Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-05-05 - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes Village of Rye Brook 938 King Street ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS May 5, 2009 Meeting at 8:00 p.m. AGENDA 1) #09-553 Dr. & Mrs. Scott Kissel (Reappearance from 4/7/09) 19 Old Orchard Road Construct a one-story addition; a partial second-story addition; a new front portico, and new rear patio 2) #09-557 Mr. & Mrs. Julio Cesar Guzman (Reappearance from 4/7/09) 19 Westview Avenue Legalize existing two-family dwelling 3) #09-560 Mr. Holmes McGeory 26 Woodland Drive Legalize the existing rear deck and finished room above the existing garage 4) Approval of April 7, 2009 Zoning Board Summary BOARD: Don Moscato, Chairman Steve Berger Michele Fredman Jeffrey Rednick Absent: Salvatore Crescenzi STAFF: Michael Izzo, Building Inspector Edward Beane, Esq., Village Counsel Jennifer Reinke, Esq., Village Counsel Fred Seifert, Public Access Coordinator Paula Patafio, Meeting Secretary Zoning Board of Appeals May 5,2009 Page 1 Mr. Don Moscato, Chairman, welcomed everyone to the May 5, 2009 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting. He noted that there have been changes to the Board, and he welcomed new members Steve Berger and Michele Fredman. He noted that he has replaced Mark Harmon as chairman. Mr. Moscato thanked Mark Harmon and Michael Siegel for their many years of service to the Village. It was noted that Mr. Harmon was a member of the Zoning Board of Appeals for the past fifteen years. Mr. Moscato noted that Mr. Salvatore Crescenzi was excused from this meeting, leaving four (4) members of the Board present. He informed that applicants that in order for an application to be approved by the Board the applicant would require three (3) yes votes. He offered each of the applicants on the agenda the option of adjourning to the next meeting when there could be a full compliment of the Board. Mr. Moscato called upon Mr. Michael Izzo, Building Inspector, for the status of the application by Mr. Charles Cano, Sr. of 3 Edgewood Drive. This matter was before the Zoning Board in March and April. Mr. Izzo stated that the applicant has pulled his application and is currently working on new plans that will be compliant with the Village's Code. As this matter will no longer require any variances, it will not be before the Zoning Board again. Mr. Moscato turned to the agenda, and called for the first item: 1) #09-553 DR. & MRS. SCOTT KISSEL (Reappearance from 4/7/09) 19 Old Orchard Road Construct a one-story addition; a partial second-story addition; a new front portico, and new rear patio Mr. John G. Scarlato, Jr., architect for the applicants, addressed the Board. He was asked, for the benefit of the new members of the Board, to give a brief history of the application. He began his presentation by noting that the home was a ranch style home that became a Cape during a prior construction when dormers were added. There is a master bedroom on the second floor, and an attached two-car garage. The proposed addition consists of a rear family room and kitchen addition, and a second floor master bedroom and bath addition. This is a legally non-conforming home in connection with side yard setbacks and the proposed addition does not increase the non-conformity. The intention was to have the new addition line up with the existing home, however, at the previous meeting members of the Zoning Board expressed concern regarding the side yard setbacks. Zoning Board of Appeals May 5,2009 Page 2 The new plans were created in consideration of these concerns, and the second story addition has been shifted over 2 feet and a few feet have been removed to reduce the bulk. It was also noted that plans were created using a new survey. Mr. Scarlato noted that the plans before the Board will accomplish the applicant's goals, without creating an overly large home. This house will be in character with the neighborhood and will not have a negative impact on the neighborhood. Mr. Scarlato noted that the proposed addition requires three (3) variances. The first is a 12.76 foot side yard variance. The second is an F.A.R. variance. The maximum gross floor area permitted for this property is 3,338 square feet. The rear and second floor additions will increase the house to 3,579 square feet, resulting in a 241 square foot variance. And the third variance is main building coverage variance of .9%. Mr. Scarlato noted that the front yard setback is met, and will not change with the proposed construction. In addition, there are no height setback issues. Mr. Scarlato pointed out that the existing house has a small basement and the balance is a crawl space, and there is no deck. There are no accessory buildings on the property, and the applicant is willing to agree to no accessory buildings as a condition of the approval of this application. The neighbors have reviewed the plans, and no one is in opposition. In fact at the last Zoning Board meeting a neighbor appeared in support of the application. Mr. Scarlato presented the Board with three (3) additional letters of support from neighbors. The letters were made part of the record. Mr. Jeffrey Rednick questioned the size of the proposed addition. Mr. Scarlato noted when calculating the gross floor area everything that is above grade counts. The garage counts. The total of 241 square feet over the allowable is not that much. He also stated that the lot coverage of .9% shouldn't be an issue because there are no accessory buildings. The concept was to work with the neighborhood and re-work the space of the house. Most of the addition is in the rear of the house. Dr. Scott Kissel, applicant, noted that they were not trying to create a large house. The house has a galley kitchen and they are trying to create a livable space. Mr. Moscato noted Mr. Scarlato had stated that the applicant will forego the addition of accessory buildings if the application is approved. Edward Beane, Esq., Village Counsel, noted that there have been other applications like this. He suggested that the Board condition approval on the Zoning Board of Appeals May 5,2009 Page 3 applicant returning before the Board if he did chose to construct any accessory buildings. Dr. Kissel noted that they were amicable to this proposal. Mrs. Kissel, applicant, addressed the Board. She questioned if they could go back to the original plans where the addition aligned with the existing home. Mr. Moscato noted that the Board was working with the revised set of plans. Mrs. Kissel stated that she preferred the initial plans and hoped that the Board could consider this request. Mr. Beane stated that the Board could do this if they preferred the initial plans. Mr. Moscato stated that this would be discussed during the Board's deliberation. Mr. Moscato called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in support or opposition to the application. There being no one, Mr. Moscato closed the public portion of the hearing and the Board began its deliberation. The Board discussed whether or not they should revert to the first set of plans. It was the Board's consensus to continue deliberation using the revised plans. After a brief discussion, the Board members agreed that they would prefer having a condition in the resolution regarding no accessory buildings. Mr. Beane stated that he and Jennifer Reinke, Esq. would craft the resolution. The matter was temporarily adjourned to allow Village Counsel the time needed to craft the resolution. Mr. Moscato called for item #2 on the agenda. 2) #09-557 MR. & MRS. JULIO CESAR GUZMAN (Reappearance from 4/7/09) 19 Westview Avenue Legalize existing two-family dwelling The architect for the applicant, Mr. Luigi DeMasi, addressed the Board. It was noted that the applicants were before the Board at the previous meeting. It was also noted that this property was the subject of litigation which has been resolved. Mr. DeMasi stated that this home has been used as two-family dwelling since its construction. The Guzman family has been paying tax on the property, which is listed in the Tax Assessors' office as a two-family dwelling since they purchased the home. Zoning Board of Appeals May 5,2009 Page 4 Mr. Moscato called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in support or opposition to the application. There being no one, Mr. Moscato closed the public portion of the hearing and the Board began its deliberation. He called upon Mr. Michael Izzo, Building Inspector, for background on the changes to the Village's code that have impacted this application. Mr. Izzo took the Board through the evolution of the Village's Code. The 1954 Code was the Code that was in effect when this building was constructed, and at that time the Code called for one (1) parking space per family. The property currently supports two (2) parking spaces. The conversion of the property took place on or before 1966. In the 1980's two (2) parking spaces per dwelling were required. Mr. Izzo confirmed that the tax records support that the house is being taxed as a two-family use. Mr. Izzo reviewed the history of the property, noting that a Building Permit, #1028, was taken out in 1963 for the original dwelling. The application was for a single family dwelling. There is a Certificate of Occupancy, but it is not dated or signed. The word "VOID" was written on the C.O., therefore, no C.O. exists for this dwelling. There is a letter from the then Assistant Building Inspector, Robert Geradi, which addresses Building Permit #1028. It simply says that the home is in an R-2F Zone and that it is a two-family house being used as a two-family house. There is another letter dated June 21, 1989 which states that there were no violations. Mr. Izzo stated that he took exception to the letters because there are violations in that there is no Certificate of Occupancy. Mr. Moscato noted that in order to legalize this home as a two-family dwelling, the current Code states that there must be five (5) off-street parking spaces. The home can currently sustain two (2) cars on the existing driveway. Currently there is an asphalt paved area in the front of the house where the applicants park the additional cars. The house cannot be legally made a two family unless a variance is granted in connection with the parking spaces. The Board's concern was that it did not want to set precedent. Mr. Beane did not feel that granting this variance would set precedent because this home presents a unique situation that has existed for over 40 years despite the lack of a Certificate of Occupancy. In addition, the Village Tax Rolls have treated the home as a two-family for many years. Mr. Moscato questioned whether other houses in the area all had C.O.'s. Mr. Izzo stated that he did not have that information. Mr. Rednick noted that there is a very large parking issue in this area of the Village. It was noted that this home is on a dead end street and the home itself borders I287. Zoning Board of Appeals May 5,2009 Page 5 Mr. Izzo stated that if the variances are not granted then the home must be made into a one family home. Mr. Beane stated that this would be an extreme financial hardship for the applicant. Ms. Fredman questioned whether the home was owner occupied, and asked for additional information about the plumbing fixtures removed from the third floor. Mr. Izzo noted that a wet bar and a refrigerator were removed from the third floor in order to make the home compliant with a two-family home. At the time of inspection it was found that only two families resided in the home. He stated that the parking variance is the last stumbling block. Mr. Moscato noted that this is a narrow street, however, there is on-street parking. Mr. Izzo stated that the police are aware of the parking constraints in this area. They are not looking to go in and ticket cars that have no place else to park as long they are not creating hazards or life safety issues. Mr. Beane noted that the ZBA is being asked to allow the house to exist with less than the required amount of parking spaces. The Board is not being asked to validate off site parking spaces in any area. Because of the history of this particular residence, he noted that it would be appropriate to grant the variance. Not granting the variance tells the family that they cannot use their home as a two- family home. This creates a hardship for the family because they would have to convert it to a one-family. Mr. Moscato noted that the Board members must consider the adverse effects on the applicant if they were required to convert the home to a one-family house. Ms. Fredman questioned whether or not the alleged difficulty was self-created. Mr. Beane responded that this is not a classic self-imposed hardship. Mr. Rednick felt that to deny the variance would create an undue hardship for the applicants. Ms. Fredman felt that the Zoning Board of Appeals did not have a choice. Mr. Berger reiterated that for over twenty years the Village collected taxes on the house as if it was a two-family house. Mr. Moscato concurred with his colleagues. This is not an easy situation, but it is a unique case which would not set a precedent. Mr. Beane and Attorney Reinke noted that they would craft a resolution for this unique situation. Zoning Board of Appeals May 5,2009 Page 6 Mr. Moscato temporarily adjourned the matter to craft the resolution to allow Village Counsel time to craft the resolution. Mr. Moscato called for a 10 minute recess. Upon the Board's return, Mr. Moscato called for the resolution on item #1: 1) #09-553 DR. & MRS. SCOTT KISSEL (Reappearance from 4/7/09) 19 Old Orchard Road Construct a one-story addition; a partial second-story addition; a new front portico, and new rear patio Mr. Beane noted that the applicant reviewed the proposed resolution and was in favor of it. Mr. Moscato read the resolution for the Kissel application. RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Dr. & Mrs. Scott Kissel for required 2 side yard setback of 12.76 foot variance; gross floor area variance of 241 square feet; and main building coverage variance of 0.9% in connection with the proposed construction of a one-story addition; a partial second-story addition; a new front portico; and a new rear patio, on property located at 19 Old Orchard Road in an R15 District on the east side of Old Orchard Road, 200 feet from the intersection of Crossway and Old Orchard Road. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 135.17, Block: 1, Lot: 1; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on April 7, 2009 and continued to May 5, 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: 1) No adverse impact on the proximate homes; Zoning Board of Appeals May 5,2009 Page 7 2) Applicant has revised the plans to lessen massing of house on right side; and 3) GFA requirement cannot be met otherwise and the variance is not substantial. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the said application is hereby granted on the following conditions: Based on the applicants' representation that they need these variances because the property has no accessory buildings and they do not intend to construct any accessory buildings in the future, and based upon the Zoning Board of Appeals' reliance on these representations in granting this application, no accessory buildings shall be constructed on the premises without prior written approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Dated: May 5, 2009 Mr. Moscato, Chairman 4 ayes 0 nays Zoning Board of Appeals May 5,2009 Page 8 Zoning Board of Appeals May 5,2009 Page 9 2) #09-557 MR. & MRS. JULIO CESAR GUZMAN (Reappearance from 4/7/09) 19 Westview Avenue Legalize existing two-family dwelling Mr. Moscato read the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Mr. & Mrs. Julio Cesar Guzman for a variance reduction of three (3) off street parking spaces, in connection with the proposed legalization of the existing two- family dwelling on property located at 19 Westview Avenue in an R-2F District, on the east side of Westview Avenue, 100 feet from the intersection of Dixon Avenue and Westview Avenue. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 13'.24, Block: 1, Lot: 17.1; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on April 7, 2009 and continued to May 5, 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: 1) Applicant has paid assessed taxes on a two family home since purchase; 2) All alternatives to parking have been exhausted; and 3) Applicant would incur undue hardship if required to revert to single family status. The Zoning Board of Appeals' decision is based on these particularly unique circumstances and is not intended to be precedent for future parking variances. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the said application is hereby granted. Dated: May 5, 2009 Mr. Moscato, Chairman 4 ayes 0 nays Zoning Board of Appeals May 5,2009 Page 10 Zoning Board of Appeals May 5,2009 Page 11 3) #09-560 MR. HOLMES MCGEORY 26 Woodland Drive Legalize the existing rear deck and finished room above the existing garage Gary Gianfrancesco, architect from the firm of Arconics, addressed the Board. He presented the Board with photographs of the existing home, which were made part of the record. Mr. Gianfrancesco began his presentation with a brief history of the ownership and a description of the property. He noted that Mr. McGeory purchased the home in 1978. This is a .6 acres parcel, which is relatively flat. The house is setback 100' from the property line and the side yard setbacks are 34' and 11.1'. In 1982 work was done by a contractor who claimed to have filed all of the appropriate documents and application forms. The deck has now existed for over 25 years. Furthermore, in 1997 a building permit for other work on the home was filed and those plans clearly show the deck and the rear of the home. In summation Mr. Gianfrancesco stated that it is duly noted that the existing house has always encroached into the right side yard. The applicant is seeking relief in the form of legalization for both the deck and the room above the garage, which have existed for many years. The side yard requirement is 15' and the applicant is requesting a 2.8' variance. The total side yard setback is met, and exceeded. The house as currently configured meets or exceeds all of the other requirements. There is no detriment or change to the neighborhood. It was also noted that the existing deck is not visible to the neighboring residents. The requested variance is not substantial and it will not have an adverse effect on the neighborhood. It was also noted that this is not a self-created hardship. Mr. Izzo noted that the application came about when the house became the subject of a violation. The Assistant Building Inspector, Stephen Fews visited the property on January 2, 2009 and issued a violation and Order to Remedy. Mr. McGeory was cited as being in violation because he has living space above the garage and the deck with no Certificate of Occupancy. He was cited on two sections of the building code — for both electrical work and plumbing work. The applicant requires a variance in order to legalize the property. If the variance is granted then the deck can stay. Ms. Fredman asked for the square footage of the deck. Mr. Gianfrancesco noted that the square footage is 762 square feet. The deck covers the entire rear side of the home. The deck protrudes approximately 9' to 10', which is a fairly narrow deck. Zoning Board of Appeals May 5,2009 Page 12 Mr. Moscato called for members of the public wishing to address the application in opposition or support to the application. There being no one, the public portion of the meeting was closed. Mr. Rednick expressed his opinion that granting the variance was making it easy for people to legalize something when they did not go through the proper procedures. Mr. Moscato agreed, noting that there have been many situations where residents had work done without pulling the proper permits. Mr. Izzo noted that a Notice of Violation has been issued and the applicant must receive the variance in order to remedy the situation. The resident has been working with the Village to make the corrections. There is a legalization fee that will be imposed; a minimum of$500.00 and a maximum of$3500.00. Mr. Izzo noted that he does have some questions about the integrity of some of the areas of the deck. It will be inspected and the applicant will be required to bring it into compliance. The issues with the deck have to do with the railings and stairs, but they do not require that the deck be torn down and rebuilt. Mr. Moscato read the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Mr. Holmes McGeory for a single side yard set back variance of 2.8 feet, in connection with the proposed legalization of the existing rear deck and finished room above the existing garage, on property located at 26 Woodland Drive in an R-25 District on the west side of Woodland Drive, 850 feet from the intersection of Beechwood Circle and Woodland Drive. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 135.36, Block: 1, Lot: 21; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on May 5, 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: 1) No adverse impact on the proximate homes; 2) It is not feasible to move the deck as to meet the setback requirement due to entrance; and 3) The requested variance is not substantial. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the said application is hereby granted. Dated: May 5, 2009 Mr. Moscato, Chairman 4 ayes 0 nays Zoning Board of Appeals May 5,2009 Page 13 Zoning Board of Appeals May 5,2009 Page 14 Mr. Moscato noted that the February 3, 2009 summary has been approved by the prior Board, and the summary will be posted on the Village's website. He called for the approval of March and April summaries: 4) Approval of the March 2, 2009 and April 7, 2009 Zoning Board Summaries Mr. Moscato noted that he submitted comments on the March 2, 2009 summary and received and reviewed the second draft. He submitted additional changes, and the summary was adopted as approved. Changes for the April 7, 2009 summary were submitted by Mr. Moscato. The summary was adopted as amended. There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 10:09 p.m. Zoning Board of Appeals May 5,2009 Page 15