Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-09-07 - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes Village of Rye Brook 938 King Street ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS September 7, 2010 Meeting at 8:00 p.m. AGENDA 1) #10-602 MR. & MRS. ANDREW SILFEN 6 Redroof Drive Expand existing driveway to create additional unenclosed off-street parking 2) #10-604 MR. & MRS. PETER MANISCALCO 60 Windsor Road Legalize enclosed porch and patio on grade, and powder room 3) #10-609 MR. & MRS. MARTIN FINCK 43 Mohegan Lane Legalize rear deck and off street parking 4) #10-608 MR. & MRS. DAVID FISHMAN 15 Berkley Drive Rear two-story addition; rear one-story addition; interior and exterior alterations 5) #09-561 MR. & MRS. BRIAN BERK (Re-Appearance: 1/15/10; adjourned to 4/6/10—no appearance) 11 Edgewood Drive Legalize the rear sports court, spa/patio and chain link fence 3) APPROVAL OF AUGUST 3, 2010 ZONING BOARD SUMMARY BOARD: Don Moscato, Chairman Steve Berger Michele Fredman Andrew Kaminsky Joel Simon STAFF: Michael Izzo, Building Inspector Jennifer Gray, Esq., Village Counsel Fred Seifert, Public Access Coordinator Paula Patafio, Meeting Secretary Zoning Board of Appeals September 7,2010 Page 1 Board of Trustee Liaison: Trustee Jeffrey Rednick Mr. Don Moscato, Chairman, welcomed everyone to the September 7, 2010 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. He began with the introduction of Village Staff and Counsel, and noted that there was a full compliment of the Board in attendance. He asked that all individuals speaking at the podium state their names, application, position, and nature of the variance. The first item was called before the Board: 1) #10-602 MR. & MRS. ANDREW SILFEN 6 Redroof Drive Expand existing driveway to create additional unenclosed off-street parking Mr. Moscato noted that the applicant had requested an adjournment to the October 10, 2010 meeting. With the consensus of the Board, the adjournment was approved. Mr. Moscato called for item#2: 2) #10-604 MR. & MRS. PETER MANISCALCO 60 Windsor Road Legalize enclosed porch and patio on grade, and powder room Mr. Peter Maniscalco, and his wife, addressed the Board. Mr. Maniscalco noted that they were before the Board requesting legalization of the existing porch. The porch existed when they purchased the home. At this time they are in the process of selling the home and need the Certificate of Occupancy in order to sell the house. Mr. Moscato noted that the subject property is located in an R-7 Zone. The houses in this area are close together. He called for questions or comments from the Board, or members of the public that wished to address the matter in support or opposition. There being no one, he called for a motion from the Board. On a motion made by Andrew Kaminsky, and seconded by Michele Fredman, the public hearing was closed and the Board began its deliberation. The Board prepared a resolution, which was read into the record by Mr. Moscato: Zoning Board of Appeals September 7,2010 Page 2 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Mr. & Mrs. Peter Maniscalco for a 0.4 foot single side yard setback variance and a 3.5 foot total two side yards setback variance in connection with the proposed legalization of an enclosed porch and patio on grade and powder room, on property located at 60 Windsor Road in an R7 District on the west side of Windsor Road, approximately 120 feet from the intersection or Ridge Boulevard and Windsor Road. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 135.60, Block: 1, Lot: 22; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on September 7, 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 proposed variances will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties; 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; 3) The requested variances are not substantial; 4) The proposed variance will not have an adverse affect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and 5) The alleged difficulty is self-created. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the said application is hereby granted. DATED: September 7, 2010 Donald Moscato, Chairman Mr. Moscato called the roll: Steve 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 September 7,2010 Page 3 Zoning Board of Appeals September 7,2010 Page 4 Zoning Board of Appeals September 7,2010 Page 5 3) #10-609 MR. & MRS. MARTIN FINCK 43 Mohegan Lane Legalize rear deck and off street parking Mr. John Scarlato, Jr., architect for the applicant, addressed the Board. He noted that he was before the Board requesting the legalization of the deck. The subject property is located on a cul-de-sac, and the property runs on an angle. He pointed out that it is only the rear corner of the deck that needs to be legalized. The final survey showed that there was something off and the applicants now require an 18" front yard setback. The second part of the application is the legalization of off- street parking. The home has a one car garage, and the applicant is looking to remove an additional car from the street. The driveway has a retaining wall and it is well landscaped. Mr. Kaminsky questioned when the deck was constructed. Mr. Scarlato noted that the deck is 15 years old, however, the need for a variance only came to light when the work was done on the driveway. Mr. Michael Izzo, Building Inspector, addressed the Board. He noted that the permit that was issued in July, 2007. Work was performed and at the end of the construction, an as-built survey was required. October 23, 2009 the as-built survey was completed. It shows that the driveway was expanded further than what was approved, and into the Village's right-of-way. Subsequently several letters were sent to the applicant regarding the driveway and the encroachment into the Village's right-of-way. The applicant was instructed to re-do the driveway as per the plans that were originally submitted. The applicant removed the expanded parking area that was constructed in the Village's right-of-way, however, he did not pull the driveway back as per the Village Code. The applicant is now trying to legalize this driveway as-is. Mr. Izzo noted that the Village Code is clear; unenclosed off-street parking cannot be created within 25' from the front lot line. The design professional designed the driveway in a way that the applicant would have been compliant. The applicant has not complied with the approved plans. Mr. Izzo presented the Board with a photograph of what currently exists. Mr. Moscato noted that given the opportunity to become compliant, the applicant chose not to do so. Mr. Scarlato noted that during construction it was found that there was not enough depth to park the car. Technically the driveway did not work as it was drawn. The applicant believed that there was more space between the property line and the home, and the small expansion would make the parking area useable. Zoning Board of Appeals September 7,2010 Page 6 Ms. Fredman stated that there is ample space to extend the driveway and be code compliant. She asked what work was proposed for the deck. Mr. Scarlato responded that this is a very small deck. Cutting off the corner to make it compliant would make it look odd. The work that the applicant is proposing on the deck is simply what is needed to bring it up to Code. Mr. Moscato noted that the applicant is requesting a significant variance. The applicant was given the opportunity to correct the problem, but chose an alternative that requires a variance. This could have been avoided. Mr. Kaminsky agreed with Mr. Moscato. He stated that the applicant did what they wanted and now they are trying to get it approved. Mr. Kaminsky stated that the way this came about really bothered him. Mr. Simon stated that he also had a problem with the way that this variance request came about. The Zoning Board has an obligation to uphold the Code. Mr. Berger reiterated that the applicant corrected a part of the problem, but not the entire problem. He stated that he was not troubled by the deck. The Board discussed the possibility of an adjournment and next steps to be taken. The applicant could adjourn the driveway to the next meeting, and have the Board vote on the deck. However, adjourning the entire application would give the applicant the incentive to return. Mr. Scarlato requested an adjournment to the October meeting. Mr. Berger motioned to approve the request for adjournment. The motion was seconded by Ms. Fredman. Mr. Moscato called the roll: Steve Berger Voting Aye Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye Michele Fredman Voting Aye Joel Simon Voting Aye Don Moscato Voting Aye 4) #10-608 MR. & MRS. DAVID FISHMAN 15 Berkley Drive Rear two-story addition; rear one-story addition; interior and exterior alterations Zoning Board of Appeals September 7,2010 Page 7 Mr. John Scarlato, Jr., architect for the applicant, addressed the Board. He noted that a family room will be added with two bedrooms above it. The deck will be moved to the side. When viewing the house from the road there are no changes as the addition is in the middle of the rear of the house. The applicant is before the Board for two variances. The first is a gross floor area variance. The existing house is already too large and is over what is allowed by 229 square feet. The applicant is proposing the addition of 673 square feet; 360 square feet on the first floor and 212 on the second floor (2 bedrooms and bathrooms). The proposed bedrooms are modest. The family room is a decent size. The second variance is in connection with impervious surface coverage. Removing the patio reduce the coverage by 186 square feet. The pool was removed. There is a shed that is 80 square feet. The lot is not over-built, but the house has a large footprint. The house had one other addition done before the changes to the Rye Brook Code. Mr. Moscato noted that there is an existing study, den and family room on the first floor. He asked if the gross floor area of the proposed addition could be reduced. Mr. Scarlato noted that floor area is limited. There is a basement under a portion of the first floor, which is calculated into the gross floor area, and the second floor addition is already smaller than the first floor. One tree will need to be removed for the construction, and a tree removal permit is required. There are no setback issues. Mr. Moscato noted that there are no comparisons were submitted with the application. Mrs. Fishman addressed the Board. She noted that the house directly across the street and the house to the left are all similar sized/shaped houses. The proposed addition will not be visible from the street, and their yard is well landscaped. She felt that the addition would not affect the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Scarlato presented the Board with two letters of support from neighbors. He stated that no neighbors have expressed opposition. The Board discussed the application among themselves. The consensus of the Board was that gross floor area variance could be reduced. It was suggested that the application be adjourned to the next meeting. The applicant and the Board agreed, and the matter was adjourned to the October meeting to allow the applicant time to review the application for a possible reduction. Zoning Board of Appeals September 7,2010 Page 8 5) #09-561 MR. & MRS. BRIAN BERK (Re-Appearance: 1/15110; adjourned to 4/6/10—no appearance) 11 Edgewood Drive Legalize the rear sports court, spa/patio and chain link fence Anthony Gioffre, Esq., of the firm of Cuddy and Feder, addressed the Board. He introduced Mr. Jim Ryan, Consultant, and Mr. Brian Berk, applicant, and noted that they were available to answer questions from the Board. Mr. Gioffre noted that the applicant just learned that the matter was placed on the agenda, but was uncertain of the reason why, but the applicant was prepared to give an update. Attorney Jennifer Gray, Village Counsel, noted that Amanda Kandel, Esq. contacted Cuddy and Feder this morning. A lot of work has been done, and the matter is before the Planning Board for review. Mr. Jim Ryan of John Myer Consultants addressed the Board. It was noted that this firm was retained by Mr. Berk to coordinate the responses to concerns raised about the application raised by the office of F.P. Clark and Associates. There are several issues which include tree removal, stabilization of the area, grading, and the existence of wetlands. An engineer and wetlands consultant have been retained. Mr. Nowak, Village Acting Engineer, has been consulted. The goal is to make sure that all of the issues are addressed. Mr. Moscato felt that the application had been sitting in limbo for over a year, and suggested an adjournment, without prejudice. Mr. Ryan noted that a lot of work has been done. The matter is not sitting stagnant. It is expected that the application would be back before the Zoning Board by its December meeting. Attorney Gioffre noted that no one thought it would take this long. The applicant has been proactive. He asked that the matter be kept on the Zoning Board's docket while the application is being processed. Attorney Gray noted that no summons has been issued for this application, but a Notice of Violation has been issued. By having the matter on the agenda of the ZBA court proceedings are stayed. No enforcement action can take place. The next step would be a summons. It is up to the discretion of the Building Inspector as to whether or not issue a summons. The matter would then by heard by Rye Town Justice Court. At that point the applicant is required to remedy the violations. Zoning Board of Appeals September 7,2010 Page 9 Attorney Gioffre noted that a significant amount of work has been done over the past year. The applicant is not intentionally stretching this out. The longer this takes, the more money the applicant spends. Mr. Berger suggested keeping the lines of communication open. Bad discretion was used in respect with the building of the court. He stressed that the applicant must advise the Zoning Board as to the progress and status. Mr. Moscato felt that this matter should have been resolved much sooner. Attorney Gioffre noted that Mr. Berk hired a company who informed him that no permits were needed. He relied on his professional. He presented the Board with letters in support of the application. Attorney Gray suggested an adjournment to the December 7th meeting of the ZBA. A status update could be required. Mr. Moscato noted that the Planning Board will issue a report with the facts. The goal is to balance mitigation against impacts. Drainage issues, slope stabilization, and other technical issues will be fully vetted by the Planning Board. Marilyn Timpone Mohamed, Village Consultant, will be working with the Planning Board and Village staff. The consensus of the Board was to grant an adjourned to December 7, 2010. Mr. Moscato called for the final item on the agenda: 6) APPROVAL OF AUGUST 3, 2010 ZONING BOARD SUMMARY Mr. Moscato noted that comments were turned in by Mr. Berger, however, counsel has not had an opportunity to review the meeting. The approval of the meeting summary was adjourned to next meeting. Mr. Moscato noted that Counsel is reviewing the draft of the Rule and Procedures for the Zoning Board of Appeals. Attorney Gray noted that currently there are no rules and procedures for the Zoning Board, however, some of rules are in the Code. Village Counsel if reviewing the draft as nothing can be made inconsistent with the Code. Zoning Board of Appeals September 7,2010 Page 10 Mr. Izzo noted that he has submitted his comments to legal counsel. A revised draft will be presented to the Board prior to the next meeting. The matter was adjourned to the meeting for additional review. There being no further business before the Board, Mr. Moscato called for a motion to adjourn. On a motion made by Mr. Berger, and seconded by Ms. Fredman, the meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Mr. Moscato called the roll: Steve Berger Voting Aye Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye Michele Fredman Voting Aye Joel Simon Voting Aye Don Moscato Voting Aye Zoning Board of Appeals September 7,2010 Page 11