Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-04-07 - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Village of Rye Brook 938 King Street Tuesday,April 7,2009 Meeting at 8:00 p.m. AGENDA 1) 908-545 Mr. Charles G. Cano, Sr. (Re Appearance from 3/3/09) 3 Edgewood rive Construct an open-roofed trellis at the east side elevation 2) 909-557 Mr.&Mrs. Julio Cesar Guzman 19 Westview Avenue Legalize existing two-family dwelling 3) 409-553 Dr. &Mrs. Scott Kissel 19 Old Orchard Road Construct a one-story addition; a partial second-story addition; a new front portico and new rear patio 4) Approval of February 3, 2009 and March 3, 2009 Zoning Board Summaries BOARD: Mark Harmon, Chairman Salvatore Cresenzi Don Moscato Michael Siegel Jeffrey Rednick STAFF: Michael Izzo,Village Building Inspector Paula Patafio,Meeting Secretary BOARD OF TRUSTEE LIAISON: Trustee Patricia Sanders Romano Mr. Harmon, Chairman, called the April 7, 2009 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting to order at 8:00 p.m.. He wished everyone a happy holiday, and called for the first matter on the agenda: Zoning Board of Appeals April 7,2009 Page I 1) #08-545 MR. CHARLES G. CANO, SR. (Re Appearance from 3/3/09) 3 Edgewood Drive Construct an open-roofed trellis at the east side elevation Mr. Charles G. Cano, Sr., applicant, addressed the Board. Mr. Don Moscato noted that he was an affected neighbor and, therefore,he recused himself. Mr. Cano noted that his home is much smaller than the surrounding homes. He is looking to extend a trellis and this extension requires that he apply for a variance. The portion of the extension that requires the variance is a 6' x 12' area. The proposed construction is setback 90' from the street. The proposed construction does not encroach on the front yard. Mr. Jeffrey Rednick felt that this was a cosmetic change, and he was unsure if a variance should be granted. He also felt that the applicant had not demonstrated a need. Mr. Michael Siegel stated that the proposed changes were improvements to the home. Mr. Cano noted that the front of the house was also being improved. This area of construction, the trellis, required a variance and has become a separate application. Mr. Salvatore Cresenzi asked the applicant if there was another way to accomplish what he was attempting to accomplish and not require such a large variance. Mr. Harmon agreed with Mr. Cresenzi and pointed out that the addition would reduce the current side yard setback to approximately 7'6". He felt that the applicant was requesting a substantial variance. 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 comment portion of the hearing was closed and the Board began deliberating. The consensus of the Board was that the variance being requested was substantial. The applicant was offered time to review his application and amend the plans, reducing the encroachment into the side yard. The applicant asked that the matter be placed on the May 5, 2009 ZBA agenda. Mr. Harmon called for item 42 on the agenda: Zoning Board of Appeals April 7,2009 Page 2 2) #09-557 MR.& MRS.JULIO CESAR GUZMAN 19 Westview Avenue Legalize existing two-family dwelling The architect for the applicant, Mr. Luigi DeMasi, addressed the Board. It was noted that the fire alarm had gone off at the residence and the Village's Code Enforcement Officer was allowed in to inspect the home. At that time Mr. Stephen Fews noted that there appeared to be a third apartment in the basement, although it was not being used. In addition it was found that the Village's records show this structure to be a one family home, and no Certificate of Occupancy could be found. The applicants purchased the home approximately ten (10) years ago as a two-family home and have always paid taxes on a two- family home. In addition, the surrounding homes are two family homes and this is a two-family zone so the applicant's never questioned whether this was also a two-family home. At this time the applicants are seeking a variance in connection with parking in order to legalize the dwelling. The applicants are requesting a variance that would allow them to park two (2) cars within the 25' setback but only two (2) are legally allowed due to set back laws.. The applicants have the ability to park four (4) cars in the driveway. The Village's Code regarding parking regulations changed after the applicants purchased this home. In order to be issued a Certificate of Occupancy the applicants must comply with the Code as it stands today. Mr. Michael Izzo, Building Inspector, noted that obtaining the variances needed was the last step in the legalization process. There is no other way to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy. Mr. Harmon called for members of the public wishing to be heard in support or opposition to the application. Mr. & Mrs. Guzman, the applicants, addressed the Board. It was noted that the home was purchased in 1988/1989. The house was purchased as a two-family house, and the applicants have been paying taxes based on a two-family house. The family has parked their cars in the same place for many years, and their parking situation is not different than the other homes in the area. Mr. Izzo stated that the applicant was correct in that the house is being taxed as a two-family home. He noted that he has reviewed the Tax Assessor's records and found that this has been the case since the home was constructed, almost 40 years ago. He also noted that in 1954 the off-street parking requirement was one space per dwelling unit. In 1982 the Village adopted the Town of Rye's Code. The parking changed and the new requirement became two spaces per dwelling unit. Zoning Board of Appeals April 7,2009 Page 3 Mr. Izzo reiterated that in order to legalize the home and obtain a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant must comply with the Code as it stands today. Mr. Harmon re-stated the fact that the Village and the Town has taxed this house as a two family house for the last 40 years. He felt that this was significant. Mr. Izzo noted that years ago tax cards were created by someone going out and looking at the home. They wrote down what they saw, and they saw a two-family home. In 1966 there was a re-evaluation done, and the two-family status remained. No tax cards exist prior to 1966. Regardless of the past status of the home, the applicant will need to comply with the Village's Code as it exists today. The public portion of the hearing was closed, and the Board began its deliberation. Mr. Izzo pointed out that there are serious parking problems in this area of the Village. Other homes do have similar parking issues, but they are not the subject of this application. The home must have a Certificate of Occupancy. He noted that the applicant has complied with the Village's mandate that they remove the kitchen in the basement. Mr. Harmon stated that he was troubled by the parking issues in this area. He felt that the applicant needed to provide additional information regarding the tax issue, as well as show that there is no other way to accomplish the parking. The applicants asked that this matter be adjourned so that they could gather additional information for the Board. Mr. Harmon noted that the sign would need to be changed, but no mailing would be required. The matter will be placed on the May 5, 2009 agenda for the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. Mr. Harmon called for the next matter on the agenda: 3) 409-553 DR. & MRS. SCOTT KISSEL 19 Old Orchard Road Construct a one-story addition; a partial second-story addition; a new front portico and new rear patio Mr. John Scarlato, Jr., architect, addressed the Board. He noted that the home was a ranch style home that became a Cape. There is a master bedroom on the second floor. The applicant is proposing the addition of a family room in the rear of the house, and reconstruction of the second level over a portion of the home. The new addition will line up with the existing home. Zoning Board of Appeals April 7,2009 Page 4 Mr. Scarlato noted that this is a legally non-conforming home in connection with side yard setbacks. This home has a two-car garage. The survey used to create the plans for the proposed addition is a brand new survey. When the construction is completed, an as-built survey will be prepared. Mr. Harmon questioned the side yard setback. Mr. Izzo noted that the portion of the house that is closest to the road there is a setback of 13.2'. Mr. Scarlato stated that the construction will accomplish the applicant's goals, without creating an overly large home. This house will be in character with the neighborhood. He presented the Board members with information on other homes in the area that have applied for and were granted variances. The photographs were made part of the record. Mr. Harmon called for members of the public wishing to be heard in support or opposition to the application. No one had any comments and the public hearing was closed. The Board began its deliberations. Mr. Harmon commented on the gross floor area of the home, noting that the home is 3,154 square feet. He noted that the home does not meet the side yard setback on either side. This is a legally non-conforming home, and the only way to bring it into conformance would be to tear it down and re-construct it. He noted that he was unhappy about a ranch house that is 14' from the property line. Going out the back does not accomplish the goals of the applicant. Mr. Cresenzi noted that the applicant was requesting a large variance. Mr. Harmon questioned if there were prior variances for this home. Mr. Izzo stated none that there were none that he was aware. The house was built in August of 1951. The plot plan indicates a 12'1" at the right side and 12'1" on the left side. They enlarged the front porch in 1959, and a rear second floor dormer was built in 1985. Jonathan Cohen, the next-door neighbor, addressed the Board. He noted that he was considering reovations for his home. He pointed out that 23 Old Orchard had construction and the architect was Mr. Scarlato. He considers this home to be the best looking home in the area. There are several other homes in the area that have already done construction, and several others that are planning on doing work in the near future. After viewing the plans for this application he felt that the addition would be in keeping with the neighborhood, and he supported the application. Mr. Harmon asked for the number of existing square feet. Mr. Scarlato noted that it was 3,154 square feet. Mr. Harmon noted that he was not put off by the gross Zoning Board of Appeals April 7,2009 Page 5 floor area of the home and that with the new addition the home would only be 241 square feet over what is allows. His concern is this home sitting so close to the property line. Mr. Scarlato offered to review the plans with the applicant to see if the addition could be reduced in size. He asked that this matter be placed n the May agenda. Mr. Harmon called for the final item on the agenda: 4) APPROVAL OF FEBRUARY 3, 2009 AND MARCH 3, 2009 ZONING BOARD SUMMARIES Mr. Harmon, with the consensus of the Board, moved that the review of the February 3rd and March 3rd summaries be placed on the May 5, 2009 agenda. There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 920 p.m. Zoning Board of Appeals April 7,2009 Page 6