Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-04-06 - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes Village of Rye Brook 938 King Street ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS April 6, 2010 Meeting at 8:00 p.m. AGENDA 1) #10-585 MS. ELEANOR LOWET 6 Greenhouse Circle Construct a rear two story addition 2) #10-590 WIN RIDGE REALTY 24 Rye Ridge Plaza Install two 17.34 square foot monument signs at the Bowman Avenue elevation 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) APPROVAL OF MARCH 2, 2010 ZONING BOARD SUMMARY BOARD: Steve Berger Salvatore Crescenzi Michele Fredman Don Moscato, Chairman STAFF: Michael Izzo, Building Inspector Amanda Kandal, Esq., Village Counsel Fred Seifert, Public Access Coordinator Paula Patafio, Meeting Secretary Mr. Don Moscato, Chairman, welcomed everyone to the April 6, 2010 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. He introduced Village Staff and Counsel. Mr. Moscato noted that Jeffrey Rednick has now been elected to serve as a Trustee for the Village. As a result, there was now a vacancy on the Zoning Board that would be filled in the coming month. Zoning Board of Appeals April 6,2010 He also noted that due to vacation and personal schedules of the remaining Board members, the Board would be a member short in May and June. He offered all applicants the option of adjourning to a meeting where there would be a full compliment of the Board, or being heard by a Board that had a quorum but where the applicants would require three yes votes in order to be approved. Mr. Moscato called the meeting to order, and noted that the Board received a request for an adjournment from the third item on the agenda, the application of Mr. Peter Goldstein and Mrs. Kathy Rubenstein. He called for the first item on the agenda: 1) #10-585 MS. ELEANOR LOWET 6 Greenhouse Circle Construct a rear two story addition Mr. Michael Izzo, Building Inspector, confirmed that all required documentation was received and posted for this application. Daniel Laub, Esq., Cudy & Fedder, addressed the Board as legal representative for the applicant. He noted that Ms. Lowet was looking to add a small addition on to the rear of her home. The applicant is proposing the addition of a new master bedroom and bath configuration. It is a modest increase in space, only 15 1/2 feet by 25 feet. The home is a pre-existing non-conformity, largely due to topography of the property. This is a ranch style home that was built into a slope 52 years ago. The Code requires that the basement floor area be calculated into the total gross floor area even though it is really not livable space. The addition will add 775 square feet, and is designed to square off the home. All other setbacks and requirements are met. Mr. Laub noted that the homes in the neighborhood are different from this home. Many of the existing homes in this R-12 Zoning District have greater gross floor area and they are two story homes. The surrounding homes are much larger than this home, even after the addition has been constructed. This bumping out does not change the character of the home or the neighborhood. Mr. Laub noted that Mr. Peter Wilson, architect, was in attendance and available to answer any questions that the Board or members of the public may have. Mr. Wilson noted that there will be a basement area incorporated into the addition, thereby addressing the heating and plumbing issues. Alternatives to the design were considered and it was found that they did not accomplish what the applicant was hoping to achieve. Zoning Board of Appeals April 6,2010 Letters in support of the application were received from Ira Langstein of 6 Bonwit Road, Edythe D. Lover of 5 Greenhouse Circle, and Georgia C. McNicoll of 7 Greeenhouse Circle, and were made part of the record. Mr. Moscato asked for clarification of the height of the basement's ceiling. Mr. Laub noted that it would be 8'. Ms. Michele Fredman noted that ranch homes are typically one story structures. Mr. Laub noted that this home contains a single level living area. He pointed out that the variance being requested incorporates the existing home. Mr. Izzo reminded the Board that staying under the 400 square foot mark meant that the applicant was not required to provide a storm water management plan. The addition is only 387.5 square feet. Ms. Fredman noted that the Board could not mandate storm water management, but would be amenable to it if the applicant suggested such a plan. The Board briefly discussed tree removal, which trees would remain, replanting, existing landscaping, mature vegetation, and the position of the addition. Mr. Laub presented that Board with colored photographs, which were made part of the record. 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. Izzo, Building Inspector, asked for the height on the proposed stucco wall. Mr. Peter Wilson noted that page 2 of the plans shows the proposed stucco wall, which is 9' from grade to the siding. It was noted that this application will be heard by the Architectural Review Board. On a motion made by Steven Berger, and seconded by Salvatore Crescenzi, the public portion of the hearing was closed, and the Board began deliberation. Mr. Moscato noted that storm water runoff is a concern. Amanda Kendal, Esq., Village Counsel, noted that there must be issues of storm water on the site before a condition to include storm water mitigation can be included. The Village has a high water table. Mr. Wilson noted that putting in a drainage system for the entire structure that would meet the code requirements is a very expensive undertaking. However, the applicant had no problem adding a drainage system for the addition. A provision to capture storm water runoff was added to the resolution. Mr. Moscato read the following resolution: Zoning Board of Appeals April 6,2010 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Ms. Eleanor Lowet for a 1,024 square foot gross floor area variance in connection with the proposed construction of a rear, two-story addition on property located at 6 Greenhouse Circle in an R12 District on the west side of Greenhouse Circle, 65 feet from the intersection of Bonwit Road and Greenhouse Circle. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 135.50, Block: 1, Lot: 38; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on April 6, 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 250-13(G)(b)[2][a]-[3] of the Rye Brook Code, finds: 1) The proposed variance does not adversely affect the character of the neighborhood because the proposed addition will be located in the rear of the property; 2) The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some other feasible method other than the proposed area variance; 3) The requested area variance is substantial; 4) The proposed variance will not have an adverse effect or 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 is hereby granted on the following condition: 1) Storm water management system to capture incremental runoff form new addition as volunteered by the applicant's architect. DATED: April 6, 2010 Donald Moscato, Chairman Mr. Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting Aye Salvatore Crescenzi Voting Aye Michele Fredman Voting Aye Don Moscato Voting Aye The resolution was approved on a vote of four ayes to zero nayes. Zoning Board of Appeals April 6,2010 Zoning Board of Appeals April 6,2010 2) #10-590 WIN RIDGE REALTY 24 Rye Ridge Plaza Install two 17.34 square foot monument signs at the Bowman Avenue elevation. Mr. Izzo, Building Inspector, noted that all appropriate postings and submission requirements have been met. Mr. Peter Stahl, the representative for Win Ridge Realty, began the discussion regarding the installation of three (3) signs. It was noted that the signs appear on the site plans. Initially it was felt that all three signs required variances, but the Building Inspector made a determination and now the applicant was before the Board requesting a variance for two signs. All three (3) signs will be located on Bowman Avenue, at the three entrances to the parking areas. The proposed signs are 54" in height and 48" in width. The signs will be constructed on pedestals. The objective of installing the three (3) signs is to give clear, concise directions for patrons looking for the address of a particular store or office on this 12 acre site. Kathy Zalantis, Esq., of Silverberg Zalantis, noted that the applicant received two notices of disapproval. She noted that there are two separate lots, and two of the signs will be on one lot and one sign will be on the other lot. Attorney Zalantis noted that these three (3) signs all appear on an approved site plan, and were reviewed during site plan approval. She stated that the issue was thoroughly vetted by the Planning Board and Board of Trustees. The signs are on each curb cuts. She noted that her client has spent a lot of money implementing the improvements, and now they were simply trying to direct patrons to the addresses of each of the stores/offices. There are multiple tenants, and the property has 225 linear feet of frontage on Bowman Avenue. The Village Code does not address these types of circumstances. The plaza lot has 280 linear feet of street frontage on Bowman Avenue. The Village's sign ordinance is designed to avoid clutter. The large non- conforming sign on Bowman is being taken down, and is being replaced with three smaller signs. It was noted that the sign on Ridge Street was not included in the calculations or discussion. The plaza lot is 3.91 acres and the Center lot is 9.86 acres. Mr. Izzo corrected a misstatement by Attorney Zalantis. He stated that although the signs are on the site plans they are simply black dashes. There was never any discussion regarding the locations, size, relationship to existing signs, or the number of signs. The signs were not addressed by the Board of Trustees or the Planning Board. The application reviewed by these two boards had to do with the reconfiguration of the parking lot. Zoning Board of Appeals April 6,2010 Mr. Berger noted that the plans submitted by the applicant showed such plans as having been drawn in September, October, and November 2009 regarding the installation of a sign for Chipotle. Also discussed was the sign installed on the building identifying the Rye Ridge Shopping Center. September, October, November, 2009. At the December 2009 meeting of the Zoning Board, Mr. Berger noted that it would have been helpful to have known about additional signs. Mr. Berger expressed concern that other tenants would be before the Zoning Board requesting variances for signage. It was noted that every tenant has signage on their awnings or over the doorways. Mr. Izzo noted that if the size of the signs were reduced, the need for the variances would go away. It was noted that the lettering on each sign will only be 5" tall. The base raises the sign to eye level. The proposed signs are setback from the property line. Ms. Fredman noted that she was on the Planning Board at the time of the initial review. She stated that the plans were not thoroughly vetted, and she requested time to go back and review notes from the Planning Board meetings. Attorney Zalantis noted that she misspoke and stated that the applicant was not questioning the need for the variances, therefore, she saw no advantage to reviewing the notes from the Planning and Board of Trustees meetings. The consensus of the Board was to keep the public hearing open and adjourn the matter for a month to allow for the additional review. This is a unique complex, and the issue required additional review even though the applicant has conceded that the signs require variances. On a motion made by Mr. Crescenzi, and seconded by Mr. Berger, the matter was adjourned. Mr. Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting Aye Salvatore Crescenzi Voting Aye Michele Fredman Voting Aye Don Moscato Voting Aye The matter was adjourned. Zoning Board of Appeals April 6,2010 4) Approval of March 2, 2010 Zoning Board Summary Mr. Moscato noted that he has made several minor changes to the summary. He called for a motion to approve, as amended. Mr. Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting Aye Salvatore Crescenzi Voting Aye Michele Fredman Voting Aye Don Moscato Voting Aye Ms. Fredman noted that she was in the process of reviewing rules and procedures for the Zoning Board. She requested that the matter be addressed at the next meeting. The Board agreed, and thanked Ms. Fredman for her review. On a motion to adjourn was made by Mr. Crescenzi, and seconded by Mr. Berger. Mr. Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting Aye Salvatore Crescenzi Voting Aye Michele Fredman Voting Aye Don Moscato Voting Aye The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Zoning Board of Appeals April 6,2010