount of impervious coverage. Tie Board felt that the reduction of impervious surface was well done. The Board felt there would be no adverse environmental impact and would not be a detriment to the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Moscato read the following resolution: I RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Mr. Bryan Salvatore for (1) a front yard setback variance of 30.03 feet; and (2) a front yard impervi'&s surface coverage variance of 4.9%, which was thereafter reduced to 4.1%, in connection with the proposed rear one-story addition; second story addition, and new roofed front and rear porches, on property located at 9 Edgewood Drive, in an R-25 zoning district on the south side of Edgewood Drive, approximately 520 feet from the jZoning Board of Appeals Page 9 j June 5,2012 intersection of Edgewood Drive and Beechwood Circle. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID #: 135.28-1-20; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on June 5, 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(Cr)(2)(a)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brook Code, finds with respect to front yard setback variance. 1`. The variance will not create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood; 2. The benefit the applicant seeks cannot be achieved through another method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, that does not require a variance; 3'. The variance is substantial; 4. The variance will not create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and 5.. The need for the variance is self-created. 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 front yard impervious surface coverage variance: 1) The variance will not create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood; 2) The benefit the applicant seeks cannot be achieved through another method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, that does not require a variance; 3) The variance is 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 front yard setback variance is hereby granted and said application .for the front yard impervious surface coverage variance is hereby granted; on the following condition: Zoning Board of Appeals Page 10 June 5,2012 I l) The front porch shall remain unenclosed. r I'. Dated: -June 5, 2012 Donald Moscato, Chairman Mr. Moscato called the roll for the front yard setback variance: Steven Berger Voting Aye Andrew.Kaminsky Voting Aye Jeffrey Richman Voting Aye Joel Sim n Voting Aye Don Moscato Voting Aye Mr. Moscato called the roll for the front yard impervious surface coverage variance: Steven Berger Voting Aye Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye Jeffrey Mchman Voting Aye Joel Simon Voting Aye Don Moscato Voting Aye Resolutions adopted with five aye votes, 0 nays. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 11 j June 5,2012 I I VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 12 JUN U 20 RESOLUTION 4 CE /"'V&*) k VOW ckv ;-r/40k vel-,nZ6j 713 17" V(�LAGE G1�E�� S UFF � WHEREAS -application has been made t the Zoning WH ' o g Board by I&, Bryan Salvatore for (1) a front yard setbac variance of 3Mr3et; and (2) a front yard impervious surface coverage variance of 4�%;in connection with the proposed rear 1 story addition; 2°3 story addition & new roofed front and rear porches, on property located at 9 Edgewood Drive, in an R-A5 zoning district on the south side of Edgewood Drive, approximately 520 feet from the intersection of Edgewood Drive and Beechwood Circle. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID# 135.28-1- 20;and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on June 5, 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 Fork 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 F L/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/N� substantial; 4) The variance [WJL-t'/WILL NOT] create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and 5) The need for the variance [IS/18-N- IIT] self-created;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- 13(G)(2)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brook Code, finds with respect to the front yard impervious surface coverage variance: The variance rPe/WILL NOT] create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood; 2) The benefit the applicant seeks [C1/CANNOT] be achieved through another method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, that does not require a variance; The variance .[QS'/IS�NOT] substantial; The variance [WILL/WILL NOT] create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood;and } The need for the variance [IS/I6T] self-created. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the said application for the front yard setback variance is hereby [GRANTEDYf��Tff)] and said application for the front yard impervious surface coverage variance is hereby [GRANTED on the following conditions: 1. 2. ; and 3. Dated: June 5,2012 Mr.Don Moscato, Chairman Mr. Moscato called the roll for the front yard setback variance: Steven Berger Voting: 'Ave Nay Abstain Andrew Kaminsky Voting:�ye Nay Abstain Jeffrey Richman Voting: Aye Nay Abstain Joel Simon Voting. i-/ e Nay Abstain Don Moscato Voting. Aye Nay Abstain Ayes G Nays _Abstain -2- Mr. Moscato called the roll for the front yard impervious surface coverage variance: 1 Steven Berger Voting:_ Aye Nay Abstain Andrew Kaminsky Voting: ✓�ye Nay—Abstain Jeffrey Richman Voting: Ay _Nay Abstain Joel Simon Votinge Nay Abstain Don Moscato Voting. Aye Nap Abstain J byes �J Nays Abstain I i f 3) #12-008 Mr. & Mrs. Michael Spencer ' 2 Eagles Bluff Construct a second-story rear addition Mr. Paul 13ialowas, Architect, addressed the Board on behalf of the applicant. He noted that Mrs. `Spencer was in attendance. The applicant has applied for a 760 square foot gross floor area variance for proposed construction of a second story rear addition. The living room ceiling is a high, cathedral ceiling. By enclosing this area, additional living space will be added. The applicants have two pre-teen daughters, and anticipate elderly family iiibmbers living with them. It was noted that the existing house is non- conform . The proposed addition of approximately 318 square feet will not be visible from the front of the home. There will be no effect on the character of the neighborhood. The screening on the side of the home near the addition includes heavy vegetation. The homes iii, this area are raised ranches. The proposed additional will not increase the footprint of the house. Mrs. Sp-diicer noted that her neighbors were contacted via mail, and the ones that she knows sle contacted in person, and everyone was very supportive. Mr. Moscato called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in support or opposition to the application. Mr. Robert Promisel, 10 Meadowlark Road, noted that this home is consistent with the size and'charter of the homes in this area. There being no other comments, Mr. Moscato called for ,a motion to close the public I hearing. On a motion made by Mr. Steven Berger, and seconded by Mr. Joel Simon, the public portion."af the hearing was closed and the Board began deliberation. Mr. Moscato noted that his concern was with visual impact,but the addition will be in the rear so there will be minimal visual impact. Mr. Kaminsky noted that the topography also minimizes any visual impact. At the request of Mr. Moscato, Mr. Michael Izzo addressed the history of any prior additions"on the property. Mr. Izzo noted that in September of 2005 a permit was issued for a two story addition in the rear of the home of approximately 620 square feet. The addition was constructed according to the plans. However, the square footage calculations submitted for the 2005 permit indicated the home consisted of 3,135 square feet whi6h is conforming. Now, the home is 3,664 square feet which is nonconforming. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 13 June 5,2012 i Mr. Izzo`6"hecked the calculations in the files and there is no readily available explanation for this'&§crepancy. Mr. Bialo;cuas stated that he provided full calculations by re-measuring and ignored the previous architect's work. Mr. Maseato asked if this was the minimum variance that the applicant could request. pp Mr. Bialowas noted that the design makes sense from a construction point of view. The addition'could have been made larger, but this is smaller design is the best solution from a design j�ers ective. p The maximum allowable gross floor area is 3,222 square feet. The applicants' existing non-conforming gross floor area is 3,664 square feet. The proposed addition will result in a gross floor area of 3,982 square feet. A gross floor area variance of 760 square feet is being requested. Mr. Moscato read the following resolution: RESOLUTION i "EREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Mr. and Mrs. M16hael Spencer for a gross floor area variance of 760 square feet, in connection with the proposed second story addition, on property located at 2 Eagles Bluff, in,an R-15 zoning `district on the west side of Eagles Bluff, approximately 70 feet from the : � g � PP Y intersection of Meadlowlark Road and Eagles Bluff. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID #: 135.27-1-53; and WIREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on June 5,'2012, at which time all"those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and WHEREAS, the proposed action is a Type 11 action pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act and accordingly, no further environmental 1 review is required; and "EREAS, the Board, from the application, after viewing the premises and neighbAood concerned, and upon considering each of the factors set forth at Section 250-13(Cr)(2)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brook Code, finds with respect to front yard setback variance: 1: The variance will not create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood; Zoning Board of Appeals Page 14 June 5,2012 i 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; I. 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. T46WTHEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the said application for the > PP gross floor area variance is hereby granted, Dated: -Thne 5, 2012 Donald Moscato, Chairman Mr. Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting Aye Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye Jeffrey R c' hman Voting Aye Joel Simon Voting Aye Don Moscato Voting Aye i i 1 Zoning Board of Appeals Page 15 j June 5,2012 I� TILLAGE OF RYE BROOK I I n 6 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Ls-{ ]R]E.SOI. TION 14 IS WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Mr. and Mrs. Michael Spencer for a gross floor area variance of 760 square feet, in connection with the proposed 2nd story rear addition, on property located at 2 Eagles Bluff, in an R-15 zoning district on the west side of Eagles Bluff, approximately 70 feet from the intersection of Meadowlark Road and Eagles Bluff. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID# 135.27-1-53;and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on June 5, 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 gross floor area variance: 1)The variance. P43I�WILL NOT] create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood; 2) The benefit the applicant seeks [C,�T/CANNOT] be achieved through another method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, that does not require a variance; 3) The variance [IS/I� 61^] 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/1.S-� self-created. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the said application for the gross floor area variance is hereby [GIRANTED3], oni�feltng-eeads— i j �• 2. ; and 3. Dated: June 5,2012 Mr. Don Moscato, Chairman Mr. Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting: ye Nay Abstain Andrew Kaminsky Voting: Aye Nay Abstain Jeffrey Richman Voting. Aye—Nay_ Abstain Joel Simon Voting.. e Nay Abstain Don Moscato Voting:.I� Aye Nay Abstain Ayes Nays Abstain I I I 4) # 2-007 Guiliano Del Peschio 67 Valley Terrace Legalize the in-ground pool and pool patio Jolie Scarlato, Jr., architect, addressed the Board on behalf of the applicant. He noted that the applicant was looking to legalize a swimming pool and patio. A building permit was pulled in 1973 at the time of construction, however, it was discovered that the building permit is still open. The Board reviewed the photos o� the in-ground pool and patio. The patio around the pool is masonry. The applicants purchased the home 15 years ago and at that time there were no open issues. The rear yard is fenced in and no one can see the rear yard from the front of the home. 4 . Moscato noted that when the pool was built the setback was 10' and the req-uirement was subsequently changed to 15'. When constructed, the pool was conforming to the Code. If a Certificate of Occupancy was granted at the time the application was made, there would not have been any issues. The applicants need a 1.2' variance, and it would be a hardship to ask the applicants to move the pool. I Nor. Scarlato noted that there is a grass strip that runs along the side of the pool. The deck is behind the house and then there is a concrete deck around the pool. There has been no flooding, stormwater runoff or complaints from the neighbors. Mr. Del Peschio noted that he has never had any water in his basement or garage, nor have any of his neighbors. This is a level lot. N1r. Moscato called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in support or opposition to the application. There being no one, and no comments from the Board, Mr. Moscato called for a motion to close the public hearing. I Ori a motion made by Mr. Steven Berger, and seconded by Mr. Joel Simon, the public portion of the hearing was closed and the Board began deliberation. Nin Moscato reviewed the five factors used by the Zoning Board in making determinations on applications. Mr. Kaminsky asked if there was a way to place a condition on the variance that if the deck is ever renovated it must be made smaller. Jennifer Gray, Esq., Village Counsel, was asked to craft a resolution with d6iiditions. Ntr. Moscato read the following resolution: I Zoning Board of Appeals Page 17 June 5,2012 i I i RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the. Zoning Board of Appeals by Mr. and`Mrs. Giuliano Del Peschio for 1) a swimming pool setback variance of 1.2 feet; and 2) a total impervious surface coverage variance of 348 square feet, in connection with the, proposed legalization of the in-ground swimming pool and pool patio, on property located at 67 Valley Terrace, in an R-7 zoning District on the east side of Valley Terrace, approximately 475 feet from the intersection of Argyle Road and Valley Terrace. 'Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye i Brook as Parcel ID #: 135.51-1-67; and VMEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on June 5, 2012, at which time all i ose wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and *)4EREAS, 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(f r)(2)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brook Code, finds with respect to the swimming pool 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; I 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 not self-created. )REREAS, the Board, from the application, after viewing the premises and neighbo'r'hood 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 total impervious surface-coverage variance: L The variance will not create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood; I Zoning Board of Appeals Page 18 June 5,2012 1 I 2-. The benefit the applicant seeks cannot be achieved through another method, 1 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 not self-created. NbW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the said application for the swimming pool setback variance is hereby granted, and said application for the total impervious surface coverage variance is hereby granted, on the following conditions: 1) The impervious surface coverage variance shall be limited to the existing deck and patio. In the event that the deck or patio is replaced in the future, the owner must return to the Zoning Board of Appeals for an additional variance. Dated: -`une 5, 2012 Donald Moscato, Chairman Mr. Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting Aye Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye Jeffrey Richman Voting Aye Joel Simon Voting Aye Don Mas'cato Voting Aye The variances were approved by a vote of 5 ayes to 0 nays. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 19 June 5,2012 1 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK i' 1";: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Mr. Giuliano Del Peschio for (1) a swimming pool setback variance of 1.2 feet; and (2) a total impervious surface coverage variance of 348 square feet,in connection with the proposed legalization of the in-ground swimming pool & pool patio, on property located at 67 Valley Terrace, in an R-7 zoning district on the east side of Valley Terrace, approximately 475 feet from the intersection of Argyle Road and Valley Terrace. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID# 135.51-1-67; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on June 5, 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 1 Environmental Quality Review Act and accordingly, no further environmental review is required; and WHEREAS, the Board, from the .application, after viewing the premises and neighborhood concerned, and upon considering each of the factors set forth at Section 250- 1 13(G)(2)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brook Code, finds with respect to the swimming pool setback variance: 1) The variance [ L/WILL NOT] create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood; 2) The benefit the applicant seeks [ /CANNOT] be achieved through another method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, that does not require a variance; 3) The variance .WIS NOT] substantial; 4) The variance F4-1::L/WILL NOT] create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmental conditions offhe neighborhood;and 5) The need for the variance SIT] self-created; and I j 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 total impervious surface coverage variance: 2) The variance [�1 /WILL NOT] create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood; 2) The benefit the applicant seeks [GA CANNOT] be achieved through another method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, that does not require a variance; 6) The valmi ce [IS/IS,?<T] substantial; 7) The variance [WELL/WILL NOT] create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and !S Ii G 8) The need for the variance self-created. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the said application for the swimming pool setback variance is hereby [GRANTED/D�I-D] and said application for the total impervious surface coverage variance is hereby [GRANTED/IyD], on the 1 following conditions: , �'_'OrAk,t� 9. 11 MI"U tilQ .� �.,a,:s�rd�`�r ��s.c�G'tPie /)M'Q �61 41A� L'�;-Pjqfi;-a� 4u, r�g � m' l'Gy,1-r. z dr�,Il�� ,r r�dJ r Li fig / - .)•f 44 v�.6y x -,v' r 2 7 v t h�,6 VYI 0 Y"'c��'t1.)n�l jxv `'1'U -�py1(vy7 �r��:yt rp' {�i' M G -s�if Dated: June 5,2012 I IV Mr. Don Moscato, Chairman Mr. Moscato called the roll for the swimming pool setback variance: Steven Berger Voting. A'pe Nay Abstain Andrew Kaminsky Voting: �'// Aye Nay Abstain Jeffrey Richman Voting: Aye Nay Abstain Joel Simon Voting: ve Nay Abstain Don Moscato Voting: Aye Nay Abstain Ayes Q Nays i Abstain I i called the roll for the total ervious surface coverage variance: ; Mr. Moscato �p g Steven Berger Voting: I ye-Nay-Abstain Andrew Kaminsky Voting. _,Aye Nay Abstain Jeffrey Richman Voting: �,/,Aye Nay Abstain Joel Simon Voting: i ye Nay Abstain Don Moscato Voting: V Aye Nay Abstain Ayes 0 Nays Abstain i 1 i i 1 I i I i 1 5) #1I-645 Cerebral Palsy of Westchester 1186 King Street Zoning variance timetable extension request, Village Code § 250- 13.H. Aftorney Gray noted no representative for this application was in attendance. She wis informed that Michael Boender, architect, would be attending the meeting. 6i May 29t', the applicant's agent presented the Building Department with a letter application requesting an extension of approval of the zoning variances previously grAted. If the variances are not extended they will expire. Although the application is not for the approval of a variance, but rather an extension of a previously approved variance, the application is nonetheless subject to the same public hearing and public notification requirements including mailing to nearby property owners, posting of a sign, and newspaper publication of the public notice. Due to the limited nature of this application seeking an extension of approval, the B'bard determined it is appropriate to waive the requirement that the application s',, d mail notification and post a sign at the property. Publication of public notice in`the official newspaper will cannot be waived because it is a requirement of the NYork State Village Law. Attorney Gray recommended that the matter be carried over to the July meeting for final action to allow time for proper newspaper notification. Attorney Gray read a resolution for the Board: RESOLUTION WAIVING THE PUBLIC NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT OF POSTING A SIGN ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND MAILING WRITTEN NOIkE TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 250 FEET OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY PRIOR TO A ZONING BOARD MEETING THE VILLAGE OF RYE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS WHEREAS, Section 250-40(A) requires that at least seven (7) days prior to a Zoning Board meeting, a public notification sign shall be posted on the property which is the subject of an application to be heard at such meeting; and Zoning Board of Appeals Page 22 June 5,2012 I WHEREAS, Section 250-40(B) requires that at least ten (10) days prior to a 1 Zoning Board meeting an applicant shall give written notice to property owners within 250 feet'6f the subject property; and WHEREAS, Section 250-40(G) permits the Zoning Board to waive the notification requirements set forth in Section 250-40 unless required elsewhere by county or state IaW; and WI3EREAS, neither county nor state law requires an applicant to post a public notification sign on property subject to a pending application or mail public notice to neighboruig property owners prior to a meeting of the Zoning Board at which such application will be heard; and '"EREAS, an application has been made by United Cerebral Palsy of Westchester for an extension of approval of the seven (7) variances granted by the Zoning Hoard on December 6, 2011 for property located at 1186 King Street; and WHEREAS, no public hearing is required for said application except that the Village `Code states that every meeting of the Zoning Board shall constitute a public hearing;`and i WHEREAS, the applicant has requested a waiver from the requirement to post a public notification sign and mail written notice to neighboring property owners. 146W, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Rye Brook hereby waives the requirement to post a public notification sign and ma l.Written notification to neighbors within 250 feet of the subject property for the June 5, X012 meeting and any further meetings of the Zoning Board for the application of 1186 King Street regarding a request for an extension of approval. Mr. Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting Aye Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye Jeffrey 1Zchman Voting Aye Joel Simon Voting Aye Don Moscato Voting Aye Zoning Board of Appeals Page 23 June 5,2012 i i The res4 tion was approved by a vote of 5 ayes to 0 nays. i i I I 'I i Zoning Board of Appeals Page 24 June 5,2012 i DEC � � � AUG 0 2 2012 VILLAGE ADMINISTRATOR June 5,2012 I RE. OI: ?TION WAIVING THE PUBLIC NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT OF POSTING A SIGN ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND MAll TNG WRITTEN NOTICE TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 250 FEET OF THE SUBJECT j PROPERTY PRIOR TO A ZONING BOARD MEETING THE VILLAGE OF RYE.ZONING BOARD OF Alp ,ALS WHEREAS,Section 20(A) requires that at least seven(7) days prior to a Zoning Board meeting,a public notification sign shall be posted on the property which is the subject of an application to be heard at such meetinsr and WHEREAS, Sermon 24�40(B)requires that at least ten (10) days prior to a Zoning Board meeting an applicant shall give written notice to property owners within 250 feet of the subject property;and WHEREAS, Section 250-40(G) permits the Zoning Board to waive the notification requirements set forth in Section 250-40 unless required elsewhere by county or state law; ,ISI and WHEREAS, neither county nor state law requires an applicant to post a public notification sign on property subject to a pending application or mail public notice to neighboring property owners prior to a meeting of the Zoning Board at which such application will be heard;and I WHEREAS,an application has been made by United Cerebral Palsy of Westchester 1 for an extension of approval of the seven (7) variances granted by the Zoning Board on. December 6,2011 for property located at 1186 King Street,and WHEREAS, no public hearing is required for said application but the Village Code states that every meeting of the Zoning Board shall constitute a public hearir&and WHEREAS, the applicant has requested a waiver from the requirement to post a public notification sign and mail written notice to neighboring property owners. i p � CE v � AUG 0 2 2012 I VILLAGE ADMINISTRATOR NOW, THEREFORE, BE TT RESOLVED, that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the i e o£ R Brook eb y w 'v the e r nt o t c notification sign�f ON 2 and yy rth� p e Zonin` Board for the appli'ation of 1186 King Street regarding a request for an extension of approval S 4-p-V-c � a f 1 i #6) r-approval of April 3, 2012 Zoning Board Summary j NIE Moscato noted that changes have been made to the summary. On a motion nide by Mr. Simon, and seconded by Mr. Berger, the summary was adopted as amended. Mr. Moso called the roll: Steven BErger Voting Aye s, Andrew'Kaminsky Voting Aye Jeffrey Richman Abstained i, Joel Sini Voting Aye - Don Moseato Voting Aye On a nation made by Mr. Kaminsky, and seconded by Mr. Berger, the meeting was adjourn6a at 9:38 p.m. i i i Zoning Board of Appeals Page 26 June 5,2012