HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-11-06 - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK
938 King Street 1
Zoning Board of Appeals DATE,
November 6, 2012 '
Meeting at 8:00 p.m.
AGENDA JAN 16 2013
VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK
1) #12-011 Mr. Michael Grandazzo BUILDING DEPARTMENT
Adjourned 10/2/2012
11 Maple Court
Legalize existing deck, swimming pool.and enclosed porch addition
2) #12-022 Mr. Richard Burns
21 Ridge Boulevard
Legalize detached garage, wood deck on grade and shed
3) Approval of August 7, 2012 and October 2, 2012 Zoning Board Summary
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
Board of Trustees
Liaison: Trustee David Heiser
Mr. Donald Moscato, Chairman, welcomed everyone to the November 6, 2012 Zoning
Board of Appeals meeting. He called the meeting to order and introduced Village Staff
and Counsel. Mr. Moscato asked that individuals come to the podium to speak and state
their names, application, position, and nature of the variance. He called for the first item
on the agenda:
Zoning Board of Appeals
November 6,2012
Page 1
1) #12-011 Mr. Michael Grandazzo
Adjourned 10/2/2012
11 Maple Court
Legalize existing deck, swimming pool and enclosed porch addition
Mr. Moscato noted that he was a customer of Mr. Grandazzo's years ago. He asked the
Board, Counsel, and the applicant's Counsel if he should recuse himself from this matter.
The consensus was that he did not need to recuse himself.
Lawrence Engle, Esq., counsel for the applicant, addressed the Board.
He noted that Mr. Michael Grandazzo, the applicant, was also in attendance. Attorney
Engle noted the pool was built in 1987 and now requires several variances to legalize it.
In response to the Applicant's submittal of a stormwater management plan on October
25, 2012, the Village Engineer/Superintendent of Public Works issued a memorandum,
dated October 26, 2012, requesting additional information. The applicant will prepare a
response to Mr. Nowak's comments.
Mr. Moscato questioned whether or not the notification sign was installed.
Mr. Kaminsky stated he passed the property on November 5th and the sign was not up.
Attorney Engle stated the sign was installed, but assumed it must have come down in the
recent storm. Mr. Izzo, Building Inspector, noted that he had not received an Affidavit of
Posting/Service from the applicant. Mr. Engle noted that the mailing was sent out and a
sign was posted (he put it up himself). The Affidavit will be submitted.
Mr. Mostcato noted as the sign was not up as of yesterday, whether initially installed or
not, so the Board will need to make a motion pursuant to Village Code to waive the
requirement for the posting of a public notice sign for this meeting before moving
forward with this application tonight. On a motion made by Steven Berger, and seconded
by Joel Simon, the sign requirement was waived.
Steven Berger Voting Aye
Joel Simon Voting Aye
Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye
Jeffrey Richman Voting Aye
Don Mascato Voting Aye
Mr. Moscato asked Mr. Izzo, the Building Inspector, to speak to what was submitted by
the Applicant regarding stormwater and what was requested by the Village Engineer.
Mr. Izzo noted that Mr. Nowak, Superintendent of Public Works, outlined the section of
the Code that needed to be met regarding stormwater management. He noted that 1,208
{
Zoning Board of Appeals
November 6,2012
Page 2
r
i
cubic feet of stormwater runoff remains to be captured. The applicant falls short by about
half of what is required.
d Mr. Engle noted that the submission included calculation of stormwater runoff for the
rear of the home. Additional information will be provided regarding the additional areas
where stormwater runoff should be captured.
He noted there were many variances being requested which may have a cumulative
impact, and questioned whether some variances could be reduced or eliminated. In
particular, he questioned whether the impervious surface coverage on the property could
be reduced. Mr. Moscato noted that the meeting could be adjourned until further
information regarding the stormwater management plan was submitted. Or, the Board
could condition any variances on the Village Engineer/Superintendent of Public Works'
approval of a stormwater management plan.
Mr. Kaminsky was curious how the applicant got into situation.
m
r Mr. Izzo stated a permit was issued in 1986, but did not include the pool and patio. The
applicant was the owner at the time of installation. The applicant came to the Village to
clean up the inconsistencies and take advantage of the Amnesty Program.
Mr. Engle noted that the pool was built in 1987 when processes were not as established
as they are now. No complaints were received from the neighbors. There have been no
negative impacts on the neighbors, percolation tests have been requested by the Village
Engineer/Superintendent of Public Works, but some feasibility questions have arisen
regarding accessibility of equipment to the site which may require the tests be performed
by hand auger.
i
Mr. Simon noted that he preferred to see the entire application before deciding upon the
variances. Mr. Richman also felt that the Board should wait until further information
3 regarding the stormwater management plan was submitted. He requested photographs of
the property, pool, patio, etc. Mr. Berger noted that the variances should be minimized.
Mr. Engle noted that the applicant has reviewed the property and will be removing an 8'
x 10' slab of concrete which will reduce the impervious surface coverage. The applicant
may also increase the number of plantings and relocate the pool equipment.
Mr. Kaminsky noted that this is an aboveground pool which may be able to be relocated.
Mr. Kaminsky requested information from the applicant regarding the cost to relocate the
pool. Mr. Kaminsky further noted that a significant amount of work was done here
without any permits or review. The estimated cost of repairs listed in the application is
$24,000.00. He asked what that included.
Zoning Board of Appeals
November 6,2012
Page 3
3
3
I
1
Mr. Moscato stressed the fact that the Board attempts to reduce the size and number of
the variances being granted. Once the Board has the additional information requested
tonight the Board can properly perform the balancing test to weigh the benefit of the
applicant versus the substantial nature of some of the variances.
Mr. Engle requested, on behalf of the applicant, an adjournment to the December 4, 2012
meeting.
On a motion made by Steven Berger, and seconded by Joel Simon, the adjournment was
granted.
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
Mr. Moscato called for item#2 on the agenda:
2) #12-022 Mr. Richard Burns
21 Ridge Boulevard
Legalize detached garage, wood deck on grade and shed
Mr. Richard Burns, homeowner, addressed the Board. He noted that the garage is over
60 years old and there is no Certificate of Occupancy or Building Permit for the garage.
The garage was built before the current side yard setback came into effect. The
maximum allowable lot coverage for an accessory structure is 4.5%. The applicant
proposes to legalize the existing garage and shed which covers 7.65% of the property.
Therefore, a lot coverage variance of 3.15% is requested. In addition, the minimum
required setback for any accessory structure is 5'-0". The applicant proposes to legalize
the detached garage having a rear yard setback of 3.22 feet and a side yard setback of
3.00 feet. A rear yard setback variance of 1.78 feet and a side yard setback variance of
2.00 feet is requested. And, finally, the applicant will require a side yard setback
variance for the shed of 5 feet.
Mr. Burns noted that the garage and house were built in end of 1946. The house was
purchased by the applicant in 1986. A storage shed was purchased and placed near the
Zoning Board of Appeals
II November 6,2012
Page 4
i
property line. The neighbor most affected does not have a problem with the shed. He
noted that he also had photos of the garage, deck and shed which were submitted to the
Board. The property is currently on the market. The potential buyer would like the shed
to remain. Mr. Burns stated that the garage has been there for 60 years and there has not
been any flooding or complaints. After a brief discussion, the applicant agreed to move
the shed to bring it into compliance.
Mr. Moscato noted that if the applicant can reduce the size of the garage, then it would
negate the need for one of the variances. He reminded everyone that variances run with
the property.
Mr. Burns noted that the agenda listed the wood deck on grade, but that issue has been
addressed. Mr. Izzo concurred.
Mr. Moscato requested information regarding the historic timeframe for the construction
of the garage. Mr. Izzo noted a Building Permit was issued for the construction of the
house in February 1946. An as-built survey dated August 1946 was submitted and is part
of the Building Department's files. The survey shows a 1'/z story brick house, but does
not show the garage. A Certificate of Occupancy was issued on September 5, 1946. The
garage was not part of the original application for the house. Mr. Izzo noted that there
are aerial maps available from Westchester County which show the garage as of April
1954. The 5 ft. side yard setback requirement for accessory structures was codified in
September 1954.
Attorney Gray clarified that if the garage was permitted and received a Certificate of
Occupancy at the time of construction there would not be an issue with respect to
compliance since the 5 ft. setback requirement for accessory structures did not exist at the
time the garage was constructed. However, because the garage was not properly
permitted and is now being legalized, current code requirements must be applied —
including the requirement for stormwater management.
Mr. Moscato called for members of the public wishing to speak in support or opposition
to the application.
The Board closed the public portion of the hearing, and went into deliberation. The
Board agreed that it is not feasible to reduce the size of the existing garage, but discussed
whether the shed can be relocated to be in compliance with the required 5 ft. setback,
particularly since the shed is already going to be relocated due to an encroachment on the
{ neighbor's property. The Applicant agreed to relocate the shed to conform with the
setback requirements and thereby withdrew his request for a 5 ft. side yard setback for the
shed.
Zoning Board of Appeals
November 6,2012
Page 5
_y
After a brief discussion of the application, Mr. Moscato read the following resolution:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Mr. Richard
Burns for a 3.15% accessory structure lot coverage variance, 1.78 foot rear yard setback
variance for an existing detached garage, 2 foot side yard setback variance for an existing
detached garage, and a 5 foot side yard setback for an existing shed, in connection with
the proposed legalization of a detached garage, wood deck on grade and shed, on
property located at 21 Ridge Boulevard, in an R7 zoning district on the west side of
Ridge Boulevard, at the intersection of Windsor Road and Ridge Boulevard. Said
premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as
Parcel ID # 135.60-1-21; and
WHEREAS, a duly advertised meeting was held on November 6, 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 applicant has withdrawn the request for a 5 foot side yard
setback variance for the existing shed based on the applicant's commitment to relocate
the shed to be in compliance with the Village Code's setback requirements; 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 accessory
building lot 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 substantial;
4) The variance will not create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmental
conditions of the neighborhood; and
I
V
Zoning Board of Appeals
1 November 6,2012
Page 6
i
r
5) The need for the variance is self-created; and
l
WHEREAS, the Board, from the application, after viewing the premises and
neighborhood concerned, and upon considering each of the factors set forth at Section
250-13(G)(2)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brook Code, finds with respect to the rear yard
setback variance for the detached garage:
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 side yard
setback variance for the detached garage:
1) The variance will not create an adverse impact to the character of the
i
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) variance will not create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmental
conditions of the neighborhood; and
5) need for the variance is self-created; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the said application for the
accessory building lot coverage variance is hereby granted, rear yard setback variance for
the detached garage is hereby granted, and side yard setback variance for the detached
garage is hereby granted.
1
Zoning Board of Appeals
November 6,2012
Page 7
i
Dated: November 6, 2012
Donald Moscato, Chairman
On a motion made by Steven Berger, and seconded by Andrew Kaminstky, the resolution
was adopted.
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 resolutions were adopted on a vote of 5 ayes to 0 Nays.
It was noted that a storm water management plan is required by Village Code.
{
Zoning Board of Appeals
November 6,2012
1 Page 8
-3
'G,=AGE OF RYE BROOK
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS �'` fi _ 01
RESOLUTION VILLAGE ADMINISTRATOR
WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Mr. Richard
Burns for a 3.15% accessory structure lot coverage variance, 1.78 ft. rear yard setback
variance for an existing detached garage, 2 ft. side yard setback variance for an existing
detached garage, and 5 ft. side yard setback for an existing shed, in connection with the
proposed legalization of a detached garage,wood deck on Qiade& shed,on property located
at 21 Ridge Boulevard, in an R-7 zoning district on the west side of Ridge Boulevard, at the
intersection of Windsor Road and Ridge Boulevard. Said premises being known and
designated on the tax snap of the Village of Rye.Brook as Parcel ID# 135.60-1-21; and
WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on November 6, 2012,. at
which time all those wishing to be heard weregivers such opportunity; and
WHEREAS, the proposed action is a Type II action pursuant to the New York State
M Environmental Quality Review Act and accordingly, no further environmental review is
required;and
WHEREAS, the. Applicant has -vvithdrawn the request for a 5 ft. side yard setback
variance for the existing shed based on the Applicant's commitment to relocate the shed to
be in compliance-vidn the Village Code's setback requirements; and
WHEREAS, the Board, from the application, after viewing the premises and
I
neighborhood concerned, and upon considering each of the factors set fortli at Section 250-
13(G)(2)(b)[2][-,L]-[e]
50-
13(G)(2)(b)[2][a]-[e] of die Rye Brook Code, Eu-ids -'with respect to the accessory building lot
{ coverage variance:
9
1) The variance [W-1hL/WILL NOT] create an adverse impact to the
character of the neighborhood;
2) The benefit the applicant seeks [GAN/CANNOT] be achieved through
another method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, that does not require
a variance;
Ilk
G 3) The variance substantial;
4) The -,Tuiance [4�4�/NX7ILL NOT] create any adverse impacts to the
physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood;and
it
i
i
f
J
5) The need for the variance [i&/IS NOT] self-created; and
r
WHEREAS, the Board, from the application, after viewing the premises and
neighborhood concerned, and upon considering each of the factors set forth at Section 250-
13(G)(2)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brook Code, finds with respect to the rear yard setback
variance for the detached garage:
1) The variance PWILL/WVILL NOT] create an adverse impact to the
character of the Neighborhood;
2) The benefit the applicant seeks [C�/CANTNOT] be achieved through
another method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, that does not require
a variance;
3) The variance [IS/!S NQ substantial;
4) The variance [VL/WILL NOT] create any adverse impacts to the
physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and
5) The need for the variance [-I-S/IS NOT] 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 side yard setback
variance for the detached garage:
1) The variance PW-ILL/WILL NOT] create an adverse impact to the
character of the neighborhood;
2) The benefit the applicant seeks [.�'SN/CAN�TNOT] be achieved through
another method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, that does not require
a variance;
3) The variance [IS/1&-, substantial;
4) The variance [ALL/WILL NOT] create any adverse impacts to the
p
physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood;and
5) The need for the variance [1&/IS NOT] self-created.
$, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the said application for the
accessory bluld.ing lot coverage variance is hereby [GRANTED/DE44E$], rear yard
setback variance for the detached garage is hereby [GRANTED/DENIED], and side yard
ii
—� setback variance for the detached garage is hereby [GRANTED/ IRL-D].
u
i
E
f
1
i
Dated: November 6, 2012
Mr. Don Moscato, Chairman
Mr. Moscato called the roll:
Steven Berger Vot Lig:_Aye Nay Abstain
Andrew Kaminsky Noting: Aye Nay Abstaili
Jeffrey Richman Voting: Aye Nay Abstain
Joel Simon Voting:_Aye Nati Abstain
Don Moscato Voting: Are Nay Abstain
S Ayes
Nays
Abstain
k.
r
jf
II
�I
is
-1
i
1
I .
i
9 3) Approval of August 7, 2012 and October 2, 2012 Zoning Board Summary
Mr. Moscato called for comments on both summaries. There being none, he
called for a motion to approve. On a motion made by Mr. Berger, and seconded
by Mr. Kaminsky, the summaries were approved.
Mr. Moscato called the roll:
Steven Berger Voting Aye
Joel Simon Voting Aye
Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye
Jeffrey Richman Voting Aye
Don Mascato Voting Aye
There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at
9:04 p.m.
The roll was called:
Steven Berger Voting Aye
! Joel Simon Voting Aye
Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye
Jeffrey Richman Voting Aye
Don Mascato Voting Aye
i
i
Zoning Board of Appeals
November 6,2012
I, Page 11
p