Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-08-03 - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes Village of Rye Brook 938 King Street ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS August 3, 2010 Meeting at 8:00 p.m. AGENDA 1) #10-601 MS. MARIANNE RYSCIK 16 Woodland Avenue Construct a new rear deck; partial side shed dormer. 2) #10-597 MR. & MRS. PAUL BRENNER 14 Fairlawn Parkway Legalize rear deck. 3) APPROVAL OF JUNE 1, 2010 ZONING BOARD SUMMARY BOARD: Don Moscato, Chairman Steve Berger Michele Fredman Andrew Kaminsky Joel Simon 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 Mr. Don Moscato, Chairman, welcomed everyone to the August 3, 2010 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. He introduced Village Staff and Counsel, and noted that there was a full compliment of the Board in attendance. Mr. Moscato asked that all individuals speaking at the podium state their names, application, and position. He called for the first item on the agenda: Zoning Board of Appeals August 3,2010 Page 1 1) #10-601 MS. MARIANNE RYSCIK 16 Woodland Avenue Construct a new rear deck; partial side shed dormer Mr. John Scarlato, Jr., architect, addressed the Board. He noted that the applicant's goal was to make the deck usable. The house is a small house on a decent sized lot. The home is only 1,232 square feet; considerably smaller than what is allowed on this size lot. The variance required is to put a 12' x 6' deck on house. The maximum allowable deck coverage is 3.5% for this property and the proposed deck will result in deck coverage of 5.9%. It was noted that the stairway factors into the 3.5% coverage of the lot. Mr. Moscato asked if this was the smallest variance possible in order to satisfy the needs of the applicant. Mr. Scarlato noted that the applicant's goal is to put a table and sitting area on this deck, which is one story up from the rear yard. He also noted that there are no setback or impervious surface issues. Mr. Moscato turned to the Board for questions and comments. Mr. Kaminsky asked if the deck would intrude on any of the neighbors' privacy. Mr. Scarlato stated that the yard is very large and the deck would not infringe on the neighbors' privacy. He also noted that additional work is proposed, but the additional work does not require any variances. Mr. Moscato called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in favor or opposition to the application. There being no one, Mr. Moscato called for a motion to close the public portion of the hearing. On a motion made by Mr. Steve Berger, and seconded by Ms. Michele Fredman, the hearing was closed and the Board began deliberation. Ms. Fredman noted that in her opinion the size of the deck and, therefore, the size of the variance could be reduced. Mr. Joel Simon noted that in order for a deck to be useable it needs to be of a certain size. He felt that the deck being proposed here was a good size and the variance was not substantial. Mr. Moscato agreed with Mr. Simon. Mr. Moscato read the following resolution: Zoning Board of Appeals August 3,2010 Page 2 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Ms. Marianne Ryscik for a 2.4% deck coverage variance in connection with the proposed construction of a new rear deck and partial side shed dormer, on property located at 16 Woodland Avenue in an R-2F District on the west side of Woodland Avenue, approximately 100 Feet from the intersection of Hillcrest Avenue and Woodland Avenue. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 135.84, Block: 1, Lot: 22; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on August 3, 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) That the proposed variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties because the proposed work is in the rear of the home and meets all set back requirements; 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 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: August 3, 2010 Donald Moscato, Chairman Mr. Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting Aye Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye Michele Fredman Voting Aye Joel Simon Voting Aye Don Moscato Voting Aye The resolution was approved on a vote of five ayes. Zoning Board of Appeals August 3,2010 Page 3 Zoning Board of Appeals August 3,2010 Page 4 2) #10-597 MR. & MRS. PAUL BRENNER 14 Fairlawn Parkway Legalize rear deck. Mrs. Brenner, the applicant, addressed the Board. She noted that the deck built by a contractor is non-conforming and they were now before the Board requesting that the deck be legalized. The deck was constructed in 2002. Mr. Izzo, Building Inspector, noted that the plans that were submitted at the time of construction were on target. However, the as-built survey shows different measurements. The end result was a non-conforming deck. The applicant noted that when refinancing the home it was found that the deck did not have a Certificate of Occupancy. The process to legalize that deck was started, and the new survey shows the true measurements of the deck. Stephen Marchesani, architect, presented the Board with the original plans. It is assumed that the contractor built the deck in the correct spot, but did not measure it. Mr. Izzo suggested that since it is not possible for the house to have moved, that perhaps the contractor was working off an older survey with incorrect baseline information. Mr. Moscato noted that there were multiple errors throughout the plans. Mr. Brenner noted that during the time that they were refinancing their home, the Village was offering an Amnesty period. They approached the Village. It was learned that their contractor was supposed to obtain the permits, but he did not. Mr. Brenner stated that at the time of construction he had health issues, which have carried over through the past three years. As a result of his illness, they were not focusing on the deck. However, when they learned that there were issues, they came forward to resolve the issues. Ms. Fredman was surprised that the applicant did not follow up and get the permits that were required. Mrs. Brenner noted that they hired a contractor, and they trusted that the contractor who worked in many of the homes in Rye Brook and who came highly recommended was capable of doing his job. Mrs. Brenner stated that the deck has been in existence for many years and none of the neighbors have an issue with it. There is sufficient landscaping and screening for the privacy of the applicant and their neighbors. Mr. Moscato felt that the builder could not be blamed. This is an issue for the Village. Ms. Fredman asked that she be allowed to be recused from voting on the application for personal reasons. Mr. Moscato noted as a result, the applicant Zoning Board of Appeals August 3,2010 Page 5 would need three out of the four remaining members to vote yes. The applicants understood the consequences of Ms. Fredman's recusal, and asked that the matter move forward. Mr. Moscato called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in support or opposition. There being no one, or further comments from the Board, Mr. Moscato called for a motion to close the public hearing. On a motion made by Mr. Berger, and seconded by Mr. Simon, the public hearing was closed and the Board began its deliberation. Mr. Moscato noted that the applicants' discovered something that was awry and brought it to the attention of the Village to clear it up. Residents have an obligation to check to be certain that the work done is done correctly. However, the contractors also have an obligation. Attorney Amanda Kandel, Village Counsel, noted that there were two variances required: a 2.1 foot single side yard setback and a 2.34 foot rear yard setback. After deliberation, Mr. Moscato read the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Mr.& Mrs. Paul Brenner for a single side yard setback variance of 2.1 feet, and a rear yard setback variance of 2.34 feet, in connection with the proposed legalization of a rear deck not built in compliance with permit #3748, on property located at 14 Fairlawn Parkway in an R-15 District, on the south side of Fairlawn Parkway, approximately 80 feet from the intersection of Fairlawn Parkway and Boxwood Place. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 129.59, Block: 1, Lot: 47; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on August 3, 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 August 3,2010 Page 6 1) That the proposed variances will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties because the proposed work is in the rear of the home; 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 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: August 3, 2010 Donald Moscato, Chairman Mr. Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting Aye Michele Fredman Recused Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye Joel Simon Voting Aye Don Moscato Voting Aye The resolution was approved on a vote of four ayes, zero nays, and one recusal. Zoning Board of Appeals August 3,2010 Page 7 Zoning Board of Appeals August 3,2010 Page 8 3) APPROVAL OF JUNE 1, 2010 ZONING BOARD SUMMARY Mr. Moscato noted that comments were turned in by Mr. Moscato, Attorney Kandel, Mr. Berger and Ms. Fredman. The summary was adopted as amended on a motion made by Mr. Kaminsky and seconded by Ms. Fredman. Mr. Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting Aye Michele Fredman Voting Aye Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye Joel Simon Voting Aye Don Moscato Voting Aye Mr. Moscato began a discussion regarding the Rules and Procedures for the Zoning Board of Appeals. Ms. Fredman has reviewed the matter and there are issues which need to be clarified. Information on Rules and Procedures for all Village Boards should be published on the web. Attorney Kandel noted that she has not yet had the opportunity to review the document. Mr. Moscato noted that there are 13 bulleted items to be discussed. Mr. Izzo, Building Inspector, noted that there are some notification issues that are currently being reviewed by staff. Other issues under review are recusal, the possibility of alternate member for the Board, and educational requirements. Mr. Moscato noted that copies of these rules will be distributed to the Board members for review. A special Work Session can be called to work on the rules. The Work Session must be publicly noticed. Mr. Moscato noted that this discussion would continue at the September Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. There being no further business before the Board, Mr. Moscato called for a motion to adjourn. On a motion made by Mr. Kaminsky, and seconded by Mr. Simon, the meeting was adjourned at 9:03 p.m. Zoning Board of Appeals August 3,2010 Page 9 Mr. Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting Aye Michele Fredman Voting Aye Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye Joel Simon Voting Aye Don Moscato Voting Aye Zoning Board of Appeals August 3,2010 Page 10