Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-10-11 - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK Village Hall,938 King Street Rye Brook,New York ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Tuesday, October 11,2005 AGENDA 1) #05-409 MR. & MRS. DOMENICO VITA 3 Winding Wood Road North Construct a new single-family dwelling. 2) 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. 3) 405-379 MR. & MRS. ERIC THONNESEN 65 Windsor Road Construct a second-story addition over the existing, one-story structure 4) APPROVAL OF SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 ZONING BOARD SUMMARY PRESENT BOARD: Mark Harmon, Chairman Salvatore Cresenzi Joseph Pellino Dorothy Roer ABSENT.• Ronald Rettner STAFF: Michael Izzo,Acting Building Inspector Mr. Mark Harmon, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 8:00 p.m. He welcomed everyone to the October 11, 2005 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting, and called for the first matter on the agenda. 1) #05-409 MR. & MRS. DOMENICO VITA 3 Winding Wood Road North Construct a new single-family dwelling. The representative for the applicants addressed the Board. The applicant has proposed the construction of a new front portico, a front gable-end dormer, and extension of all eaves. It was noted that the minimum required total of two (2) side yard setbacks was 40 feet. The applicant's existing non-conforming total of two (2) side yard setbacks was Zoning Board of Appeals August 2,2005 Page 1 39.6 feet. The applicant was requesting a .4 foot total of two side yards setback variance. The matter was discussed. There being no additional comments or questions, the public portion of the meeting closed, and the Board went into deliberation. Upon the Board's return, Mr. Harmon 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. Domenico Vita for a .4' total of two side yard setback variance in connection with the proposed construction of a new front portico, a front gable-end dormer, and extension of all eaves, on property located at 3 Winding Wood Road North in an R-15 District on the north side of Winding Wood Road North, 75 feet from the intersection of Winding Wood Road North and Old Orchard Road. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section 129.82, Block 1, Lot: 10. WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on October 11, 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 proposed construction will not increase the non-conformity; 2) The variance is deminimus; 3) The request will not adversely impact the character of the neighborhood; and 4) It is a reasonable use of the property. NEW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the said application is hereby granted on the following condition: 1) No further building permits may be issued respecting this property without the consent of this Board, properly notice, and heard in accordance with the Village Code unless the proposed construction will not enlarge the footprint of its structure. 2) Construction shall begin within one year of the granting of the variance. Mark Harmon, Chairman DATED: October 11, 2005 Ayes: 4,Nays: 0 Zoning Board of Appeals August 2,2005 Page 2 Zoning Board of Appeals August 2,2005 Page 3 Mr. Harmon called for the second item on the agenda: 2) #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. Mr. Haines' representative addressed the Board. It was noted that this matter was before the Zoning Board of Appeals on August 2, September 6, and October 11, 2005. The applicant proposed the installation of a two-foot high fence on top of the existing stonewall, creating a six-foot high fence in the front yard. The applicant's intention was to keep his two children in the rear yard, and keep them from getting onto Lincoln Avenue, a heavily trafficked roadway. The existing wall is 3' in height is not high enough to keep the children in the yard. It was noted that there were several homes on this street that have this type of fencing. At a previous meeting a member of the Board suggested extending the height of the existing wall in order to eliminate the need for the construction of the fence. Research has shown that the wall is protected through the Village's Scenic Overlay District and the wall cannot be altered. Mr. Haines presented the Board with photographs of homes on Lincoln Avenue, all within '/4 of a mile from the applicant's property. THESE PHOTOGRAPHS WERE MADE PART OF THE RECORD. It was noted that the Haines' fencing was the lowest in that area, and that there are sufficient shrubs and trees to screen the fence from the street. The fence is not offensive in nature in terms of aesthetics, the fence is a quality fence, and it serves the purpose of protecting the applicant's children. Therefore, the applicant respectively requested that the variance be granted. It was noted that many of the fences in this area may have been constructed without a permit and may not be legally conforming to the Village's Code. Mr. Izzo was instructed to review this matter. Mr. Harmon called for members of the public wishing to be heard in support or opposition to the application. There being no one, he turned to the Board for comments and questions. Mr. Harmon noted that there was a discussion regarding replacing the fence with an actual picket fence. The applicant that he had reviewed this matter, discussed it with his contractor, and found that this was too costly and would create an undue financial hardship. It would mean removing the existing fence, purchasing the new fence, and constructing it. If this were a condition, the applicant would rescind his application. There being no further comments or questions, the public portion of the meeting was closed, and the Board went into deliberation. Upon the Board's return, Mr. Harmon read the following resolution: Zoning Board of Appeals August 2,2005 Page 4 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Mr. & Mrs. John Haines for two-foot front yard fence height variance, in connection with the proposed installation of a two-foot picket fence atop an existing four-foot stonewall, creating a six-foot high fence in the front yard, on property located at 20 Lincoln Avenue in an R-12 District on the west side of Lincoln Avenue, at the intersection of Lincoln Avenue and Kendolin Lane. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 135.65, Block: 1, Lot: 28. WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on August 2, 2005, and continued on September 6, and October 11, 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 proposed fence, a solid picket fence on top of stone, will adversely effect the character and nature of the neighborhood by creating and fostering a visual impairment along the Lincoln Avenue corridor; and 2) The applicant has not demonstrated that a lesser alternative will not adequately meet their needs. NEW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the said application is hereby denied. Mark Harmon, Chairman DATED: October 11, 2005 Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Zoning Board of Appeals August 2,2005 Page 5 Zoning Board of Appeals August 2,2005 Page 6 Mr. Harmon called for the next matter on the agenda: 5) #05-379 MR. & MRS. ERIC THONNESEN 65 Windsor Road Construct a second-story addition over the existing, one-story structure The applicant addressed the Board, along with the representative for Mr. John Scarlato, the architect who was on his honeymoon. It was noted that the applicant was proposing the construction of a second-story addition over the existing one-story structure. The applicant required a 60 square foot variance over the allowable FAR, as well as a height setback ratio variance of .02 feet for the front yard, and a 3.8 foot total of two (2) side yard variances. The Planning Board, after several months of review, has approved this application. The footprint of the house will not be increased, but the existing house is non-conforming. There are overhangs on the second floor, which add the additional space necessary, but the footprint of the house will not be changed. The roofline has been modified at the request of the Planning Board. The ceiling height was reduced in order to accomplish this. Mr. Izzo stated that Chapter 209 of the Village's Code required that this application be heard by the Planning Board before referral to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The reason being that the applicant was going over 75% of the allowable maximum FAR. If they were not going over, they would not need a variance. The Planning Board had the applicant re-work the application to eliminate some of the variances that would have been required. A discussion of why the Planning Board addressed Zoning matters ensued. The applicant noted that the application process has now taken nine months, which has put him behind as far as construction. It was suggested that this matter be taken up with Mr. Christopher Bradbury,Village Administrator, and Mayor Lawrence Rand. A Board member raised the question of whether or not this home would be required to install a fire sprinkler system. Mr. Izzo noted that in June of 2005 the Fire Sprinkler portion of the Code was completely re-written to eliminate the need for sprinklering a building when alternations occur, regardless of how much square footage is affected. The only time you need to sprinkler a building in Rye Brook now is for new constructions, major tear downs, if you are using a one or two family house as a bed and breakfast, or a one or two family house as a child day care center, or if you a constructing a new single or two family attached housing. Mr. Harmon reviewed the variances that were now required for the approval of this application. Mr. Harmon called for questions and comments from members of the public. There being none, the public portion of the hearing was closed and the Board went into deliberation. Upon the Board's return,Mr. Harmon read the following resolution: Zoning Board of Appeals August 2,2005 Page 7 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Mr. & Mrs. Eric Thonnesen for a 60 square foot gross floor area variance; a .02 front height setback ratio variance; and a 3.8 foot total of two (2) side yard setback variance, all in connection with the proposed construction of a second-story addition over the existing one-story structure, on property located at 65 Windsor Road in an R-7 District on the east side of Windsor Road, 270 feet from the intersection of Windsor Road and Ridge Boulevard. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 135.60, Block 1, Lot: 27. WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on May 30, 2005, and continued to October 11, 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 proposed construction is consistent with the character of the neighborhood; 2) Applicants have substantially modified their plans to decrease the variances required; 3) The existing non-conformity will not be increased; 4) The extent of the floor area variance is deminimus; and 5) It is a reasonable use of the property. 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; and 2) No further building permit may issue respecting this property without the consent of this Board, properly noticed and heard in accordance with the Village Code unless the proposed construction will not enlarge the footprint of the structure. Mark Harmon, Chairman DATED: October 11, 2005 Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Zoning Board of Appeals August 2,2005 Page 8 Zoning Board of Appeals August 2,2005 Page 9 4. APPROVAL OF SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 ZONING BOARD SUMMARY The summary was approved by a vote of three ayes to zero noes. There being no further business before the Board, the Meeting was adjourned. Zoning Board of Appeals August 2,2005 Page 10