Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-02-02 - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes Village of Rye Brook 938 King Street ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS February 2, 2010 Meeting at 8:00 p.m. AGENDA 1) #10-587 Church of Our Lady of Mercy St. Mary's Cemetery Mausoleum 319 South Ridge Street Provide a partial fire sprinkler system only 2) #10-588 Mr. & Mrs. Leon Van Gelder 6 Candy Lane Legalize the removal of the rear deck and partial construction of the rear concrete patio and steps 1) #09-572 Ms. Angelina Russillo & Mr. William Russillo (Re-Appearance) 11 Knollwood Drive Construct a new rear deck 4) Approval of January 5, 2010 Zoning Board Summaries BOARD: Steve Berger Salvatore Crescenzi Michele Fredman Jeffrey Rednick, Acting Chairman Don Moscato, Chairman STAFF: Michael Izzo, Building Inspector Amanda E. Kandel, Esq., Village Counsel Fred Seifert, Public Access Coordinator Paula Patafio, Meeting Secretary BOARD OF TRUSTEE LIAISON: Trustee Paul Rosenberg Zoning Board of Appeals February 2,2010 Page 1 1) #10-587 Church of Our Lady of Mercy St. Mary's Cemetery Mausoleum 319 South Ridge Street Provide a partial fire sprinkler system only Daniel Laub, Esq., from the firm of Cuddy & Feder, addressed the Board as the legal representative for the applicant. Mr. Laub noted that the applicant is seeking relief from the Village's Code which requires the installation of a sprinkler throughout the entire addition. He noted that the proposed addition to the mausoleum, which is similar design to what currently exists, has open areas; no ceilings. The applicant presented the Board with photographs of the proposed addition. Mr. Laub stated that the applicant was proposing a sprinkler system in the areas that are occupied, such as the garage, and no sprinkler system in the mausoleum. The omission of such a system does not significantly jeopardize human life. The applicant has retained a professional fire suppression expert who has detailed how the required sprinkler system would not work, along with costs for the installation. Mr. Asp addressed the Board. He noted that he has been working in this field since 1951. His firm was retained by the applicant to provide a sprinkler system for this project. A sprinkler system was designed and after a meeting with the architect, while making a field check, it was noted that the design would not work because of the lack of ceilings in the corridors of the mausoleum. The sprinklers in the designed system are activated by heat and, therefore, Mr. Asp withdrew his drawings. The existing mausoleum does not have a water supply, and Mr. Asp noted that getting the water supply to fully sprinkler the building was very difficult and expensive. The applicant is looking into using an existing water supply to the property to sprinkler the garage and maintenance areas. Mr. Don Moscato, Chairman, questioned whether the proposed system would have an alarm provision. Mr. Asp responded that all sprinkler systems by Code must have an alarm provision. Water is in the sprinkler system, but it is not moving. When it starts moving a signal is sent to a central station. The fire department is immediately notified. It was noted that there has not been a fire in the cemetery since 1970. Mr. Michael Izzo, Building Inspector, noted that he has worked with Mr. Asp over the years and knows him to be very knowledgeable. He asked Mr. Asp if some Zoning Board of Appeals February 2,2010 Page 2 sort of an alarm system in the area that is not sprinklered could be installed. Mr. Asp responded that an automatic fire alarm system can be installed. 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 Jeffrey Rednick, and seconded by Michele Fredman, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Moscato called the roll: Steve Berger Voting Aye Salvatore Crescenzi Voting Aye Michele Fredman Voting Aye Jeffrey Rednick Voting Aye Don Moscato Voting Aye The Board began deliberation, and prepared a resolution. Mr. Moscato read the following resolution into the record: RESOLUTION WHEREAS application has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Church of our Lady of Mercy for a variance in connection with the installation of a fire sprinkler on property located at 319 South Ridge Street in an R-2F District on the east side of South Ridge Street at the intersection of High Street and South Ridge Street. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 141.43, Block: 1, Lot: 39; and WHEREAS a duly advertised public hearing was held on February 2, 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 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 application of the strict letter of Chapter 212, entitled Sprinklers, would create an unnecessary hardship for the applicant. Zoning Board of Appeals February 2,2010 Page 3 2) The installation of a sprinkler system as required by the Code would be ineffective. 3) The applicant will install a sprinkler system in the offices and the garage located at the property. 4) The omission of the approved sprinkler system from part of the mausoleum will not significantly jeopardize human life; and 5) The State Fire Code does not require sprinklers to be installed in this type of use (currently codified as a U occupancy). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the said application is hereby granted on the following conditions: 1. The applicant will submit plans for the sprinkler system they will install in the offices and garage and these plans will be subject to the Building Inspector's approval; and 2. The applicant will install a fire alarm system that is tied into an area central notification station for office and garage area. DATED: February 2, 2010 Mr. Don Moscato, Chairman Mr. Moscato called the roll: Steve Berger Voting Aye Salvator Crescenzi Voting Aye Michele Fredman Voting Aye Jeffrye Rednick Voting Aye Don Moscato, Chairman Voting Aye The variance has been granted on a five ayes to zero nays vote, with no abstentions. Zoning Board of Appeals February 2,2010 Page 4 Zoning Board of Appeals February 2,2010 Page 5 Zoning Board of Appeals February 2,2010 Page 6 2) #10-588 Mr. & Mrs. Leon Van Gelder 6 Candy Lane Legalize the removal of the rear deck and partial construction of the rear concrete patio and steps. Rocco Circosta, representative for the applicant, gave a brief history on the property. He noted that when the Van Gelders purchased the home there was a pool, terrace and a wooden deck. They removed the deck because the pressure treated wood was beginning to rot. When they began to prepare the site for the new construction a stop work order was issued, and they were informed that they needed to submit a building permit and that the proposed construction required a variance. The proposed patio will be installed with the same footprint as the old deck, and will include three sets of masonry steps from existing doors. The patio brings the impervious surface coverage for this property to 4,321 square feet where 3,490 square feet is allowed. Since that the time of the stop work order, storm water runoff has caused a problem in the applicants' basement and they asked for a means of relief. The applicants were allowed to install drainage to protect his basement. It was noted that if the deck was being repaired, then no variances would be needed. The applicants are seeking a variance for impervious coverage in the amount of 432 square feet. Amanda Kandel, Esq., Village Counsel, noted that the deck was a pre-existing non-conformity. If the deck were repaired or replaced, within twelve months, the home would have maintained its pre-existing non-conforming status. She also noted that the deck and the patio are equal in size—432 square feet. Mr. Moscato noted that this area of the Village is prone to flooding. This property is basically all impervious surface between the patio, the terrace, and the pool. There is no green space to speak of. The Zoning Board is charged with granting the smallest variance possible. He asked if there was any way to make the patio smaller. Mr. Circosta noted that there are three access points to the patio, with three sets of stairs. The new patio will meet the existing terrace, which meets the pool. At the time when the pool was constructed, 1994, the setback was 10' and the pool was set at 12'. He noted that the Board received two letters from neighbors supporting the application, but asking that they applicant mitigate the storm water runoff from their property. Mr. Circosta noted that a mitigation plan will be put in place. Mr. Moscato called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in support or opposition. Mr. John Grzan, 8 Candy Lane, addressed the Board in order to express concern because of the impact to his property, and the adjacent Zoning Board of Appeals February 2,2010 Page 7 properties, as a result of the additional impervious surface. He noted that the water runoff from this property, due to the grade, runs off to 8 and 6 Candy Lane. After a rain storm he cannot use his back yard and he stated that every spring he must add top soil to his property. Mr. Grzan pointed out that he had the original subdivision plans which showed that each property was required to install two drywells. He questioned what happened to the two drywells on the Van Gelder property when the pool and terrace was installed. The creation of additional impervious surface on this property will add to the water runoff. Mr. Grzan shared some photos showing his property in relation to applicant's property. He stressed that there must be a storm water mitigation plan put in place prior to the construction of this patio. This rear yard has no sod; no place for water to be absorbed. All applicants must take into consideration the effects of their construction on their neighbors' properties. Mr. Salvatore Crescenzi asked that the original subdivision conditions be researched. If two drywells were required, where were they moved to on this property? The Building Inspector was directed to inspect the properties within this subdivision and see what exists in the field. Another question raised was where the leaders on the applicants' property run into. The applicant was asked to research this issue. Attorney Kandel noted that she would also look into this issue, but reminded the Zoning Board members that this is an administrative issue. Mr. Van Gelder noted that he also has water problems in his basement. He wants to put in a better drainage system in order to deal with the water issues. He noted that his intention was to reduce the runoff in order to help the flooding issues in his neighborhood. Mr. Moscato proposed an adjournment of the application. Attorney Kandel suggested that the storm water plan should be submitted now in order for it to be considered as part of the variance application, and that the applicant should work with the Acting Village Engineer. Mr. Circosta noted that a storm water management plan will be submitted. Mr. Izzo noted that there are alternative systems to drywells that should also be researched. With the consensus of the Board, the matter was adjourned to March 2, 2010 Zoning Board meeting. Zoning Board of Appeals February 2,2010 Page 8 Mr. Moscato called for item 93 on the agenda: 3) #09-572 Ms. Angelina Russillo and & Mr. William Russillo (Re-Appearance) 11 Knollwood Drive Construct a new rear deck Mr. John Scarloto, architect for the project, addressed the Board. He noted that the size of the deck will be 11' deep x 29'm width, which lines up with the house. He noted that the property line is not straight. Since the property line juts out, a portion of the staircase from the deck requires a 3' rear yard variance, while the balance requires a 17' variance. In addition, the deck would require a 1.4% deck coverage variance. Mr. Moscato noted that the applicant has significantly reduced the size of the deck, and that is now only in the rear of the home; no longer wrapping around the house. Mr. Moscato called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in support or opposition to the application. There being none, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. On a motion made by Mr. Crescenzi, and seconded by Mr. Rednick, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed. Mr. Moscato called the roll: Steve Berger Voting Aye Salvator Crescenzi Voting Aye Michele Fredman Voting Aye Jeffrye Rednick Voting Aye Don Moscato, Chairman Voting Aye The Board deliberated and prepared the resolution. Mr. Moscato read the following resolution: RESOLUTION Zoning Board of Appeals February 2,2010 Page 9 WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeal by Mr. William Russillo and Ms. Angelina Russillo for a rear yard setback variance and a deck coverage variance in connection with the proposed construction of a new rear deck, on property located at 11 Knollwood Drive in an R10 District on the east side of Knollwood Drive, 270 feet from the intersection of Betsy Brown Road and Knollwood Drive. Said premises being known and designate on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 135.44, Block: 1, Lot: 63; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on 8/4/09 and continued to 10/6/09, 1/15/10 and 2/2/10, 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, nor 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: 1) The requested variances will not create an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood; 2) The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some other method; 3) The requested variances are not substantial and have been reduced to the minimum amount needed; 4) The proposed variances will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood; and 5) Te alleged difficulty was self-created. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the said application for a 7 foot rear yard setback variance is granted and the said application or a 1.4% deck coverage variance is granted. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the foregoing variances are granted upon the following conditions: 1) The deck shall not be built any closer than 27 feet from the rear property line. Dated: February 2, 2010 Don Moscato, Chairman Mr. Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting Aye Salvatore Crescenzi Voting Aye Michele Fredman Voting Aye Jeffrey Rednick Voting Aye Don Moscato, Chairman Voting Aye The resolution was adopted on a vote of five ayes to zero nays. Zoning Board of Appeals February 2,2010 Page 10 Zoning Board of Appeals February 2,2010 Page 11 Mr. Moscato called for the final item on the agenda: 4) Approval of January 5, 2010 Zoning Board Summary It was noted that a final draft was submitted, incorporating requested amendments and changes. On a motion made by Ms. Fredman, and seconded by Mr. Rednick, the summary was adopted as approved. Mr. Moscato called the roll: Steve Berger Voting Aye Salvator Crescenzi Voting Aye Michele Fredman Voting Aye Jeffrye Rednick Voting Aye Don Moscato, Chairman Voting Aye The resolution was adopted by a vote of five ayes to zero nays. Mr. Moscato asked that the Board address a discussion item. He noted that the Village is looking to tighten up the rules and procedures for the different committees. He received a copy of the Architectural Review Board rules, and modified them for the Zoning Board of Appeals. He presented each Board member, Mr. Izzo and Village Counsel, with a copy and asked that the rules be reviewed, and that any changes be submitted directly to him. Mr. Steve Lapel, a future resident of Rye Brook, addressed the Board. He noted that he was in the process of purchasing a townhouse in the Arbors and has learned of some issues regarding site plans and the P.U.D. He attempted to attend a meeting held by the Arbors on these issues, but learned that only current homeowners could attend. Mr. Rednick noted that these issues were before the Board of Trustees. He suggested that Mr. Lapel contact the Administrator's office for additional information and venues where he could participate and learn more about these issues. Zoning Board of Appeals February 2,2010 Page 12 There being no further business before the Board, Mr. Moscato called for a motion to adjourn. On a motion made by Mr. Rednick, and seconded by Ms. Fredman, the meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. Mr. Moscato called the roll: Steve Berger Voting Aye Salvator Crescenzi Voting Aye Michele Fredman Voting Aye Jeffrye Rednick Voting Aye Don Moscato, Chairman Voting Aye Zoning Board of Appeals February 2,2010 Page 13