Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-06-02 - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes Village of Rye Brook 938 King Street ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS June 2, 2009 Meeting at 8:00 p.m. AGENDA 1) #09-562 Mr. Michael Tucci Reappearance 226 South Ridge Street Legalize and partially remodel the existing finished converted garage/basement 2) #09-566 Ran Oil East Ryebrook, LLC 79 South Ridge Street Not to install the required building Fire Sprinkler System 3) #09-567 Mr. Trevor Coutinho 20 Wyman Street Construct a second-story addition; perform interior alterations and install a curb cut at the Highview Avenue elevation to facilitate the legalization of the second-family dwelling 4) #09-563 Mr. & Mrs. James Schutzer 43 Bonwit Road Construct a new rear deck with steps to grade 5) #09-565 Mr. & Mrs. Pratap Pandey 4 Phyllis Place Construct a side two-story addition and a rear one-story addition 6) #09-564 Mr. & Mrs. David Sachs 20 Elm Hill Drive Construct a 1 1/2-story side addition; a one story front addition; and a new front portico 7) #09-555 Mr. & Mrs. David Roath 14 Beechwood Boulevard Legalize the enlarged front porch Zoning Board of Appeals June 2, 2009 Page 1 8) #09-559 Mr. John Michaels 51 Mohegan Lane Legalize the existing rear deck 9) Approval of February 3, 2009 and May 5, 2009 Zoning Board Summaries BOARD: Don Moscato, Chairman Steve Berger Salvatore Crescenzi Michele Fredman Jeffrey Rednick STAFF: Michael Izzo, Building Inspector Fred Seifert, Public Access Coordinator Jennifer L. Reinke, Esq., Village Counsel Paula Patafio, Meeting Secretary BOARD OF TRUSTEE LIAISON: Trustee Paul Rosenberg Mr. Don Moscato, Chairman, welcomed everyone to the June 2, 2009 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. He called for the first item on the agenda: 1) #09-562 Mr. Michael Tucci Reappearance 226 South Ridge Street Legalize and partially remodel the existing finished converted garage/basement Demetrios Adamis, Esq., from the firm of Gioffre and Gioffre, addressed the Board as legal counsel for the applicant. He noted that an application concerning this property was before the Zoning Board of Appeals at previous meetings and was dismissed without prejudice. It was also noted that the matter was in litigation. The applicant has now re-filed an application for the Board's consideration. This application is for off-street parking in order to satisfy parking requirements under the Village's Code, Section 250-6(g), and to legalize the basement garage space that has been converted to living space. It was noted that Mr. Tucci purchased this home as a rental property and does not reside there. The Zoning Board of Appeals June 2, 2009 Page 2 home was built in 1957, and the garage space was converted in 1966, prior to Mr. Tucci's purchase of the home. The applicant purchased the property in 1998 and is seeking to legalize the basement, making minor internal alterations to the dwelling to bring it into compliance with a one-family home. There is no exterior work required. There was, until recently, no record of any violations. Mr. Adamis reviewed the criteria to be reviewed by the Zoning Board of Appeals in making the decision whether or not to grant the variance. The Board must do a balancing test between the benefit to the applicant and health and safety issues. He stated that as no exterior work will be done, there will be no change to the character of the home. He presented the Board with photographs of the property, and noted that the driveway measures approximately 25' across. A second document presented to the Board was a survey, updated in 1998, which notes that there is no garage. The applicant has enough space to provide three (3) parking spaces, and the parking spaces have been there for quite some time. This application has grown out of enforcement measures by the Village. The granting of the variance will bring the property into full compliance, which creates a win-win situation. Mr. Adamis stated that there is no other method of accomplishing the applicant's goal, and that the variance itself is not substantial. Mr. Moscato noted that the property originally came before the Board requesting legalization of a two-family home. The original application was withdrawn, without prejudice, and now the applicant was before the Board with plans for legalization of a legal one-family dwelling. Mr. Moscato called for questions from the Board. Michele Fredman asked what changed inside the home to change the occupancy from a two-family to a one- family home. Mr. Adamis noted that no work permit has been issued, however, the applicant has been directed to remove the kitchen facility in the basement. The plans have been submitted to the Building Department. Mr. Michael Izzo, Building Inspector, noted that the work that will be required to legalize the one-family home includes removal of stove, and the gas connection if it is a gas stove or the 220 line if it is electric. In addition, the kitchen sink needs to be replaced with a bar style sink, and an egress window needs to be installed in the bedroom in the basement in order to comply with State Code. There is other interior work that needs to be done with respect to opening up a wall to install a hand railing to open up the basement to the first floor as opposed to being a separate entity. The intent is to bring the dwelling back to a typical one family home, with a finished basement, and no kitchen in the basement. Removing part Zoning Board of Appeals June 2, 2009 Page 3 of the wall, adding the railing, and changing it to a knee wall with a rail will remove the separation from the first floor. Mr. Moscato noted that this home was purchased as two-family home for the purpose of rental income. Going from a two-family home to a one-family home clearly reduces the applicant's income. Mr. Adamis noted that there is some economic effect on the applicant, however, in the longer term it is more advantageous for this home to be legalized as a one-family home. All work proposed is to the satisfaction of the Building Department. The next step is to obtain relief from the Village's requirements regarding parking. Mr. Moscato noted that the options are to granting the variance for the two (2) parking spaces in front of the home or direct the applicant to gut the garage. Mr. Adamis noted that reverting the living space to garage space would be an extreme hardship for the applicant. There are multiple houses in this area that have similar parking situations. Mr. Moscato noted that this parking area, which is essentially a three (3) car parking lot, is located on the front lawn, and is asphalt. He asked if there was a way to reduce the amount of asphalt, perhaps leaving only two (2) of the parking spaces. Mr. Adamis noted that the additional parking space assists the cars in moving in and out of the property. Mr. Moscato felt that removing some of the asphalt and providing additional green space would be a benefit to the Village. Mr. Moscato called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in favor or opposition to the application. Dean Santon, Hillandale Road, addressed the Board. He noted that he is a Rye Brook Trustee but was addressing the Board as a resident of Rye Brook. He stated that it is important to enforce the Village's parking requirements, particularly in denser areas of the Village. There is very little green space in this area. This is an income producing property and the applicant has the ability to revert the garage to garage space and not require a variance. The question is how many cars should be parked on the front lawn of this house. The applicant indicates that this will be used as a single family house but that does not preclude the applicant from coming back for a two-family use in the future. The prior Zoning Board felt that the applicant should converted the garage back and park only one car on the front lawn, reducing the amount of impervious surface. There is no reason to set any precedent. It is important that the Village starts to control the balance of the use of the dwellings and the parking requirements. Mr. Izzo was asked for the amount of impervious coverage on the property. He noted that he did not have that information, however, there was no variance Zoning Board of Appeals June 2, 2009 Page 4 required for impervious coverage. He noted that if the applicant wanted to convert the property to a two-family home at a later date he would need to make an application to the Village, and the parking requirements would be five (5) spaces. Jennifer Reinke, Esq., noted that conditions can be placed on the granting of the variance. The public portion of the meeting was closed and the Board began its deliberation. Mr. Salvatore Crescenzi noted that the Zoning Board's intent is to minimize the impact on the Village. He felt getting this dwelling back to a one-family residence was important to the community. He stated that he would be in favor of granting the variance. He also noted that he would support two (2) parking spaces instead of three (3). Mr. Jeffrey Rednick agreed with Mr. Crescenzi. Ms. Fredman noted that there is a front yard, and everything to the right of the front door is grass area and everything to the left of the front door is parking. Mr. Izzo noted that the Department of Transportation says a parking space is 9' x 18'. He pointed out, however, that the plans indicate 25.5' as the distance from property line to the structure. The length of the spaces are indicated on the plan, but the problem is that when calculated the parking spaces add up to 27' (9'x 18'). He was unsure how three (3) cars would be able to park in that space and be able to open up the doors and get out of the car. The curb cut is the full width of the spaces, all 25'. The Board was reminded that Ridge Street is a County Road and any work on the curb cut would mean County involvement. The consensus of the Board was to grant the variance for two (2) parking spaces versus the three (3) requested. The applicant would be directed to remove the additional asphalt, which is unattractive. Mr. Adamis noted that the extra space helps the cars navigate the driveway. In addition, the Board has now introduced an element of cost. It was also noted that there is no fix for the size of the curb cut because it is concrete. Mr. Adamis requested a few minutes to consult with the applicant. Mr. Moscato noted that there are technical issues that must be resolved before a decision can be made. The Board needed additional information regarding impervious coverage for the property and additional information about the curb cut. The consensus of the Board was to adjourn the matter to the July 7, 2009 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. Mr. Adamis agreed to the adjournment on behalf of the applicant. Zoning Board of Appeals June 2, 2009 Page 5 Mr. Moscato noted that if there are significant changes then the public hearing could be re-opened at the July 7t' meeting. That determination will be made after review of the additional information presented. Mr. Moscato called for item #2 on the agenda: 2) #09-566 Ran Oil East Ryebrook, LLC (Agent: Robert C. Lusardi, Daniels & Porco) 79 South Ridge Street Mr. Moscato noted that this application was being held for a Board of Trustee decision and would not be addressed by the Zoning Board at this time. Mr. Moscato called for item #3: 3) #09-567 Mr. Trevor Coutinho 20 Wyman Street Construct a second-story addition; perform interior alterations, and install a curb cut at the Highview Avenue elevation to facilitate the legalization of the two-family dwelling. Juan Carlos , the architect for the applicant, addressed the Board. He introduced the applicant, Mr. Trevor Coutinho, who was also in attendance. It was noted that Mr. Coutinho is looking to make the proposed changes to convert the home to a two-family dwelling. The dwelling was purchased as a mother- daughter unit. The applicant is seeking to convert the home to a two-family dwelling and it was discovered that there was no Certificate of Occupancy for the property. It was noted that the Planning Board has reviewed this application, requested changes to make it more conducive to the area, and now feels that the plans are workable. This matter has now been forwarded to the Zoning Board of Appeals in connection with the required variances. Mr. Rednick noted that this application has been around since 2006. He requested some background on the application. Jennifer L. Reinke, Village Counsel, noted that the application started in 2006 when the applicant was issued a notice of violation and then later a summons because of certain changes made to the property. It was found that there was no Certificate of Occupancy on file with the Zoning Board of Appeals June 2, 2009 Page 6 Building Department. The applicant has been before the Planning Board since mid-2007. Difficulties with the site and some communication issues have drawn out the process. Five (5) parking spaces have been provided on the most recent plans. However, in order to provide these spaces the applicant must create a new curb cut on Highview Avenue. Mr. Izzo asked that everyone turn to page A0.04 on the plans in order to understand the proposed parking. He pointed out that the plans show the location of the dwelling, the carport, and the proposed curb cut on Highview Avenue, the modified curb cut on Wyman Street, and the five (5) parking spaces; three (3) of which will require a variance. Ms. Reinke pointed out that three (3) of the parking spots shown on the plan fall within the 25' setback from the front property line. It was also noted that this is a corner lot, therefore there are two front yards. This house was moved from another location by the Department of Transportation when 287 was put in. Mr. Izzo noted that this home is taxed as a single family home. The Building Department found that the house was being used as a two-family with a boarder in the basement (with no sanitary services in the basement). The individual has been removed from the basement. The applicant is looking to raise the roof which would create a real second story. This home was purchased by the applicant in 2006. Mr. Rednick questioned the wording of the Code regarding conversion from a one-family to a two-family dwelling. Ms. Reinke noted that the provision of the Code dealing with conversions from one-family dwellings to two-family dwellings may have been in existence when Rye Brook adopted the Town of Rye Zoning Code, and could date back to 1930. The home is located in an R-2F zone where two-family dwellings are permitted. Mr. Crescenzi noted that there are substantial variances being requested. There are issues with the rear yard access, side yard setback issues, and then there are the parking issues. This home is not Code compliant in many areas. Ms. Fredman noted that the Planning Board put in a good deal of effort to try and make the application better. The Planning Board knew that it did not have jurisdiction over the variances required, but they attempted to come up with the best scenario. There are probably issues such as steep slopes, drainage, and trees; along with a total of four (4) variances required. The application has made it to the point where the Planning Board felt that a decision on the variances was needed. Zoning Board of Appeals June 2, 2009 Page 7 Mr. Izzo noted that there are no impervious coverage issues, but there is a slope on the Highview Avenue elevation to be addressed by the Planning Board. Mr. Moscato called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in support or opposition to the application. Dean Santon, resident of Rye Brook and current Trustee, addressed the Board in opposition to the application. He noted that this matter was before the Planning Board for a brief period of time. The applicant needed to go back to the drawing board. The Planning Board did not spend a lot of time deliberating and they spent more time waiting for the applicant to figure out how to regroup and come back with a new plan. He was unsure whether or not the Planning Board has reviewed the current plan. He felt that the plan was lacking in detail, and pointed out that there is a 50' right of way in front of the home and the proposed curb cut will alter the Village's right of way. He also stated that there is clearly more than a 4' elevation change. Trustee Santon pointed out that the garage was converted to living space. He felt that this application is not in the best interest of the community and noted that two-family uses are terrific when the property can support it, however, this property cannot support a two-family dwelling. He stated that whether or not the Department of Transportation moved the home for the DiLeo family when 287 was constructed has nothing to do with the application before the Village because the house was moved to a lot that can accommodate a one-family home. It was also noted that in addition to the mother-in-law apartment on the second floor, there was a third dwelling unit in the basement. The applicant is proposing these changes because he wants the rental income from a two-family use. He does not reside in this home. There were no other members of the public wishing to address the Board, therefore, Mr. Moscato closed the public portion of the meeting and the Board began deliberation. Ms. Reinke noted that the Planning Board has seen the revised plans before the Zoning Board. The Village Planner has noted some minor engineering aspects that would need to be rectified if the plan is referred back to the Planning Board. Mr. Moscato stated that there are substantial variances that are required. The carport issue is a factor. The three (3) additional parking spaces are another factor. From a visual point of view the applicant has now created a small parking lot. He also noted that the side yard setback is 3'2", which is existing, must be legalized. Zoning Board of Appeals June 2, 2009 Page 8 Mr. Izzo noted that there is a portico proposed as a second entrance to the first floor apartment. It is a pseudo-rear entrance because it is technically in the side yard. This is a technicality. The applicant proposes a two-story wood frame structure with stairs for rear access to the second floor. The front door grants access to both the first and second floors. There will be modifications to the exterior because there is no other way for the additional access to be built. Mr. Izzo clarified that the garage will be returned to garage space so that one (1) car can be parked there. The remaining four (4) parking spaces will be split between the carport and the side yard. One (1) space, the one to the left of the carport, is Code compliant. The other three (3) are not because they are located within the 25' front yard setback. The first space is 14'+ from the property line, the second space is 17'+ and the third space is 19'+. Mr. Izzo pointed out that this is a corner property and there are two frontages. This information is not on the plan; he scaled the plan in order to get this information. Mr. Izzo noted that the Board should request that this information be added to the plans. This information should include the 25' setback line, the dimensions from each space to the property line, the rear yard access which is technically in the side yard, and the rear yard elevation. Mr. Moscato noted that the applicant has not made a case for the need for the granting of the variances especially when the needs of the applicant are balanced against the effect on the neighborhood. The applicant should make a stronger case, as well as provide the additional information that has been requested, in order for the Zoning Board to make a better judgment on the application. He also noted that the parking issue was a major issue for him, but the side yard setback requirement does not really concern him. The Board came to the consensus that the additional time to review the plans was needed. The applicant accepted the adjournment. Mr. Moscato asked that the matter be adjourned to the July 7, 2009 meeting. Mr. Moscato called for item #4: 4) #09-563 Mr. & Mrs. James Schutzer 43 Bonwit Road Construct a new rear deck with steps to grade Zoning Board of Appeals June 2, 2009 Page 9 John Scarlato, Jr., architect, addressed the Board. He noted that this is an irregularly shaped lot; triangular in shape. The house is shoed into this property which makes it very hard to construct a deck. The applicant is proposing a 15'x 22.6' deck, rectangular in shape, which would overhang the back of the house by about 2'. The applicant is trying to maintain the use of the yard, and have the yard visible from the deck. The proposed deck extends past the edge of the house in order to be able to see the backyard from the deck. The back of this house faces another rear yard, and the proposed deck would not be visible from the road. If the deck is placed on the side of the house it will be visible from the road. The topography of the lot is not flat. Photographs of the rear yard were presented to the Board. Ms. Fredman asked how close the neighbor's house was from the property line. Mr. Rednick responded he viewed the rear yard and felt that this was a non-issue for him. Mr. Izzo noted that the information is provided by the applicant in the form of photographs. All submission requirements have been met. Mr. Moscato called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in support or opposition to the application. There being no one, the public portion of the meeting was closed and the Board began its deliberation. Mr. Moscato noted that the square footage of the deck is 396' when the stairs are included. The stairway requires a 15' rear yard setback variance. The total square footage of the deck is 337.5'. The applicant was asked if everything possible has been done to minimize the impact. Mr. Scarlato responded that this is a typical deck, which works for the applicant and is not huge. Rye Brook governs the size of the deck. This property is located in an R-12 zone, and the applicant is allowed to have a deck that covers 4% of the property. This deck covers 2.5% of the property. Mr. Moscato read the resolution: Zoning Board of Appeals June 2, 2009 Page 10 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Mr. & Mrs. James Schutzer for a 15' rear yard setback variance, in connection with the proposed construction of a new rear deck with steps to grade, on property located at 43 Bonwit Road in an R-12 District on the east side of Bonwit Road, 140 feet from the intersection of Carlton Lane and Bonwit Road. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 135.41, Block: 1, Lot: 44; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on June 2, 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) Deck construction is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood; and 2) This is the only feasible location for the deck owing to the irregular rear yard layout. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the said application is hereby granted. Dated: June 2, 2009 Mr. Moscato, Chairman Mr. Moscato called the roll: Steve Berger Voting Aye Salvatore Crescenzi Voting Aye Michele Fredman Voting Aye Jeffrey Rednick Voting Aye Don Moscato, Chairman Voting Aye The variances were granted on a vote of five ayes to zero nays. Zoning Board of Appeals June 2, 2009 Page 11 Zoning Board of Appeals June 2, 2009 Page 12 5) #09-565 Mr. & Mrs. Pratap Pandey 4 Phyllis Place Construct a side two-story addition and a rear one-story addition Paul Benowitz, architect from the firm of Benowitz Shah Architects, PC, AIA, addressed the Board. He noted that this was an application for an addition on the left side of the house. A bump out in the rear will expand the kitchen. The Pandeys are a growing family and this is a very small house with three (3) bedrooms and one small room that is being used as a home office/den. There is no real master bedroom in the home, no family room, no basement, and one bathroom on the second floor that is shared by everyone. The house meets all requirements, except for the need for a gross area variance. The applicants' plans minimize the impact to the home and the neighborhood, and the second floor is clearly not designed as a full second-story. Mr. Benowitz pointed out that there are homes in this area on lots that are the same size as the applicants which are much larger. The house is under the allowable square footage which is 2,700 square feet with the current home being 2,400 square feet. Mr. Benowitz presented the Board with photographs of homes in the area that are larger, on similar sized lots. He noted that the additional square footage of the proposed addition is 740'. Mr. Moscato asked if the applicant considered an alternative design. Mr. Benowitz responded that the bedroom upstairs is under eaves. The walls are 5' high walls. The applicants require the additional bedroom as both sets of parents are from overseas and when they come to visit it is for extended periods of time (up to six months). The third bedroom of this home was used as a guest room, however, the Pandey's are expecting their second child and will use that bedroom as the nursery. Mr. Benowitz noted that the application is fine on lot coverage, fine on impervious coverage, and is within all of the setbacks. The plans were created in an attempted to make the house fit in with the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Moscato called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in support or opposition to the application. The resident of 2 Phyllis Place addressed the Board. She noted that she purchased the home because of all the open green space and the distances between the houses. She stated that she was concerned about the extension, which will bring the Pandey home closer to her. This will result in a loss of privacy. Her home is a Zoning Board of Appeals June 2, 2009 Page 13 two-story dwelling and now the houses will be approximately the same height. There are some bushes and trees but the trees do not screen the property. Mr. Moscato noted that the proposed construction meets the side yard setback requirements. He suggested additional plantings to help screen the addition. Mr. Benowitz noted that there will be one window on the addition, in the bedroom, that will face the dwelling on 2 Phyllis Place, which also has one window (a bathroom) which faces the Pandey home. The public portion of the meeting was closed and the Board began deliberation. Mr. Rednick felt that this addition will make the property stand out. He suggested that the Board should request comparables in the area. The consensus of the Board was that additional information was required, although the inclination was to grant the variance. One request was to see if the size of the variance could be reduced further. In addition, although there is a buffer between the Pandey home and the neighbor's home at 2 Phyllis Place, the Board would like to see this buffer increased and screened as the addition does bring the home closer to the property line. Mr. Izzo noted that the additional information requested by the Board could be obtained at the Tax Assessor's office. It is important to find out whether this house will be the largest, the smallest, or in the mid-range. The applicant was agreeable to the adjournment. Mr. Moscato took the next matter out of order: #7) #09-555 Mr. & Mrs. David Roath 14 Beechwood Boulevard Legalize the enlarged front porch Mr. Richard Mastacato, the architect for the applicant, addressed the Board. He noted that a variance to construct was granted in April, 2007. The addition and renovations were constructed. When the mason laid out the foundation of the porch, a 9' section of the porch was increased. It is now 88.3' from the front property line instead of 90'. This error came to light when the as-built survey was created. There is no negative impact to the neighborhood and the applicant is requesting that the Board approve the variance in order to legalize the porch. Mr. Mastacato noted that was a mistake but it would be a substantial cost to move the porch back. There was no explanation for how this happened, or why the carpenters did not mention the discrepancy when they were framing out the porch. Zoning Board of Appeals June 2, 2009 Page 14 It was noted that this porch was a very small part of the renovation and the small difference went unnoticed. Mr. Moscato noted that although minor, this error adds to what the Village refers to as "creep" of homes closer to the street. The variance of 1.7" is not large, but he was concerned about how the error happened and why no one noticed it until completion. Mr. Izzo noted that there were four (4) errors made along the way in relationship to this porch. Masonry needs to be exact, however, in this case the mason was off by a foot. Mr. Izzo noted that all the craftsmen on the project were licensed, but sometimes people make mistakes. Visually this error is imperceptible. Mr. Crescenzi noted that this was not an intentional error and errors of this type happen during construction. However, since a variance was granted for the porch it was felt that additional attention should have been made on this area when the foundation was poured. Mr. Izzo reiterated that this type of error is not uncommon. Construction errors happen in the field all the time and with the size of this project it is easy to see how this error could be missed. If this area was not the subject of a variance it would not be considered a big deal. Mr. Izzo reviewed the dimensions on the plans and the dimensions to which the porch was constructed. He pointed out that there are good masons and bad masons, and this mason was not one of the good ones. Ms. Fredman questioned what was closer to the property line. Mr. Mastacato noted that it was a 9' wide section of the porch. Ms. Fredman noted that now the house next door could move closer to the street, and that has a domino effect as you move along. The architect noted that tearing down the porch and reconstructing it would create a financial hardship on the applicant in the amount of approximately $10,000.00. Mr. Moscato asked legal counsel what could be done to ensure that creepage did not occur. Ms. Reinke noted that there was no condition that could be placed that would protect against the creep issue. Any conditions placed on this application effect only the applicants' property. A five-minute recess to consult with counsel. Upon the Board's return Ms. Fredman noted that she was requesting that she be allowed to recuse herself from deliberation on the application as she had participated in a closing with Mr. & Mrs. Roath. There were some circumstances involving their attorney that may color her feeling about the contractor and rather than risk that, she believed it was in the best interest that she recuse herself from voting on the application. Mr. Moscato noted that the implications of this recusal was that the applicant Zoning Board of Appeals June 2, 2009 Page 15 needs three aye votes in order to be granted the variance. The applicant decided to move forward. Mr. Moscato called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in support or opposition to the application. There being no one, the public portion of the meeting was closed, and the Board began its deliberation during which Mr. Moscato prepared the resolution which was read into the record: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Mr. & Mrs. David Roath for a 1.7' front yard setback variance, in connection with the proposed legalization of the enlarged porch, on property located at 14 Beechwood Boulevard, 100' from the intersection of Woodland Drive and Beechwood Boulevard. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 136.29, Block: 1, Lot: 6; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on June 2, 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) Amount of error was unintentional on part of applicant; and 2) Variance is deminimus; 3) It will not alter significantly the character of the neighborhood; and 4) The applicant would suffer significant hardship if they had to correct the error. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the said application is hereby granted. Dated: June 2, 2009 Mr. Moscato, Chairman Mr. Moscato called the roll: Steve Berger Voting Aye Salvatore Crescenzi Voting Aye Jeffrey Rednick Voting Aye Don Moscato, Chairman Voting Aye The application was granted with four aye votes to zero nay votes. Zoning Board of Appeals June 2, 2009 Page 16 #6) #09-564 Mr. & Mrs. David Sachs 20 Elm Hill Drive Construct a 1 1/2 story side addition; a one-story front addition and a new front portico Mr. Moscato noted that this matter has been postponed at the request of the applicant. 8. #09-559 Mr. John Michaels 51 Mohegan Lane Legalize the existing rear deck Mr. Michaels, the applicant, addressed the Board. He noted that the deck was constructed in 1975. Prior to the deck's construction that was a stone patio. A variance was required for the deck's construction and it was received. The deck was rebuilt in 1987 in the same footprints. He was before the Board in order have the deck legalized because the variance initially applied for was incorrect. The approval was for a 14' x 20' deck. The deck was rebuilt in the same footprint. Mr. Michaels presented the Board with photographs of the deck. This deck has now been in existence for 30 years. It would be a hardship to remove and rebuild the deck in this economy. Mr. Berger noted that a 14' x 20' deck was approved, however, the deck that was constructed and rebuilt is 18' x 20'. Mr. Michaels noted that the measurement of the deck includes the small section from the stairway to the kitchen. Mr. Izzo noted that a letter dated August 11th refers to the original permit #2075 granted to Mr. Michaels in 1975 which shows that he applied for a 14' x 20' deck. The Notice of Disapproval from June 26, 1975 indicates an open deck of 14' x 20', however, you can see that the deck was to be 32' from the property line with a variance of 3' needed. Everyone was under the impression that the deck was going to be constructed 32' from the rear property line. Even the sketch plan shows 32' from the property line to the deck. The problem is, in reality, there is not 32' from the deck to the property or 32' from the house to the property line. The applicant's professional made an error on the survey with pencil drawings, and it was never scaled. Ultimately the setback was 171".". The survey that the Village has shows the deck that was rebuilt deck in the 1980's by the applicant, but there is no way of knowing whether or not it was rebuilt in the footprint of the previous deck. The deck that is there now is 18' x 20'. This deck would have Zoning Board of Appeals June 2, 2009 Page 17 required a much larger variance in the 70's when the deck was initially constructed. Mr. Michaels noted that the residents of the house behind him do not object to the deck, and he reiterated that the deck has been there for 30 years. Mr. Izzo noted that the deck will be inspected for constructural integrity and will need to comply to the State Building Code. Mr. Moscato called for members of the public wishing to address the application in support or opposition. There being no one, the public portion of the meeting was closed and the matter was opened for deliberation. Mr. Moscato asked when the inspection of the deck would take place. Mr. Izzo responded that the permit must be granted before the inspection takes place. Mr. Michaels has retained the services of an architect who states that the deck that is there now either meets the code or will be constructed to comply with the plans. Ms. Fredman noted that if the deck is not structurally sound or non-compliant then it can be rebuilt in compliance. She stated that if it is coming down anyway then it should be made smaller. Mr. Moscato noted that this is a valid perspective. The deck was last repaired 24 years ago and if it does need to be taken down and rebuilt, then it should be rebuilt to the smaller size. Mr. Izzo was asked how this application came about. The response was that the Building Department was asked to clean up the deadwood by the Board of Trustees. They have been reviewing files and dealing with open category applications and are now on the letter "M." This was one instance where the permit remained open in the Building Department's files. Mr. Izzo noted that he was not a structural engineer. As Building Inspector his job is to inspect what is there in conformance with approved plans. The architect is recognized by the State of New York to make a structural assessment. The applicant's professional should make the inspection. Mr. Michaels was asked to obtain a letter from the architect, Mr. Klein, regarding the structural condition of the deck. The consensus of the Board was to adjourn the matter to the July 7th meeting in order to give Mr. Michaels the time needed to contact his architect, Mr. Klein, and have the inspection completed. Mr. Izzo noted that he would be happy to speak with Mr. Klein and explain exactly what was needed. Mr. Michaels accepted the motion to adjourn. Zoning Board of Appeals June 2, 2009 Page 18 Mr. Moscato called for the final item on the agenda: 9) Approval of February 3, 2009 and May 5, 2009 Zoning Board Summaries Mr. Moscato noted that he made one minor grammatical change to the February 3, 2009 summary. The Board approved the February 3rd summary by a vote of five to zero, as amended. It was noted that both Mr. Moscato and Ms. Fredman have made changes to the May 5, 2009 summary. Ms. Fredman felt that the changes she has requested for the May summary were substantial. The consensus of the Board was to hold over the May 5, 2009 summary until the July 7, 2009 meeting. There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m. Zoning Board of Appeals June 2, 2009 Page 19