Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-06-01 - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes Village of Rye Brook 938 King Street ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS June 1, 2010 Meeting at 8:00 p.m. AGENDA 1) #10-590 WIN RIDGE REALTY 24 Rye Ridge Plaza Install two 17.34 square foot monument signs at the Bowman Avenue elevation 2) #10-597 MR. DAVID S. BRADY & MS. BRITE WISTINGHAUSEN 9 Eagles Bluff Construct a one-story side addition, a one-story front addition, a new front porch, and perform interior alterations 3) #10-598 MR. ANDREW A. HASTINGS 1 Wilton Road Construct a new front portico 3) APPROVAL OF MAY 4, 2010 ZONING BOARD SUMMARY BOARD: Don Moscato, Chairman Michele Fredman Andrew Kaminsky Joel Simon Excused: Steve Berger STAFF: Michael Izzo, Building Inspector Amanda Kandel, Esq., Village Counsel Fred Seifert, Public Access Coordinator Paula Patafio, Meeting Secretary Board of Trustees Liaison: Jeffrey Rednick Zoning Board of Appeals June 1,2010 Mr. Don Moscato, Chairman, welcomed everyone to the June 1, 2010 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. He introduced Village Staff and Counsel, and noted that Steve Berger was excused from the meeting. As a result of Mr. Berger's absence, Mr. Moscato offered each of the applicants the opportunity to adjourn to another meeting when there would be a full compliment of the Board. The alternative was to move forward with the understanding that they would need three (3) aye votes in order for their variances to be granted. Mr. Moscato called for the first item on the agenda: 1) #10-590 WIN RIDGE REALTY 24 Rye Ridge Plaza Install two 17.34 square foot monument signs at the Bowman Avenue elevation. Steven Silverberg, Esq., of the firm of Silverberg Zalantis, addressed the Board as the applicant's counsel. He requested that his application be moved forward and he began his presentation by reviewing the outstanding legal issues in connection with the applicant's request for approval of the installation of three (3) monument signs. Mr. Silverberg pointed out that there were two different properties and that the lots were very large. The Village ordinance provides for one sign per lot. The Village Building Inspector has made his determination. At this time the applicant requires a variance in order to construct the signs requested. The applicant feels that it meets all of the criteria in order for the variances to be granted. The signs are needed for safety purposes, and it is beneficial to the tenants in the center and plaza to designate who is at what address. The signs will not impact the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Peter Stahl of Win Ridge Realty addressed the Board. He showed the members of the Board a rendering of what the signs would look like. The existing sign will be removed and signs with the addresses will be installed. Mr. Stahl showed the Board where the proposed signs would be installed on the lots; at the three (3) driveway entrances on Bowman Avenue. Mr. Don Moscato, Chairman, asked for clarification from the Building Inspector. Mr. Michael Izzo, Building Inspector, noted that there were questions regarding the size of the signs. It was determined that the second variance for total square footage of signage was not needed. He noted that the applicant is reducing the non-conformity by removing the existing free-standing sign. According to review Zoning Board of Appeals June 1,2010 and clarification, only one variance is required. The Village's Code calls for one sign only per street frontage, and addresses the amount of street frontage versus how many lots there are. The determination from the Building Department was that two (2) of the signs require a variance. Mr. Moscato called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in support or opposition. There being no one, and no further comments from the Board, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. On a motion made by Michele Fredman, and seconded by Andrew Kaminsky, the public hearing was closed and the Board began its deliberation. The consensus of the Board was that the signs would answer a safety issue. Many patrons drive around looking for specific stores. The signs will direct patrons to the correct section of the Center or Plaza. The goal is to stop cars from slowing down on Bowman Avenue, trying to decide where to turn, especially during the high traffic school opening and dismissal hours. It was noted that the proposed signs are 52" tall, and made of punched plastic. The letters that say Rye Ridge Plaza are 4 '/2" in height. Two of the signs are lit from within, and only the letters glow. It was also noted that the signs will go before the Architectural Review Board for approval. Mr. Moscato read the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Win Ridge Realty for a variance from Section 250 Attachment 2:Ld to install two additional free standing signs on the Bowman Avenue frontage when only one is allowed, on property located at Rye Ridge Shopping Center in a C1-P District on the south side of Bowman Avenue, approximately 500 feet from the intersection of South Ridge Street and Bowman Avenue. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 141.27, Block: 1, Lot: 6; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on April 6, 2010 and continued to June 1, 2010 at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and Zoning Board of Appeals June 1,2010 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]-[e] of the Rye Brook Code, finds: 1) That an undesirable change will not be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to the nearby property; 2) The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some other method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance; and 3) The requested variance is substantial but the Shopping Center covers two (2) lots and a larger frontage than most other business in the area: and 4) The proposed variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and 5) The alleged difficulty was self-created. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the said application is hereby granted. DATED: June 1, 2010 Donald Moscato, Chairman Mr. Moscato called the roll: Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye Michele Fredman Voting Aye Joel Simon Voting Aye Don Moscato Voting Aye The resolution was approved on a vote of four ayes to zero nayes. Zoning Board of Appeals June 1,2010 Zoning Board of Appeals June 1,2010 2) #10-597 MR. DAVID BRADY & MS. BRITE WISTINGHAUSEN 9 Eagles Bluff Construct a one-story side addition, a one-story front addition, a new front porch, and perform interior alterations Michele Fredman recused herself, noting that she is the adjacent property owner. Tim Wetmore, architect, of Wetmore Associates LLC of Westport, Connecticut, addressed the Board. He noted that the applicant was seeking (2) two variances for additions to this spilt style home. The applicants propose to construct a front porch and two (2) small additions related to the kitchen renovation. The minimum required total of two side yards setback is 40 feet. The proposed side addition will result in a total of two side yards setback of 32 feet. Therefore, a total of two side yards setback variance of 8 feet is requested. In addition, it was noted that the maximum allowable Gross Floor Area (GFA) is 3,223 square feet. The applicants' non- conforming GFA is 3, 710 square feet. The proposed construction will result in a GFA of 3,827 square feet. Therefore, a GFA variance of 604 square feet is requested. It was noted that an addition was constructed on this home in 2002. There is a Certificate of Occupancy for the prior work. Also noted was the existence of an easement on the opposite side of the home. Mr. Wetmore noted that there are five properties in the area that have larger floor areas then this house. The additions to this home do not affect the character of the neighborhood. It was also noted that the original plans were scaled back significantly. Mr. Moscato called for members of the public wishing to address the Board. There being none, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. On a motion made by Andrew Kaminsky, and seconded by Joel Simon, the public hearing was closed and the Board began its deliberation. The Board discussed storm water runoff. Mr. Wetmore noted that a sub- surface drain could be provided which would result in zero additional runoff from the property. Mr. Moscato read the following resolution: Zoning Board of Appeals June 1,2010 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Mr. David S. Brady and Ms. Brite Wistinghausen for a 604 square foot GFA variance and an 8 foot total of two side yards setback variance in connection with the proposed construction of a one-story side addition, a one-story front addition, and a new front porch and interior alterations, on property located at 9 Eagles Bluff, in an R-15 zoning district on the east side of Eagles Bluff, 500 feet from the intersection of Meadowlark Road and Eagles Bluff. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 135.27-1- 41; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on June 1, 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]-[e] of the Rye Brook Code, finds: 1) The variances will not create an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties; and 2) The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some other method, feasible for the applicant to pursue other than the area variances; and 3) The requested variances are substantial; and 4) The proposed variances will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and 5) The alleged difficulty was self-created. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the said application is hereby granted. DATED: June 1, 2010 Donald Moscato, Chairman Mr. Moscato called the roll: Michele Fredman Abstained Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye Joel Simon Voting Aye Don Moscato Voting Aye The resolution was approved on a vote of three ayes to zero nayes. Zoning Board of Appeals June 1,2010 Zoning Board of Appeals June 1,2010 3) #10-598 MR. ANDREW A. HASTINGS 1 Wilton Road Construct a new front portico John Scarlata, Jr., architect, addressed the Board. He noted that the minimum required front yard setback is 30 feet. The proposed new front portico will result in a front yard setback of 28.7 feet. Therefore, a 1.3 foot front yard setback variance will be required. The applicant is looking to move the front door to the front of the home. Mr. Moscato called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in support or opposition. There being no one, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. On a motion made by Mr. Kaminsky, and seconded by Ms. Fredman, the public hearing was closed and the Board began to deliberate. Mr. Moscato noted that this was the smallest request for a variance ever before the Board. The consensus of the Board was to approve the request. Mr. Moscato read the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Mr. Arthur A. Hastings for a 1.3 foot front yard setback area variance in connection with the proposed construction of a new front portico, on property located at 1 Wilton Road, in an R-10 zoning district on the west side of Wilton Road, 163 feet from the intersection of Beacon Lane and Wilton Road. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID: 135.58-1-13; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on June 1, 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]-[e] of the Rye Brook Code, finds: Zoning Board of Appeals June 1,2010 1) An undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will not be created by the granting of the variance; and 2) The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some other method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance; and 3) The requested area variance is not substantial; and 4) The proposed variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and 5) The alleged difficulty was self-created. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the said application is hereby granted. 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 June 1,2010 Zoning Board of Appeals June 1,2010 4) APPROVAL OF MAY 4, 2010 ZONING BOARD SUMMARY Mr. Mocato called for comments from the Board. It was noted that amendments have been submitted. On a motion made by Ms. Fredman, and seconded by Mr. Kaminsky, the summary was approved as amended. Mr. Moscato noted that one final item not listed on the agenda was the discussion of the rules and procedures of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Counsel has now reviewed the proposed procedures and will email recommendations to the Board. A discussion can be held at the July meeting of the Zoning Board, however, as Ms. Fredman, the author of the document, will be absent from the July meeting, no vote will take place at that time. Ms. Fredman suggested that recusal rules be added to the procedures. There being no further business before the Board, Mr. Moscato called for a motion to adjourn. Ms. Fredman made a motion to adjourn, which was seconded by Mr. Kaminsky. The meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Zoning Board of Appeals June 1,2010