Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-10-05 - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes Village of Rye Brook 938 King Street ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS October 5, 2010 Meeting at 8:00 p.m. AGENDA 1) #10-602 MR. & MRS. ANDREW SILFEN (Reappearance—adjourned by 9/7/10) 6 Redroof Drive Expand existing driveway to create additional unenclosed off-street parking 2) #10-609 MR. & MRS. MARTIN FINCK (Reappearance) 43 Mohegan Lane Legalize rear deck and off street parking 3) #10-608 MR. & MRS. DAVID FISHMAN (Reappearance) 15 Berkley Drive Rear two-story addition; rear one-story addition; interior and exterior alterations 4) #10-613 MR. & MRS. ROBERT LEWIS 16 Eagles Bluff Legalize the non-conforming placement of the new swimming pool equipment. 3) APPROVAL OF AUGUST 3, 2010 and SEPTEMBER 7, 2010 ZONING BOARD SUMMARIES BOARD: Don Moscato, Chairman Steve Berger Michele Fredman Andrew Kaminsky Absent: Joel Simon Zoning Board of Appeals October 5,2010 Page 1 STAFF: Michael Izzo, Building Inspector Amanda Kandel, Esq., Village Counsel Fred Seifert, Public Access Coordinator Paula Patafio, Meeting Secretary Board of Trustee Liaison: Jeffrey Rednick Mr. Don Moscato, Chairman, welcomed everyone to the October 5, 2010 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. He began the meeting with the introduction of Village Staff and Counsel. He asked that all individuals speaking at the podium state their names, application, position, and nature of the variance. Mr. Moscato noted that there was not a full compliment of the Board. In order to be approved, all applicants would need a vote of three yes votes. In regard to Item #4, with the recusal of Ms. Fredman there were only three members of the Board voting. Each applicant would be offered the opportunity to adjourn to next month's meeting when there may be a full compliment of the Board. Mr. Moscato called upon item#1: 1) #10-602 MR. & MRS. ANDREW SILFEN Reappearance (Adjourned from 9/7/10) 6 Redroof Drive Expand existing driveway to create additional unenclosed off-street parking Mr. Brad DeMonte, architect, addressed the Board. The applicant is before the Board seeking a variance to create parking within the 25' front yard setback. The architect presented the Board with the existing site plan, the proposed site plan, and photos of the home. He noted that the existing driveway is 22' in width and the applicant is looking to widen the driveway to create a parking area for his disabled mother. The applicant's mother visits two to three times per week and the parking area would allow her easier access to the home. In addition, creation of this parking area adjacent to the existing driveway would not block the garage. No other variances are required. The Board was presented with a petition signed by twelve of the neighbors in support of the application. The architect also noted that drywells would be installed on the property in order to capture any additional stormwater runoff. Zoning Board of Appeals October 5,2010 Page 2 Mr. Silfen noted that there have been no water issues on their property. There is a retention pond right down the street. The property is well landscaped. This parking space is more of a necessity versus a convenience. Mr. Steve Berger asked if the driveway extension could be shortened by tapering it in. Mr. DeMonte noted that the area could be shortened by approximately 10'. Mr. Moscato noted that the additional off-street parking area as currently proposed is 456 square feet, and this triggers the storm water mitigation. If the size of the paving drops below 400 square feet, then the storm water mitigation may not be needed. Amanda Kandel, Esq., Village Counsel, noted that the Village's Engineer will review the application. The decision regarding additional mitigation will be made by Mr. Nowak. Mr. Moscato stated that in his opinion this was an excessive request, however, the reason behind the request made sense. He noted that the variance runs with the land and not the applicant, in perpetuity. Mr. Demonte noted that one tree will be removed, but that additional landscaping can be added. Mr. Silfen noted that he would whatever he could to reduce the impact. 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 Andrew Kaminsky, and seconded by Michele Fredman, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Moscato called the roll: Steve Berger Voting Aye Michele Fredman Voting Aye Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye Don Moscato Voting Aye The Board deliberated and the Chair prepared a resolution. Mr. Moscato read the following resolution: Zoning Board of Appeals October 5,2010 Page 3 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Mr. & Mrs. Andrew Silfen for a 10 foot front yard unenclosed off-street parking variance, on property located at 6 Red Roof Drive in an R-15 District on the south side of Red Roof Drive, at the intersection of Birch Lane and Red Roof Drive. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 135.42, Block: 1, Lot: 5:14; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on October 5, 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 variance 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 variance is 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 on the following condition: 1) Applicant will submit a revised plan to Building Department. DATED: October 5, 2010 Donald Moscato, Chairman Mr. Moscato called the roll: Steve Berger Voting Aye Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye Michele Fredman Voting Aye Don Moscato Voting Aye The resolution was approved on a vote of four ayes. Zoning Board of Appeals October 5,2010 Page 4 Zoning Board of Appeals October 5,2010 Page 5 Zoning Board of Appeals October 5,2010 Page 6 2) #10-609 MR. & MRS. MARTIN FINCK (Reappearance) 43 Mohegan Lane Legalize rear deck and off street parking Mr. John Scarlato, Jr., architect, addressed the Board. He noted that the application was before the Board at the September meeting, at which time the applicant was asked to reduce the size of the variance required. He noted that the plans were amended, and the parking variance now required is a 10' variance versus the original 18' needed. Additional landscaping has been added. He presented a letter from the neighbor facing the driveway, Irene Weiss, in support of the application. Mr. Finck, applicant, noted that the cul-de-sac where his property is located has five homes. He presented a photo of the home facing his driveway. At the time of the initial application the architect, Peter Klein, prepared two drawings. Unfortunately, he inadvertently filed the wrong drawing. Mr. Kaminsky asked that the work be completed in a timely manner. Mr. Finck noted that his parents, the applicants, have been trying to comply. They hired a second architect to complete the new drawings. Mr. Finck noted that Mrs. Weiss sent a letter to Mr. Bradbury. In the letter she explains her concerns about the area. The initial drawing was changed in response to her concerns as the most effected neighbor. Mr. Moscato called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in support or opposition to the application. There being no one, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. On a motion made by Mr. Berger, and seconded by Mr. Kaminsky, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Moscato called the roll: Steve Berger Voting Aye Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye Michele Fredman Voting Aye Don Moscato Voting Aye The Board began its deliberation. Ms. Fredman noted that part of the reason she was not comfortable with granting the variance was the disregard for the rules of the Village, whether intentional or non-intentional. The professional hired by the applicant did not do what he was hired to do. Mr. Moscato noted the "oops" factor came into play with this application. That is when a professional makes a mistake and it creates a problem for the homeowner and the Village. He felt that the applicant cannot be held personally responsible, but it is something that needs to Zoning Board of Appeals October 5,2010 Page 7 be dealt with. The Board prepared the resolution. Mr. Moscato read the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Mr. & Mrs. Martin Finck for a 2.5 foot rear yard setback variance and a 10' front yard unenclosed off-street parking setback variance in connection with the proposed legalization of a rear deck and additional off-street parking, on property located at 43 Mohegan Lane in an R-12 District on the west side of Mohegan Lane, approximately 470 feet from the intersection of Pine Ridge Road and Mohegan Lane. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 135.41, Block: 1, Lot: 28; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on September 7, 2010 and October 5, 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: October 5, 2010 Donald Moscato, Chairman Mr. Moscato called the roll: Steve Berger Voting Aye Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye Michele Fredman Voting Aye Don Moscato Voting Aye The resolution was approved on a vote of four ayes. Zoning Board of Appeals October 5,2010 Page 8 Zoning Board of Appeals October 5,2010 Page 9 Zoning Board of Appeals October 5,2010 Page 10 3) #10-608 MR. & MRS. DAVID FISHMAN (Reappearance) 15 Berkley Drive Rear two-story addition; rear one-story addition; interior and exterior alterations Mr. John Scarlato, Jr., architect, addressed the Board. He noted that this matter was before the Board at the September meeting. The applicant was asked to reduce the size of the variances required, and the applicant is now before the Board with an amended plan. They looked at what was proposed, researched other homes in the area, and then cut back the gross floor area on the second floor. It has been reduced by 877 square feet. In addition, the Family Room was also reduced in size. The room was reconfigured to a rectangle. Mr. Scarlato reviewed the layout of the house, noting that the revised plans are still over the amount allowed by the Village Code for main building lot coverage and under approximately 400 square feet for accessory buildings. Mr. Scarlato presented the board with "shrunken" plans. He noted that the bedrooms are upstairs, in the rear of the house. The bedrooms are now 11' x 6'. He accomplished the reductions by adding size to the bedrooms in one direction, and removing it in another. The master bedroom is now much smaller. Closets are included in the floor area, but not in the dimensions of the rooms. The old master bedroom was 18.6' x 13.3'. And the new bedroom is 18'. The master bathroom will be larger. Mr. Scarlato noted that he came in with a plan that worked, and did not make an impact on the neighborhood. He was then asked to reduce square footage. He noted that about 40% of the homes in the entire Village were made non-conforming when the Village's Code changed. The Board asked for data on the homes, and Mr. Izzo agreed to gather this information for the Board. Mr. Scarlato noted that the family room is being proposed behind the kitchen. It is in the middle of the back of the house, and cannot be seen from the street. Amanda Kandel, Esq., noted that the coverage is 229 square feet over. 3335 is allowed and the proposed addition will result in a gross floor area variance of 877 square feet, reduced from the original 902 square feet. It was noted that the applicant is starting with 3564 square feet, and Attorney Kandel reiterated that many properties became non-conforming when the Code changed. They are considered a pre-existing non-conformity. Mr. Izzo explained that there was no GFA requirement when the house was built and that it came into effect in 2004. Many homes were thrown into non-conformity because of the change in the Code. He noted that with this application you are looking at a net increase of an area of Zoning Board of Appeals October 5,2010 Page 11 30 x 20. The total square footage increase is 648 and it is in the back of the home. It is still a lot of space. Mr. Kaminsky noted that a portion of the second floor will be pushed out over the new family room. Mr. Scarlato noted that there is landscaping in the backyard. He shared information on comparable homes in the area. 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. Berger, and seconded by Mr. Kaminsky, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Moscato called the roll: Steve Berger Voting Aye Michele Fredman Voting Aye Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye Don Moscato Voting Aye The Board began deliberation. Upon the Board's return, Mr. Moscato read the resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Mr. & Mrs. David Fishman for a 0.4% main building coverage variance and a 877 square foot gross floor are variance in connection with the proposed rear two-story addition, rear one-story addition, read deck, and interior and exterior alterations, on property located at 15 Berkley Drive in an R-15 District on the south side of Berkley Drive, approximately 230 feet from the intersection of Winthrop Drive and Berkley Drive. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 135.34, Block: 1, Lot: 53; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on September 71h, 2010 and October 5, 2010, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and Zoning Board of Appeals October 5,2010 Page 12 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 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: October 5, 2010 Donald Moscato, Chairman Mr. Moscato called the roll: Steve Berger Voting Aye Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye Michele Fredman Voting Aye Don Moscato Voting Aye The resolution was approved on a vote of four ayes. Zoning Board of Appeals October 5,2010 Page 13 Zoning Board of Appeals October 5,2010 Page 14 Zoning Board of Appeals October 5,2010 Page 15 4) #10-613 MR. & MRS. ROBERT LEWIS 16 Eagles Bluff Legalize the non-conforming placement of the new swimming pool equipment. Ms. Michele Fredman, who lives diagonally across the street from the applicants, recused herself from deliberating and voting on this application. Mr. & Mrs. Lewis addressed the Board. There was an error made when the pool equipment— 18" too close to the rear of the property. There is a very small house on this oversized property. The house was purchased in 2002 and the pool was replaced last year. All of the permits were applied for and permission to construct was received. The pumps were replaced by new pumps and the new equipment is very quiet. When applying for the Certificate of Occupancy an as built survey was done. Mr. Izzo, building Inspector, noted that the equipment was placed too close to the property line. The cost to move the equipment is estimated at $2600. There are woods behind the home and the noise level is deminimus. The equipment cannot be seen by the closest neighboring home (259 Ridge Street). This was a simple error that the applicant wished did not happen. Now the decision was to apply for a 19"variance versus spending an additional $2600. Mr. Berger noted that if other equipment is added, it should be added Code Compliant. Mr. Izzo noted that historically in his position since 2002 the stance is that the variance runs with the land but if additional pool equipment was needed it would be considered an extension of the non-conformity and application would be denied. The applicant would need to return to the Zoning Board of Appeals for variances. Mr. Moscato noted that a buffer is required. Mr. Lewis noted that there is a chain link fence and a stonewall behind the equipment. He offered to plant some shrubs at the fence line. 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. Berger, and seconded by Mr. Kaminsky, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Moscato called the roll: Zoning Board of Appeals October 5,2010 Page 16 Steve Berger Voting Aye Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye Don Moscato Voting Aye Michele Fredman Recused The Board deliberated and prepared a resolution. Mr. Moscato read the following resolution into the record: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by MR. & Mrs. Robert Lewis for a 1.5 foot rear yard setback variance in connection with the legalization of the placement of the new swimming pool equipment, on property located at 16 Eagles Bluff in an R-20 District on the west side of Eagles Bluff, approximately 780 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, Block: 1, Lot: 46; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on October 5, 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 variance is 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. Zoning Board of Appeals October 5,2010 Page 17 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the said application is hereby granted. DATED: October 5, 2010 Donald Moscato, Chairman Mr. Moscato called the roll: Steve Berger Voting Aye Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye Michele Fredman Recused Don Moscato Voting Aye The resolution was approved on a vote of three ayes and one recusal. Zoning Board of Appeals October 5,2010 Page 18 Zoning Board of Appeals October 5,2010 Page 19 3) APPROVAL OF AUGUST 3, 2010 and SEPTEMBER 7, 2010 ZONING BOARD SUMMARY Mr. Moscato asked that the September summary be adjourned to the next meeting. The August summary was approved as submitted. It was noted that Village Counsel was in the process of reviewing the draft of the Rule and Procedures for the Zoning Board of Appeals. This matter will be placed on the agenda for November ZBA meeting. Amanda Kandel, Esq. noted that she has received additional changes and comments that will be incorporated into the draft and a new draft document will be circulated. There being no further business before the Board, on a motion made by Mr. Berger, and seconded by Ms. Fredman, the meeting was adjourned at 9:41 p.m. Zoning Board of Appeals October 5,2010 Page 20