Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-01-04 - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK 938 King Street Zoning Board of Appeals January 4, 2011 Meeting at 8:00 p.m. AGENDA 1) #10-614 WESTCHESTER AVENUE TENNIS CLUB Adjourned from 12/7/10 699 Westchester Avenue Refrain from installing the required fire suppression sprinkler system in the tennis office trailer 2) #09-561 MR. & MRS. BRIAN BERK Adjourned from 9/7/10 11 Edgewood Drive Legalize the rear sports court, spa/patio and chain link fence 3) #10-621 MR. & MRS. JAMES ARNETT 282 North Ridge Street Legalize one story 2 car garage addition 4) #10-622 WIN RIDGE REALTY LLC 1 & IA Rye Ridge Place; Buddha Asian Bistro & Hibachi Install two wall signs on the existing building 5) APPROVAL OF DECEMBER 7, 2010 ZONING BOARD SUMMARY BOARD: Don Moscato, Chairman Steve Berger Michele Fredman Andrew Kaminsky Joel Simon STAFF: Steven Fews, Assistant Building Inspector Amanda Kandel, Esq., Village Counsel Fred Seifert, Public Access Coordinator Paula Patafio, Meeting Secretary Zoning Board of Appeals January 4,2011 Page 1 BOARD OF TRUSTEE LIAISON: Trustee Jeffrey Rednick Mr. Don Moscato, Chairman, welcomed everyone to the January 4, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. He called the meeting to order and introduced Village Staff and Counsel. He instructed all individuals to speak at the podium, state their names, application, position, and nature of the variance. Mr. Moscato stated that there were four members of the Zoning Board present, but the fifth member was scheduled to arrive. Having only four members of the Board in attendance meant that the applicants would need three yes votes for their applications to be approved. He offered each of the applicants the opportunity to be adjourned to later in the meeting, or to the February meeting. Mr. Moscato called for item#1 on the agenda: 1) #10-614 WESTCHESTER AVENUE TENNIS CLUB 699 Westchester Avenue Refrain from installing the required fire suppression sprinkler system in the tennis office trailer Mr. Moscato offered the applicant the opportunity to adjourn either for fifteen minutes, or until the next meeting. The applicant, Mr. John Brent, chose to proceed. Mr. Brent noted that he was before the Board requesting a variance to not install the required sprinkler system. He presented the Board with photographs of the trailer and the tennis bubble. He noted that he leased the space from the Rye Town Hilton and was informed that his lease, which expires in March of 2012, would not be renewed. The Hilton has other plans for this area. With such a short time left on the lease, and without a water source, installing the sprinkler system would be a financial burden. As an alternative, the applicant has offered to install a fire alarm system. He retained the firm of Rolf Jensen & Associates to design a code compliant fire alarm system for the trailer (office/waiting room). Mr. Brent noted that the trailer and bubble have emergency exits, and are equipped with fire extinguishers. Zoning Board of Appeals January 4,2011 Page 2 Mr. Steven Fews, Assistant Building Inspector, noted this matter came about as a result of a fire inspection. The applicant has proposed the installation of a fire alarm system with horn , bells, and exit signs in both the trailer and tennis bubble. Although the applicant has leased the space for 22 years, the Village understands that the lease will expire in early 2012. If, however, the lease is extended, the applicant would be required to install the sprinkler system. Ms. Michele Fredman noted that the trailer and the bubble were owned by the current tenant. Both will be removed at the end of the lease. Amanda Kandel, Esq., noted that the Rye Brook Code is more stringent than the State Code. The applicant is requesting a variance from the Rye Brook sprinkler law. Attorney Kandel prepared a resolution/condition for the Board's review and approval. 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 Steve Berger, and seconded by Michele Fredman, the public hearing was closed. The Board began deliberation. After a brief discussion, Mr. Moscato read the resolution into the record: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Westchester Avenue Tennis Club for a variance from the requirement for installing the required fire suppression sprinkler system in the tennis office trailer, on property located at 699 Westchester Avenue, in an H-1 zoning district on the north side of Westchester Avenue, approximately 170 feet from the intersection of Lincoln Avenue and Westchester Avenue. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID: 135.741-8 and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on January 4, 2011, 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 Review Act and, accordingly, no further environmental review is required; and Zoning Board of Appeals January 4,2011 Page 3 WHEREAS, the Board, from the application, after reviewing the premises and the neighborhood concerned, and upon considering each of the factors set forth at Section 212-13(A)-(B) of the Rye Brook Code, finds: 1. The application of the strict letter of Chapter 212, entitled Sprinklers, would create an unnecessary hardship for the applicant. 2. The applicant will install fire safety systems in compliance with the New York State Fire Code; and 3. The omission of the approved sprinkler system from the trailer will not significantly jeopardize human life provided that the applicant will install and/or provide other fire safety devices in the trailer. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the said application is hereby granted on the following condition: 1) If the lease is renewed between the applicant and the property owner past March, 2012, the variance will expire 60 days from the termination of the lease and the applicant will need to reapply for a variance from the Sprinkler Law. Dated: January 4, 2011 Don Moscato, Chairman Mr. Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting Aye Michele Fredman Voting Aye Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye Joel Simon Absent/Excused Don Moscato Voting Aye The application was granted on a vote of four(4) ayes zero (0) nays. Zoning Board of Appeals January 4,2011 Page 4 Zoning Board of Appeals January 4,2011 Page 5 Zoning Board of Appeals January 4,2011 Page 6 2) #09-561 MR. & MRS. BRIAN BERK Adjourned from 9/7/10 11 Edgewood Drive Legalize the rear sports court, spa/patio and chain link fence Anthony Gioffre, Cuddy & Feder, requested an adjournment until the fifth member of the Board arrived. Mr. Moscato noted that the matter would be recalled upon the arrival of Mr. Simon. 3) #10-621 MR. & MRS. JAMES ARNETT 282 North Ridge Street Legalize one story 2 car garage addition Mr. James Arnett, the applicant, addressed the Board. An application to construct was made and an 8' variance was granted. The work was finished and the final as- built survey was done in preparation for a Certificate of Occupancy. Unfortunately, the survey showed a side yard setback of 7.4'. The garage was built where it was supposed to, but the setbacks are off. In review, it was found that the initial survey was incorrect. Mr. Fews, Assistant Building Inspector, noted that the original survey showed a 24' set back on the greater side. The current survey shows a 27.3' setback. There appears that there was a mis-measurement on the original survey. He agreed with Mr. Arnett that there was a problem with the initial survey, and an error was made by the surveyor. Mr. Moscato noted that everyone understands that this was an approved situation, and the construction was done as it was supposed to be done. 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 Ms. Fredman, and seconded by Andrew Kaminsky, the public hearing was closed. The Board began deliberation. After a brief discussion, Mr. Moscato read the following resolution: Zoning Board of Appeals January 4,2011 Page 7 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Mr. & Mrs. James Arnett for a .6 foot single side yard setback variance, in connection with the legalization of the garage addition, on property located at 282 North Ridge Street, in an R-15 zoning district on the west side of North Ridge Street, approximately 500 feet from the intersection of Meadowlark Road and North Ridge Street. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID: 135.27-1-10; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on January 4, 2011, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; WHEREAS, the proposed action is a Type II action pursuant to the New York State Environmental Review Act and, accordingly, no further environmental review is required; and WHEREAS, the Board, from the application, after reviewing the premises and the neighborhood concerned, and upon considering each of the factors set forth at Section 250-13(G)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brook Code, finds: 1. An 8 foot single side yard setback variance was granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals to the applicant before the garage addition was built and upon applying for a Certificate of Occupancy, the Building Department informed the applicant that the garage was built .6 feet closer to the side yard property line than allowed by the previously granted variance; 2. The proposed variances will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties; 3. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some other method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an area variance; 4. The requested variance is not substantial; 5. The proposed variance will not have an adverse affect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and 6. The alleged difficult was not self-created. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the said application is hereby granted. Dated: January 4, 2011 Don Moscato, Chairman Mr. Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting Aye Michele Fredman Voting Aye Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye Joel Simon Absent/Excused Don Moscato Voting Aye Variance granted four ayes. Zoning Board of Appeals January 4,2011 Page 8 Zoning Board of Appeals January 4,2011 Page 9 Zoning Board of Appeals January 4,2011 Page 10 4) #10-622 WIN RIDGE REALTY LLC 1 & I Rye Ridge Place; Buddha Asian Bistro & Hibachi Install two wall signs on the existing building Peggy and Peter Liu of Brooklyn, New York, the applicants, addressed the Board. They have applied for two signs to be installed at Rye Ridge Plaza, but the Village's Code only allows one sign. The restaurant will have almost 6,000 square feet and they are proposing one sign above the front entrance of the store, and a second sign at the Bowman Avenue wall sign to identify the store location. The applicant is working with Robinson Architects, P.C. on the design of the restaurant. Best Sign, Inc. will be responsible for the construction and installation of the signs. Mr. Kaminsky asked if the applicant was Win Ridge or the store owner. Attorney Kandel noted that the property owner has signed the application. The variance is for the second sign for this business and not the center. The sign will have individual black aluminum letters with red LED lighting; 6.5", 21", 30". Mr. Fews noted that Chipotle, also a corner store, has a similar situation, with two signs. The Board suggested a different color combination for the signs. It was noted that back lit signs do not show as well on brick. The color will be reviewed, but it was noted that there are other black signs within the center. Peter Stahl, of Win Ridge Realty, addressed the Board. He noted that Chipotle and this restaurant are corner stores. There are two stores vacant, but they face Ridge Street and when a tenant comes in their signs will be installed above the entrances. All in-line stores have their signs above the store. The proposed sign for the Buddha Restaurant is aluminum letters, back-lit in red. The size of the sign is within the as-of-right. Mr. Stahl also noted that the awnings on the applicant's restaurant were installed within the last month. The application will go before the Architectural Review Board for approval of the signs. 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 Ms. Fredman, and seconded by Andrew Kaminsky, the public hearing was closed. The Board began deliberation, and prepared the resolution. Mr. Moscato read the following resolution into the record: Zoning Board of Appeals January 4,2011 Page 11 RESOLUTION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Win Ridge Realty LLC for an area variance to install two (2) wall signs when the Code allows only one sign per business or frontage in connection with the proposed installation of two (2) wall signs, on property located at 1 & IA Rye Ridge Plaza, in a C1-P zoning district on the west side of South Ridge Street, approximately 300 feet from 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: 141.27-1-6; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on January 4, 2011, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; WHEREAS, the proposed action is a Type II action pursuant to the New York State Environmental Review Act and, accordingly, no further environmental review is required; and WHEREAS, the Board, from the application, after reviewing the premises and the neighborhood concerned, and upon considering each of the factors set forth at Section 250-13(G)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brook Code, finds: 1. The proposed variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties; 2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some other method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an area variance; 3. The requested variance is not substantial; than an area variance; 4. The proposed variance will not have an adverse affect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and 5. The alleged difficult was self-created. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the said application is hereby granted. Dated: January 4, 2011 Don Moscato, Chairman Mr. Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting Aye Michele Fredman Voting Aye Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye Joel Simon Absent/Excused Don Moscato Voting Aye The resolution was approved by four ayes. Zoning Board of Appeals January 4,2011 Page 12 Zoning Board of Appeals January 4,2011 Page 13 Zoning Board of Appeals January 4,2011 Page 14 With the arrival of Mr. Simon, Mr. Moscato recalled item#2. 2) #09-561 MR. & MRS. BRIAN BERK Adjourned from 9/7/10 11 Edgewood Drive Legalize the rear sports court, spa/patio and chain link fence Anthony Gioffre, Esq., legal representative for the applicant, addressed the Board. Also in attendance was the applicant, and Mr. Jim Ryan of John Myer Consulting. Mr. Gioffre noted that the applicant has requested two (2) variances in order to legalize the existing sports court and spa. The location of the sports court and spa encroaches into the required minimum 6' side yard setback. In addition, construction took place within the 100-foot watercourse buffer, in the areas outside the buffer, and to the stability of the steep slopes on the property. The Village's Consultant, F.P. Clark Associates, has completed its study and presented its findings in the form of a memo dated December 3, 2010. In turn, the Planning Board has made its recommendations and granted site plan approval The application has now been returned to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Attorney Gioffre noted that two of the closest neighbors have submitted letters in support. He also noted that there is existing mature vegetation that acts as screening. As part of the Planning Board process, the landscaping has been supplemented. If the application is approved, the additional plantings will be installed. Attorney Gioffre noted that there are no health or safety issues, no visual impacts, and the closest effected neighbors are in support of the application. Jim Ryan of John Myer Consulting addressed the Board. He addressed storm water runoff and noted that the Village has a regulation that is administered through the Engineer's office. The net impact was looked at, and then mitigated. The applicant worked directly with the Village Engineer, and the Village's Consultant, Dolph Rotfeld. A trench drain will be constructed around the court if the variances are granted. The plans before the ZBA are the ones that were approved by The Planning Board. The Board discussed the existing 10' fencing. Mr. Brian Berk, applicant, noted that the fence is on the neighboring property but he has agreed to move it closer to the sports court. In addition, there are two sides of the court that are surrounded by 10' netting. Zoning Board of Appeals January 4,2011 Page 15 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. Berger, and seconded by Ms. Fredman, the public hearing was closed. The Board began deliberation, and prepared the resolution. The approvals were broken down into three (3) areas. The spa, the sports court, and the fencing. Mr. Moscato read the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Mr. & Mrs. Brian Berk for a 3.82 foot side yard setback variance for the sports court, a 2 foot variance for the spa/patio and a 4 foot variance for the fence located to the southeast of the sports court, in connection with the legalization of the rear sports court, spa/patio and chain link fence, on property located at 11 Edgewood Drive, in an $-25 zoning district on the south side of Edgewood Drive, approximately 650 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: 135.24-1-21; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on January 4, 2011, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; WHEREAS, the proposed action is a Type II action pursuant to the New York State Environmental Review Act and, accordingly, no further environmental review is required; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board reviewed a site plan application at its November and December meetings and approved the site plan currently before the Zoning Board of Appeals conditioned on the Zoning Board of Appeals granting the necessary variances for the application; and WHEREAS, the Board, from the application, after reviewing the premises and the neighborhood concerned, and upon considering each of the factors set forth at Section 250-13(G)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brook Code, finds: 1. The difficulty has been self-created because the applicant did not obtain the requisite permits and approvals to construct the spa/patio, sports court and fence. Zoning Board of Appeals January 4,2011 Page 16 2. Mathematically the variances requested are substantial, but when viewing the totality of the circumstances and the record before it the Board finds that the impacts of the variances are not substantial. 3. The location of the spa/patio and sports court does not create an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood because, based on the site plan approved by the Planning Board, they are adequately screened from the neighboring property. 4. The benefit sought by the applicant could have been achieved without a side yard setback variance or a fence height variance by constructing the sports court and surrounding fence closer to the interior of the property, outside of the required setbacks; and 5. Granting the requested variances will not result in adverse physical and/or environmental conditions. The Planning Board has examined the impacts to the wetland buffer and is satisfied with the mitigation of the buffer, and the applicant is installing stormwater management in compliance with the code and to the satisfaction of the Acting Village Engineer. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the 2 foot side yard setback variance is granted; the 4 foot fence height variance is granted, and the 3.82 foot side yard setback variance is granted. Dated: January 4, 2011 Don Moscato, Chairman Mr. Moscato called the roll to grant the 2 foot side yard setback variance for the spa: Steven Berger Voting Aye Michele Fredman Voting Aye Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye Joel Simon Voting Aye Don Moscato Voting Aye The 2 foot setback variance is granted on a vote of five ayes to zero nays. Mr. Moscato called the roll to grant the 3.82 foot side yard setback for the sports court: Zoning Board of Appeals January 4,2011 Page 17 Steven Berger Voting Aye Michele Fredman Voting Aye Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye Joel Simon Voting Aye Don Moscato Voting Aye The 3.82 foot side yard setback for the sports court is granted on a vote of five ayes to zero nays. Mr. Moscato called the roll to grant the 4 foot fence height variance: Steven Berger Voting Aye Michele Fredman Voting Nay Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye Joel Simon Voting Aye Don Moscato Voting Nay The 4 foot fence height variance is granted on a vote of three ayes to two nays. Zoning Board of Appeals January 4,2011 Page 18 Zoning Board of Appeals January 4,2011 Page 19 Zoning Board of Appeals January 4,2011 Page 20 5) APPROVAL OF DECEMBER 7, 2010 ZONING BOARD SUMMARY Mr. Moscato called for comments from the Board regarding the December 71h summary. Changes were submitted by Attorney Kandel, Mr. Moscato, and Mr. Berger. On a motion made by Mr. Simon, and seconded by Ms. Berger, the summary was adopted as amended. Mr. Moscato called the roll: Steve Berger Voting Aye Michele Fredman Voting Aye Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye Joel Simon Voting Aye Don Moscato Voting Aye There being no additional business before the Board, Mr. Moscato adjourned the meeting at 9:58 p.m. Zoning Board of Appeals January 4,2011 Page 21