Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-11-02 - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes Village of Rye Brook 938 King Street ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS November 2, 2010 Meeting at 8:00 p.m. AGENDA 1) #10-610 MS. MARIA RUSCIANO MUTINO 52 Hillcrest Avenue Revise open building permit #3940: Allow existing front porch to remain in place 2) #10-607 MS. ROSELENE VILAS BOAS 237 Irenhyl Avenue Legalize the existing rear deck, swimming pool and pool equipment 3) #10-615 Mr. SAMUEL MARCUS 12 Bobbie Lane Legalize rear deck 4) DISCUSSION: ZBA Rules of Procedures 5) APPROVAL OF SEPTEMBER 7, 2010 AND OCTOBER 5, 2010 ZONING BOARD SUMMARIES 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 Zoning Board of Appeals November 2,2010 Page 1 Mr. Don Moscato, Chairman, welcomed everyone to the November 2, 2010 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting, and he introduced Village Staff and Counsel. He asked that all individuals speaking at the podium state their names, application, position, and nature of the variance. He noted that the Board of Trustee Liaison, Jeffrey Rednick, was excused from the meeting. 1) #10-610 MS. MARIA RUSCIANO MUTINO 52 Hillcrest Avenue Revise open building permit #3940: Allow existing front porch to remain in place Mr. Moscato noted that the first item on the agenda, with the consensus of the Board, was adjourned to the December 7, 2010 meeting. He called for item#2: 2) #10-607 MS. ROSELENE VILAS BOAS 237 Irenhyl Avenue Legalize the existing rear deck, swimming pool and pool equipment Ms. Roselene Vilas Bodas noted that they were doing work on the home, and didn't realize that they needed a permit for the deck. The work was stopped and the applicants applied for a permit and received it. However, the deck was made larger than it was supposed to be made. At that time the Code Enforcement Officer noticed the pool in the rear yard. The pool was installed in 2005 without a permit. The deck around the pool was constructed in 2006 or 2007. The applicant has a roofing and siding company and noted that from their experience not every municipality requires permits for things such as decks and pools. In addition Ms. Vilas Bodas noted that many of her neighbors have similar pools. The applicant presented the Board with photographs of the pool and the rear yard. Mr. Moscato noted that four variances were required. One variance was for deck coverage. The second is total impervious surface coverage. The third and fourth variances have to do with the pool. Mr. Izzo, Building Inspector, noted that the deck was 285 square feet. To-date there have been no inspections on the deck. Mr. Moscato noted that a letter was received by the Administrative Department regarding this application. The anonymous letter, in opposition to the application, was shared with the Board and with the applicant. Zoning Board of Appeals November 2,2010 Page 2 Mr. Moscato turned to the Board for questions or comments. Mr. Steve Berger asked if the pool is visible from the front of the home. Mr. Vilas Boas noted that it is not visible from the street; the only thing that can be seen is a pump and perhaps some hoses. She noted that this is an above-ground pool, 12' x 18' oval, but it is a permanent structure. It would, however, be expensive and time consuming to move. It is not as simple as dragging it over a few feet. Mr. Moscato noted that the variance for the deck was a minimal request. To him the most significant portion of the application was the impervious surface coverage. The pool brings the property over the impervious surface coverage. It was noted that the deck is 285 square feet; the pool is 678 square feet. Mr. Moscato noted that there is an extremely long driveway, which is necessitated because of the positioning of the garage. He felt that because there are several pools in this area, and the assumption would be that there will be many applications for legalization very soon. Ms. Michele Fredman noted that there is no fencing around the pool. Mr. Izzo responded that if the sides are 4' and the ladder is removalable or folds up, no fencing is required. Amanda Kandel, Esq., Village Counsel, noted that according to the chart on the application the deck would still require an additional variance even if the pool was removed. The deck is attractive but it is nine times the size that it was supposed to be. A deck of 7' x 5' would have been permitted. Instead a deck of 285 square feet was built. Whether or not the pool is removed, a variance would still be required for the additional 246 square feet of the deck. 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. Andrew Kaminsky, and seconded by Ms. Fredman, the public hearing was closed, and the Board began deliberation. Mr. Moscato called the roll: Steve Berger Voting Aye Michele Fredman Voting Aye Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye Joel Simon Voting Aye Don Moscato Voting Aye Zoning Board of Appeals November 2,2010 Page 3 The Board discussed what was permitted and what was built. The deck is well built and attractive, and will be inspected once the variances have been granted. The remedy of making the deck smaller versus granting the variance would be costly for the applicant. The consensus of the Board was to grant the first variance for the deck. Mr. Moscato felt that exceeding the size of the construction on a permit is willful disregard. Mr. Kaminsky noted that he didn't really have a problem with the deck, however, he felt that the pool was quite large. The choices are only removing it or leaving it and granting the required variances. He felt that the pool was problematic. Before the resolution was prepared, the applicant was invited back to the podium and offered an adjournment to the December meeting. The applicant could consider removing the pool. Attorney Kandel noted that any variances granted would run with the property. The owner of a property is responsible for all permits and approvals, whether or not they hire professionals. Mr. Moscato read the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Mr. & Mrs. Walter and Roselene Villas Boas for a .4% deck coverage variance, and 246 square foot total impervious surface coverage variance, in connection with the proposed legalization of the rear deck on property located at 237 Irenhyl Avenue in an R5 District on the north side of Irenhyl Avenue, approximately 50 feet from the intersection of Woodland Avenue and Irenhyl Avenue. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 135.75, Block: 1, Lot: 45.2; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on November 2, 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 Zoning Board of Appeals November 2,2010 Page 4 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 removal of the pool will reduce the size of the variance requested in respect to the impervious surface coverage on the lot; 2) The proposed variances will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties; 3) The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some other method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an area variance; 4) The requested variances are not substantial; 5) The proposed variance will not have an adverse affect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and 6) The alleged difficulty is self-created. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the said application is hereby granted. DATED: November 2, 2010 Donald Moscato, Chairman Mr. Moscato called the roll: Steve Berger Voting Aye Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye Michele Fredman Voting Nay Joel Simon Voting Aye Don Moscato Voting Aye The resolution was approved on a vote of four ayes and one nay. To clarify, Mr. Moscato noted that the decision was to have the applicant remove the pool, but grant the variances needed for the deck. He reminded the applicant that the deck needed to be inspected. Zoning Board of Appeals November 2,2010 Page 5 Zoning Board of Appeals November 2,2010 Page 6 Zoning Board of Appeals November 2,2010 Page 7 3) #10-615 Mr. SAMUEL MARCUS 12 Bobbie Lane Legalize rear deck Mr. Samuel Marcus, applicant, addressed the Board. He noted that he lived in this home since 1979. He and his wife were considering selling the home and wanted to make sure that everything was in order. After contacting the Building Department, he learned that the rear deck needed to be legalized. The deck was constructed in 1980 by a well-known contractor. It has been in existence for over 31 years with no objections from any of the neighbors. Mr. Nicholas Faustini, architect, was available for questions from the Board. He was hired to make sure that the deck conformed to Village Code. Mr. Marcus also noted that he had a new survey prepared by Munson Company. It was noted that this application falls under the Village's Amnesty Program. Mr. Moscato noted that this home is in an R10 zone and sits on 1/3 of an acre of land. The home is well under the impervious coverage ratio. Two supporting letters from 14 and 10 Bobbie Lane have been submitted. The deck requires a variance of 2.8%. Mr. Moscato called for comments from the Board members. Ms. Fredman asked for the square footage of the impacted area. Mr. Faustini noted that it was approximately 275 square feet. That includes the concrete patio as well. Mr. Marcus noted that when he purchased the home there was a patio. About 20 years ago the patio was repaired. The rear yard is about 50' by 110' of grass and the rear yard is about 50% of the property. Ms. Fredman noted that this property has a large backyard, and it supports the deck very nicely. 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 and the Board began deliberation. Upon the completion of the resolution, Mr. Moscato read it into the record: Zoning Board of Appeals November 2,2010 Page 8 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Mr. Samuel Marcus for 1 2.8% deck coverage variance in connection with the proposed legalization of a rear deck, on property located at 12 Bobbie Lane, in an R10 District on the North side of Bobbie Lane, approximately 100 feet from the intersection of Rock Ridge Drive and Bobbie Lane. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 135.35, Block: 1, Lot: 36; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on November 2, 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: November 2, 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 November 2,2010 Page 9 Zoning Board of Appeals November 2,2010 Page 10 Zoning Board of Appeals November 2,2010 Page 11 4) DISCUSSION: ZBA Rules of Procedures Mr. Moscato began the discussion of the proposed Zoning Board of Appeals Rules of Procedures. Prior to this draft, there were no Rules of Procedures for the ZBA. The initial draft was prepared by Ms. Fredman. The procedures were reviewed section by section. The discussions included notification, timeframe for placing a matter on agenda, printing or not printing the packets, and whose job it would be to provide electronic documents. One of the main goals was to ensure that the applicants know the timeframe for submittal of applications and documents. If something has been received after the deadline, then the matter would not be heard. Internal procedures and the applicants' procedures should not be mixed. There needs to be an order of business and specific rules of how to conduct Public Hearings. Voting and recusal was also discussed, as was ethics. If a Board member feels that there is a conflict of interest that would affect their judgment then that Board member would have the right to recuse him/herself. There is an effect of recusal on the applications. If an applicant attempts to discuss an application with a Board member, that Board member must disclose the conversation to the Board. Adjournments and their effects were also discussed. Attorney Kandel noted that she would review the document again, make the changes discussed, and submit a second draft to the Board members and staff for review. Mr. Moscato called for the last item on the agenda: 5) APPROVAL OF SEPTEMBER 7, 2010 ZONING BOARD SUMMARIES Mr. Moscato noted that the October summary was not yet ready for review. They would be addressed at the December meeting, along with the November summary. The Board approved the September summary as amended. On a motion made by Mr. Berger, and seconded by Ms. Fredman, the meeting was adjourned at 9:56 p.m. Zoning Board of Appeals November 2,2010 Page 12