Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-07-05 - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK 938 King Street Zoning Board of Appeals July 5, 2011 Meeting at 8:00 p.m. AGENDA 1) #11-627 (Adjourned from June 7, 2011) AVENTURA REALTY CORP. / STEVEN LINDER 558 Westchester Avenue Legalize the existing commercial office use 2) #11-632 MR. & MRS. GARY JACOBS 116 Country Ridge Drive Construct a one-story front addition; two-story and partial second- story addition at existing garage. 3) #11-636 MR. & MRS. AMIR LESHEM 7 Sleepy Hollow Road Install pre-fab open pergola over existing wood deck on grade 4) #10-953 MS. DENISE PIRRO-SAMMARTINO 225 Betsy Brown Road Construct a new portico, rear one-story addition and create additional unenclosed off-street parking 5) Approval of April 5, 2011 and June 7, 2011 Zoning Board Summary BOARD: Don Moscato, Chairman Steve Berger Andrew Kaminsky Joel Simon Excused: Michele Fredman STAFF: Michael Izzo, Building Inspector Jennifer Gray, Esq., Village Counsel Fred Seifert, Public Access Coordinator Paula Patafio, Meeting Secretary Zoning Board of Appeals July 5,2011 Page 1 Mr. Don Moscato, Chairman, welcomed everyone to the July 5, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. He called the meeting to order and introduced Village Staff and Counsel. He noted that Ms. Michele Fredman, board member, was excused from the meeting. He also noted that there were four (4) members of the Zoning Board present, however, in order to be approved the applicant would require three (3) votes. He offered each of the applicants the opportunity to be adjourned to the August meeting. Mr. Moscato asked that individuals 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) #11-627 (Adjourned from June 7, 2011) AVENTURA REALTY CORP. / STEVEN LINDER 558 Westchester Avenue Legalize the existing commercial office use Mr. Moscato called for the representative for the applicant. It was noted that no representative was in attendance. Mr. Michael Izzo, Building Inspector, noted that he had not received an Affidavit regarding signage. Jennifer Gray, Esq., Village Counsel, stated that the matter could be adjourned. Mr. Moscato noted the applicant was asked to perform a traffic study in connection with parking. His concern was that in the month of July there was a seasonal effect on traffic. Mr. Moscato requested a motion to adjourn. On a motion made by Mr. Steve Berger, and seconded by Mr. Joel Simon, the matter was adjourned. Notification will be sent to the applicant regarding the adjournment and the notification requirement. 2) #11-632 MR. & MRS. GARY JACOBS 116 Country Ridge Drive Construct a one-story front addition; two-story and partial second- story addition at existing garage. Zoning Board of Appeals July 5,2011 Page 2 Mary Faithorn Scott, architect for the applicant, addressed the Board. She introduced Gary and Cindy Jacobs, the applicants. She noted that the applicants were before the Board requesting a gross floor area variance. This home has a small galley kitchen in the front of the home, which will be added to. The garage will be pushed forward. By adding an extra 8' in depth to the garage a storage area will be added. An addition over the garage will give the applicants' attic space and a home office. The proposed addition will also include s a new powder room. This is an additional 600 square feet. The applicant is requesting a gross floor area variance of 315 square feet. Besides the functional addition of the space, the proposed addition adds to the attractiveness of the home. The closest neighbor also has a second story over the garage. The addition is not out of character with the neighborhood. Mr. Moscato noted that there are a couple of houses with additions in this neighborhood, but the vast majority of the houses seem to be similar in style. In theory every split level can be modified. Mr. Moscato asked if other alternatives were reviewed in order to reduce the required variances. Ms. Scott replied that other plans were considered, however, this was the one achieved the applicants' needs with the smallest variance. Cindy Jacobs noted that there is crawl space is in the utility room. It is not a useable crawl space. Mr. Izzo, Building Inspector, noted that the ceiling of the crawl space is not above grade and it is not included in the gross floor area calculation. Mr. Moscato noted that Country Ridge Drive has water issues. He asked what would be done to ensure that the storm water runoff would be captured on the property. Ms. Jacobs noted that they never had water issues. Mr. Izzo noted that the applicant is required to do storm water management on this property. If you surpass the 400 square foot trigger with an addition, then a storm water management plan must be submitted. Mr. Moscato called for questions from the Board or members of the public. There being none, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. On a motion made by Mr. Joel Simon, and seconded by Mr. Andrew Kaminsky, the public hearing was closed. The Board deliberated. Upon the Board's return, Mr. Moscato read the following resolution: Zoning Board of Appeals July 5,2011 Page 3 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Mr. & Mrs. Gary Jacobs for a gross floor area variance of 315 square feet, in connection with the proposed construction of a one-story front addition; a two-story and partial second story addition at existing garage, on property located at 116 Country Ridge Drive, in an R-15 Zoning District on the east side of Country Ridge Drive, approximately 315 feet from the intersection of Rocking Horse Trail and Country Ridge Drive. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section 129.66, Block 1, Lot 11; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on July 5, 2011, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and WHEREAS, the proposed action is a Type 11 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; 4. The proposed variance will not create an adverse physical or environmental impact in the neighborhood; and 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the said application is hereby granted. Dated: July 5, 2011 Don Moscato, Chairman Mr. Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting Aye Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye Joel Simon Voting Aye Don Moscato Voting Aye The application was granted on a vote of four(4) ayes zero (0) nays Zoning Board of Appeals July 5,2011 Page 4 Zoning Board of Appeals July 5,2011 Page 5 Zoning Board of Appeals July 5,2011 Page 6 3) #11-636 Mr. & Mrs. Amir Leshem 7 Sleepy Hollow Road Install pre-fab open pergola over existing wood deck on grade Mrs. Leshem noted that construction was done on the home and they were not aware that a permit was needed. The pergola will provide some shade. It is not visible from the street. It was part of the house, was demolished during construction, and now they would like to replace it. Mr. Izzo noted that the deck was built before 2003. It was not considered a deck when it was constructed and no variances were required. The deck is an existing non-conformity. The applicant presented photos for the Board's review. Jennifer Gray, Esq., Village Counsel, requested that the photos be made part of the application. Mr. Berger noted a side yard setback variance was required. The neighbor's home is elevated and there is sufficient landscaping between the homes. The pergola is an open structure and does not create impervious surface. It is wide open and creates no run off at all. Mr. Moscato stated that it should be noted that only a corner of the pergola requires a variance. He called for questions or comments from the Board of members of the public. There being none, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. On a motion made by Mr. Simon, and seconded by Mr. Berger, the public hearing was closed. The Board began deliberation. Upon the Board's return, Mr. Moscato read the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Mr. & Mrs. Amir Leshem for a single side yard setback variance of 3 feet, in connection with the proposed installation of a pre-fab open pergola over an existing wood deck on grade, on property located at 7 Sleepy Hollow Road, in an R-15 district on the north side of Sleepy Hollow, at 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 Section 129.75, Block 1, Lot 17; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on July 5, 2011, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and Zoning Board of Appeals July 5,2011 Page 7 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 create a detrimental impact to the character of the neighborhood; 2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by a method, other than a variance, feasible for the applicant to pursue; 3. The requested variance is mathematically substantial but will not create an adverse impact; 4. The variance will not create an adverse physical or environmental impact in the neighborhood; and 5. The need for the variance is not self-created due to a change in zoning. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the said application is hereby granted. Dated: July 5, 2011 Don Moscato, Chairman Mr. Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting Aye Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye Joel Simon Voting Aye Don Moscato Voting Aye The application was granted on a vote of four(4) ayes zero (0) nays Zoning Board of Appeals July 5,2011 Page 8 Zoning Board of Appeals July 5,2011 Page 9 Zoning Board of Appeals July 5,2011 Page 10 4) #10-953 MS. DENISE PIRRO-SAMMARTINO 225 Betsy Brown Road Construct a new portico, rear one-story addition and create additional unenclosed off-street parking Lawrence Engle, Esq., legal counsel for the applicant note that two (2) variances were required. The first is a variance to construct a front portico. The second variance is for a turn-around area in the driveway which would alleviate the need for backing out onto Betsy Brown Road. The applicant is proposing the demolition of the existing garage to the foundation; a rear one-story addition and an unenclosed off-street parking area. Mr. Engle noted that Betsy Brown is a heavily traversed street and the addition of a turn-around area is a safety issue. The applicant has been before the Planning Board. The applicant will install extensive planting around the Brook, which runs through this property. All storm water runoff from the property will be collected in underground infiltration systems. It will control the flow into the Blind Brook. Mr. Moscato noted that there is a creep that happens on streets where variances are given to move the home closer to the street. He did not want this to happen here. Attorney Engle noted that it is only the portico comes out closer to the street. Attorney Gray noted that a condition could be placed on the granting of the variance, that states that the unenclosed portico will remain unenclosed. Mr. Moscato called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in support or opposition to this application. There being no one, he turned tot he Board for comments and/or questions. The architect, Gary Savitzky, noted that there is a sidewalk between the property line, as well as a small stretch of grass (5'). The property line is deceptive, and there is actually 12 '/2 feet from the edge of the curb and to the property line. This should be considered when reviewing the unenclosed off-street parking portion of the application. Attorney Engle noted that regarding storm water runoff, there is a system to collect the storm water runoff. Dolph Rotfeld, Village Engineering Consultant, has reviewed the plans. Attorney Gray noted that in the Planning Board's resolution referring the application to the Zoning Board, there was one outstanding issue mentioned. It had to do with the location of the infiltration system construction. This matter will Zoning Board of Appeals July 5,2011 Page 11 be returned to the Planning Board after the issuance or denial of the variances for additional review. Mr. Moscato felt that granting the variance for the bump out would set a precedent. He was concerned that other residents would now come before the Board requesting a bump out. This is a substantial deviation from the Code. It is self created. Mr. Berger felt that granting this variance would not start a trend on the street. Mr. Kaminsky agreed with Mr. Berger in that they felt that this property was unique. Mr. Simon noted that the landscaping providing screening for the parking area is part of the Planning Board approval. No Certificate of Occupancy will be issued without it. On a motion made by Mr. Simon, and seconded by Mr. Berger, the public hearing was closed. The Board went into deliberation and prepared the resolution, which Mr. Moscato read upon the Board's return. It was noted that there were two separate conditions in order to capture the sense of the discussion. RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Ms. Denise Pirro-Sammartino for a 6.4 foot front yard setback variance and a 16.33 foot front yard setback variance for unenclosed off-street parking, in connection with the proposed construction of a new portico, rear 1 story addition and creation of additional unenclosed off-street parking , on property located at 225 Betsy Brown Road, in an R-10 zoning district on the north side at the intersection of Candy Lane and Betsy Brown Road. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID# 135.44-1-11; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on July 5, 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 viewing 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 with respect to the front yard setback variance: 1) The front yard setback 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 mathematically substantial but will not adversely impact the neighborhood; Zoning Board of Appeals July 5,2011 Page 12 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)(b)[2][a]-[e]of the Rye Brook Code, further finds with respect to the front yard setback variance for unenclosed off-street parking: 1) The variance will not create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood in that it will permit unenclosed off-street parking only about 20 feet from the road; 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 in that it is a 65% deviation from the required setback for unenclosed off-street parking; 4) The variance will not create adverse impacts to the physical and environmental conditions in the neighborhood by adding impervious surface for vehicles within 100 feet of the Blind Brook; and 5) The need for the variance is self-created. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the said application for a front yard setback variance is hereby granted on the condition that the portico remains unenclosed; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that said application for a front yard setback variance for unenclosed off-street parking is hereby granted on the condition that the applicant obtains approval of the site plan and wetland permit applications currently pending before the Village of Rye Brook Planning Board and also obtains an approved storm water management plan. Dated: July 5, 2011 Mr. Don Moscato, Chairman Mr. Moscato called the roll with respect to the front yard setback variance: Steven Berger Voting Aye Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye Joel Simon Voting Aye Don Moscato Voting Aye The application/conditions were granted on a vote of four (4) ayes zero (0) nays Zoning Board of Appeals July 5,2011 Page 13 Mr. Moscato called the roll regarding the front yard setback variance for unenclosed off- street parking: Steven Berger Voting Aye Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye Joel Simon Voting Aye Don Moscato Voting Nay The application/conditions was granted on a vote of three (3) ayes one (1) nays Zoning Board of Appeals July 5,2011 Page 14 Zoning Board of Appeals July 5,2011 Page 15 Zoning Board of Appeals July 5,2011 Page 16 5) Approval of April 5, 2011 and June 7, 2011 Zoning Board Summary With the consensus of the Board, and with a few additional changes, the April Summary was approved. The Board adjourned the June summary approval to the August meeting. There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m. Zoning Board of Appeals July 5,2011 Page 17