Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-10-04 - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK 938 King Street Zoning Board of Appeals October 4, 2011 Meeting at 8:00 p.m. AGENDA 1) #11-638 MR. & MRS. NEIL STOCKEL 6 Little Kings Lane Construct a new front portico and walk 2) #10-617 MR. & MRS. ADAM BLINDERMAN 15 Meadowlark Road Legalize the new deck 3) Approval of May 3, 2011, June 7, 2011 August 2, 2011, and September 6, 2011 BOARD: Don Moscato, Chairman Michele Fredman Andrew Kaminsky Joel Simon Excused: Steve Berger STAFF: Michael Izzo, Building Inspector Jennifer Grey, Esq., Village Counsel Fred Seifert, Public Access Coordinator Paula Patafio, Meeting Secretary Mr. Don Moscato, Chairman, welcomed everyone to the October 4, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. He called the meeting to order, and noted that Mr. Steve Berger was excused. With only four (4) members of the Zoning Board present, the applicants would need three aye votes in order to be approved. He stated that each of the applicants would be given the opportunity to be adjourned to the November meeting. Mr. Moscato introduced Village Staff and Counsel, and asked that individuals who come to the podium, state their names, application, position, and nature of the variance. He called for the first item on the agenda: Zoning Board of Appeals October 4,2011 Pagel 1) #11-638 MR. & MRS. NEIL STOCKEL 6 Little Kings Lane Construct a new front portico and walk John Scarlato, architect for the applicant, addressed the Board. He stated that the applicants' were unable to attend the meeting but he wished to continue on their behalf. Mr. Scarlato noted that Little Kings Lane is a cul-de-sac. The home is a colonial style and sits on a 26,136 square foot lot with a curved front yard because of the cul-de-sac. The applicants are requesting a variance in order to construct a front portico. The minimum required front yard setback at this location is 41.7 feet. The proposed front portico will result in a front yard setback of 35 feet. Therefore, a front yard setback variance of 6.7' is required. The portico has been designed to be in proportion with the house. The foyer is a two-story foyer. Mr. Moscato noted that the allowable impervious is almost maxed out. The proposed addition brings the coverage to 7988 square feet where 8032 square feet is allowed. The property has a pool and a patio. The house was constructed before the zoning changes. He noted that this is a large lot in the R-20 Zone. Mr. Andrew Kaminsky noted that the proposed portico will be an open portico, and that the shape of the property created the hardship. Mr. Moscato called for anyone 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. Kaminsky, and seconded by Ms. Michele Fredman, the public portion of the meeting was closed, and the Board began deliberation. Jennifer Grey, Esq., Village Counsel, at the request of the Board, prepared two conditions for the approval of the variances. Mr. Moscato read the following resolution: Zoning Board of Appeals October 4,2011 Page 2 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Mr. & Mrs. Neil Stockel for a 6.7 front yard setback variance to allow a total front yard setback of 35 feet, in connection with the proposed construction of a new front portico and walk on property located at 6 Little Kings Lane, in an R-20 zoning district on the south west side of Little Kings Lane, approximately 430 feet from the intersection King Street and Little Kings Lane. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section 130.77, Block 1, Lot 16.4; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on October 4, 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 front yard setback variance will not create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood; 2. The benefit sought by the applicants cannot be achieved by some other method feasible for the applicant to pursue that does not require a variance; 3. The requested variance is not substantial; 4. The variances 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 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the said application is hereby granted on the following conditions: 1. The portico shall remain unenclosed; and 2. The variance shall apply only to the proposed portico. Dated: October 4, 2011 Don Moscato, Chairman Mr. Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Excused Michele Fredman 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 October 4,2011 Page 3 Zoning Board of Appeals October 4,2011 Page 4 Zoning Board of Appeals October 4,2011 Page 5 2) #10-617 MR. & MRS. ADAM BLINDERMAN 15 Meadowlark Road Legalize the new deck John Scarlato, the architect for the applicants, addressed the Board. He introduced the applicant, Mr. Blinderman, and stated that they wished to make their presentation before the Board this evening. He noted that they were before the Board to legalize the deck. No one is sure what happened. The original survey and the new, as-built survey, which were done by difference companies, are slightly different. The deck sustained damage during a storm and was rebuilt to the exact same dimensions as the original deck, which was constructed about 15 to 20 years ago. Mr. Blinderman presented the Board with a letter in support from a neighbor. It was noted that a minimum required rear yard setback is 40 feet. The rear yard setback is now 38.58, requiring a 1.42 foot variance. Mr. Moscato pointed out that this was not a large variance, and there is no negative visual impact. He noted that there were two letters from the neighbors most affected by the application written in support of the application. The letters were written by Robert Rucker of 17 Meadowlark Road and David W. Sampliner of 5 Oriole Place. Mr. Moscato called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in support or opposition to the application. There being no one, a motion to close the public hearing was made by Ms. Fredman, and seconded by Mr. Kaminsky. The Board discussed the application, and prepared the resolution. Mr. Moscato read the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Mr. & Mrs. Blinderman for a 1.42 rear yard setback variance, in connection with the proposed legalization of the new deck, on property located at 15 Meadowlark Road, in an R-20 zoning district on the north side of Meadowlark Road, approximately 250 feet from the intersection of Eagles Bluff and Meadowlark Road. Said premises being known and designated on the tax max of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID #: 135.27-1-55; and Zoning Board of Appeals October 4,2011 Page 6 WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on October 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 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 rear yard setback variance will not create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood; 2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by a method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, that does not require a variance; 3. The variance is not substantial; 4. The variance will not create an adverse impacts to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; 5. The need for the variance is not self-created; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the said application is hereby granted. Dated: October 4, 2011 Don Moscato, Chairman Mr. Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Excused Michele Fredman 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 October 4,2011 Page 7 Zoning Board of Appeals October 4,2011 Page 8 Zoning Board of Appeals October 4,2011 Page 9 3) Approval of May 3, 2011, June 7, 2011 August 2, 2011, and September 6, 2011 Mr. Moscato called for approval of the May 3, 2011 summary. On a motion made by Mr. Kaminsky, and seconded by Mr. Simon, the summary was approved as amended. Mr. Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Excused Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye Joel Simon Voting Aye Don Moscato Voting Aye Mr. Moscato called for approval of the June 7, 2011 summary. On a motion made by Mr. Simon, and seconded by Ms. Fredman, the summary was approved as amended. Mr. Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Excused Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye Joel Simon Voting Aye Don Moscato Voting Aye Mr. Moscato called for approval of the August 2, 2011 summary. On a motion made by Ms. Fredman, and seconded by Mr. Simon, the summary was approved as amended. Mr. Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Excused Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye Joel Simon Voting Aye Don Moscato Voting Aye Zoning Board of Appeals October 4,2011 Page 10 Mr. Moscato called for approval of the September 6, 2011 summary. On a motion made by Ms. Fredman, and seconded by Mr. Simon, the summary was approved as amended. Mr. Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Excused Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye Joel Simon Voting Aye Don Moscato Voting Aye There being no further business before the Board, Mr. Moscato called for a motion to adjourn. On a motion made by Mr. Joel Simon, and seconded by Mr. Andrew Kaminsky, the meeting was adjourned at 8:32 p.m. Zoning Board of Appeals October 4,2011 Page 11