Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-02-03 - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes Village of Rye Brook 938 King Street ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS February 3, 2009 Meeting at 8:00 p.m. AGENDA 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. 2) #08-530 Mr. Denis McConway (Re-appearance) 3 Bell Place Construct a partial second story addition 3) #08-546 Mr. Michael Tucci (Re-appearance) 226 South Ridge Street (Residing at 95 Fremont Street, Harrison, New York) Legalize and partially remodel the existing finished converted garage/basement. 4) #09-552 Mr. & Mrs. James Frost 3 Hills Point Lane Construct an extension to the existing side yard raised masonry deck. 5) Approval of January 6, 2009 Zoning Board Summary BOARD: Mark Harmon, Chairman Salvatore Crescenzi Don Moscato Jeffrey Rednick Michael Siegel STAFF: Michael Izzo, Building Inspector Paula Patafio, Meeting Secretary Zoning Board of Appeals February 3,2009 Page 1 BOARD OF TRUSTEE LIAISON: Trustee Patricia Sanders Romano BOARD OF TRUSTEE MEMBER: Trustee Dean Santon Mr. Mark Harmon, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 8:08 p.m. He welcomed everyone to the February 3, 2009 meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Harmon called for the first item on the agenda; a re-appearance by Mr. Michael Cohen. 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. Daniel Laub, Esq., from the firm of Cuddy & Feder, addressed the Board as the legal counsel for the applicant. Also in attendance was Mr. Justin Minieri, architect, and Mr. Michael Cohen, the applicant. Mr. Laub began his presentation by noting that the applicant heard and responded to the concerns of the Zoning Board members and Village staff. A major issue that the Board had with the application was the square footage of the addition. Mr. Minieri was given the task of reducing the size of the addition, and the size of the variance requested. Mr. Laub turned the presentation over to Mr. Minieri. Mr. Mark Harmon, Chairman, asked that the Board be walked through any decreases in square footage and bulk that were achieved by the changes. Mr. Minieri, using photos and previous plans, provided the Board with information on where the proposed construction has been cut back in order to reduce the size of the variance requested, and how he managed to still give the applicant what he needed for his family. The rooms have been reconfigured, and the second floor has been compressed, in order to give the applicant what he needs to remain in his home and raise his family. These changes have resulted in a 46% reduction in the size of the variance requested. It was noted that prior to the construction of the addition, the home is 3,554 square feet when 2,987 is Zoning Board of Appeals February 3,2009 Page 2 permitted. The new plans reflect the second reduction in size of the proposed addition. These plans also address the height of the ridge, which was brought up at the last meeting. The roof line was originally 46' 10" and the proposed roofline is 35' 2". The ridge of the home has been reduced by over 11'. The second floor addition was 34' 6" and it has been reduced to 27'8". The Board can see the sincere effort made by the applicant. Mr. Harmon called for members of the public wishing to address the application in support or opposition. There being no one, he turned to the Board for comments and questions. The consensus of the Board was that the applicant has made an effort to reduce the size and mass of the proposed addition, and they were in favor of the current plans. Mr. Don Moscato noted that there are seventeen houses in this neighborhood and only three of these homes have dormers. There being no further comments, 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: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Mr. Michael Cohen for a 1.34' total of two side yard setback variance and a 569 square foot gross floor area variance, in connection with the proposed construction of a second story floor addition; a new rear deck; a rear enclosed porch; perform interior alterations and legalize the existing finished basement on property located at 36 Rockridge Drive in an R10 District on the northwest side of Rockridge Drive, 500 feet from the intersection of Rockridge Drive/Bluebird Hollow and Rockridge Drive. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 135.27, Block: 1, Lot: 22; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on November 4, 2008, and continued on December 2, 2008, January 6, 20099, and February 3, 2009, 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: Zoning Board of Appeals February 3,2009 Page 3 1) The requested two side yards variance for the construction of the rear deck is not substantial and will not adversely impact the concerned neighborhood; 2) The gross floor area variance requested now requires the least variance needed to achieve the applicant's objectives. 3) Applicant has made substantial modifications to his plans to reduce the impact on the neighborhood; and 4) The proposed construction will not be inconsistent with other homes in the immediate neighborhood and will not result in an adverse impact to the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the said application is hereby granted. Dated: February 3, 2009 Mark Harmon, Chairman Mr. Harmon called the roll: Salvatore Crescenzi Voting Aye Don Moscato Voting Aye Jeffrey Rednick Voting Aye Michael Siegel Voting Aye Mark Harmon Voting Aye The resolution was granted by a vote of five ayes to zero nays. Zoning Board of Appeals February 3,2009 Page 4 Zoning Board of Appeals February 3,2009 Page 5 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. Peter Klein, architect, addressed the Board. He apologized for his absence at the prior meeting and noted that he reviewed the Board's comments and has amended the plans in response. The proposed addition is to be constructed above the existing garage, which currently has a flat roof. The roof is in need of repair and the applicant has decided to change the configuration and add a storage area above the garage. This area may change in the future, but for the time being it will be used for storage. It was noted that the gross floor area is increased by the addition whether it is used for storage or converted to livable space. The new plans reflect a reduction of 1' in the height of the proposed addition. Mr. Harmon noted that the side height setback ratio originally requested was .83. Mr. Michael Izzo, the Building Inspector, noted that the ratio has been reduced and the applicant is now requesting a .6 variance. The new plans were made available to the Board this evening, having been received by the Building Department on February 5, 2009. Mr. Harmon asked that the Board members take a few minutes to review the new plans. It was noted that the new addition would not bring the property over the gross floor area. The setback issues are existing, but the addition does increase the non-conformity. Mr. Harmon questioned how much lower the side walls of the proposed addition would have to be in order to not require a variance. Mr. Klein noted that he has already reduced the peak of the roof by 1'. He presented a photograph of the existing garage to the Board. Mr. Harmon made the photo a part of the record. Mr. Izzo noted that habitable space requires a height of 7', and a 5' knee wall. The applicant has now reduced the height by 1' for this is a 20' x 20' 9" room. In order to conform with the Village's Code the overall height would have to be 17' 6". It is currently 21.87'. They would have to remove 4' to not require a side yard setback. Mr. Izzo noted that a window would need to be installed at the gable end in order to make this habitable space. Right now as constructed this would not be legally habitable space. Mr. Harmon felt that a structure could be constructed that would not require a side height setback ratio variance. Mr. Klein noted that at this time the applicant intends to use this space for storage. Zoning Board of Appeals February 3,2009 Page 6 Mr. Harmon called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in support or opposition to the application. The public comment portion of the hearing was closed, and Mr. Harmon turned to the Board for its comments. It was noted that Mr. Cresenzi, Mr. Siegel, and Mr. Rednick opposed the application. Mr. Moscato noted that a 4' 6" variance was substantial. This application requires three (3) variances — a single side yard variance, a total of two side yard variances, and a height setback ratio variance. The consensus of the Board was to deny the application. Mr. Klein was asked if he was ready to move forward or if he preferred to further amend the plans. Mr. Klein requested an adjournment to the March meeting so that he could further review the plans with the applicant. The Board granted the applicant's request. Mr. Harmon called for item #3 on the agenda. 3) #08-546 Mr. Michael Tucci 95 Fremont Street/226 South Ridge Street Legalize and partially remodel the existing finished converted garage/basement. Mr. Harmon noted that the Board was advised the Mr. Tucci has requested an adjournment of his application to the March Zoning Board meeting. Item #4 was called before the Board: 4) #09-552 Mr. & Mrs. James Frost 3 Hills Point Lane Construct an extension to the existing side yard raised masonry deck. Mr. Jeff Rednick noted that he has had prior business dealings with the applicant and he recused himself from deliberation. The architect, Anthony from the firm of AJC from New Rochelle, addressed the Board. He noted that the applicant was requesting a variance in order to construct a side patio off of the existing patio to accommodate the functions of the home. This is a raised deck as opposed to a patio on grade. It was noted that photographs of the property were included with the application. Zoning Board of Appeals February 3,2009 Page 7 Mr. Harmon noted that the photographs were very helpful in the review of the application. The architect noted that he photo-shopped the proposed patio. This addition would be conforming to the existing patio, however, it would require two variances in order to construct. The first variance is a deck maximum ratio variance of 1.2% and the second is a variance in connection with impervious surfaces. Mr. Harmon called for members of the public wishing to address the application in support or opposition. There being none, he turned to the Board for questions and comments. Mr. Moscato asked for clarification of the statement "practical functionality." The architect noted that the patio is not of adequate size to lay out chairs, a grill, and a few seats around it. The addition would also connect the deck to the kitchen and the dinning room. There would be two (2) doors to the deck — one from the kitchen and one from the dinning room. The architect noted that he placed a call to the Village's Assistant Administrator and found out that the Village's Code regarding decks changed in 2004. When reviewing this application today the patio in the rear that is above grade is now considered a deck. When adding the rear deck, the application is over the impervious surface allowed on this property. Mr. Harmon noted that the applicant was 183 square feet away from compliance with the Village's requirement on impervious coverage. He asked if the applicant reviewed all of the black top and walkways on the property to determine whether 183 square feet can be removed from another area. This would negate the need for the impervious surface variance. The consensus of the Board would be to reduce the amount of impervious surface somewhere else on the property. Mr. Harmon called for members of the public wishing to address this matter in support or opposition. There being no one, he closed the public portion of the hearing and turned to the Board for comments. Mr. Cresenzi noted that he original had some issues about the square footage of the deck. However, the rear deck is 6" off of the ground and it used to be considered a patio prior to the change in the Village' Code. As a result, he stated he did not have a problem with the square footage. He did suggest that that the impervious surface be reduced on the property. Mr. Siegel agreed with Mr. Cresenzi. Zoning Board of Appeals February 3,2009 Page 8 Mr. Moscato noted that the existing decks if very well landscaped. He stated that he would like to see more landscaping around the proposed deck. The architect noted that the applicant intended on installing additional landscaping. It was noted that there is a vacant lot along side of the applicant's property. The architect noted that it belongs to the same owner. There are no plans for developing this parcel. They considered combining the two lots, but the architect noted that this would not be in their best interest. He requested additional time to review the property and plans with the applicant and find 183' of impervious surface to be removed. He asked that the matter be adjourned to allow him a few minutes to discuss the matter with the applicant. Mr. Harmon called for the last item on the agenda: 4) Approval of January 6, 2009 Zoning Board Summary Mr. Harmon called for comments and corrections of the summary from the Board members. Mr. Harmon and Mr. Moscato noted that they have submitted changes. The summary was approved as amended by a vote of five ayes to zero nays. Mr. Harmon recalled the application of Mr. & Mrs. James Frost. The architect requested an adjournment to the March meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. With the consensus of the Board, the matter was adjourned. There being no additional business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Zoning Board of Appeals February 3,2009 Page 9