HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-09-04 - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK OATS
938 King Street
Zoning Board of Appeals
September 4, 2012
V
Me'eting`at 8:00 p.m. '
NOV 8 2012
ViLLAGi= R 'i= F ROOK
AGENDA BUILDING 01EP RTIM tV�
` 1) #12-015 Patricia Bave-Planell, Esq.
k Guardian of the Property of Hazel Baumann
c/o Marcus, Oilman & Kommer LLP
23 Latonia Road
Construct a two-story addition, new rear deck, new front portico and
interior renovation
f
2) #12-012 Westchester Avenue Tennis Club
699 Westchester Avenue
Refrain from installing the required fire suppression sprinkler system
in the tennis office trailer
3) #12-011 Mr. Michael Grandazzo
11 Maple Court
Legalize existing deck, swimming pool and enclosed porch addition
4) Approval of August 7, 2012 Zoning Board Summary
BOARD: Steve Berger
Andrew Kaminsky
Jeffrey Richman
Joel Simon
Don Moscato, Chairman
STAFF: Michael Izzo, Building Inspector
Nicholas Ward-Willis, Esq., Village Counsel
Fred Seifert, Public Access Coordinator
Paula Patafio, Meeting Secretary
i
Board of Trustees
Liaison: Trustee David Heiser
I
Zoning Board of Appeals
September 4,2012
Ir Page 1
Mr. Donald Moscato, Chairman, welcomed everyone to the September 4, 2012 Zoning
Board of Appeals meeting. He called the meeting to order and introduced Village Staff
and Counsel. Mr. Moscato asked that individuals to speak at the podium, state their
names, application, position, and nature of the variance.
He called for a matter out of order from the agenda. He noted that counsel for applicant
#3 has requested an adjournment.
3) #12-011 Mr. Michael Grandazzo
11 Maple Court
Legalize existing deck, swimming pool and enclosed porch addition
n
K
On a motion made by Steven Berger, and seconded by Andrew Kaminsky, the
matter was adjourned to the October 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting.
Ili
Mr. Moscato returned to the order of the Agenda, and called for item #1:
1) #12-015 Patricia Bave-Planell, Esq.
Guardian of the Property of Hazel Baumann
c/o Marcus, 011man&Kommer LLP
23 Latonia Road
Construct a two-story addition, new rear deck, new front portico and
interior renovation
It was noted that the property has been purchased and the new owners are now the
applicants.
Mr. John Scarlato, architect, addressed the Board. He noted that two variances
were required for this renovation. The house is in the same state as when it was
built in the 1960's and it needs repair work and updating. The house is a raised
ranch which is the most difficult style of home to work with because all areas of
both floors count in the floor area ratio. There is no free space and no basement.
The applicants are trying to add a master bedroom with a bathroom. A portico
will be added to the front of the home. The house will be re-sided, the windows
will be replaced, and there will be a new door. Behind the garage there will be a
storage room and a utility room. One variance is for gross floor area. The house
now is slightly under the allowable square footage with 3,350 square feet and the
Zoning Board of Appeals
September 4,2012
Page 2
applicant's proposed addition will result in a gross floor area of 3,919 square feet.
Therefore, a gross floor area variance of 569 square feet is requested. The second
variance is for the front yard setback. The required setback is 40 feet and the
proposed portico will result in a front yard setback of 32 feet. Therefore, a front
yard setback variance of 8 feet is requested. The house is currently non-
conforming, and the proposed addition will make the home more aesthetically
i
pleasing. Mr. Scarlato presented the Board with comparables in the area.
I
Mr. Moscato asked for the square footage of each of the components. There will
be 176 square feet of storage area behind the garage. The existing garage is 528
square feet, and the utilities are now near the family room and will be relocated to
behind the garage.
Mr. Moscato noted that the Board could place a condition on the variance that the
front portico remain unenclosed. He also questioned if there were any flooding
issues in this area. Mr. Michael Izzo, Building Inspector, noted that this matter
will be reviewed by the Village Engineer.
J
Mr. Moscato asked Mr. Scarlato if these were the smallest variances possible. Mr.
Scarlato noted that the original plans had a formal dining room which has been
eliminated in order to tighten up the plans and reduce the size of the variances
required.
Mr. Moscato called for members of the public wishing to address the Board
regarding this application.
Mr. Adam Urban, resident of 2 Mark Drive, addressed the Board. He noted that
his property is directly behind this property. Since the house is proposed to be
extended by 8' to 10' and then a deck added, it will bring the home much closer to
his home. He requested that additional trees be planted so that his privacy is
maintained.
Mr. Moscato noted that the landscaping is in the purview of the Architectural
Review Board and Mr. Urban could discuss this issue further with that Board and
the applicants.
Mrs. Arlene Handle of 11 Charles Lane asked to be heard by the Board. She noted
that Mr. Handle, the co-owner, was not able to attend the meeting but her concerns
were his as well. Since the issue that Mrs. Handle wished to discussed had more
to do with the neighborhood in general and not the application before the Board,
Mr. Moscato referred her to Trustee David Heiser; her elected official. Mr. Heiser
Zoning PP
Board of Appeals
September 4,2012
Page 3
and Mrs. Handle met outside of the meeting room so that Mrs. Handle's issues
could be heard.
There being no further comments or questions, Mr. Moscato called for a motion to
close the public portion of the hearing. The Board began deliberation, and.Nicolas
Ward-Willis, Esq., Village Counsel, was asked to prepare two conditions for the
resolution.
Mr. Moscato read the following resolution:
c RESOLU'T'ION
WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Patricia Bave-
Planell, Esq. Guardian of the Property of Hazel Baumann for a 569 square ft. gross
G
floor area variance and a 8 ft. front yard setback variance, in connection with the
proposed construction of a 2 story addition, new rear deck, new front portico & interior
renovation, on property located at 23 Latonia Road, in an R-15 zoning district on the
west side of Latonia Road, at the intersection of Berkley Drive and Latonia Road. Said
premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as
Parcel ID# 135.34-1-5; and
WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on September 4, 2012, at
f 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 will not create an adverse impact to the character of the
'j 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
P
Zoning Board of Appeals
September 4,2012
Page 4
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 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.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the said application for a 569
square foot gross floor area variance is hereby granted and said application for the front
yard,setback variance of 8 feet solely with respect to the portico is hereby granted, on the
following conditions:
1. The front portico shall remain unenclosed; and
2. The front yard setback variance shall apply solely to the front portico and shall
not apply an 1 to other portion of the front elevation of the house.
Y
Mr. Moscato called the roll:
Steven Berger Voting Aye
Joel Simon Voting Aye
Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye
Jeffrey Richman Voting Aye
Don Moscato Voting Aye
The resolution was approved by a vote of five (5) ayes and zero nays.
Zoning Board of Appeals
September 4,2012
Page 5
VILLAGE OF RYE BROOD
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SEP 2 4 2012
RESOLUTION ,VILLAGE CLERK'S OFFICE
WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Patricia Bave-
!, Planell, Esq. Guardian of the Property of Hazel Baumann for a 569 square ft. gross
floor area variance and a 8 ft. front yard setback variance, in connection with the proposed
construction of a 2 story addition, new rear deck, new front portico & interior renovation,
Von property located at 23 Latonia Road, in an R-15 zoning disfd-t-t on the west side of
Latonia Road, at the intersection of Berkley Drive::Ah 7"atonia Road'. :Said premises being
known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel.ID# 135.34-1-
5; and
WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was. held on September 4, 2012, at
p - .
�I which time all those wishing to be heard Were given such opportunity; and
WHEREAS, the proposed action-is a"Type;ZZ.action pursuant to the New York State
Environmental Quality Review Act and accordifigly, ho further environmental review is
required; and
'I
WHEREAS,"th Board:::from the appl cation, after viewing the premises and
neighborhood.concerned;dnd.�p.oii";considering each of the factors set forth at Section 250-
13 G 2 2 a-.e -of-the Rye y -Brook Code finds with respect to the gross floor area
variance:
1 The variance /WILL NO create an adverse impact to the
1 -:character of:the neighborhood;
2) Tlie.,benefit the applicant seeks [GA14/CANNOT] be achieved through
another-ifnethod, feasible for the applicant to pursue, that does not require
a variance;
3) The variance [IS/I&-NG'j] substantial;
4) The variance [fib/WILL NOT] create any adverse impacts to the
fl physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and
5) The need for the variance [IS/1S-N•OT] self created; and
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 front yard setback
valiance:
1) The variance [XqLL/WILL NOT] create an adverse impact to the
character of the neighborhood;
2 The benefit the applicant seeks [GAN CANNO�
be achieved throeg
h
another method, feasible for the applicant to-pursue, that does not require
if a variance;
3) The variance gS/1S-N4DT] substantial.
r 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/IS-A40 self-created,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that.the said application for a 569
square foot gross floor area variance is #ry.{CsRANTED/DE IED] and said application
for the front yard setback variance of 8 `feet sorer`w:i�h respect to the portico is hereby
[GRANTED/DENIED],.:on'--ihe following conditions:
1. The front portico shall.±emain unenclosed; and
2. The front yard setback variance shall apply solely to the front portico and shall
not apply to any other portion of the front elevation of the house.
Dated:. September 4,,2012
f
Mr. Don Moscato, Chairman
Mr. Moscato caU4ie roll-":
Steven Berger Voting. Aye Nap Abstain
G Andrew Kaminsky Voting: j Aye Nay Abstain
Jeffrey Richman Voting -Aye Nay Abstain
Joel Simon Voting: 4 Aye Nay Abstain
Don Moscato Voting: iAye Nay Abstain
5 Ayes
0 Nays
Abstain
2) #12-012 Westchester Avenue Tennis Club
699 Westchester Avenue
Refrain from installing the required fire suppression sprinkler system
in the tennis office trailer
Mr. Kaminsky noted that he plays tennis in this facility and he offered to recuse
himself. The applicant and Board members saw no reason for this as there was no
conflict of interest.
J
John Scarlato, architect, addressed the Board. The Tennis Club, which is located
on property known as the Rye Town Hilton, consists of a dome for the Courts and
a trailer for the office. Mr. Alon Ben-Gurion and Mr. John Brent, the applicants,
were in attendance. The issue is that there is no easy access for a water main
which is needed to install a sprinkler system. In 2011 the applicant was before the
Board for this issue. Although at that time the applicant had leased the space for
P 22 years, they were informed that the lease would not be renewed. However, the
property was sold, and the applicants' lease was renewed. The applicant installed
a central station fire detection system in lieu of the sprinkler system. Mr. Izzo,
Building Inspector, noted that as a condition of the prior variance, the applicant
was required to reapply for a variance from the Sprinkler Law upon renewal of the
lease.
Mr. Scarlato noted that the water main is approximately a mile away from the
tennis courts and it would be quite costly to connect a sprinkler system.
I Mr. Simon questioned what the safety hazards were. The system that was
installed allows for additional time for exiting the building. The goal of a
sprinkler system is to allow people time to exit the building, or keep the fire cool
enough to maintain the fire. The applicants installed a commercial building style
alarm. It is connected to a central station, and it is an up-to-date system. There are
alternatives, but they are dry chemical style systems that do extinguish fires but
are not used in occupied spaces like this. You may see that type of system in a
computer room or an auto garage. It is not used where people would inhale the
product. There are two forms of ingress/egress to the trailer.
Mr. Izzo noted that the system that is now in place works as intended. There are
smoke detectors and an alarm sounds which is sent to the central station. There is
no sprinkler necessary in the bubble; only in the trailer. The trailer is a typical
commercial building which is .required to be constructed to a certain standard.
Construction classification of these types of trailers includes how the building is
built and what sort of rating the construction materials receive. Mr. Izzo had no
1
I
Zoning Board of Appeals
September 4,2012
Page 7
I'
it
'i
knowledge of what type of rating this trailer has, only that it is a frame wood
structure.
Mr. Kaminsky noted that the trailer is a pass-thru. There is normally one person in
the trailer and that person's desk is near the front of the door. The side of the desk
is near the door that leads to the bubble.
Mr. Moscato noted that no human life is jeopardized. Mr. Simon felt that
something was better than nothing. Mr. Berger noted that given the size of the
trailer, a sprinkler system is not justified. The alarm system is fully compliant
with the State of New York. This is not a complicated structure.
I
Mr. Izzo was asked how the chemical system operated. He noted that basically a
dry chemical system is similar to the water activated system. When the plate of
the detector reaches a temperature of 165 degrees, the chemicals (or water) are
released. The ceiling of this trailer is only about 7' or 8' in height. As the Village
Fire Inspector, he would be satisfied with the existing system as long as the
applicants agreed to annual fire inspection. New York State requires inspection
every three years. The alarm will be tested every year. The inspection timing
would be at the convenience of the applicants.
Mr. Izzo noted that the front steps are in disrepair and need to be updated. Mr.
Scarlato responded that the trailer would be getting a face lift which included new
P g g
stairs. No variances are required for this work.
Mr. Moscato called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in
E support or opposition to this application. There being no one, he called for a
motion to close the public hearing.
On a motion made by Steven Berger, and seconded by Andrew Kaminsky, the
public hearing was closed. The Board began deliberation and Attorney Ward-
Willis was asked to draft a condition for the resolution.
Attorney Ward-Willis read the following resolution:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Westchester
Avenue Tennis Club for a variance from the requirement to install the required fire
jsuppression sprinkler system in the tennis office trailer, on property located at 699
Westchester Avenue, in the H-1 zoning district on the north side of Westchester Avenue,
approximately 170 feet from the intersection of Lincoln Avenue and Westchester
zoning Board of Appeals
September 4,2012
Page 8
Avenue. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye
Brook as Parcel ID# 135.74-1-8; and
WHEREAS a duly advertised public hearing was held on September
4 2012> at
a 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
212-13 of the Rye Brook Code, finds with respect to the request for a variance from the
requirement to install a fire suppression system:
1) Application of the strict letter of Chapter 212 would create an
unnecessary hardship for the applicant because of the location of the
source of dedicated water for the fire suppression system;
2 The omission of an approved sprinkler system from the tennis office
trailer will not significantly jeopardize human life because of the
g Y
presence of a new fire alarm system in the trailer.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that said application for a variance
from the requirement to install a fire suppression sprinkler system for the tennis office
it
trailer is hereby granted, on the following condition:
1. There shall be an Annual Inspection by the Village Fire Inspector; and
2. This Variance shall only apply to the existing use of the trailer as a tennis sales
office by the current owner.
Mr. Moscato called the roll:
Steven Berger Voting Aye
Joel Simon Voting Aye
Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye
j Jeffrey Richman Voting Aye
Don Moscato Voting Aye
The resolution was approved by a vote of five (5) ayes and zero nays
pP Y
II
r Zoning Board of Appeals
September 4,2012
Page 9
EVILLAGE
EOFFACE
VILLAGE OF RYE BROOD
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Westchester
Avenue Tennis Club for a variance from the requirement to install the required fire
suppression sprinkler system in the tennis office trailer, on.:'property located at 699
Westchester Avenue, in the R-1 zoning district on the no �s de of Westchester Avenue,
approximately 170 feet from the intersection of Lincoln Avenue aid.Westchester Avenue.
Said premises being known and designated on the:tax map of the Vi1fage of Rye Brook as
Parcel ID# 135.741-8; and
WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on September 4, 2012, at
which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and
WHEREAS, the proposed action is.--a.Type II actionpursuant to the New York State
Environmental Quality Review Act and accordgly., no futtl bi environmental review is
required; and
WHEREAS,: :the Boards. from the Application, .'after viewing the premises and
neighborhood concerned, and upon considering each of the factors set forth at Section 212-
13 of the Rye. Brook Code, finds. with respect to the request for a variance from the
requirernetit to install_.4 Etre sugpression system:
1) Application of tlie`:'strict letter of Chapter 212 [WOULD//W
creme an unnecessary hardship for the applicant because of the
location of e source of dedicated water for the fire suppression system;
2)"'T-1- .e omis.stion of an approved sprinkler system from the tennis office
4ii*r..[ b/WILL NOT] significantly jeopardize human life because of
the presence of a new fire alarm system in the trailer.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that said application for a variance
from the requirement to install a fire suppression sprinkler system for the tennis office trailer
I,I
is hereby [GRANTED/DEN4E-9], on the following conditions:
I. There shall bean Annual Inspection b theVillage Fire Inspector; and
p by g p
�I
_a
'j
2. This Variance shall only apply to the existing use of the trailer as a tennis sales
office by the current owner.
,III
�I
Dated: September 4, 2012
i G ....
i' Mr. Don Moscato, Chairman
i
Mr. Moscato called the roll:
Steven Berger Voting: _� Aye Nay :Al stain
Andrew KaminskY Voting: 4 Aye Nay Abs
Jeffrey
Richman Voting: � AY e Nay A bstain.:
fr y g —
Joe S g
1 Simon Voting: Aye Na .Abstain
— y y
Don Moscato Voting: Aye Nay Abstain
5 Ayes
0 Nays
Abstain
... .. .....
i
i
Mr. Moscato called for the final item on the agenda:
4) Approval of August 7, 2012 Zoning Board Summary
Mr. Moscato noted that the final draft of the summary was not yet completed, and
this matter was adjourned to the October meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mr. Moscato called for a motion to adjourn. On a motion made by Mr. Berger, and
seconded by Mr. Kaminsky, the meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
f
Zoning Board of Appeals
September 4,2012
J, Page 11
a
3