Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-01-05 - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes Village of Rye Brook 938 King Street ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS January 5, 2010 Meeting at 8:00 p.m. AGENDA 1) #09-572 Mrs. Angelina Russillo & Mr. William Russillo (Re-Appearance) 11 Knollwood Drive Construct a new rear deck 2) #09-561 Mr. & Mrs. Brian Berk (Re-Appearance) 11 Edgewood Drive Legalize the rear sports court, spa/patio and chain link fence 3) #09-582 Dr. & Mrs. Stanley Rothman (Re-Appearance) 2 Elm Hill Drive Subdivide the property thereby reducing the size of the lot, and legalize the existing non-conforming front yard setback 4) Approval of November 3, 2009 and December 1, 2009 Zoning Board Summaries BOARD: Steve Berger Salvatore Crescenzi Michele Fredman Jeffrey Rednick, Acting Chairman Excused: Don Moscato, Chairman STAFF: Michael Izzo, Building Inspector Amanda Kandel, Esq., Village Counsel Jennifer L. Reinke, Esq., Village Counsel Fred Seifert, Public Access Coordinator Paula Patafio, Meeting Secretary BOARD OF TRUSTEE LIAISON: Trustee Paul Rosenberg Zoning Board of Appeals January 5,2010 Page 1 Mr. Jeffrey Rednick, Acting Chairman, welcomed everyone to the first Zoning Board meeting of 2010. He introduced Village staff and consultants, and welcomed back Amanda Kandel, Esq., Village Counsel. Mr. Rednick noted that Mr. Don Moscato, Chairman, was on vacation and excused. Mr. Rednick stated that even though there would not be a full compliment of the Board, an applicant would still require three yes votes in order for their application to be granted. As a result, each applicant was advised that they could adjourn their matter to the next meeting of the Zoning Board, or proceed this evening. Mr. Rednick called for the first item on the agenda: 1) #09-572 Mr. & Mrs. William Russillo Mrs. Angelina Russillo (Re-Appearance) 11 Knollwood Drive Construct a new rear deck Mr. Russillo, applicant, addressed the Board. He noted that he revised his plans and has made the deck smaller in response to comments from the Board members at the last meeting. The side yard setback is now met. Ms. Michele Fredman asked for a description of the changes. Mr. Russillo noted that originally the proposed deck wrapped around the entire house. It now stops at the end of the main structure and it has been reduced to 10' in depth. Mr. Michael Izzo, Building Inspector, stated that the reduced deck size eliminated three (3) of the required variances. However, when he scaled the plans the depth of the deck came out to 9'. Mr. Russillo noted that the idea was to reduce the width of the deck to take it from 12' to 10', bringing it right up to the existing wall. The wall does not count as a setback. Mr. Izzo stated that given the incorrect information on the plans, the plans should not be used in granting the variance. Jennifer Reinke, Esq., Village Counsel, suggested that the architect be contacted to see if he had additional information. Mr. Russillo stated that attempted to contact Mr. Scarlato earlier and learned that he was not available. After a brief discussion, Mr. Rednick stated that the consensus of the Board was that the architect needed to be in attendance in order to clarify the numbers. Amanda Kandel, Esq., Village Counsel, agreed, noting that determining the size of the deck will allow for proper calculations. This information must come from the architect. Zoning Board of Appeals January 5,2010 Page 2 Mr. Rednick 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 adjourn the matter to the February meeting. On a motion made by Mr. Salvatore Crescenzi, and seconded by Mr. Berger, the hearing was adjourned to the February 2, 2010 Zoning Board meeting. The second matter on the agenda was called before the Board: 2) #09-561 Mr. & Mrs. Brian Berk (Re-Appearance) 11 Edgewood Drive Legalize the rear sports court, spa/patio and chain link fence Mr. Rednick noted that Anthony Gioffre, Esq., from the firm of Cuddy & Feder, made a request that the matter be adjourned. The adjournment was granted. The third matter on the agenda was called before the Board: 3) #09-582 Dr. & Mrs. Stanley Rothman (Re-Appearance) 2 Elm Hill Drive Subdivide the property thereby reducing the size of the lot, and legalize the existing non-conforming front yard setback Mr. Douglas Vaggi, architect, addressed the Board. He noted that the revised site plans were submitted at the prior meeting. Mr. Izzo noted that there are three variances that are required for the 2 Elm Hill property. There is a variance required for the front yard setback of 35', which is pre-existing. The second variance has to do with the gross floor area of the existing dwelling. The third variance has to do with the total impervious coverage which was reduced when the applicant offered to remove a large portion of the 2 Elm Hill Driveway (1734 square feet to 802 square feet). The fourth variance has been eliminated altogether. The proposed new house will not require any variances. Although the first variance is brought about by the sub-division, any work done on the 2 Elm Hill property would require this variance. Zoning Board of Appeals January 5,2010 Page 3 It was noted that this application is before the Planning Board. The Planning Board has addressed many of the issue connected with this application, but a lot of the issues have not yet been dealt with. Mr. Vaggi noted that the applicant needed the Zoning Board approval and then the items will be updated and the drawings will be revised. A question was raised regarding gross floor area coverage for the new home. It was noted that 8661 square feet is allowed, and 8608 square feet has been proposed. If the sub-division line is moved then it would affect the square footage allowed. Several designs have been created using the Village's suggestions. The current plans provide for the applicants' needs while preserving the Manor House. Ms. Kandel noted that the restrictive covenant proposed by the applicant states that there will be no further development to the Manor House lot. The 20' wide extension on the South side of the Manor House will not be changed; ownership will simply be transferred to the newly created lot. The appearance of the Manor House will not be affected. The existing lot is about 1.7 acre, of which .96 acres has been allocated for the Manor House. Mr. Rothman noted that he would be the owner of the new house and his son will be purchasing the Manor House. Mr. Rednick called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in support or opposition to the application. Mr. Warren Rosenweigz of Betsy Brown Road addressed the Board. He noted that his property was directly across the street from the proposed new home. He felt that the Manor House should keep the 20' strip of land versus giving it to the new property in the sub-division. Mr. Rothman understood the neighbor's concern regarding the strip. He stated that he and his son will keep it maintained, and if he should ever sell his home, the new owner will pass the 20' strip every day and will know when maintenance is required. It was noted that this 20' strip of property is actually a steep slope and it cannot be developed. On a motion made by Michele Fredman, and seconded by Steve Berger, the public hearing was closed by a vote of four ayes. The Board began its deliberation. Ms. Fredman questioned the Zoning Board's ability to apply conditions to the resolution. Ms. Reinke noted that conditions placed on a variance must be directly related to the impacts created by the variance. Ms. Fredman addressed the large pool in the rear yard. She suggested that the applicant and his son share the existing pool. Mr. Rothman noted that the impervious surface is not a problem. The gross floor area of the house is the limiting factor because of the lot size. Mr. Rothman noted that this has been a two year process. Plans have been created and revised in connection with comments Zoning Board of Appeals January 5,2010 Page 4 from the Planning Board and the Village's Consultant. Ms. Kandel noted that the applicant is willing to place a restrictive covenant in order to stop any further development on the Manor House property. The applicant is looking to preserve the Manor House. Attorney Reinke read the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS application has been made to the Zoning Board by Dr. & Mrs. Stanley Rothman for a front yard setback variance, a total impervious surface coverage variance, and a gross floor area variance, in connection with the proposed subdivision of the property and construction of a new two story dwelling and related appurtenances, on property located at 2 Elm Hill Drive, in an R-12 District, on the south side of Elm Hill Drive, at the corner of Betsy Brown Road and Elm Hill Drive. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 135.5 1, Block: 1, Lot 1; and WHEREAS a duly advertised public hearing was held on December 1, 2009 and continued to January 5, 2010, 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 250-12(G)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brook Code finds: 1. The variances will not result in an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood because the size of the existing historic home will not change and the historic home will be preserved; 2. The benefit sought cannot be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance; 3. The requested variances are not substantial; 4. The proposed variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the environmental conditions in the neighborhood; and 5. The alleged difficulty was self-created. Zoning Board of Appeals January 5,2010 Page 5 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the said application for a front yard setback variance of 8.29 feet is hereby granted; the total impervious surface coverage variance of 802 square feet is hereby granted; and the said application for a gross floor area variance of 1,546 square feet is hereby granted; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the variances are granted upon the following condition: 1. The pending subdivision being approved by the Planning Board as currently proposed on sheet C-2 dated 10/19/09, last revised on 11/19/09. If any changes are made to the currently proposed lot lines shown therein which affect the variances granted herein, the applicant shall return to the Zoning Board of Approval for any necessary alterations to the variances granted. DATED: January 5, 2010 Mr. Jeffrey Rednick, Acting Chairman Mr. Rednick called the roll: Steven Berger Voting Aye Salvatore Crescenzi Voting Aye Michele Fredman Voting Aye Jeffrey Rednick Voting Aye The resolution was adopted on a vote of four ayes to zero nays. Zoning Board of Appeals January 5,2010 Page 6 Zoning Board of Appeals January 5,2010 Page 7 4) Approval of November 3, 2009 and December 1, 2009 Zoning Board Summaries It was noted that changes to both the November 3rd and December 1St summaries have been submitted. The Board approved the summaries, as amended, by a vote of four ayes to zero nays. There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:31 p.m. Zoning Board of Appeals January 5,2010 Page 8