Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-12-07 - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes Village of Rye Brook 938 King Street ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS December 7, 2010 Meeting at 8:00 p.m. AGENDA 1) #10-610 MS. MARIA RUSCIANO MUTINO (Adjourned from 11/21/10) 52 Hillcrest Avenue Revise open building permit #3940: Allow existing front porch to remain in place 2) #10-605 MR. RICHARD COLANGELO 143 North Ridge Street Legalize rear above ground swimming pool and pool deck 3) #10-614 WESTCHESTER AVENUE TENNIS CLUB 699 Westchester Avenue Refrain from installing the required fire suppression sprinkler system in the tennis office trailer 4) #10-594 MR. & MRS. DAVID LONDIN 46 Winding Wood Road Legalize the existing enclosed three-season room 5) #10-599 ESTATE OF MARIA LOIZZO c/o Susan Yockelson 554 Westchester Avenue Close out open Building Permit #1859 issue October 12, 1972 for the conversion of the single family house to a two family dwelling without providing service access from the rear yard for each apartment. 6) #09-561 MR. & MRS. BRIAN BERK Adjourned from 9/7/10 11 Edgewood Drive Legalize the rear sports court, spa/patio and chain link fence Zoning Board of Appeals December 7,2010 Page 1 7) #10-619 MR. GERARDO LIVORNESE 94 Valley Terrace Legalize one story addition over existing deck 4) DISCUSSION: ZBA Rules of Procedures 5) APPROVAL OF OCTOBER 5, 2010 AND NOVEMBER 2, 2010 ZONING BOARD SUMMARIES BOARD: Don Moscato, Chairman Steve Berger Michele Fredman Andrew Kaminsky Joel Simon STAFF: Steven Fews, Assistant Building Inspector Amanda Kandel, Esq., Village Counsel Fred Seifert, Public Access Coordinator Paula Patafio, Meeting Secretary BOARD OF TRUSTEE LIAISON: Trustee Jeffrey Rednick Mr. Don Moscato, Chairman, welcomed everyone to the December 7, 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. Mr. Moscato noted that item #6, the application of Mr. & Mrs. Brian Berk, would be adjourned at the request of the applicant's counsel. He also noted that because of the length of the agenda, and with the Board's consensus, the discussion regarding the ZBA Rules of Procedures would be adjourned to the next meeting. Zoning Board of Appeals December 7,2010 Page 2 1) #10-610 MS. MARIA RUSCIANO MUTINO 52 Hillcrest Avenue Revise open building permit #3940: Allow existing front porch to remain in place John Scarlato, Architect, addressed the Board. He noted that this application was before the Board about a year and a half ago. The home was converted from a one-family home to a two-family home. The project is almost finished and the last task is to remove the porch and replace it with a portico. Several neighbors have contacted the applicant asking why the front porch was going to be removed. The applicant never wanted to remove the porch as it adds to the character of the house. Now that the addition is almost complete, and you can see what the house would look like without the porch, the applicant has decided to come back and request the variances required so that the porch can remain. This request changes three of the variances that were granted. Mr. Moscato noted that the applicant made an application to change a one-family home to a two-family home. The application was reviewed by the Planning Board and then was before the Zoning Board for variances. The applicant was asked to reduce the magnitude of some of the variances during the review process. The compromise was the removal of the porch. Ms. Rusciano Mutino, the applicant, presented the Board with a petition from her neighbors in support of the porch. She felt that removing the porch would change the character of the neighborhood. Several variances were granted, but they were small variances. She stated that even with the addition, the footprint of this house is not very large. She noted that she never wanted to tear down the porch but after a long review process, she agreed. Mr. Scarlato noted that if the porch is removed there will be a portico. If the Board allows the porch to remain, it will be modernized and improved. The porch runs the width of the house, 22'. The porch adds charm to the house, and is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. Ms. Michele Fredman asked if the steps could be moved. Amanda Kandel, Esq., Village Counsel, noted that moving the steps would not reduce any of the variances that would be needed. She noted that the application was reviewed by the Planning Board in 2008 in great detail. The application was granted with the condition that the porch be removed. Zoning Board of Appeals December 7,2010 Page 3 Mr. Andrew Kaminsky asked about storm water management. Attorney Kandel noted that storm water management was part of the project. Drywells were installed on the property. Mr. Fews, Assistant Building Inspector, responded that the drywells are adequate. Mr. Simon felt that the applicant looked at the house as it was completed and believes that the porch is part of the charm and in character with the neighborhood. He did not believe that it was her intention all along to come back with this request. Mr. Kaminsky noted that he also felt that this request was not premeditated. Mr. Moscato called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in support or opposition to the application. Mr. Ben Miloro, of Hillcrest Avenue, addressed the Board. He felt that without the porch the house would look like a box. In addition, removing the porch would make it non-conforming with the other homes in the area and would take away the charm of the house. He hoped that the Board would allow the porch to remain. Mr. Moscato noted that each situation is unique, and each application is reviewed on its own merits. He called for a motion to close the public hearing. On a motion made by Steve Berger, and seconded by Andrew Kaminsky, the public hearing was closed. The Board went into deliberation, and prepared the following resolution, read by Mr. Moscato: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Ms. Maria Rusciano Mutino for a 98 square foot total impervious coverage variance, a 2.7% front yard impervious coverage variance, and a 118.5 square foot usable open space variance, in connection with the proposed revision to open building permit #3940: Allow existing front porch to remain in place, on property located at 53 Hillcrest Avenue, in an R2-F zoning district on the west side of Hillcrest Avenue, at the intersection of Irenhyl Avenue and Hillcrest Avenue. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID: 135.76-1-11; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on December 7, 2010, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and Zoning Board of Appeals December 7,2010 Page 4 WHEREAS, the proposed action is a Type II action pursuant to the New York State Environmental Review Act and, accordingly, no further environmental review is required; and WHEREAS, the Board, from the application, after reviewing the premises and the 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 variances will not have an adverse affect 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: December 7, 2010 Don Moscato, Chairman Mr. Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting Aye Michele Fredman Voting Nay Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye Joel Simon Voting Aye Don Moscato Voting Nay The application was granted on a vote of three (3) ayes to two (2) nays. Zoning Board of Appeals December 7,2010 Page 5 Zoning Board of Appeals December 7,2010 Page 6 Zoning Board of Appeals December 7,2010 Page 7 #2) #10-605 MR. RICHARD COLANGELO 143 North Ridge Street Legalize rear above ground swimming pool and pool deck Mr. and Mrs. Colangelo, the applicants, addressed the Board. Mr. Colangelo noted that a permit was requested, but no Certificate of Occupancy was issued for a pool and pool deck. The Building Inspector who was in office at that time was involved during the construction, and made several inspections. Now years have gone by and they were told that the patio surrounding the deck was non- conforming. Mrs. Colangelo noted that the Building Inspector was on the deck many times, and they complied with all of his requests. He never mentioned that the deck was not in compliance with the Village Code. Mrs. Colangelo presented a letter from her neighbor in support of the application. Mr. Moscato asked what the permit was issued for. Mr. Fews, Assistant Building Inspector, noted the permit was issued for an above ground pool only and not a pool and a deck. Mrs. Colangelo stated that they applied for a deck and a pool and the Tax Assessor's card shows the deck. They are being taxed on both. Mr. Fews noted that this is a large deck. It extends from the house and surrounds the pool. The home was purchased in 1999 and the pool was installed two years later; in 2001. The dispute is whether or not the deck was part of the original application not whether or not it is being taxed. Mr. Moscato noted that the Village has discovered that the tax records do not reflect the permits that were part of the applications. Attorney Kandel noted that the Town of Rye Assessor isn't looking at whether or not a Certificate of Occupancy was issued; they tax on what exists. Mrs. Colangelo noted that during the inspections, they were told they needed a licensed contractor for the electrical portion of the work. They complied with this request, along with all the other requests made by the Building Inspector. She stressed the fact that the Building Inspector at the time was absolutely aware of the deck and its size. Mr. Moscato asked how this request came in to the Board. Mr. Fews noted that there are numerous open files and in 2007 the Building Department started to go through the files. Two variances are now required to legalize this deck, however, the deck is double the size that would be allowed today. It should also be noted that this property is larger than the minimum in the zone. Zoning Board of Appeals December 7,2010 Page 8 Mr. Colangelo noted that the deck was constructed for safety reasons. There is a gate that locks. The deck was constructed by a licensed contractor and a licensed electrician did all of the electrical work. The deck cannot be seen from the street. It is well landscaped. None of the neighbors have voiced any opposition. He also noted that a patio was removed and the deck was constructed in its place. The Board briefly discussed the existence of a shed on the property. It was decided that removing it would not have an impact. 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. Kaminsky, and seconded by Mr. Simon, the public hearing was closed, and the Board began its deliberation. Mr. Simon noted that every application stands on its own. This is a unique situation, and needs to be considered on its own merits. Mr. Kaminsky noted that an application such as this would not be approved today, but things were different ten years ago. Mr. Fews noted that if approved, the Building Department will make an inspection of the deck. If repairs need to be made, they will be done at that time. He also noted that there are no drainage issues in this area. Mr. Moscato read the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board By Mr. Richard Colangelo for a 1.8 foot total of two side yards setback variance, a 2.9% deck coverage, and a .5 foot swimming pool side yard setback variance, in connection with the legalization of an above ground swimming pool and pool deck, on property located at 143 North Ridge Street, in an R-7 zoning district on the east side of North Ridge Street, approximately 350 feet from the intersection of Argyle Road and North Ridge Street. Said premise being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID #: 135.51-1-81; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on December 7, 2010, a 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 December 7,2010 Page 9 WHEREAS, the Board, from the application, after viewing the premises and neighborhood concerned, and upon considering each of the factors as 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 because the construction is in the rear of the 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; 3) The requested variances are substantial in the aggregate; 4) The proposed variances 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: December 7, 2010 Mr. Don Moscato, Chairman 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 The application was granted on a vote of five (5) ayes to zero (0) nays. Zoning Board of Appeals December 7,2010 Page 10 Zoning Board of Appeals December 7,2010 Page 11 Zoning Board of Appeals December 7,2010 Page 12 3) #10-614 WESTCHESTER AVENUE TENNIS CLUB 699 Westchester Avenue Refrain from installing the required fire suppression sprinkler system in the tennis office trailer Attorney Kandel noted that the notification requirements for this application were not met and, as a result, the Board could not vote on this matter. Mr. Moscato noted that no representative for the applicant was in attendance. With the consensus of the Board, the application was adjourned. 4) #10-594 MR. & MRS. DAVID LONDIN 46 Winding Wood Road Legalize the existing enclosed three-season room Mr. David Londin, applicant, addressed the Board. He noted that the home was constructed in August of 1954 and the Zoning Laws were established in September of 1954. This room was constructed in 1974 and a permit was issued when the Town of Rye existed. However, the permit was never closed. Mr. Londin purchased the home two years ago and as a result of the zoning changes, the house is non-conforming. Mr. Londin, in anticipation of selling the home, went to the Town of Rye to review the records. He found that everything in the records of the Town of Rye was wrong. Mr. Londin noted the he found the error and turned to the Building Inspector, Mr. Michael Izzo, for assistance. Mr. Izzo could not close out the permit unless the variance is granted. Mr. Londin noted that this is an unheated structure with windows and that the room is only used during part of the year. The roof on this room was built into the roof of the main house. It was noted that Mr. & Mrs. Londin do not reside in this home. Mr. Moscato called for members of the public wishing to address the Board. 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 portion of the hearing was closed and the Board began its deliberation. Mr. Moscato read the following resolution: Zoning Board of Appeals December 7,2010 Page 13 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Mr. & Mrs. David Londin for a total of two side yard setback variance of seven (7) feet, in connection with the legalization of the existing enclosed three-season room, on property located at 46 Winding Wood Road, in an R-15 zoning district on the east side of Winding Wood Road, approximately 450 feet from the intersection of Latonia Road and Winding Wood Road. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID #: 135-34-1-9; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on December 7, 2010, a 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 as 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 not substantial; 4) The proposed variances 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: December 7, 2010 Mr. Don Moscato, Chairman 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 The application was granted on a vote of five (5) ayes to zero (0) nays. Zoning Board of Appeals December 7,2010 Page 14 Zoning Board of Appeals December 7,2010 Page 15 Zoning Board of Appeals December 7,2010 Page 16 5) #10-599 ESTATE OF MARIA LOIZZO c/o Susan Yockelson 554 Westchester Avenue Close out open Building Permit #1859 issue October 12, 1972 for the conversion of the single family house to a two family dwelling without providing service access from the rear yard for each apartment. Anthony Provanzano, Esq., addressed the Board as legal counsel for the applicant. He noted that a permit was taken out in 1972 for the conversion of the home from a one-family home to a two-family home. When Ms. Yockelson was recently preparing the property for sale, she discovered that no Certificate of Occupancy was issued. The building permit was issued but never closed out. Mr. Izzo, Building Inspector, noted that a variance is required. The issue is that the stairs for the second floor access face the street and are not located in the rear yard per the Village's Code. Attorney Provanzano noted that there are two means of access/egress to both apartments. Attorney Kandel noted that this is an R2F Zone and the conversion of one-family to two-family homes is allowed as long as the criteria are met. The Village Code states that one of the criteria is rear yard access for the second apartment. The issue is not a second means of access, but rather the fact that this home has a side yard access versus a rear yard access. Mr. Moscato noted that the access has been on the side for almost 40 years. Mr. Berger noted that if the permit was closed out in 1972 and the side yard access was approved, then this would not have been brought to the Village's attention. However, technically that would not have been a properly issued C.O. since there has always been a requirement for a rear yard access. The Building Department will make an inspection when the variances have been granted. The stairs would have to comply with today's code. It was noted that there has never been opposition from any of the neighbors. The fire code today requires two means of ingress/egress. Mr. Moscato called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in support or opposition to the application. Dr. Richard Izzo, of Rye Brook, addressed the Board in support of the application. He noted that the stairway has been in existence without any incident since 1972. At this time the applicant is looking to sell the home and needs the Certificate of Occupancy to do that. Zoning Board of Appeals December 7,2010 Page 17 There being no additional comments, Mr. Moscato 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. The Board discussed the odd shaped lot, and the fact that the applicant's mother had purchased a small portion of property of the neighbor's because the existing garage spilled over onto that property. A survey from 1962 shows the lot as it exists today. A resolution was prepared by the Board and Mr. Moscato, and was read into the record: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Susan Yockleson on behalf of the estate of Maria Loizzo for a variance from the requirement to provide rear yard service access to a second floor apartment, in connection with the proposed legalization of the two-family conversion on property located at 544 Westchester Avenue, in anR2-F Zoning District on the south side of Westchester Avenue, 212 feet from the intersection of Westchester Avenue and Division Street. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID #: 135.83-1-42; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on December 7, 2010, a 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 as 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; Zoning Board of Appeals December 7,2010 Page 18 3) The requested variance is not substantial. 4) The proposed variances will not have an adverse effect or 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: December 7, 2010 Mr. Don Moscato, Chairman 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 The application was granted on a vote of five (5) ayes to zero (0) nays. Zoning Board of Appeals December 7,2010 Page 19 Zoning Board of Appeals December 7,2010 Page 20 Zoning Board of Appeals December 7,2010 Page 21 6) #09-561 MR. & MRS. BRIAN BERK Adjourned from 9/7/10 11 Edgewood Drive Legalize the rear sports court, spa/patio and chain link fence Mr. Moscato noted that a letter was received from the applicant's counsel, Anthony Gioffre, Esq., requesting an adjournment. The Planning Board has not yet made a determination on the site plan and the next Planning Board meeting is scheduled for December 9th. With the consensus of the Board, the matter was adjourned. 7) #10-619 MR. GERARDO LIVORNESE 94 Valley Terrace Legalize one story addition over existing deck David W. Mooney, architect for the applicant, addressed the Board. He stated that three (3) variances are required for this application. The room was originally a deck. There was a freehand sketch submitted when the work was done. The sketch shows a deck and a roof. The variances required are a total of two-side yard setbacks of.2 feet. A maximum gross floor area variance of 783.16 feet, and a total impervious coverage variance of 258.15 feet. It was noted that the gross floor area is an pre-existing nonconformity. Mr. Moscato called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in support or opposition to the application. Mr. Gerardo Livornese addressed the Board in support of the application. He noted that the variances required to legalize the room were not substantial. On a motion made by Mr. Berger, and seconded by Ms. Fredman, the public hearing closed. The Board began deliberation. Mr. Moscato read the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Mr. Gerardo Livornese for a total of two side yard setback variance of .2 feet, a gross floor area variance of 783.16 square feet, and a 258.15 square foot total impervious surface variance, in connection with the proposed legalization of a Zoning Board of Appeals December 7,2010 Page 22 one-story addition over an existing deck, on property located at 94 Valley Terrace, in an R-7 Zoning District on the west side of Valley Terrace, approximately 199 feet from the intersection of Argyle Road and Valley Terrace. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID #: 135.51-1-54; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on December 7, 2010, a 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 as 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 variances 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: December 7, 2010 Mr. Don Moscato, Chairman 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 The application was granted on a vote of five (5) ayes to zero (0) nays. Zoning Board of Appeals December 7,2010 Page 23 Zoning Board of Appeals December 7,2010 Page 24 Zoning Board of Appeals December 7,2010 Page 25 8) DISCUSSION: ZBA Rules of Procedures Mr. Moscato noted that with the consensus of the Board this discussion was tabled due to the length of the agenda. Mr. Moscato called for the final item on the agenda: 9) APPROVAL OF OCTOBER 5, 2010 AND NOVEMBER 2, 2010 ZONING BOARD SUMMARIES Ms. Fredman noted that she had changes to both the October and November summaries. She read the changes into the record. Mr. Moscato submitted his changes in writing. On a motion made by Mr. Berger, and seconded by Mr. Kaminsky, the summaries were adopted as amended. 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 There being no further business before the Board, Mr. Moscato called for a motion to adjourn. On a motion made by Ms. Fredman, and seconded by Mr. Kaminsky, the meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m. The roll was called: Steve Berger Voting Aye Michele Fredman Voting Aye Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye Joel Simon Voting Aye Don Moscato Voting Aye Zoning Board of Appeals December 7,2010 Page 26