Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-03-02 - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes Village of Rye Brook 938 King Street ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS March 2, 2010 Meeting at 8:00 p.m. AGENDA 1) #10-588 Mr. & Mrs. Leon Van Gelder (Reappearance) 6 Candy Lane Legalize the removal of the rear deck and partial construction of the rear concrete patio and steps 2) #10-586 Mr. & Mrs. William Capocci 20 Hillcrest Avenue Legalize the existing rear deck and patio 3) #10-592 Mr. Peter Goldstein & Mrs. Kathy Rubenstein 6 Old Oak Road Construct a second-story front addition; a one story garage addition; a second story front addition; a new front porch; new side porch and reconfigure/relocate the driveway. 4) #10-591 Mr. & Mrs. David Sachs 20 Elm Hill Drive Construct a side addition on piers 5) Approval of February 2, 2010 Zoning Board Summaries BOARD: Steve Berger Salvatore Crescenzi Michele Fredman Jeffrey Rednick Don Moscato, Chairman STAFF: Michael Izzo, Building Inspector Amanda Kandal, Esq., Village Counsel Fred Seifert, Public Access Coordinator Paula Patafio, Meeting Secretary Zoning Board of Appeals March 2,2010 BOARD OF TRUSTEE LIAISON: Trustee Paul Rosenberg Mr. Don Moscato, Chairman, welcomed everyone to the March 2, 2010 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting, and introduced Village Staff and Counsel. He called for the first item on the agenda: 1) #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 Mr. Moscato requested verification from Michael Izzo, Building Inspector, that the posting sign was up and that the required notification had been met. Mr. Izzo stated that the file was complete. Mr. & Mrs. Van Gelder, applicants, addressed the Board. They noted that the impervious surface on their property exceeded what is allowed prior to the removal of the Deck. In October of 2009 the damaged deck was removed to make way for the construction of a patio. When the Village learned of the construction, a Stop Work Order was issued. The applicants' noted one of the reasons for removing the deck was that it created a den for raccoons. The deck was 3' off the ground. Over the past five years the animals have been removed, but they destroyed the deck. In order to ensure that this would not happen again, the applicants opted for the construction of an on-grade patio. In 1994 a pool was approved and the prior owners constructed it. At that time the house met the Code requirements. The proposed patio will be 430 square feet. The applicants noted that since the removal of the deck their basement has flooded. They have reviewed the storm water runoff from the property and are prepared to construct drains. Mr. Rocco Circosta, consulting engineer, addressed the Board. He noted that there is no room on this property to install drywells. The existing leaders are subsurface and no one can see where they are draining to without excavation. Don Moscato thanked applicant for the explanation of why a patio was chosen instead of just replacing the deck. Because the deck was torn down, you start from zero, and since the new construction is over 400 square feet a water management plan is required. The issue of storm water management needs to be reviewed by the Village's Engineer. Mr. Moscato stated that an approval would need to be Zoning Board of Appeals March 2,2010 conditioned on a storm water management plan. The other option is to decrease the size of the patio. A patio of 399 square feet would not require a storm water management plan. Mr. Van Gelder noted that the sliding glass doors extend across the entire rear end of the house. The foundation is currently exposed which is causing the basement to flood. The applicants offer to review their plans and see where the square footage could be reduced. The consensus of the Board was to allow the applicants time to review their options. The matter was temporarily adjourned, and Mr. Moscato called for the next item on the agenda. 2) #10-586 MR. & MRS. WILLIAM CAPOCCI 20 Hillcrest Avenue Legalize the existing rear deck and patio Mr. John Scarlato, architect for the applicant, address the Board. He noted that the Affidavits of Service and the sign requirements have been met. He began his presentation by noting that this house was built in 1964. The applicants purchased the home in 1974 and the patio area and deck were in existence prior to their purchase. The lot is over on impervious surface. There is a detached two-car garage and a driveway on the side of the house. The deck is 312 square feet; 12' x 14'. The patio requires a 6' setback from the property line, however, currently it extends almost to the property line. This is a two-family house. The deck is used by the residents of the first floor, and the patio is used by the second floor. The deck has been repaired over the years, and will be unchanged at this time. The patio is flagstone over concrete. Ms. Michele Fredman asked if there was any grass area on this property. Mr. Scarlato noted that there is a small garden area on the side of the home and a small front lawn. The applicants attempted to refinance their mortgage and learned that there was no Certificate of Occupancy for the deck and patio. Mr. Izzo noted that back as far as 1954 there were requirements for patios. Those requirements included a 6' setback from the property line. It would have been required at the time of construction. The applicants have now submitted an application for legalization. Mr. Moscato asked if the neighbors have been contacted. Mr. Scarlato noted that a mailing was sent out, and no one has complained. Mrs. Capocci noted that one Zoning Board of Appeals March 2,2010 neighbor called upon receipt of the letter and had no problem with the approvals. The Capocci family occupies the house. Mr. Moscato called for members of the public wishing to address the applicant in support or opposition. The resident of 32 Hillcrest addressed the Board, noting that he has known Mr. Capocci since 1974. There is no problem with the deck and patio and he was in support of the application. Mr. Moscato called for a motion to close the public portion of the meeting. On a motion made by Salvatore Crescenzi, and seconded by Steve Berger, the public portion of the meeting was closed and the Board went into deliberation. Mr. Moscato noted that the proximity to the property line causes concern. He asked the applicants if this was the minimum size that the patio could be. He also noted that the applicants have not made an attempt to reduce the size of the variance required. It was suggested that the applicant remove the portion of the patio to the left of the stairway and leave the 15' x 15' square at the top. This would leave room for a table and four chairs, and a grill. It would essentially remove a 7.6' x 15' portion of the patio, and landscaping could be added. Mr. Moscato read the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS application has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Mr. & Mrs. William Capocci for a deck coverage variance of 2.75%, a total impervious surface coverage variance of 672 square feet and a setback variance of 2.95 feet in connection with the proposed legalization of a rear deck and patio, on property located at 20 Hillcreast Avenue in an R-2F District on the west side of Hllcrest Avneue, 450 feet from the intersection of Irenhyl and Hillcrest. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 135.76, Block: 1, Lot: 2; and WHEREAS a duly advertised public hearing was held on March 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 Zoning Board of Appeals March 2,2010 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) An undesirable change will not occur in the neighborhood because the proposed work is in the rear of the property; 2) The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some other method feasible for the applicant to pursue; 3) The variances sought are substantial; 4) The proposed variances will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood; 5) The proposed variances are self-created; and 6) Applicants have reduced the variance requested. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the said application is hereby granted. DATED: March 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 March 2,2010 The Board recalled item #1: 1) #10-588 Mr. & Mrs. Leon Van Gelder (Reappearance) 6 Candy Lane Legalize the removal of the rear deck and partial construction of the rear concrete patio and steps Mr. Circosta noted that the Van Gelders have opted to reduce the size of the patio to 399 square feet. Mr. Moscato thanked the applicant for their efforts in reducing the size of the variance required. Mr. Moscato read the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS application has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Mr. & Mrs. Leon Van Gelder for an area variance in connection with the removal of a rear deck and construction of a rear concrete patio and steps, on property located at 6 Candy Lane in an R-7 District on the north side of Candy Lane, 180 feet from the intersection of Sylvan Road and Candy Lane. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 135.44, Block: 1, Lot: 2; and WHEREAS a duly advertised public hearing was held on February 2, 2010, and was continued on March 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 recognizes that the impervious surface coverage on this lot is a pre-existing non-conformity and that the applicant proposes to reduce this non-conformity by the construction of a concrete patio. The Building Inspector has determined that the construction of a concrete patio is not repairing or reconstructing the wooden deck as allowed by Section 250-61' of the Code and, therefore, a variance of 399.9 square feet is required in this instance; 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: Zoning Board of Appeals March 2,2010 1) The requested variance 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 feasible for the applicant to pursue; 3) The variance is not substantial and has been reduced to the minimum amount needed. 4) The proposed variances will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood; and 5) The alleged difficulty is self-created. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the said application for a 399.9 square foot variance from the maximum allowable total impervious surface coverage is hereby granted. DATED: March 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 March 2,2010 3) #10-592 Mr. Peter Goldstein & Mrs. Kathy Rubenstein 6 Old Oak Road Construct a second-story front addition; a one story garage addition; a second story front addition; a new front porch; new side porch and reconfigure/relocate the driveway. Mr. Justin Minieri, architect, addressed the Board. He noted that the applicants were seeking two variances. The first was in connection with gross floor area coverage and the second was for building coverage. He presented the Board with photos showing the current home and proposed addition. Mr. Minieri pointed out that this structure is a two-story, front to back, split; a type that is prevalent in the neighborhood. The applicants are looking to add an additional bay to the garage, move the garage doors to the side of the home, and relocating the driveway. In addition, they will be expanding the current family room, and adding a slight expansion to the left and to the front of the home. A front porch is also proposed. A mudroom will be added on the driveway side. The home is not coming any closer to the property line on the right hand side, and goes over slightly on the left side. The gross floor area will be increased by 712 square feet. Mr. Minieri presented the Board with comparables of area homes. This is an eclectic neighborhood, and the proposed changes will not change the character of the neighborhood. The applicant is requesting what is actually needed, and this addition will not be a detriment to the neighborhood. The adjacent properties have garages on the side. The landscaping will remain in tact. The home will be going from a two car garage with front entry to a three car garage with entry to the side of the home. There will be living space constructed over a portion of the garage. The new driveway has a 5' barrier between the driveway and the existing landscaping. More vegetation will be added on the driveway side to help screen the neighbors' view of the garage. Mr. Moscato noted that an increase of 712 square feet equates to an increase of approximately 24%. The result of the proposed construction would be a small lot with one of the biggest houses in the area. Mr. Minieri stated that this is not an intrusive addition. Mr. Moscato responded that it is a substantial renovation that requires two (2) variances from the Zoning Board. The applicants were asked if there was any way to lessen the increase or the variances. Mr. Minieri stated that the applicants were requesting the minimum variances needed to meet their needs. Mr. Minieri submitted three (3) letters in support from Aadm and Felicia Sohn of 10 Old Oak, Arthur Reiss of 4 Old Oak, and Pauline Millar of 3 Old Oak. Zoning Board of Appeals March 2,2010 Mr. Moscato noted that the Board received one letter in opposition from Andrea and Eric Bober, the residents the most effected by the proposed construction. Mr. Moscato called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in support or opposition. Adam Sohn of 10 Old Orchard Road stated that he has known the applicants for over 35 years. Many of the residents in this area have taken this style home and expanded it. The changes to this home would not be a detriment to the neighborhood. Andrea Bobar of 8 Old Oak Road addressed the Board. She noted that her home was on the side next to the garage addition. Her home would be impacted the most of any other home in the neighborhood. The plans have been reviewed. This is huge addition. There is a 32% increase over the size of the current home. Every family varies in size and the maximum size of the proposed construction should not be dictated by the size of the family. The proposed construction would add many new features that will be viewable from her family room —the room in their home that her family spends the most time. A two-story addition impinges on their privacy. Currently the two car garage faces the street and now the applicant is proposing a three car garage facing her home with a driveway that will be 5' from the property line. This brings the noise and lights closer to her home. She noted that there are no houses on this street have a three car garage. She also noted that the proposed side porch will also affect her quality of life. There is a great concern about the flooding and drainage problems in this area. The proposed construction adds 740 square feet of impervious surface. In addition, her flower beds won't get the light that they get now and the landscaping/screening will be effected. The size of the proposed addition will overwhelm the property. Ms. Bobar stated that in her opinion, there will be negative effects on the character of the neighborhood. This is a street with modest homes. She asked that the Board uphold the Zoning Laws to protect the residents. Marjorie Brown of 12 Old Oak Road addressed the Board. She noted that she also had questions and concerns. The flooding and drainage issue is a great source of concern. There need to be precautions in place so that the adjacent homes do not flood during or after construction. This is a large house on a very small lot. Adding three car garage adds traffic and additional noise. She asked that the Board careful review these issues and the negative changes that the proposed construction would have on this neighborhood. Mr. Mineri stated that the Village has in the code that if a proposed construction exceeds over 400 square feet a water management plan must be submitted. The Zoning Board of Appeals March 2,2010 Village Engineer will review the plan. He also noted that there is a three car garage already on Old Oak. Garages are a positive in that they remove the cars from the street. Mr. Berger noted that the existing three car garage on Old Oak is on a 50,000 square foot lot, which is much larger than the applicant's lot. Dean Santon of Hillendale Road addressed the Board. He noted that 11 Old Oak is the old Downey Mansion. The homes on Old Oak are part of the Elm Hill Subdivision. The houses started out very modest. The Zoning Board must consider the neighborhood and size of the other homes and lots. In addition, the home with the three car garage is positioned further back from the street. The consensus of the Board was that the matter be adjourned to the April 6th meeting. On a motion by Mr. Crescenzi, and seconded by Mr. Berger, the matter was adjourned. 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 4) #10-591 Mr. & Mrs. David Sachs 20 Elm Hill Drive Construct a side addition on piers Mr. Scarlota, architect, noted that last year an addition was placed on the side of the house. The applicants went through the approval process, and variances were granted. After the addition was completed, the residents needed to figure out a way to enlarge the kitchen, which was very small. The least expensive way is to push out the wall slightly to house the refrigerator. The bump out will be 2 1/z' in depth x 12' in width; a total of 32 square feet. Zoning Board of Appeals March 2,2010 Mr. Scarlota noted that drywells were installed last year during the construction phase and the storm water management plan was reviewed by the Engineer. The proposed bump out will be on stilts, and will sit 1 1/2 off the ground. The Architectural Review Board will review the plan and they may call for a full foundation. The variance would be the same whether the bump out is on piers or on a full foundation. Mr. Izzo, Building Inspector, noted that a bay window that extends out 2' would not need a variance. Mr. Moscato called for members of the public wishing to address the application in support or opposition. There being no one, the public portion of the meeting was closed and the Board began deliberation. Mr. Moscato read the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS application has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Mr. & Mrs. David Sachs for an a total of two side yards setback variance of one foot, a gross floor area variance of thirty two square feet, and a total impervious surface coverage of thirty two square feet on property located at 20 Elm Hill Drive in an R-12 District on the west side of Elm Hill Drive, 215 feet from the intersectin of Elm Hil Drive and Bonwit. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 135.50 Block: 1, Lot: 57; and WHEREAS a duly advertised public hearing was held on March 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 premises was granted area variances by the Zoning Board of Appeals on August 4, 2009; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of Appeals granted the following variances on August 4, 2009: 1) A total of two side yard setbacks variance of 1 foot; 2) A gross floor area variance of 314 square feet; and Zoning Board of Appeals March 2,2010 3) An impervious surface coverage variance of 207 square feet. 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) An undesirable change will not occur in the neighborhood; 2) The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some other feasible method other than the area variances; 3) The requested variances are not substantial; 4) The proposed variance will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood; and 5) The proposed variances are self-created. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the said application is hereby granted. DATED: March 2, 2010 Mr. Don Moscato, Chairman Mr. Moscato called the roll: Steve Berger Voting Aye Salvatore Cresenzi Voting Aye Michele Fredman Voting Aye Jeffrey 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 March 2,2010 5) Approval of February 2, 2010 Zoning Board Summaries Mr. Moscato noted that minor changes have been submitted in connection with the February 2, 2010. On a motion by Michele Fredman, and seconded by Salvatore Crescenzi, the summary was approved as amended. Mr. Moscato called the roll: Steve Berger Voting Aye Salvatore Crescenzi Voting Aye Michele Fredman Voting Aye Jeffrey Rednick Voting Aye Don Moscato, Chairman Voting Aye There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m. Mr. Moscato noted that Mr. Izzo will be circulating a document for the Board members to review regarding rules and regulations. This item will be discussed at a future meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Zoning Board of Appeals March 2,2010