Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-09-06 - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK Village Hall,938 King Street Rye Brook,New York ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Tuesday, September 6,2005 AGENDA 1) 405-395 MR. & MRS.JOHN HAINES 20 Lincoln Avenue Install a two-foot picket fence atop an existing four-foot stonewall, creating a six-foot high fence in the front yard. 2) 405-398 MR. & MRS.NEIL CRUMLEY 14 Mark Drive Construct a rear,wood deck 3) 405-392 MR. & MRS.J. STEINBERG 14 Edgewood Drive Construct a one-story sunroom/dining room addition 4) 405-407 MS. ROSEANNE CIANCIO 290 North Ridge Street Construct a new front portico 5) Approval of July 5,2005 and August 2, 2005 Zoning Board Summaries PRESENT BOARD: Joseph Pellino,Acting Chairman Salvatore Cresenzi Dorothy Roer Ronald Rettner (Arrived at 8:10) Excused: Mark Harmon, Chairman STAFF: Michael Izzo,Acting Building Inspector Paula Patafio, Meeting Secretary Mr. Pellino called the meeting to order at 8:00 p.m. He began by stating that Mr. Mark Harmon, Chairman, was excused from the meeting. He then pointed out that as a result of Mr. Rettner's absence (only three members of the Board in attendance) there was a quorum and the applications could be heard, however, all applicants would need a unanimous vote in order to be granted the variances that they were requesting. He offered the applicants two options. The first was to wait 15 minutes to see if Mr. Rettner would Zoning Board of Appeals September 6,2005 Page 1 arrive, and the second was to accept an adjournment to the October meeting. The Board's preference was to temporarily adjourn the meeting until 8:15 p.m. All applicants agreed, and the meeting was temporarily adjourned. Upon Mr. Ronald Rettner's arrival, the meeting was re-convened at 8:10 p.m. Mr. Pellino called for item 91 on the agenda. 1. #05-395 MR. & MRS.JOHN HAINES 20 Lincoln Avenue Install a two-foot picket fence on top of an existing four-foot stonewall, creating a six-foot high fence in the front yard. Mr. Haines noted that his legal counsel was detained and he asked that the matter be temporarily adjourned in anticipation of his arrival. The Board agreed, and Mr. Pellino called for the next item on the agenda. 2. #05-398 MR. & MRS.NEIL CRUMLEY 14 Mark Drive Construct a rear,wood deck Mr. Pellino noted that no representative was in attendance for this application. Mr. Michael Izzo, Acting Building Inspector, stated that the applicants were contacted and were aware that the matter was on the agenda for this evening's meeting. It was noted that this matter was on the agenda for the August meeting and the matter was adjourned because the applicant was not in attendance. After a brief discussion, the consensus of the Board was to deny the application. Mr. Izzo was instructed to advise the applicants of this decision. 3. #05-392 MR. & MRS.J. STEINBERG 14 Edgewood Drive Construct a one-story sunroom/dining room addition Mr. Domenick Angiello, Steadfast Builders, Inc., addressed the Board. He noted that the applicants were on vacation, however he could respond to any questions from the Board and members of the public. He began his presentation by noting that this is a legally non-conforming lot. There is a deficiency in regard to one side yard setback and the total yard setback. Mr. Michael Izzo, Acting Building Inspector, presented the Board with photographs of the site, and it was pointed out that this is a very long, narrow lot. The proposed addition would not increase the existing non-conformity. Mr. Pellino asked what the impact would be to the Zoning Board of Appeals September 6,2005 Page 2 footprint of the home. Mr. Angiello noted that the addition would fill in an empty area. He also noted that this is a modest addition and is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. In addition, no neighbors expressed opposition to the application. Mr. Pellino called for members of the public wishing to speak in support or opposition to the application. There being no one wishing to address the Board, and no questions from Board members, the public portion of the meeting was closed, and the Board went into deliberation. Upon the Board's return, Mr. Pellino read the following resolution: VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Mr. & Mrs. J. Steinberg for a 5' 1/4" single side yard setback variance and a 2' 4 1/2" total of two side yard setback variance in connection with the proposed construction of a one-story sunroom/dining room addition on property located at 38 Woodland Drive in an R-20 District on the northeast side of Edgewood Drive, 740 feet from the intersection of Edgewood Drive and Beechwood Circle. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 135.28, Block: 1, Lot: 25. WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on September 6, 2005, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and WHEREAS, the Board, from the application and after viewing the premises and neighborhood concerned, finds: 1) The applicant will apply for the necessary variance and future additions to the area for which this variance is granted. This variance is limited to this application and plans and does not extend to any future plans. NEW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the said application is hereby granted on the following condition: 1) Construction shall begin within one year of the granting of the variance. Joseph Pellino, Acting Chairman DATED: September 6, 2005 Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Zoning Board of Appeals September 6,2005 Page 3 Zoning Board of Appeals September 6,2005 Page 4 4) #05-407 MS. ROSEANNE CIANCIO 290 North Ridge Street Construct a new front portico Ms. Roseanne Ciancio, applicant, noted that she was applying for a variance to construct a front portico. This portico would replace an existing metal awning with a much more aesthetic structure. Ms. Ciancio noted that the existing structure is legally non-conforming. Mr. Izzo, Acting Building Inspector, stated that the Village's Code dictates that no structural alteration can be made to an existing non-conforming building without a variance. Mr. Pellino called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in support or opposition. A neighboring homeowner, 283 North Ridge Street, noted that the applicant was replacing an awning portico with a much more attractive portico. She stated that she was in support of the application. There were no comments or questions from the Board, and the public portion of the meeting was closed. Upon the Board's return from deliberation, Mr. Pellino read the following resolution: Zoning Board of Appeals September 6,2005 Page 5 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Ms. Roseanne Ciancio for a single side yard setback variance of 4.3 feet, and a total of two side yards setback of 14.3 feet variance, in connection with the proposed construction of a front portico on property located at 290 North Ridge Street in an District. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 135.27, Block: 1, Lot: 12. WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on September 6, 2005, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and WHEREAS, the Board, from the application and after viewing the premises and neighborhood concerned, finds: 1) This portico will be an improvement to the property. NEW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the said application is hereby granted on the following condition: 1) The applicant will apply for necessary variances for any future additions/renovations to the area for which this variance is granted. This variance is limited to this application and plan and does not extend to any future plan. 2) Construction shall begin within one year of the granting of the variance. Joseph Pellino, Acting Chairman DATED: September 6, 2005 Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Zoning Board of Appeals September 6,2005 Page 6 Zoning Board of Appeals September 6,2005 Page 7 1) #05-395 MR. & MRS.JOHN HAINES 20 Lincoln Avenue Install a two-foot picket fence atop an existing four-foot stonewall, creating a six-foot high fence in the front yard. It was noted that this matter was on the agenda of the previous Zoning Board of Appeal meeting. The matter was adjourned, and was now called before the Board for consideration. Matthew McGowen, Esq., legal counsel for the applicant, addressed the Board. He began by noting that this application is simply for the construction of a fence on property located at 20 Lincoln Avenue. The purpose of the fence is safety for Mr. Haines' children who could easily climb the wall and gain access to Lincoln Avenue, a very heavily traveled roadway. It was noted that although Rye Brook Code dictates that this is a front yard, the home actually fronts on Kendall (with a Lincoln Avenue address), and this is the rear yard. There is an existing 4' high stonewall on the property and the applicant constructed a fence on top of the wall, prior to requesting the variance. As other homes in the area have similar fencing, the applicant was unaware that a variance was required. The firm that he contracted with to construct the fence had misinformed him, and he went ahead with the construction. Upon notification from the Village's Acting Building Inspector, Mr. Haines immediately made an application for a variance. The type of fence is a stained wooden fence. It looks good, and does not draw attention. It is subtly placed, and can easily be removed, if need be, without damaging the wall. Mr. McGowen pointed out that there are other homes in the area that have constructed similar fences and, in fact, these fences are much higher in height. This fence is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. Mr. McGowen presented the Board with letters from surrounding neighbors in support of the application, which were made part of the record. Mr. Haines noted that there were a considerable amount of trees in the front of the wall. In addition, the wall is setback from the road. He also offered to plant additional shrubs to help mitigate any visual impacts. It was noted that Mr. Haines was willing to work with the Village in order to be granted the variance to construct the fence. He respectfully requested that the variance be granted. Mr. Pellino called for members of the public who wished to address the Board in support or opposition to this application. There being no one, he turned to the Board for questions. Mr. Pellino noted that this is not a picket fence, as noted in the application, but rather a stockade fence. Mr. McGowen stated that the fence is constructed of wood and is a picket fence,but not a spaced picket fence. The public portion of the hearing was closed and the Board went into deliberation. Upon the Board's return, a brief discussion of alternatives ensued. One Zoning Board of Appeals September 6,2005 Page 8 consideration was the extension of the wall versus the construction of the fence. Mr. Michael Izzo noted that this area was part of the Scenic Overlay District and he did not believe that the wall could be altered. He suggested that this matter be discussed with the Village's Planning Consultant. As a result of this discussion, Mr. McGowen asked for an adjournment to the October meeting. The Board agreed, and the matter was adjourned. Mr. Pellino called for the final item on the agenda: 5) Approval of July 5,2005 and August 2,2005 Zoning Board Summaries The summaries for both July 5, 2005 and August 2, 2005 were approved as submitted by a vote of 4 ayes to 0 noes. With the completion of all agenda items,the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Zoning Board of Appeals September 6,2005 Page 9