Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-11-01 - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK 938 King Street Zoning Board of Appeals November 1, 2011 Meeting at 8:00 p.m. AGENDA 1) #09-583 MR. THOMAS J. MCGOWAN, JR. 8 Wilton Road Legalize the above-ground swimming pool; legalize two sheds and legalize the newly created unenclosed off-street parking 2) #11-642 MR. CRAIG SERIN 30 Woodland Drive Install a 14 KW Natural Gas Generator 3) #11-640 AVENTURA REALTY CORP./STEVEN LINDER 585 Westchester Avenue Legalize the existing commercial office use 4) Approval of October 4, 2011 Zoning Board Summary BOARD: Steve Berger 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 Mr. Donald Moscato, Chairman, welcomed everyone to the November 1, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. He called the meeting to order and introduced Village Staff and Counsel. Mr. Moscato asked that individuals speak at the podium, state their names, application, position, and nature of the variance. Zoning Board of Appeals September 6,2011 Page 1 Mr. Moscato noted that item 3 on the agenda has requested an adjournment. It was noted that no representative for the applicant, or members of the public wishing to address this matter, were in attendance. With the consensus of the Board, the matter was adjourned for discussion to the end of the meeting. Mr. Moscato called for the first matter on the agenda: 1) #09-583 MR. THOMAS J. MCGOWAN, JR. 8 Wilton Road Legalize the above-ground swimming pool; legalize two sheds and legalize the newly created unenclosed off-street parking Mr. Thomas McGowan, the applicant, addressed the Board. He noted that he was before the Board to legalize the pool, sheds and off-street parking on his property. Mr. Michael Izzo, Building Inspector, provided the Board with background information on the application. He noted that the issues regarding the driveway came to light in 2007. The applicant requested that the matter be legalized via zoning variances. The application was received in 2009. All information required for the application submission has now been received and the matter is now on the agenda. Mr. Izzo noted that a variance was granted in connection with side yard setback for a side addition to the house in 1997. Mr. Moscato noted that there are two (2) sheds on this property and they are too close to the property line. The first shed requires a minimum 5' setback and it is at 1.7' from the side property line. The second shed located in the rear and the minimum rear yard setback is 5' and it requires 1.4'. The pool also requires a variance of 8.1' for a rear yard setback. The driveway was extended quite significantly and requires an off-street parking front yard setback variance. These items all require a permit and if an application was submitted prior to construction/installation, the applicant would have been aware that variances were required. The lot is 15,000 square feet. There are over 400 square feet that needs to be legalized and, therefore, a storm water management plan must be submitted. Mr. McGowan stated that the driveway has a drain. No permit was applied for prior to completing the work on the driveway, to construct the sheds, or to install the pool. The pool existed at the time he purchased his home. It was taken down and put back in the same place a few years later. Mr. McGowan stated that he did not realize that a permit was needed for the pool and sheds and an application for variances has been submitted. Zoning Board of Appeals September 6,2011 Page 2 Mr. Izzo noted that a summons was issued because there was no permit for the driveway. This is Mr. McGowan's first application for these matters and it was made in response to the summons issued to the applicant. Mr. Moscato referred to the 2009 survey and requested additional information on the driveway. Mr. Izzo noted that the site plan from 1997 shows what the driveway looked like prior to the additional work. Mr. Moscato noted that the sheds are placed in the wrong spot. He questioned whether or not, if properly placed, permits would have been needed. Mr. Izzo responded that a permit is not always required for the sheds. One shed is 10' x 16' and the second shed is 10' x 17' and the sizes of these sheds triggered the need for a permit. He asked the applicant how easily they could be moved. Mr. McGowan noted that the sheds were constructed on blocks and can be moved if necessary. Mr. Moscato noted that the driveway and shed is visible from the street. The shed would be visible even if it is pushed back 1.7'. There is a lot of impervious surface that hits the eye. Storm water management must be done on this property. Mr. Izzo noted that the calculations provided to him indicate that the addition adds up to 400 square feet. Eliminating something may bring the total under 400 square feet would negate the need for a storm water management plan. The patio was built in 1996 and is legal. It is not part of the application and should not be part of the calculation for additional impervious surface. Mr. Izzo noted that the Village's Code does have a clause in it; if each item had been done separately and unless one of the items was over 400 square feet, then no storm water management plan would be required. The driveway from the property line to the structure is 34 feet. Ms. Michele Fredman asked what the square footage of the driveway addition was. Mr. McGowan noted that he straightened out one side of the driveway but did not know the square footage. Mr. Joel Simon noted that there are different ways to comply. Removing a portion of the driveway, or removing one or both sheds. The goal is to remove additional impervious coverage. Ms. Fredman stated that the additional impervious surface gives the appearance of a parking lot in front of the home. Mr. Moscato noted that the applicant could request an adjournment to review his options regarding the variances and legalization. The other alternative was to Zoning Board of Appeals September 6,2011 Page 3 move forward and have the Board make its determination. A storm water management plan is an additional expense. If something is removed, then this expense will also be removed. Sheds can be moved, and it is more costly to remove a portion of the driveway, or move the pool. The decision must be made by the applicant. The applicant requested an adjournment and, with the consensus of the Board, the matter was adjourned to the December 6, 2011 Zoning Board meeting. Mr. Izzo noted that the Building Department will work with the applicant. 2) #11-642 MR. CRAIG SERIN 30 Woodland Drive Install a 14 KW Natural Gas Generator Mr. & Mrs. Craig Serin, applicants, addressed the Board. They requested permission to install a generator. This property has suffered flooding and the generator will run the sump pumps. The location was chosen because of existing location of gas line, electric panel, and air conditioning unit. There is an existing side yard setback non-conformity because the Village's Code changed after they purchased the home and after the house was constructed. Mr. Moscato noted that the Zoning Board attempts to not exacerbate the non-conformity. Mr. Serin noted that the cost of installation is approximately $9,500.00, which is much less then the cost of removing 3' feet of water from the home and repairing the damage. Mr. Moscato stated that the Board reviews the noise issue, screening, and where else the generator could be placed. It has been determined that there are no noise issues. There is quite a bit of shrubbery on the applicant's property and the adjacent property. The proposed placement requires a side yard variance. Mr. Serin noted that the unit will either be placed on a pad, gravel or brick. Mr. Moscato stated that the neighbors were noticed. The sign in connection with the meeting was installed and visible from Woodland. The residents of this area have water issues. Mr. Serin noted that the most effected neighbor, Dr. Cohen, was in support of the application. Zoning Board of Appeals September 6,2011 Page 4 Mr. Moscato reviewed the factors used by the Zoning Board for approval of variances.. The Board felt that there was no other way for the applicant to achieve the desired outcome. The variances were not deemed substantial, and there were no adverse impacts to the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Moscato called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in support or opposition to the application. There being no one, Mr. Berger made a motion to close the public hearing, which was seconded by Ms. Fredman. Mr. Moscato read the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Mr. Craig Serin for an 8.2 foot single side yard setback variance and a 2.04 foot total of two side yards setback variance, in connection with the proposed installation of a 14 KW natural gas generator, on property located at 30 Woodland Drive, in an R-25 zoning district on the west side of Woodland Drive, approximately 1,200 feet from the intersection of Beechwood Boulevard and Woodland Drive. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID # 135.44-1-32; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on November 1, 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 as set forth at Section 250-13(G)(2)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brook code, finds: 1) The requested variance 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; Zoning Board of Appeals September 6,2011 Page 5 3) The variances are not substantial; 4) The requested variance will not create any adverse impacts on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and 5) The need for the variance is self-created. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the said application is hereby granted. Dated: November 1, 2011 Mr. Donald Moscato, Chairman Mr. Moscato called the roll: Steve Berger Voting Aye Michele Fredman Voting Aye Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye Joel Simon Voting Aye Donald Moscato Voting Aye The application was granted by five ayes and zero nays. Zoning Board of Appeals September 6,2011 Page 6 Zoning Board of Appeals September 6,2011 Page 7 Zoning Board of Appeals September 6,2011 Page 8 3) #11-640 AVENTURA REALTY CORP./STEVEN LINDER 585 Westchester Avenue Legalize the existing commercial office use Mr. Moscato noted that the applicant requested an adjournment to the December meeting. The applicant has sought legal counsel, and the counsel requested the adjournment. It was noted that the required mailing notification was not completed. Attorney Gray stated that she has discussed the matter with Attorney Jonathan Kraut. He was just recently retained and he requested the adjournment to review the application. Mr. Kaminsky noted that this matter was on previous agendas. It is a positive that the applicant has hired an attorney and, technically, this is a new application the first time on the agenda. However, there is a prior history with this applicant and non-appearances. Attorney Gray noted that the prior history of the property is relevant. New evidence will be submitted for this application, however, the Village's Code has requirements regarding timeframes for submission of information to the Board for its review. Mr. Moscato mentioned that the Board, in review of the previous application, was presented with photographs by the applicant showing that the parking area. He felt that a parking study should be reviewed by professionals. Mr. Moscato also stressed that there should be no unnecessary delays. Attorney Gray noted that the granting of the adjournment can be conditioned on no adjournment being issued for the December meeting. The applicant must appear at the meeting to provide a status report. Ms. Fredman noted that one month the applicant's architect did not show up, and then the applicant did not show up for the next meeting. She stated that she was disinclined to grant an adjournment of the application without an appearance on December 6th without good cause shown, such as an act of God. Mr. Moscato noted that the new application should not be prejudged. He also agreed, however, that this applicant should take note that the Board will not be inclined to grant future adjournments. The bottom line is that the Zoning Board does not have to grant an adjournment. Zoning Board of Appeals September 6,2011 Page 9 On a motion made by Steve Berger, and seconded by Ms. Fredman, the matter was adjourned to the December 6, 2011 Zoning Board Meeting. Mr. Moscato called the roll: Steve Berger Voting Aye Michele Fredman Voting Aye Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye Joel Simon Voting Aye Donald Moscato Voting Aye The adjournment was granted by a vote of five ayes and zero nays. 4) Approval of October 4, 2011 Zoning Board Summary It was noted that both Attorney Gray and Ms. Fredman have submitted changes to the summary. On a motion made by Steve Berger, and seconded by Ms. Fredman, 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 Donald Moscato Voting Aye There being no further business before the Board, Ms. Fredman made a motion to adjourn, which was seconded by Mr. Berger, and the meeting was adjourned at 9:13 p.m. Mr. Moscato called the roll: Steve Berger Voting Aye Michele Fredman Voting Aye Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye Joel Simon Voting Aye Donald Moscato Voting Aye Zoning Board of Appeals September 6,2011 Page 10