HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-08-07 - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK
938 King Street
Zoning Board of Appeals
� August 7, 2012
Meeting at 8:00 p.m.
FRI
El",10V _ 7 2012
AGENDA
VILLAGE GE RYE BROOK
1) #11-645 Cerebral Palsy of Westchester BUILDING DEPARTMENT
(Adjourned from 611512012)
1186 King Street
Request extension.of approval of Zoning variance, Village Code
§250-13.H.
2) #12-010 Ms. Joy Patafio
62 Valley Terrace
Legalize the Second Story addition
3) #12-013 Estate of Anthony Forta
c/o Mary Ann Stone
506 West William Street
Legalize the conversion from a single family dwelling to a two
family dwelling
4) #12-014 TD Bank, NA
101-5 South Ridge Street
Construct a new bank building with drive-through ATMs.
5) Approval of June 5, 2012 Zoning Board Summary
a
BOARD: Steve Berger
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
i
i
Mr. Donald Moscato, Chairman, welcomed everyone to the August 7, 2012 Zoning
Board of Appeals meeting. He called.the meeting to order and introduced Village Staff
i
i
� -1-
i
{
and Counsel. Mr. Moscato asked that individuals to speak at the podium, state their
Cnames, application, position, and nature of the variance.
He called for the first item on the agenda:
1) #11-645 Cerebral Palsy of Westchester
(Adjourned from 6/15/2012)
1186 King Street
Request extension of approval of Zoning variance, Village Code
§250-13.H.
Mr. Michael Boender, architect for the applicant, addressed the Board. He noted that the
process was taking longer than anticipated. The variances were granted on December 6,
2011, and due to the length of time required to finalize the lot merger and prepare the
construction documents for the Building Permit while coordinating the necessary work
for demolition of the existing structures, an extension became necessary. He respectfully
requested that the application for the extension of time be granted. Mr. Michael Izzo,
Building Inspector, addressed the Board. He noted that the site is being properly
maintained.
Mr. Moscato called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in support or
j opposition to this application. There being no one, the public hearing was closed and
after Board deliberated, Mr. Moscato read the following resolution:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by United Cerebral
Palsy of Westchester for an extension of approval of the 22.8 foot front yard setback
variance at the King Street elevation granted by the Zoning Board on December 6, 2011,
in connection with the proposed construction of a new single story multi-purpose pavilion
building, on property located at 1186 King Street a.k.a. 0 Lincoln Avenue a.k.a. 260
Lincoln Avenue in an OB-3 zoning district on the west side of King Street, at the
intersection of King Street and Lincoln Avenue. Said premises being known and
designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID # 124-48-1-2; and
WHEREAS, on June 5, 2012 pursuant to Village Code §250-40(g) the Zoning
Board waived the sign and mail public notifications requirements pursuant to Section
250-40(G); and
WHEREAS, a duly advertised meeting was held on August 7, 2012, at which
time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and
l
i
-2-
E
e ,
i
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 Applicant has shown good
cause for the granting of the extension; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the said application for an extension of
approval of the aforementioned variances is hereby granted for a period of six months,
which extension shall be retroactively effective commencing June 5, 2012.
Dated: August 7, 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 Moscato Voting Aye
The resolution was adopted on a vote of 5 ayes to 0 Nays.
i
i
I
I
;
1
i
i
I
I
f
� 1
i
-3-
9
a
i
V!VILLAGE
1
VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK 8 2012
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MINISTRATOR
RESOLUTION
`A'IIERE S, application has been made to the Zornirag Board by United Cerelaral
Palsy of Westchester for an extension of approval of the 22.8foot front yard setback
1
variance at the IGng Street elevation granted by the Zolialg Board on December 6,A in
connection with the proposed construction of a new. single story multi-purpose pavilion
building, on proper7 located. at 1186 Bing Street a.l--a 0 Lincoln Avenue. a.k--_a 260 Lincoln
Avenue urn an OR-3 z0alog district on the west side of King Street, at'the. intersection of
Ding Street and Lincoln Avenue. Said premises berg known and designatedon the tax map
of the N721age of Rye Brook as Parcel IIIA# 124049-1-2;,and
VIIEREAS, on June 5, 2012 pursuant to VMagT, Code §250-40(G). the Zoning
Board. waived. the sign and mail. public notifications reelinsrerrnents 1piursuuant, to Section 250-
WHEREAS, a duly advertised public Ixearmg was held on A%gust a, 2012, at which
time all those w;ishinng to be Beard were given such opportumaty;and
REAS, the proposed action Ys a.Type H action.pursim nt to the New, York State
Envsronnnnental Anality Review Actand: accordingly, no further environmental review is
required.
NOW, ` HEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Applicant RIAS f iEk!�-
shown goodcause for the granting of the extension.;and
BE
BE IT' IIIR` HER RESOLVED, that the said application for an extension of
approval of the aforementioned variances is hereby. [GRANTED/PEN=i] for a period of
4—months,whicli extension shall be retroactively effective commencing).une 5,2.012.
Dated: �aTp st�,2;0-12
- Nfr_Don. osc ato,Cl=rman
I
is
\1
IMr.
Moscato o ca led the .roll_
Steen Berger votinK. ye .May Abstam
l�ndrewasr�ins�-yTotin ye Nay ��bstair�
JeffreyRichman Voting:�rlve Nay ��.bstain
I
Joel Simosl Noting: e Nay Abstain
( Lon T%foscato -\Toti�_ y Aye Nay Absu< n
Ayes
Days
Abstain
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
2) #12-010 Ms. Joy Patafio
62 Valley Terrace
Legalize the Second Story addition
Mr. John Scarlato, Jr., architect for the applicant, addressed the Board. The
applicant is before the Board to legalize a second story addition. A height setback
ratio variance is required for the dormer that was added to the home. The second
story addition side height setback ratio of 3.11 is over the maximum allowable of
3.0. In addition, the applicant requires a variance for the total of two side yard
setbacks. The minimum required total of two side yard setbacks is 20 feet. The
existing non-conforming total of two side yards setback is 15.7 feet. The second
story addition aligns with this non-conformity resulting in a required total of two
side yards setback variance of 4.3 feet.
Mr. Moscato questioned the amount of impervious coverage on the property.
Mr. Izzo noted that existing front yard impervious coverage is an existing non-
conformity. In 2003/2004 when the Village modified the zoning code to include
impervious coverage many homes in the Village were thrown into non-
conformity. This addition was completed in 1968 but never received a certificate
of occupancy. It pre-dates existing height/setback zoning regulations.
Mr. Moscato called for questions from the Board members, there being none, he
called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in support or
opposition to the application. There being no questions or comments, the Board
closed the public hearing and began deliberation.
Mr. Moscato read the following resolution:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Ms. Joy
Patafio for a 0.11 side/height setback ratio variance from Village Code §250-
23(H)(2) and a 4.3 foot total of two side yards setback variance from Village Code
§250-23(F)(2)(b), in connection with the proposed legalization of the second story
addition, on property located at 62 Valley Terrace, in an R-7 zoning district on the
west side of Valley Terrace, approximately 575 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 # 1355.59-1-50; and
WHEREAS, a duly advertised meeting was held on August 7, 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.
-5-
I
i
i
i
WHEREAS, the Board from the application, after viewing the premises and
neighborhood concerned, and upon considering each of the factors set forth at
( )( )( )[ ][ ] [ ] Y p
Section 250-13 G 2 b 2 a - e of the Rye Brook Code, finds with respect to the
side/height setback ratio 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
WHEREAS, the Board, 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 of two
side yards 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; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the said application for
the side/height setback ratio variance is hereby granted; and said application for
the total of two side yards setback variance is hereby granted.
Dated: August 7, 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 Moscato Voting Aye
The resolution was adopted on a vote of 5 ayes to 0 Nays.
1
_i
I
I
i
�I
RD � � � -�r.
VILLAGE OF RYE BROOKA 0 0 20th �� 11'r
ZOz ANG BOARD OF APPEALS
VILLAGE ApM,INIcT('�� '
RESOLUTION
`MEREA.S, application Inas been made to the Zoning Board by ifs., Joy. Patafna
fora 0.11 side/height setback- ratio variance from Village Code §250-23(Pl)(2) and a 4.3 ft.
total of 2 side yards setback-variance from Village Code §250-25(�)(-`)(b),in comaection with
the proposed legalization of the 2md starry addition, on property located at 62 Valley,
Terrace,,in an R-7 zoning district on, the gest side of Valley Terrace,approximately 575 feet
from the intersection of Axogyle Road and Valley Terrace. Said premises being known and
designated on the tax reap of the Village of Bye Brook as Parcel ID#135.59-1-50;and
WHEREAS, a duly, advertised public hearing was held on A¢gu.st 7, 2012, at which
time all those Wishing to be heard.Frere given such opportunity; and
WHEREAS, the proposed action.is a,Type H action pursuant to. the New Fork State
Environmenud Quality Re-view- 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 considear gr each of the factors set forth at Section 250-
13(G)(2)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brom Code, finds with respect to the side/height setback
ratio variance:
1) The valiance I L. NOT] create an. adverse impact: to the
character of the neighborhood;
2) The, benefit the applicant seeks, [C- 7/CzLNNOT] he achieved tb roug h
another method, feasible: fmr the applicant to pursue, tlhat does not require
a Variance; lS '0
3) The�r�naa irnc��� �r -� substantial;
4) The valiance / V � . NO'11 create any adverse impacts. to the
physical.car environn ental'1 conditions of the neighborhood;and.
5) The needs film the.vaniarace• self-created;and
WHEREAS, the Board, firom the. application, after viewing the premises and
neighborhood concerned,and upon considering each of the factors set forth at Section 250-.
E n
r
13(G)(2)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brook Code, funds with respect to the total of 2 side yards
w `I
setback variance:
i .
1) The variance /XUILL. NOT] create an adverse impact to the
character of the neighborli.00d;
2) The benefit the applicant seeks [C,',�--<-'/CANNOT] be achieved duough
another method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, that does not require
a variance;
3) The variance [IS/19-114 � substantial;
4) The variance [W /.MILL NOT] create any ad-verse impacts to tlae
physical or environmt tal 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
side/height setback ratio variance is hereby [GRAt`UED/DE? and said application
for the total of 2 side ards setback variance. is Hereby.- [GR��NTED/l�lI�
yon the
following conditions:
Y. y
2 and
3.
Dated: August 7,2012
11r.Don.Moscato, Chairman,
IJr. Moscato called the roll:
jSteven.Berger -'voting-' ye Nay. Abstain
Andre;Kaminsk-y Noting I<'TQ Nay, Abstain
Jeffrey Richman Voting- t. ye Nay; Abstain
Joel Simon Noting_A., Nay Abstain
I
Don l�Io�scato Noting_t/ �e lay= Abstain
u S Aye.
Nays
Abstain
i
I
'i
3) #12-013 Estate of Anthony Forta
c/o Mary Ann Stone
506 West William Street
Legalize the conversion from a single family dwelling to a two
family dwelling
Gary Gianfrancisco, Architect for the applicant from Arconics Architecture,
addressed the Board. Mr. Gianfrancisco noted that this is a conversion of a single
family dwelling to two family dwelling. The applicant was before the Board to
legalize the conversion. He presented that Board with a copy of the building
permit application from 1948 and the detailed information on the property and
structures, noting that this residence has been used as a two family dwelling since
1948. The Forta family has owned this property since 1925, and the property has
been assessed as a two family home since 1948. Now that the last family member
has passed, it was found that a Certificate of Occupancy was never obtained for
the conversion to a two family residence. Four variances are required, including a
floor area variance from minimum dwelling unit size, required access from the
rear yard, number of off-street parking spaces, and unenclosed off-street parking
setback. It was noted that five parking spaces are required, and two parking
spaces have existed in the front yard since 1948. Mr. Gianfrancisco noted that this
home is an R-2F zone, which permits two family homes.
The owner resided in the lower apartment and the upper apartment was rented.
The building permit was granted in 1949, and a description of the work that
converted the house from a one family to a two family dwelling was included in
the application. The house has been taxed as a two family dwelling since 1950.
The family always believed that the building permit was properly closed out and
that there was a Certificate of Occupancy issued. The applicant requests approval
of the requested variances.
Mr. Joel Simon noted that he was extremely concerned about the second floor
apartment not having a rear access. He suggested a fire escape or some other
means to provide access in the event of a fire.
Mr. Moscato noted that there was some minor construction presently occurring.
These changes are being made to bring the building into compliance. One change
is that the awning in the front of the home is being removed.
Mr. Andrew Kaminsky asked if there have been any parking issues.
Mr. Gianfrancisco responded that the front yard parking has served the property
well.
Mr. Moscato noted that the variances would be reviewed and voted upon
separately. There was no ill intent on the part of the owner, but because no C.O.
� -8-
i
M
iI
was granted at the time of the conversion the property must now be in compliance
with the existing standards. The concern is from a safety point of view. Mr.
Gianfrancisco noted that the Village Code calls for the need for a service access
and not a means of egress. Mr. Izzo noted that the Code section that Mr.
Gianfrancisco referred to was adopted in 1954 and it refers to converting a one
family home to a two family home. The Village Code has been amended over the
years.
Jennifer Gray, Esq., Village Counsel, noted that the legislative history could be
reviewed to determine the intent of the Rye Town Board when this portion of the
Code was first adopted. After a brief discussion, it was the consensus of the Board
that there was a safety issue here that needed to be addressed.
Mr. Moscato noted that a hard-wired alarm system could be installed. Mr. Jeffrey
Richman asked if the applicant reviewed this issue, and if they considered the
installation of a fire escape.
Mr. Gianfrancisco noted a window that exits to a roof structure and which can be
used as an emergency exit but there is a 14' drop. Mr. Izzo noted that this issue is
addressed in the New York State Residential Code. You have to be able to get out
of the building through a Code compliant size window. You have to be able to
jump to a roof at 14' to the ground. However, this portion of the Code is in
conjunction with a partial sprinkler system. In addition, a hardwired alarm system
must be installed and it must be hooked up to a central monitoring station. A
casement style window that opens outward, like a door, would need to be installed.
Mr. Moscato noted that the safety issue was a concern for him.
Mr. Izzo noted that the if the applicant chooses to install a fire escape, they would
be required to come back for a variance.
Mr. Moscato asked for the consensus of the Board. The Board felt that some sort
of hardwired alarm system should be installed. Mr. Gianfrancisco noted that the
applicant was willing to look into the cost of installing a hardwired alarm system
or a fire escape.
Attorney Gray noted that the application could be adjourned, or a decision on the
variances could be conditioned on the applicant installing a hardwired alarm
system and/or fire escape. Mr. Gianfrancisco felt that an inter-connected
hardwired alarm system would be financially feasible.
The Board was comfortable voting on the floor area variance. It was noted that a
variance for three parking spaces was also needed. It was noted that there is ample
off-street parking in this area.
�I
-9-
9
I�
Mr. Moscato called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in
support of the application. There being no one, he called for a motion to close the
public hearing. On a motion made by Mr. Richman, and seconded by
Mr. Kaminsky, the public hearing was closed and the Board began its deliberation.
After a discussion, Mr. Moscato read the following resolution:
RESOLUTION
I
WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by the Estate
of Anthony Forta for the following variances: 1) 215 square feet floor area
variance from Village Code §250-25(L)(2)(a); and 2) variance from Village Code
§250-253(L)(2)(c) to permit no service access from the rear yards; 3) variance
from Village Code §250-253(L)(2)(d) to permit no code-compliant off-street
parking; and 4) 17 feet unenclosed off-street parking setback variance from
Section §250-6(G)(1)(d), in connection with the proposed legalization of the
conversion from a single family dwelling to a two family dwelling, on property
located at 506 West William Street, in an R2F zoning district on the south side of
West William Street. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map
of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID # 141.35-2-44; and
WHEREAS, a duly advertised meeting was held on August 7, 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.
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
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 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
-10-
I�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
service access variance:
1) The variance will not create an adverse impact to the character of the
neighborhood;
2) The benefit the applicant seeks cannot be achieved through another
method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, that does not require a
variance;
3) The variance is substantial;
4) The variance will not create any adverse impacts to the physical or
environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and
5) The need for the variance is self-created; and
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 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; 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
off-street parking 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
-11-
J .
5) The need for the variance is self-created; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the said application for the
floor area variance is herebygranted nted on the condition set forth
�' below; said
I4 application for services access variance is hereby granted; said application for
fr unenclosed off-street parking setback variance is hereby granted; and said
application for the off-street parking variance is hereby granted:
1) Either (a) hardwired interconnected smoke alarms throughout the structure and
hooked up to a central monitoring system shall be installed; or (b) a fire escape
and egress that complies with all applicable laws and regulations shall be
installed.
Mr. Don Moscato, Chairman
Dated: August 7, 2012
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 was adopted by a vote of five ayes and zero nays.
-12-
VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK 0 � 201
AUG 2 j 1.
ZONING BOARD OF AP'P'EALS
VILLAGE AD
RESOLUTION MIfdIST�'MTO
I
VTHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Boyd by the Estate of
Anthony Eorta for the following Variances: (1) 215 square feet floor area variance from
Village Code X254-25(L.)(2)(a); (2) variance from Village Code X25.4-25(L.)(2)(c) to permit no
service access from the rear yard; (.3) variance from Village Code §250-25(L.)(2)(d) to permit
no code-compliant off-street parking; and (4) 17 feet unenclosed off-street parking setback
variance from Section 250-6(G)(I)(d)(2), in connection with the proposed Legalization of
the conversion from a single fan-til!y dwe11ling to a. two fan-&y dwelling, on property
located. at 506 West William Street„ iia an R2-E. zoning district on the south side of West
William Street, approximately 150 feet from tln.e intersection of South Ridge Street and West
William Street.. Said premises being known and designated. on the tax 'map of the -Tillage of
Rye Brook as Parcel IIS#141.35-2-44;and
1 AREAS, a duly advertisedpublic head w-as held on.August 7, 201.2, at which
time all those v ishing to be heard were given such opporttinitl-„and.
WHEREAS,the proposed action is a Type:IT action pursuant to the Ne-vv York-State
Enviro= ental Quality review Act and accordingly, no fexrthe�, ens irownerntal review is
reeuire4p�nd
EIREAS, the Board, from the application, after viewing the premises and
raeighbo> prod concerned,`iHd-upon 66asidering each of the factors set:forth at Section.254-_
13(G)(2)(b)[2],[a]-[ej of the Rye Brook Code,finds with;respect to the floor area.variance:
1) The varivuice -PPB'--L/WILL INOTJ create an averse impact to the'
character of the:neighborhood„
2) The benefit the applicant seeks CAIZN011 be achieved through
another method, feasible for the-aapplic al to pursue, that does not require
a variance;
3) The variance [IS/IS-Nem substantiaL.
4) The v211'ance NOT] creat.- any adverse irnpa.cts to the
physical or environmerxt�d conditions of the neighborhood;-,Lnd
5) The,Sneed.for the variance 11S`` 'L—OVIT self=created;.and
i
I
'i
WHEREAS, the Board, from the application, after viewing the premises and
neighborhood concerned, and upon considering eacli of tlxe factors set forth at Sections 250-
'i
13(G)(2)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brook Code, finds with respect to the service access variance:
1) The varsance NOT] create an adverse impact to the
character of the neighborhood;
2) The benefit the applicant seeks �CO'q be achieved through
another method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, that does not require
a variance;
3) The variance [IS/I� "substantial;
'I) The variance /STILL NOT] create any adverse impacts to the
pkVsical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood;and.
5) The need for the variance [IS/IS- T self-created;and
WHEREAS, the Board, from the application, after viewing the pr:eauses and
neighborhood con.cerned., and upon considering each of the, factors set forth at Section 250-
13(G)(_2)(b)[2'][a]-[ej of ffic R-e,, Brook Code, finds with respect to the txnen.cl.osed off-street
parlang setback.variance::
1) The -variance PWHT/_WILL NOTJ create an adverse impact to the
character of the neighborhood;
2) The benefit the, applicant seeps P2AI�_/—CAINNOT] be achievedthrough
gather method, feasible for the applicant to ptusue, that does not require
a vanmce;
f� 3) The Variftnce [ISAR-N substantial;
4) The variance , W�L NO'l create any a&erse impacts- to dxe
physical or, environmental conditions of the neighborhood;and
5) The need,fbr the variance and
iR .S, the Board, from the application, afterie.Rving axe Irg:e'mases and
neighborhood concerned,and upon considering each of the factors set forth.at Section 250-
13(C�)(2)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the: IRve Brook Code, finds xvith respect to the off--street parking
variance
1) The vairnance. /NILL NOTJ create an adverse impact to the
character:of the neighborhood,
.d
through
- � � � C.c1itiN0 be achieve
2 The benefit thea applicant seeks T] �
( ) PP i iat does not re �xire
feasible for thea applicant to pursue, d
another method fea p rl
PP
a variance;
3 The variance [S/LS-W4ar-ff substantial;
4) The variance pWTL /W= NOT] create any adverse impacts to. the
physical-sical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and
�
S) Tlie need for the varianceself-created.
I'
NOW, THEREFORE, BE ITRE LVED, that the said application for the
said a lication for the service access
F floor area variance is hereby [GR`- NTLD ' �; pp
f said application for the unenclosed, off-street
variance is hereby [O-R�§.NTDD/�; PP
parking setback vanian.ce is hereby and said application for the
off-street parking variance is hereby [GRA`NITDD>k/ EFDJ; on the following conditions:
1.
2. w2/ N Y anci
3. "�ie1r 1��11^4avi�1�U�W. 'ni�Y��m�n��-rubNnnicc. �,-iri/t1�Y� +'�, �Z/'r�'1j� S�•✓L1Ut
anti hood-(A VP -6 cC (e'viN-0A ��3t&ws�vi!i ihel I Cb) LAG e
Dated: .'sugust 7,—9012 CS[-,'UPe f6 MSj 4lkA,4' Cow"p)i( ' wi4vx A l 16w)i t-A'6
1Ir.Don Moscato, Chairman
I
i
Mr. I'Vfoscato called the roll:
Steven Berger Voting- V ye Nay. Abstain
I Andrew K-'un 21Sk-y Voting: e Nay Abstain
Jeffrey Richman �Totin�� - rye. Nay Abstain
Joel Simon Voting Nay Abstain
Don'A/Ioscato Voting: �`�ye. Nay Abstain
�A yes
Nags
Abstain
�I
I
i
i
4) #12-014 TD Bank, NA
101-5 South Ridge Street
Construct a new bank building with drive-through ATMs.
Janet Giris, Esq., attorney for TD Bank, addressed the Board. She noted that the
application before the board was for the construction of an approximately 2,943 square
foot bank branch together with two-drive through lanes and related parking. The site
plan application was filed in December 2011. The Planning Board has reviewed the site
plan application, and the applicant worked with the Planning Board to reduce the number
of scope of the variances that would be needed. The variances were reduced not only in
number, but in magnitude. Four variances are now required. 1) a 13.1 foot rear yard
setback variance; 2) an 8.5 foot variance for the installation of a freestanding sign; 3)
variance to install a second sign; and 4) a variance for 10 parking spaces (30 are required
and 20 are proposed). Attorney Giris noted this is a corner lot and the building will front
on two streets, therefore the applicant is requesting the installation of one sign on each
street.
In response to a question from the Board, Jennifer Gray, Esq., Village Counsel, noted that
the Village's parking requirements are specific to a particular use and the variances,
including a parking variance, run with the land.
Attorney Giris noted that a Traffic Engineer spent many months working with the
1 Planning Board. A traffic study was done and the Village's consultant was involved.
Mr. Moscato stated that the Planning Board did an excellent job vetting the issues
connected to this application. He questioned the lighting and the canopy that will be
installed. Attorney Giris responded that the lighting is designed to shine downward. She
also pointed out that a lighting plan was submitted to the Planning Board. A wood fence
will be constructed at the rear property line.
Mr. Kaminsky noted that the ARB would review the aesthetics of the signs.
Attorney Gray noted that there are two conditions being considered in connection with
the approval of the application based on the Board's discussion. One, to require the
canopy to remain unenclosed; and two, to allow the variances to in effect for so long as
the property remains a bank.
Mr. 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 further comments from the
Board, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. On a motion made by
Mr. Simon, and seconded by Mr. Kaminsky, the public hearing was closed and the Board
began deliberation.
i
- ' After deliberation, Mr. Moscato read the following resolution:
I
-16-
i
i
1
I
RESOLUTION
i
WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by
TD Bank, N.A., for the following variances: 1) 13.1 foot rear yard setback
variance from Village Code §250-32(F)(3); 2) 8.5 foot freestanding sign setback
variance from Village Code §250-35(E)/250 attachment 2; 3) variance from
f Village Code §250-35(E)/250 attachment 2j to permit one additional wall sign;
j and 4) variance from Village Code §250-32(K)/250-6(G)(1)(c)(9) to permit 20
parking spaces, in connection with the proposed construction of a new bank
building with drive-through ATMS, 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 Rye Brook as Parcel ID#
141.27-1-27; and
WHEREAS, a duly advertised meeting was held on August 7, 2012, at
which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and
WHEREAS, on December 27, 2011 the Board of Trustees determined the
action to be an Unlisted action pursuant to the New York State Environmental
Quality Review Act to undergo a coordinated review; and
WHEREAS, on June 26, 2012 the Board of Trustees declared themselves the
Lead Agency and adopted a Negative Declaration thereby concluding the
environmental review of the application; 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:
1) The variance will not create an adverse impact to the character of the
neighborhood;
2) The benefit the applicant seeks cannot be achieved through another
method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, that does not require a
variance;
3) The variance is substantial;
4) The variance will not create any adverse impacts to the physical or
environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and
5) The need for the variance is self-created; and
WHEREAS, the Board, from the application, after viewing the premises and
I,
neighborhood concerned, and upon considering each of the factors set forth at
�I
-17-
I
u
a
Ii
f
Section 250-13(G)(2)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brook Code, finds with respect to the
freestanding sign 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; 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
wall sign variance:
I�
1) The variance will not create an adverse impact to the character of the
neighborhood;
2) The benefit the applicant seeks cannot be achieved through another
method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, that does not require a
variance;
3) The variance is substantial;
4) The variance will not create any adverse impacts to the physical or
environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and
5) The need for the variance is self-created; and
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
off-street parking variance:
1) The variance will not create an adverse impact to the character of the
neighborhood;
2) The benefit the applicant seeks cannot be achieved through another
method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, that does not require a
variance;
3) The variance is substantial;
4) The variance will not create any adverse impacts to the physical or
environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and
5) The need for the variance is self-created; and
-18-
I �
i
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESVOLVED, that the said application for
the rear yard setback variance is hereby granted, on the condition set forth below*;
said application for the freestanding sign variance is hereby granted; said
application for the wall sign is hereby granted; and said application for the off-
street parking variance is hereby granted, on the following conditions:
1) *The drive thru shall remain an unenclosed canopy
2) The variances shall apply for so long as the use of the property remains
a bank.
Mr. Don Moscato, Chairman
Dated: August 7,2012
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 was adopted by a vote of five ayes and zero nays.
I r
-19-
F
AUG 0 8 2012 I
\� NTI1J-AGE OF RYE BROOK VILLAGE ADM Tun
j ZONFIKC BOARD OF APPEALS
RESOLUTION
J
jWHEREAS, applications laa.s been made to the �onassig Board by TD Banky N.A.
for the following vasiayaces_ (1) 13.1 feet rear yard setback- variance from Village Code �S250-
32(F)(3)? (2) 8.5 feet freestanding sign setback- -variance from Village Code 5250-35(E)/250
Attachment 2; (3) variance from Village Cade X250-35(E)/250 Attachment 2j to permit one
additional -wall sign; and (4) �,�arl nce from Village Code 250-32 /250-(( )( )(. )G 1 c ��to
gy
pennitp70 parking spaces, in, connection with the proposed construction of a new, bank
building with, drive-through ATMs, on property located. at 101-5 South Ridge Street,iia
a C-1 aoninag district on the east side of South Ridge Street, at the intersection of Bowman
Avenue and South Midge Street,. Said.premises being known and designated on the tax map
of the Village of Rye Brook.as J�wed Imo#141..2'7'-1-27-and
WHEREAS, a duty advertised.public hearing was field on:August 7, 2012, at which
time all ttaose washing to be Beard were given such.opportunity;and
WHEREAS,, on.December 27,2'011 the Board of Trustees determined the action to.
be ars Unlisted action pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act to
undergo a coordisaated reviev,and
WIBEREAS, on June 26, 2012 the Board of Trustees declared themsekes Lead
Agency and adopted a'Negatav;e Deela-atnon tYaeseby-concluding the ea ironmental..revie"r of
the application;;and
WHEREAS, the Board, from the application, after viewinig the premises and
nesghbortaood concerned, and upon considering each of the factors set forth. at Section 250-
13(G)(2)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye gook- Code, finds .with respect to the rear yard setback
variance:
1) The variance - -L/WM1 ? CxT create an adverse impact to the-
cl=acter ofthe neiglaborliood,
i
I
d
I!
1
I
2) The benefit the applicant seeks�[f/C ANNOTJ be achieved tlzrotigh
another method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, that does not requure
a variance;
3) The variance [IS/ISN ' substantial;
1 4) The variance ./ . NOTA create any, ad-verse impacts to the
ph7.sical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and
5) The need for the variance [IS/I-S-� self-created; and
WHEREAS, the Board, from the application, after viewinag the premises and
neighborhood concerned,and upon considering each-of the factors set forth. at Section 250-
13(G)(2)(b)[2][aj-[ej of the Rye BroohL Code, fends 'with, respect to the freestandiag, sign
setback variance:
1) The variance PWff:f1W, ILL NO`FJ create ,ui adverse impact to the
character of the neighborhood;
2) The benefit the applicant seep f /CAINNO'J be achieved through
another method, feasible for the applimat to pursue, Haat does not reTI`re
a variance;
3) The variance [IS/ N� substantial,
4) The <<arianceI.''/ L NO'] create any adverse Ui npacts to tae
physical or egnv,ironmental 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][aj-[ej of the Rye Brook Code, finds with respect to the wall sign variance:
1) 'Ihe variance /WILL NOT] create an adverse impact to the
character of the neighborhood,;
2) The benefit the applicant seeks kms/CANNO"IJ be achieved through
another method, feasible f6r the applicant: to pursue, that does not reeuir.e
a variance;
3) The vinance [IS f I ('ssll�staratial;
4) The Variance.�/V''I L NOT] create any adverse impacts to the
physical or ernvironmaat2l conditions of the neighborhood.;and
I
I
i
�) 5 j The need for the variance [S, �' self-created; and
I
- WHEREAS, the Board, from the application, after view-mg the prenhi.ses and
S�✓ neighborCoo� concerned, and upon considering each of the factors set forth at Section 250-
of the Rte Brook Code, Euids with,- respect to the off-street parking
l
i variance_
i) The variance ,�� NO-ij create an adverse impact to the
character of the neighborhood,
2). The benefit the applicant seeks .[�CATN"NI O fj be achieved through
another method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, that:does not require
a van-'U-Ice;
a The variance [fS/ substantial;-
4)
ubstantial;4) `Y'lh.e variance �/ NO'11 createe any adverse impacts to the
physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood;and
5) The need for the variance. [IS jiS-M self-created;and
1 NOW THEREFORE, RE IT RESOLVE A that the, saidapplication for the rear
yard setback variance is thereby [GRKATNTE-D DE�], said applicationfor the
frreestm. dig ssgn setback- vara nce is thereby, [GRANTED/ �; said application for
tike Wall sign varmnee is hereby [GRAI aD/DE-N-RED]; and said. application for the off-
street;parking variance.is hereby,[GRANTED/��T on the following conditions.
sella f p,. os U1
2_ 1f A,Y't Gt M t e S �ha 1 int ANO)0 -�c�r So I ov\,t 0,S 41A�, ll�r. . t l�
Dated_ Auggust 7,2,012
I
h rlr..Don.Moscato, Chairman
I
i
I --
i
i
Mr. Moscato called the roll-
Steven Berger Voting:: �e Naar Abstain
�
Andrew, Kanuiisk-y Voting:_��e Nab- Abstain
Jeffrey Richman Voting: / ye Nay Abstain
Joel Si Voting: A Nay Abstain
Don Moscato Voting:_Aye Nat- Abstain
Ayes
Nays
Abstain
i
i
5) Approval of June 5, 2012 Zoning Board Summary
The June 5, 2012 summary was approved by a motion made by Mr. Simon, and seconded
by Mr. Kaminsky, and a vote of five ayes to zero nays.
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
It was noted that there was no meeting for the Zoning Board of Appeals held in July.
There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
-24-