Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-05-03 - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK 938 King Street Zoning Board of Appeals May 3, 2011 Meeting at 8:00 p.m. AGENDA 1) #10-596 Mr. Edward Lipowiecki 23 Hillcrest Avenue Legalize the rear two-story deck 2) #10-616 Mr. & Mrs. Daniel Dragomir 15 Brook Lane Legalize rear patio 3) #11-625b Ms. Joan Conklin 75 Bowman Avenue Legalize existing rear deck and patio 4) #11-628 Mr. & Mrs. William Golden 4 Latonia Road Construct three, one-story additions; a new front portico; and perform interior alterations 5) #11-623 Mr. Joseph Biondo Adjourned from April 5, 2011 10 Lawridge Drive Construct a one-story garage addition; rear two-story addition; rear 2nd story addition; new rear deck; new swimming pool with patio 6) Approval of April 5, 2011 Zoning Board Summary Zoning Board of Appeals May 3,2011 Page 1 BOARD: Steve Berger, Acting Chairman Michele Fredman Andrew Kaminsky Excused: Don Moscato, Chairman Joel Simon STAFF: Michael Izzo, Building Inspector Jennifer Gray, Esq., Village Counsel Fred Seifert, Public Access Coordinator Paula Patafio, Meeting Secretary BOARD OF TRUSTEE LIAISON: Trustee Jeffrey Rednick Mr. Steve Berger, Acting Chairman, welcomed everyone to the May 3, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. He called the meeting to order and introduced Village Staff and Counsel. He noted that both Mr. Don Moscato and Mr. Joel Simon were excused from the meeting, and stated that there were three (3) members of the Zoning Board present, however, in order to be approved the applicant would require all three (3) votes. He offered each of the applicants the opportunity to be adjourned to the June meeting. Mr. Berger asked that all individual to speak at the podium, state their names, application, position, and nature of the variance. He called for the first item on the agenda: 1) #10-596 Mr. Edward Lipowiecki 23 Hillcrest Avenue Legalize the rear two-story deck Mr. Izzo, Building Inspector, noted that all notification requirements have been met for this application. It was also noted that this property is partially in Rye Brook, and partially in Port Chester. This is an unusual application because the property is located in two municipalities. The deck is on the portion of the property that is in Rye Brook. Mr. Edward Lipowiecki, the applicant, addressed the Board. He noted that he was before the Board in order to legalize the rear two-story deck which was constructed in 2001. Mr. Berger noted that three (3) variances were requested. The variances requested are for the rear yard setback, the maximum allowable deck coverage, and impervious surface coverage. Zoning Board of Appeals May 3,2011 Page 2 Mr. Andrew Kaminsky noted that Rye Brook only has jurisdiction over the property in Rye Brook. Mr. Izzo stated that this was true -- only within the municipal boundary of Rye Brook. However, if the Village could count the entire lot, then no variances would be required. Mr. Kaminsky asked if Port Chester could grant the variances. Jennifer Gray, Esq., Village Counsel, noted that the municipality where the structure is located has jurisdiction. The tax map shows that the entire dwelling is on the Rye Brook portion of the property, therefore the Rye Brook Code applies. Mr. Berger asked if the entire garage was counted in the impervious coverage calculation. Mr. Izzo noted that you can only count the land and structures in Rye Brook. Ms. Michele Fredman questioned whether this property could be subdivided. Mr. Izzo noted that this property is located in an R2F Zone, on a 50 x 100 size lot. There are homes to the right and left of this home there are other homes. There is no way to subdivide this lot. Mr. Berger called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in support of or in opposition to the application. There being no one, he called for a motion to close the public portion of the hearing. On a motion made by Mr. Kaminsky, and seconded by Ms. Fredman, the public portion of the hearing was closed, and the Board began deliberation. Upon the Board's return, Mr. Berger read the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Mr. Edward Lipowiecki for an 11.25 foot rear yard setback variance, a 1% deck coverage variance, and an 88 square foot total impervious surface coverage variance, on property located at 23 Hillcrest Avenue, in an R2F Zoning District on the east side of Hillcrest Avenue, approximately 250 feet from the intersection of Woodland Avenue and Hillcrest Avenue. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID #: 135.75-1- 61; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on May 3, 2011, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and Zoning Board of Appeals May 3,2011 Page 3 WHEREAS, the municipal boundary of the Village of Port Chester bisects the rear portion of the subject property, therefore that portion of the property situated with in the Village of Port Chester cannot be included in zoning calculations for determining compliance with the applicable requirements of the Village of Rye Brook Zoning Code; 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 WHERAS, the Board, from the application, after viewing the premises and neighborhood concerned, and upon considering each of the factors as set forth at Section 250-13(G)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brook code, finds: 1) The requested variances will not have an adverse impact on the character of the neighborhood; 2) The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by another method, feasible for the applicant to pursue; that does not require a variance; 3) The requested variances are not substantial; 4) The requested variances will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and 5) The applicant's difficulty is self created. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the said application is herby granted. Dated: May 3, 2011 Steven Berger, Acting Chairman Mr. Berger called the roll: Steve Berger Voting Aye Michele Fredman Voting Aye Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye Thepplication was approved by a vote of three (3) ayes, and zero (0) nays. Zoning Board of Appeals May 3,2011 Page 4 Zoning Board of Appeals May 3,2011 Page 5 Zoning Board of Appeals May 3,2011 Page 6 2) #10-616 Mr. & Mrs. Daniel Dragomir 15 Brook Lane Legalize rear patio Mr. Izzo, Building Inspector, noted that all notification requirements for this application have been met. Mr. Daniel Dragomir, applicant, addressed the Board. He stated that he was before the Board requesting a 21.27 square foot total impervious surface coverage variance needed in order to legalize his rear patio. He noted that an addition to the house was constructed and when it was done, a patio was constructed. Mr. Kaminsky noted that this application was before the Zoning Board at a previous meeting. The applicant has proposed the removal of existing impervious surfaces (walkways) including a tool shed in order to decrease the size of the variance required. Mr. Berger noted that the applicant was asked to provide photos of the patio showing it was removed, however, no photos were presented to the Board. Mr. Dragomir indicated on the plans where he will remove 270 square feet of the walkways on the side of the home, as well as a shed that is 90 square feet. Mr. Kaminsky noted that during the construction multiple variances were requested and granted. The patio was never mentioned. Mr. Dragomir noted that after the home construction was completed they decided to construct a patio. Mr. Izzo, Building Inspector, noted that the patio was never permitted with the original construction in 2009. The patio was not part of the application, and was built without a permit. The applicant is now before the Board trying to legalize the patio. Jennifer Gray, Esq., Village Counsel, noted that in October 2009 a 508' impervious surface coverage variance request was denied. Since that time the applicant has been working with their architect to reduce the impervious surfaces on the property. Ms. Fredman noted that nothing has been done in over a year. Mr. Dragomir noted that he wanted the variances and permit before he started to remove the walkways. The applicants have been residents of Rye Brook for over twenty years and they saved a long time to make the renovations to this home. They did not have the right guidance at the time of their construction, and they are sorry that they did not have the proper permits at the time of construction. Zoning Board of Appeals May 3,2011 Page 7 Mr. Berger noted that removing a small portion of the patio would render the need for the variance moot. An additional 21 square feet would need to be removed. Mr. Dragomir noted that there is no way to remove any of the patio and still have access from the house. There is a door from the dining room and one from the sunroom that need access to the patio. This is a blue stone patio. Mr. Berger called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in support or opposition to the application. There being no one, and no additional comments from the Board, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. On a motion made by Ms. Fredman, and seconded by Mr. Kaminsky, the public portion of the meeting was closed and the Board began deliberation. Upon the Board's return, Mr. Berger read the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Mr. & Mrs. Daniel Dragomir for a 21.27 square foot total impervious surface coverage variance, in connection with the proposed legalization of a rear patio, on property located at 15 Brook Lane, in an R-10 zoning district on the east side of Brook Lane, approximately 340 feet from the intersection of Sunset Road and Brook Lane. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID #: 135-65-1-24; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on May 3, 2011, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and WHEREAS, by resolution dated October 6, 2009, the Zoning Board of Appeals denied a previous request by the applicant for a 508 square foot impervious surface coverage variance to legalize the existing patio; and WHEREAS, the applicant has committed to remove two walkways and a detached shed, reducing the required total impervious surface coverage variance to 21.27 square feet; 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 Zoning Board of Appeals May 3,2011 Page 8 WHERAS, the Board, from the application, after viewing the premises and neighborhood concerned, and upon considering each of the factors as set forth at Section 250-13(G)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brook code, finds: 1) The requested variances will not have an adverse impact on the character of the neighborhood; 2) The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by another method, feasible for the applicant to pursue; that does not require a variance; 3) The requested variance is not substantial; 4) The requested variances will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and 5) The applicant's difficulty is self created. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the said application is herby granted on the following condition: 1) No shed shall be permitted to be constructed on the property. Dated: May 3, 2011 Steven Berger, Acting Chairman Mr. Berger called the roll: Steve Berger Voting Aye Michele Fredman Voting Aye Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye The application was approved by a vote of three (3) ayes, and zero (0) nays Zoning Board of Appeals May 3,2011 Page 9 Zoning Board of Appeals May 3,2011 Page 10 Zoning Board of Appeals May 3,2011 Page 11 3) #11-625b Ms. Joan Conklin 75 Bowman Avenue Legalize existing rear deck and patio Mr. & Mrs. Conklin, the applicants, addressed the Board. Mr. Conklin noted that the notification sign was up for two weeks beginning on April 15th and then removed. Mr. Izzo, Building Inspector, stated that the sign is supposed to be installed and remain up for seven (7) days before the meeting. Attorney Gray noted that the sign notification requirement can be waived. On a motion made by Mr. Kaminsky, and seconded by Ms. Fredman, the requirement for the sign notification was waived. Mr. Berger called the roll: Steve Berger Voting Aye Michele Fredman Voting Aye Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye Mr. Conklin noted that they filed to refinance his home and a permit from 38 years ago turned up as not having a Certificate of Occupancy. The pool, deck and patio have been there for about 38 years. The applicants have expended $3600 to get to where we are today. This is not a new construction, however, it was noted that the patio was replaced years ago as has been the pool. There always has been a patio behind the garage, and there has always been a pool. There never have been any water issues on this property, which is located in an R2F zone. Attorney Gray noted that the variances run with the land, and she suggested that a condition be placed on the approval in connection with any future additions. Mr. Berger called members of the public wishing to address the Board in support of or in opposition to the application. Mr. Eugene Wells of 15 Division Street addressed the Board. He noted that he did not have a problem with the granting of the required variances. It was also noted that his property abuts the applicants' property. There being no additional comments or questions, Mr. Berger called for a motion to close the public portion of the hearing. On a motion made by Ms. Fredman, and seconded by Mr. Kaminsky, the public portion of the hearing was closed, and the Board began deliberation. Upon the Board's return, Mr. Berger read the following resolution: Zoning Board of Appeals May 3,2011 Page 12 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Ms. Joan Conklin for a 4.8 foot single side yard setback variance, a 1.11 foot total of two side yards setback variance, a 1.7 foot setback for patio on grade variance, and an 82 square foot total impervious surface coverage variance in connection with the proposed legalization of an existing rear deck and patio, on property located at 75 Bowman Avenue, in an R-2F zoning district on the north side of Bowman Avenue, approximately 85 feet from the intersection of Division Street and Bowman Avenue. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID #: 141-27-1-18; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on May 3, 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 Quality Review Act and, accordingly, no further environmental review is required; and WHERAS, the Board, from the application, after viewing the premises and neighborhood concerned, and upon considering each of the factors as set forth at Section 250-13(G)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brook code, finds: 1) Subject to the condition set forth below, the requested variances will not have an adverse impact on the character of the neighborhood; 2) The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by another method, feasible for the applicant to pursue; that does not require a variance; 3) The requested variances are not substantial; 4) The requested variances will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and 5) The applicant's difficulty is self created. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the said application is herby granted on the following condition: 1) The single side yard setback variance and the total of two side yards setback variance related to the legalization of the existing deck shall be limited in application to the existing unenclosed deck and any in-kind replacement. "In-Kind Replacement" shall not include enclosing the deck or replacing the deck with an addition or any new construction. Dated: May 3, 2011 Steven Berger, Acting Chairman Mr. Berger called the roll: Steve Berger Voting Aye Michele Fredman Voting Aye Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye The application was approved by a vote of three (3) ayes, and zero (0) nays Zoning Board of Appeals May 3,2011 Page 13 Zoning Board of Appeals May 3,2011 Page 14 Zoning Board of Appeals May 3,2011 Page 15 4) #11-628 Mr. & Mrs. William Golden 4 Latonia Road Construct three, one-story additions; a new front portico; and perform interior alterations The applicants' architect, from the firm or Richau, Musticato, Grippi Associates, addressed the Board as representative for the applicants. It was noted that the applicants propose to expand the dining room towards the front of the house, expand the kitchen towards the right side, enlarge the vestibule, and expand the master bedroom in the rear of the house (a family room will be constructed under the master bedroom with a 7' high ceiling). The existing house is non-conforming as the house was built prior to the adoption of the 1954 zoning code. This is a split level structure, with heavy screening on the right side. The architect provided the Board with photographs of the property. It was noted that there is a greenhouse on the property. The greenhouse does not have a foundation. Mr. Izzo, Building Inspector, noted that the size of this addition will trigger the need for a storm water management plan. He also pointed out that this is not a small house, but the applicants are 800 feet shy of the maximum impervious surface coverage. After the proposed construction is completed, the structure will be 9' from the property line. Ms. Fredman noted these homes are very close together. The location map shows the homes are closer than expected. She felt that the application could use a little more reflection. A discussion ensued, and the applicants were offered an adjournment to the June meeting. It was suggested that the Board visit the property. The proposed area of construction will be roped off so that the Board can fully understand the scope of this addition. Mr. Berger adjourned the item to the June 7, 2011 meeting of the Zoning Board. 5) #11-623 Mr. Joseph Biondo Adjourned from April 5, 2011 10 Lawridge Drive Construct a one-story garage addition; rear two-story addition; rear 2nd story addition; new rear deck; new swimming pool with patio Zoning Board of Appeals May 3,2011 Page 16 Brad DeMotte, architect from the firm of DeMotte Architects, addressed the Board as representative for the applicants. He noted that the proposal was redesigned and the applicants have made some significant reductions since their last appearance before the Board. The proposed alternations include a one-story garage, a two-story addition to the rear of the main house, a deck, pool, pool terrace and covered entry at the front of the home. The proposed construction will enlarge the kitchen and master bedroom suite, as well as creating additional garage bay. The new plans eliminated the need for main building coverage and impervious surface variances. The front yard setback has been reduced and now only requires a variance of 3.5 feet, and the gross floor area variance has been reduced to only a 14% above the maximum allowable gross floor area. This was achieved by reducing the overall size of the proposed additions, the size of the pool, the size of the pool terrace, and the size of the deck. The applicants have hired a civil engineer, A.F. Michaels Consulting Engineers, to address the issue of storm water runoff. Percolation tests were completed and a report from the engineer has been submitted. The system has not yet been designed, and the letter from the Engineer has not be reviewed by the Building Inspector. The proposed storm water system is a rain garden. The calculations will be done at a later date. It was also noted that there are some existing storm water facilities on the property. Mr. Izzo noted that the sketch submitted by the applicants' engineering consultant shows the drainage system being constructed in the drainage easement. This easement runs with the land. The applicant will need to submit a storm water plan to be reviewed by the Village's Engineer. Attorney Gray noted that a condition to the granting of the variance could be the development of an approval storm water retention plan. Mr. Kaminsky noted that he was very impressed with the reductions made by the applicant. Split level homes are very challenging to construct additions on. Mr. Berger thanked the applicants for their efforts. On a motion made by Ms. Fredman, and seconded by Mr. Kaminsky, the public portion of the meeting was closed and the Board began deliberation. Upon the Board's return, Mr. Berger read the following resolution. Zoning Board of Appeals May 3,2011 Page 17 RESOLUTION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Mr. Joseph Biondo for a 3.5 foot front yard setback variance and a 474 square foot gross floor area variance, in connection with the proposed construction of a one- story garage addition; read two-story addition; read second story addition; new rear deck; new swimming pool with patio, on property located at 10 Lawridge Drive, in an R-15 zoning district on the east side of Lawridge Drive, approximately 300 feet from the intersection of Lawridge Drive and Sleepy Hollow Road. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID #: 129.67-1-59; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on April 5, 2011 and continued to May 3, 2011, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and WHEREAS, on April 20, 2011 the applicant submitted revised plans which reduced the size of the proposed construction thereby eliminating the applicant's request for a 1.8% main coverage variance and a 671 square foot impervious surface coverage variance and reducing the request for a gross floor are variance from 1,366 square feet to 474 square feet; and WHEREAS, the 3.5 foot front yard setback variance results from the proposed addition of a canopy atop an existing landing at the front entry which landing encroaches 3.5 feet into the front yard setback; 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 WHERAS, the Board, from the application, after viewing the premises and neighborhood concerned, and upon considering each of the factors as set forth at Section 250-13(G)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brook code, finds: 1) The requested variances will not have an adverse impact on the character of the neighborhood; 2) he benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by another method, feasible for the applicant to pursue; that does not require a variance; Zoning Board of Appeals May 3,2011 Page 18 3) The requested variances are not substantial; 4) Subject to the condition set forth below, the requested variances will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and 5) The applicant's difficulty is self created. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the said application is herby granted on the following condition: 1) Prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant shall submit a storm water pollution prevention plan and secure approval of such plan from the Acting Village Engineer. Dated: May 3, 2011 Steven Berger, Acting Chairman Mr. Berger called the roll: Steve Berger Voting Aye Michele Fredman Voting Aye Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye The application was approved by a vote of three (3) ayes, and zero (0) nays Zoning Board of Appeals May 3,2011 Page 19 Zoning Board of Appeals May 3,2011 Page 20 Zoning Board of Appeals May 3,2011 Page 21 6) APPROVAL OF APRIL 5, 2011 ZONING BOARD SUMMARY The review and approval of the April 5 summary was postponed to the next Zoning Board meeting with the consensus of the Board. Mr. Berger called the roll: Steve Berger Voting Aye Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye Joel Simon Voting Aye There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:47 p.m. Zoning Board of Appeals May 3,2011 Page 22