Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-06-07 - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK 938 King Street Zoning Board of Appeals June 7, 2011 Meeting at 8:00 p.m. AGENDA 1) #11-628 Mr. & Mrs. William Golden 4 Latonia Road Construct three, one-story addition; a new front portico; and perform interior alterations 2) #11-630 Mr. & Mrs. Steven Erenfryd 64 Rock Ridge Drive Legalize existing in-ground swimming pool and pool patio 3) #11-629 Mr. & Mrs. Peter Faustino 1 Old Orchard Road Construct a series of second-story additions 4) #11-627 Aventura Realty Corp./Steven Linder 558 Westchester Avenue Legalize the existing commercial office use 5) Approval of April 5, 2011 Zoning Board Summary BOARD: Steve Berger Andrew Kaminsky Michele Fredman Andrew Kaminsky Joel Simon Don Moscato, Chairman STAFF: Michael Izzo, Building Inspector Jennifer Gray, Esq., Village Counsel Fred Seifert, Public Access Coordinator Paula Patafio, Meeting Secretary Zoning Board of Appeals June 7,2011 Page 1 BOARD OF TRUSTEE LIAISON: Trustee Jeffrey Rednick Mr. Don Moscato, Chairman, welcomed everyone to the June 7, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. He called the meeting to order and introduced Village Staff and Counsel. He asked that individuals to speak at the podium, state their names, application, position, and nature of the variance. Mr. Moscato noted that Mr. Joel Simon would recuse himself from the first item as he resided in close proximity to the applicant. 1) #11-628 Mr. & Mrs. William Golden 4 Latonia Road Construct three, one-story addition; a new front portico; and perform interior alterations Mr. Frank Grippi, R.A., the architect, from the firm of Richau, Mustacato, Grippi Associates, addressed the Board on behalf of the applicants. He noted that this application was previously before the Board. The applicants have reduced the size of the proposed addition, thereby reducing the size of the variances required. Mr. Moscato thanked the applicants for the modification. He called for questions from the Board members. Mr. Andrew Kaminsky noted that the issue last time was the side yard and the screening is more than adequate in that location. 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 Michele Fredman, and seconded by Andrew Kaminsky, the public hearing was closed and the Board began deliberation. Attorney Jennifer Gray clarified the variances required. Upon the Board's return, Mr. Moscato read the following resolution: Zoning Board of Appeals June 7,2011 Page 2 RESOLUTION WHEREAS application has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Mr. & Mrs. William Golden for an 8.1 foot front yard setback variance and a 2.6 foot single side yard setback variance in connection with the proposed construction of three (3) one-story additions, a new front portico, and perform interior alterations on property located at 4 Latonia Road, in an R-15 zoning district, on the east side of Latonia Road, approximately 185 feet from the intersection of Winding Wood Road and Latonia Road. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 135.26, Block: 1, Lot: 29; and WHEREAS a duly advertised public hearing was held on May 3, 2011, and continued to June 7, 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 WHEREAS the Board, from the application, after reviewing the premises and 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 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 variances sought are not substantial; 4) The proposed variances will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood; 5) The applicant's difficulty is self-created NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the said application is hereby granted. DATED: June 7, 2011 Mr. Don Moscato, Chairman Mr. Moscato called the roll: Steve Berger Voting Aye Michele Fredman Voting Aye Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye Joel Simon Abstained Don Moscato Voting Aye The resolution was approved by a vote of four (4) ayes, and zero (0) nays, and one (1) abstention. Zoning Board of Appeals June 7,2011 Page 3 Zoning Board of Appeals June 7,2011 Page 4 Zoning Board of Appeals June 7,2011 Page 5 2) #11-630 Mr. & Mrs. Steven Erenfryd 64 Rock Ridge Drive Legalize existing in-ground swimming pool and pool patio Mr. Steven Erenfryd, applicant, addressed the Board. He noted that he purchased the home in 2006, with the in-ground pool and patio, and is now looking to legalize both. The pool equipment will be removed from Village property. He is seeking a License Agreement from the Board of Trustees for those portions of the patio and fence that encroach onto Village property. Mr. Izzo, Building Inspector, noted that the patio and the fence encroach onto Village property. Mr. Moscato noted that a great deal is contingent upon the proposed License Agreement with the Village. He requested that a condition be added to the variance: "Subject to the proper execution of the License Agreement." He did note that there is a financial hardship. 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 Mr. Berger, the public hearing was closed. The Board began its deliberation. Mr. Moscato noted that the variances are substantial and asked the Board whether they thought the need for the variance was self-created. The consensus of the Board was that it was not self-created because the applicant had a Certificate of Occupancy for the pool and patio. Ms. Fredman began the discussion regarding tying the Licensing Agreement to future construction on the pool. If the pool needs to be reconstructed, then it would need to be moved. If there is a leak, it can be repaired. Mr. Kaminsky felt that if one wall needed to be repaired, it would be unfair to ask the resident to move the pool versus repairing it. Attorney Gray clarified that it would not only be the patio and fence that would be required to be moved, the pool then would need to be moved. Ms. Fredman stated that she would like to marry the variance approval to the License Agreement. Upon conclusion of the Board's deliberation, Mr. Moscato read the following resolution: Zoning Board of Appeals June 7,2011 Page 6 RESOLUTION WHEREAS application has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Mr. & Mrs. Steven Erenfryd for a 9 foot rear yard setback variance for a swimming pool, and a 6 foot rear yard setback variance for a patio, in connection with the proposed legalization of an existing in-ground swimming pool and pool patio, on property located at 64 Rock Ridge Drive, in an R-10 zoning district on the east side of Rock Ridge Drive, approximately 280 feet from the intersection of Acker Drive and Rock Ridge Drive. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 135.36, Block: 1, Lot: 17; and WHEREAS a duly advertised public hearing was held on June 7, 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 Board, from the application, after reviewing the premises and 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 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 variances sought are substantial; 4) The requested variances will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood; 5) The applicant's difficulty is not self-created; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the said application is hereby granted upon the following conditions: 1) In the event the Applicant does not obtain a License Agreement from the Board of Trustees which permits portions of the pool and pool fence to encroach upon Village property; and 2) In the event the License Agreement is no longer in effect the variances shall be null and void. DATED: June 7, 2011 Mr. Don Moscato, Chairman 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 The resolution was approved by a vote of five (5) ayes, and zero (0) nays Zoning Board of Appeals June 7,2011 Page 7 Zoning Board of Appeals June 7,2011 Page 8 Zoning Board of Appeals June 7,2011 Page 9 3) #11-629 Mr. & Mrs. Peter Faustino 1 Old Orchard Road Construct a series of second-story additions Mr. & Mrs. Faustino addressed the Board along with their architect, Justin Minieri. Mr. Minieri reviewed the application for the Board, noting that there is a shortage of bedroom space on the second floor of this home. This is a one and a half story ranch and the second floor has two bedrooms. The applicant is looking to expand the second story. They have three daughters and aging parents. The current home has a 34.8 front yard setback. A 5.2' variance is required for only a small portion of the proposed addition. The applicant has explored other options. Expanding in any other direction would be difficult in the sense of flow and circulation. The result would have been an additional variance — F.A.R. The proposed addition is a partial second floor addition, with a minor expansion over the garage. A portion of the garage is non-conforming. Mr. Izzo, Building Inspector, noted that the house was built prior to the 1954 Zoning Code. Mr. Minieri noted that there is a lot of open space on the property. He presented the Board with photographs of homes on Old Orchard Road with additions. This construction would not be out of character with the neighborhood as there is no dramatic visual impact. This additional space is need to accommodate the needs of a growing family. Ms. Fredman questioned the roof height. Mr. Minieri noted that he has already reduced the pitch of the roof. He also noted that the central air conditioning units are outside and will be moved to the attic space. 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. Mr. Moscato noted that additional care was given to avoid the need for additional variances. He also noted that letters from Doug and Karen Heller of 2 Old Orchard Road; Rico and Stacy Trevino of 5 Old Orchard Road; Howard and Linda Rosenzweig of 3 Old Orchard Road, and Robert and Tamara Winton of 90 Old Orchard Road were submitted in support of the application. Mr. Moscato asked how storm water runoff would be captured. Mr. Minieri noted that there would not be an increase on storm water runoff. Mr. Moscato responded that this is an opportunity to improve. Mr. Minieri stated that an investigation would be conducted. Mr. Moscato read the following resolution: Zoning Board of Appeals June 7,2011 Page 10 RESOLUTION WHEREAS application has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Mr. & Mrs. Peter Faustino for a 5.2 foot front yard setback variance, in connection with the proposed construction of a series of second story additions on property located at 1 Old Orchard Road, in an R-15 zoning district on the east side of Old Orchard Road, approximately 125 feet from the intersection of Berkley Drive and Old Orchard Road. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 135.35, Block: 1, Lot: 1; and WHEREAS a duly advertised public hearing was held on June 7, 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 WHEREAS the Board, from the application, after reviewing the premises and 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 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 variance sought is not substantial; 4) The proposed variances will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood; 5) The applicant's difficulty is self-created; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the said application is hereby granted. DATED: June 7, 2011 Mr. Don Moscato, Chairman 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 The resolution was approved by a vote of five (5) ayes, and zero (0) nays Zoning Board of Appeals June 7,2011 Page 11 Zoning Board of Appeals June 7,2011 Page 12 Zoning Board of Appeals June 7,2011 Page 13 4) #11-627 Aventura Realty Corp./Steven Linder 558 Westchester Avenue Legalize the existing commercial office use Mr. Moscato noted that the application was for a Use Variance. Mr. Steve Linder, applicant, addressed the Board. He noted that his architect was at another meeting and he, therefore, requested an adjournment for July 5, 2011. Mr. Kaminsky asked if a parking study has been completed. Mr. Linder noted that his staff has taken photos four times a day for two weeks so that the Village could assess the parking issue. The applicant will deliver copies of the photographs of the parking area to the Building Department prior to the next Zoning Board meeting. Mr. Moscato noted that he would like to accommodate residents who attended this meeting and hear their comments. Larry Castilla, 545 Westchester Avenue, addressed the Board. He noted that the tenants are in the building and they are now trying to legalize the use. Westchester Avenue is a hard place to park. There are other businesses in the area and parking is a concern for the residents in this area. He noted that his driveway has been blocked, and cars have parked in his driveway. Mr. Kaminsky stated that there are seven parking spaces in the rear yard. The parking area can only be accessed through Division Street. Mr. Moscato noted that the residents can go to the Building Department and review the application. When the public hearing continues at the next Zoning Board Meeting, the Board will vet the traditional concerns. All residents are invited to attend the public hearing. Mr. Castilla noted that there are eight professionals in the building and 12 spaces. Mr. Moscato noted that who uses which spaces will be coming out at the next meeting. On a motion made by Ms. Fredman, and seconded by Mr. Kaminsky the application was adjourned to July 5th agenda. Zoning Board of Appeals June 7,2011 Page 14 Ms. Fredman noted that she would not be in attendance at the July 5th meeting. That means all applicants would require three of the four votes in attendance. The applicant can request an adjournment to August. There being no additional business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:47 p.m. Zoning Board of Appeals June 7,2011 Page 15