Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-01-06 - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes Village of Rye Brook 938 King Street ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS January 6, 2009 Meeting at 8:00 p.m. AGENDA 1) #08-541 Mr. Michael Cohen (Reappearance) 36 Rockridge Drive Construct a second floor addition; a new rear deck; a rear enclosed porch; perform interior alterations and legalize the existing finished basement. 2) #08-530 Mr. Denis McConway 3 Bell Place Construct a partial second story addition 3) #08-546 Mr. Michael Tucci 95 Fremont Street/226 South Ridge Street Legalize and partially remodel the existing finished converted garage/basement. 4) Approval of December 2, 2008 Zoning Board Summary BOARD: Mark Harmon, Chairman Salvatore Crescenzi Don Moscato Jeffrey Rednick Michael Siegel STAFF: Michael Izzo, Building Inspector Paula Patafio, Meeting Secretary BOARD OF TRUSTEE LIAISON: Trustee Dean Santon Zoning Board of Appeals January 6,2009 Page 1 Mr. Mark Harmon, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 8:00 p.m. He welcomed everyone to the first meeting of 2009. 1) #08-541 Mr. Michael Cohen Re Appearance 36 Rockridge Drive Construct a second floor addition; a new rear deck; a rear enclosed porch; perform interior alterations and legalize the existing finished basement. Mr. Michael Cohen, applicant, addressed the Board. He noted that the variance request has been reduced significantly in response to comments from the Board members. He turned the presentation over to his architect, Justin Mimeri, who could provide information on where the proposed construction was cut back in order to reduce the size of the variance requested. Mr. Minieri addressed the Board. He thanked the Board for the opportunity to come back with an amended plan. He noted that the second floor addition was redesigned so that it could be compressed. The previous plan proposed an addition that would bring the square footage to 4,044 square feet, and now the proposed addition will be 3,727 square feet. Comparables of other homes in the area were submitted to the Board with square footage and lot sizes included. He noted that this house would not be out of character with the other homes in the neighborhood. Mr. Harmon asked how the roofline was modified. The response was that the height of the addition has not changed. It was noted that there is a dummy roof sitting on top of the roof for aesthetic reasons; it breaks down the mass but there is no livable space behind it. The bulk of the addition has been reduced by pulling it in and making the width smaller. The prior plan called for an addition of 45' in width and the current plan is 38'6". A balcony, a walk-in closet, and bathroom have been removed in order to accomplish this reduction in size. . Mr. Harmon called for members of the public wishing to be heard in support or opposition to the application. There being no one, the public portion of the meeting was closed. Mr. Don Moscato noted that a second floor addition is the logical next step in order to enlarge the home, however, he felt that this was a lot of square footage for a home on this size lot in an R-10 Zone. Zoning Board of Appeals January 6,2009 Page 2 Mr. Salvatore Crescenzi agreed with Mr. Moscato in that the gross floor area was very high. Mr. Michael Siegel felt that the need of the applicant should be considered, and noted that the request stems from a life changing occurrence. Mr. Harmon noted that in this neighborhood, in one direction the houses remain single family dwellings, but in the opposition direction they clearly show signs of being renovated. This is a difficult application, especially considering the reasons for the applicant's request. He noted that he was leaning toward granting the application. This home will be consistent with a significant number of homes in the area, and the applicant has made an effort to reduce the square footage in response to the concerns expressed at the previous Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. Mr. Cresenzi stated that this was a significant variance and, in his opinion, it was too large a request. Mr. Jeffrey Rednick agreed with Mr. Crescenzi. Mr. Harmon offered the applicant the time to review the plans and see if there was another way to accomplish his needs with a smaller variance request. It was noted that it was the feeling of the Board members that the goals of the applicant could be accomplished with a smaller variance. Mr. Cohen stated that he would consider other changes and discuss the matter with the architect. The matter was temporarily adjourned. Mr. Harmon called for the next item on the agenda. 2) #08-530 Mr. Denis McConway 3 Bell Place Construct a partial second story addition Mr. McConway addressed the Board. He noted that his architect was unavailable and that he would be making the presentation. He stated that the proposed addition would be constructed above the existing garage. Currently the garage has a flat roof that is in need of repair. The proposed addition would initially be used as storage but may be converted into livable space in the future. It was noted that the gross floor area is increased by the addition whether it is used for storage or converted to livable space. Zoning Board of Appeals January 6,2009 Page 3 Mr. Harmon stated that the side height setback ratio was his main concern. He also stated that he felt that this was a substantial variance request. The maximum allowable side height setback ratio is 2.40. The proposed second story addition will result in a side height setback ratio of 3.23. Mr. Michael Izzo, Village Building Inspector, presented the Board with photographs that were submitted with the application. Mr. Harmon made the photographs part of the record. Mr. Harmon called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in support or opposition to the application. Mr. Crescenzi stated that he would like to hear more information on the side yard height setback. Mr. Moscato suggested that the matter be adjourned until the architect could give a full presentation. This is a substantial variance request, and he felt that there was a need for the additional information. He asked the applicant to consider whether or not his goal could be accomplished with a smaller variance. The necessity of the variance must be demonstrated to the Board. The applicant was offered an adjournment to the February 3, 2009 meeting. Mr. Harmon noted that the applicant did not need to re-notice the matter, however, he must re-install the sign with the new information. The applicant asked what the ideal variance request would be. Mr. Harmon noted that construction within the allowable ratio of the Code is best. If this cannot be accomplished, then applicants must demonstrate a need and show that they have done their best to apply for the smallest variance possible. 3) #08-546 Mr. Michael Tucci 95 Fremont Street/226 South Ridge Street Legalize and partially remodel the existing finished converted garage/basement. The applicant introduced his architect, Mr. Steve Marchasam. He noted that he purchased a home and later found out that no building permit was applied for when the garage was converted into living space. In addition, he learned that he needed to apply for a variance for the existing parking spaces in the front of the home. Zoning Board of Appeals January 6,2009 Page 4 Mr. Harmon questioned how the applicant learned that there was no building permit or Certificate of Occupancy for the work done on the home. Mr. Tucci stated that an anonymous complaint was submitted to the Building Department, an inspection was done, and he was issued violations. Mr. Harmon asked what was done without a building permit. The response was that the garage was closed in and the basement was finished. This house was built in 1957. In 1966 the additional rooms are listed on the tax record, however the Certificate of Occupancy has no record of the rooms. Work was done and now the applicant was looking to legalize the work. Mr. Izzo noted that in 1966 or prior someone removed the garage and closed up the front of the house and turned it into habitable space. A kitchen was constructed and the home was used as a two-family house. There are violations that have been issued as a result of the Code Enforcement Officer's inspection. This is a one family house and it was being used as a two family home. There is a kitchen in the basement. There is a lot of work that needs to be done and the applicant is now seeking approval to do that work. He must remove the kitchen and convert the area to make it a part of the single family dwelling. In addition, the conversion of the garage left the home without off-street parking. Mr. Tucci inherited these problems, but they must be corrected. Mr. Harmon noted that the off-street parking requirements existed in 1966, but they were different from today's Code. Mr. Izzo agreed. He stated at that time only one off-street parking space was required for a single family home. Mr. Tucci noted that the house is being rented to the people who resided there prior to his purchasing the home. They have been told that they cannot use the basement. This is a single family house that is non-conforming. No building permits can be issued until the house is conforming. Mr. Harmon asked if the space could be convereted back to a garage. The architect noted that this is a very steep driveway that backs out to Ridge Street. This portion of the home is underneath the livable space. Mr. Izzo stated that today's Code calls for two off-street parking spaces for a single family dwelling. The requirements are the same in that no parking shall be created within 25' of the property line. Currently the cars park on the front lawn. Alternate options have been reviewed and it was found that a tandem garage would not fit. Mr. Izzo noted that if the applicant restores the garage, then he would not require two spaces. If a permit was applied for in 1966 no variance Zoning Board of Appeals January 6,2009 Page 5 would have been required because the Code called for only one parking space at that time. In order to legalize the construction a variance is required. Mr. Harmon called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in support or opposition to the application. Trustee Dean Santon addressed the Board as a resident of Rye Brook. He noted that there is a Safe House Task Force that has been dealing with illegal housing in the Village. This is a two family zone and the applicant could make an application to convert the home to a two-family dwelling. A garage is a requirement of off- street parking. The applicant is renting this home and he has been instructed that the basement is not to be used. However, a second inspection found the basement in use. A landlord is responsible for their property and should have control of their tenants. There was an inspection in April, October, and January and violations were issued. It was a garage and it should be restored as a garage. Other homes on Ridge Street have similar driveways that back out onto Ridge Street. This home has three parked cars on the front lawn. He felt that the Zoning Board of Appeals should not grant a variance, and the applicant should be made to return the home to the compliant state. Mr. Harmon noted that whether or not this house is a rental, did not concern the Board. He noted that he questioned if the applicant came into the Village and asked to convert the garage to living space what the consensus of the Board would be. He felt that an application to convert the garage should not be granted as the off-street parking requirements cannot be met. The Board has not been given been any legitimate reason why a variance should be granted for no off-street parking. If this matter was voted upon at this meeting, it would be turned down. Although everyone understands that this was not the applicant's fault, it is now his responsibility to correct. All of the other homes in this area have off-street parking. The applicant now has three parking spaces that are non-conforming. The Board feels that requesting a variance for three off-street parking spaces is too much. Mr. Izzo noted that Mr. Tucci's Affidavit of Service had not been received by the Village. Mr. Tucci submitted the Affidavit to Mr. Izzo. Mr. Tucci requested an adjournment so that he could research the matter further. With the permission of the Board, the matter was adjourned to February 3, 2009. Mr. Harmon stated that depending upon the applicant's goal he may have to re- notice and he must install a new sign. Zoning Board of Appeals January 6,2009 Page 6 Mr. Harmon re-called Mr. Cohen's application before the Board. It was noted that Mr. Cohen and his architect had left and, therefore, the matter was adjourned to February 3, 2009. 4) Approval of December 2, 2008 Zoning Board Summary Mr. Harmon called for comments and corrections of the summary from the Board members. Mr. Moscato noted that he submitted his changes. The summary was approved as amended by a vote of five ayes to zero nays. There being no additional business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m. Zoning Board of Appeals January 6,2009 Page 7