Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-07-07 - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes Village of Rye Brook 938 King Street ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 7, 2009 Meeting at 8:00 p.m. AGENDA 1) #09-562 Mr. Michael Tucci (Re-Appearance) AGENT: Demetrios Adamis, Esq., Gioffre & Gioffre 226 South Ridge Street Legalize and partially remodel the existing finished converted garage/basement 2) #09-597 Mr. Trevor Coutinho (Re-Appearance) 20 Wyman Street Construct a second-story addition; performance of interior alterations, and install a curb cut at the Highview Avenue elevation to facilitate the legalization of the two-family dwelling 3) #09-565 Mr. & Mrs. Pratap Pandey (Re-Appearance) 4 Phyllis Place Construct a side two-story addition and a rear one-story addition 4) #09-558 Mr. Pedro Vilca 51 Hawthorne Avenue Reconstruct the missing front wrap-around porch 5) #09-559 Mr. John Michaels (Re-Appearance) 51 Mohegan Lane Legalize the existing rear deck 6) Approval of May 5, 2009 and June 2, 2009 Zoning Board Summaries Zoning Board of Appeals July 7,2009 Page 1 BOARD: Don Moscato, Chairman Steve Berger Salvatore Crescenzi Michele Fredman Jeffrey Rednick STAFF: Steven Fews, Assistant Building Inspector Jennifer L. Reinke, Esq., Village Counsel Paula Patafio, Meeting Secretary Mr. Don Moscato, Chairman, welcomed everyone to the July 7, 2009 meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Moscato introduced the Board members, Village Staff and Counsel, and called for the first item on the agenda. 1) #09-562 Mr. Michael Tucci (Re-Appearance) AGENT: Demetrios Adamis, Esq., Gioffre & Gioffre 226 South Ridge Street Legalize and partially remodel the existing finished converted garage/basement Mr. Moscato noted that the applicant had requested that the matter be adjourned to the August 4, 2009 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. The Board granted the request. Mr. Moscato called for item #2: 2) #09-597 Mr. Trevor Coutinho (Re-Appearance) 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 Mr. Trevor Coutinho, the applicant, addressed the Board. He noted that he would be making the presentation as his architect had a prior commitment and would not be in attendance at the meeting. Mr. Coutinho noted that this was an application Zoning Board of Appeals July 7,2009 Page 2 to change the home from a single-family home to a two-family home. He reviewed the application and the variances required for the Board. Mr. Coutinho noted that he purchased the home as a mother/daughter set-up. Jennifer Reinke, Esq., Village Counsel, noted that the application meets the Village's Code regarding impervious surface coverage. This was a concern at the previous meeting. The applicant has agreed to remove some of the walkways and replace them with grasscrete in order to remove some of the existing impervious surface. The plans before the Board were presented at the previous meeting. The Planning Board has reviewed these plans, and has done what they could with the application. It is now time for the applicant to apply for the required variances. Depending upon the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals, the Planning Board will address additional elements of this application. Mr. Steven Fews, Assistant Building Inspector, noted the issue of steep slopes was reviewed by the office of F.P. Clark & Associates. It was found that the 3'8" drop was not considered a steep slope; being 2" short of being considered a true steep slope. Mr. Steve Berger questioned whether or not the carport would be rebuilt during the proposed construction. Mr. Coutinho stated that he would be refurbishing the carport but it would not be taken down and rebuilt. Mr. Fews noted that the carport was existing, although there was no record of when it was built. He also noted that there was no building permit issued for it, but it was noted that the carport has been on the assessment roll for the past 20 years. During discussions with the Village, Mr. Coutinho has agreed to bring the carport up to Code. Mr. Crescenzi noted that the Board did not have what the proposed lot area coverage was in square footage. The consensus of the Board was that something was missing on the plans. Mr. Jeffrey Rednick asked for clarification of the service entrance requirement. Mr. Fews noted that separate access is required to both apartments, as a matter of safety. It was noted that there is a proposed stairway at the rear of the home for access to the second floor apartment. Mr. Moscato addressed the issue of parking. He noted that he had two major concerns. His first concern was the change to the exterior of the house. When moving from a one-family to a two-family the Village's Code clearly states that there should be no change to the exterior of the dwelling. The second concern was the setbacks for the parking spaces. Three (3) of the parking spaces do not meet the setback requirements. Although the garage will be returned to use as a garage, the remaining cars will be parked very close to the street. It was also noted that Zoning Board of Appeals July 7,2009 Page 3 the plantings requested by the Planning Board will not block the view of the cars from the street. Mr. Moscato also addressed the issue of the pseudo-side yard entrance versus a rear yard entrance. He felt that there were too many variances required to change this home from a mother/daughter set-up to a full blown two- family dwelling. Just because this house is located in a two-family zone does not mean that the lot can accommodate a two-family home. Mr. Moscato 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 additional comments and questions. Ms. Michele Fredman questioned what would happen to the almost steep slope. She felt that a 3'8" drop was substantial. Mr. Moscato noted that a retaining wall is proposed for that area. Ms. Fredman noted that a resident has corresponded with the Village, noting that the retaining wall and perhaps the parking area are in the Village's right-of-way. Even if the retaining wall and parking spaces are on the applicant's property, the proposed curb cut will affect the Village's right-of- way. Mr. Moscato requested a motion and second to close the public hearing. On a motion made by Jeffrey Rednick, and seconded by Michele Fredman, the public hearing was closed by a vote of five (5) ayes and zero (0) nays. The Board began its deliberation. Mr. Moscato noted that there were four (4) variance requests before the Board. The first variance changes the exterior of the home. The notion is that if you are going to move from a one-family to a two- family dwelling there should be no exterior changes to the home. The applicant has requested the removal of a section of the roof to allow for increased height. This is a major change to the outside of the home. Mr. Rednick agreed with Mr. Moscato. He noted that he was troubled by the applicant's lack of demonstration of the need for this change to the home. Mr. Moscato felt that the applicant had not demonstrated a hardship of why this application should be granted. Mr. Rednick felt that putting a two-family home on this lot was like putting square peg into a round whole. He noted that it was his opinion that this parcel of land is not able to accommodate a two-family home. Mr. Moscato continued the review, calling for discussion on the single rear yard entrance. The consensus of the Board was that this was not an obstacle. It was noted that a side entrance exists. Ms. Fredman felt that the side entrance would be better than the rear entrance, and she concurred with the Board that the side entrance was okay. Zoning Board of Appeals July 7,2009 Page 4 Mr. Moscato moved the discussion to the parking. The consensus of the Board was that this was problematic. Mr. Moscato asked Village Counsel to craft a resolution. The matter was adjourned to allow counsel time to prepare the resolution. 3) #09-565 Mr. & Mrs. Pratap Pandey (Re-Appearance) 4 Phyllis Place Construct a side two-story addition and a rear one-story addition Paul Benowitz, Architect, addressed the Board. He summed up the presentation made at the previous meeting, noting that this is a small house. Mr. Benowitz clarified that the room downstairs is a study/den/office. There is no basement and this room is also used for storage. There is a need for a real family room and for an additional bedroom. It was also noted that the extension off to the right would not really be two stories. It would be one story, with a roof over it and dormers which makes quite a different appearance then it if was a full two stories. The addition is set back from the front fagade of the home. Part of the proposed construction includes is a one-story addition out the rear. Mr. Benowitz presented the Board with a chart that reflects the different sizes of houses in the area. There are some much larger homes on similar sized properties. Some of these homes are two-story homes. The houses that were expanded were expanded by people who recently purchased the homes. On Phyllis Place a lot of the homes are owned by the original owners. When these houses change hands they will probably be expanded. Mr. Benowitz noted that how you expand a home affects its appearance. The Pandeys are trying to keep this expansion in character with the neighborhood. Mr. Moscato called for questions from the members of the Board. He noted that the spread sheet given to the Board by Mr. Benowitz was very helpful, as were the photographs and google map. Mr. Moscato stated that he made a couple of additional visits to the site to clarify the distance between the property line and the addition. Ms. Fredman referred to the google map. She noted that Mr. Benowitz superimposed on the google map where the addition would be constructed, which Zoning Board of Appeals July 7,2009 Page 5 was very helpful. The addition will go 18' out from the current side, and 15' back from the front fagade. It is a 1 1/2 story addition with the dormers in the front. Mr. Sal Crescenzi noted that some of the homes in this area are 1,000 square foot homes. The second floor bedroom sits on top of the family room and the peak is 7'6". There is a knee wall which is required to be a minimum of 5'. Mr. Moscato called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in support or opposition. The owner of 2 Phyllis Place felt that the photographs were a little deceiving. She expressed her concern over the loss of privacy and the fact that the landscaping proposed would not block her view of the addition. She stressed that the addition moves the Pandey home closer to her, taking away open green space. Mr. Moscato noted that a property owner can build on their property as-of-right as long as they stay within the building envelope. In this instance the side yard setbacks are met and the issue of coming closer to the property line is not an issue. What is being taken into consideration is the excess area being added. It was noted that the applicant was carving out living space from what most people would call attic space. The resident of 2 Phyllis Place questioned the windows being proposed for the addition. It was noted that the window issue would be addressed by the Architectural Review Board. That Board would also address the issue of additional plantings. Mr. Moscato called for the consensus of the Board in reference to granting or not granting the requested variances. He called for a motion to close the public hearing. On a motion made by Ms. Fredman, and seconded by Mr. Crescenzi, the public hearing was closed by a vote of five ayes to zero nays. The Board began its deliberation. The consensus of the Board was that the addition was not a substantial change and that the applicant has mitigated the change to the best of their ability. Mr. Moscato drafted the resolution, with the assistance of the Board members, and read it into the record: Zoning Board of Appeals July 7,2009 Page 6 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Mr. & Mrs. Pratap Pandey for a gross floor area variance of 524 square feet in connection with the proposed construction of a side two-story addition and a rear one-story addition, on property located at 4 Phyllis Place in an R-10 District on the west side of Phyllis Place, 100 feet from the intersection of Sunset Road and Phyllis Place. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 135.73, Block: 1, Lot: 12; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on June 2, 2009 and continued to July 7, 2009, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; WHEREAS, the proposed action is a Type II action pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act and accordingly, no further environmental review is required; and WHEREAS, the Board, from the application and after viewing the premises and neighborhood concerned, finds: 1) Applicant demonstrated the need for additional living space and the benefit sought cannot be achieved other than through an area variance; and 2) The proposed addition is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood as evidenced by the provided supporting data. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the said application is hereby granted. Dated: July 7, 2009 Mr. Moscato, Chairman Mr. Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting Aye Salvatore Crescenzi Voting Aye Michele Fredman Voting Aye Jeffrey Rednick Voting Aye Don Moscato Voting Aye The resolution was passed on a 5 ayes, 0 nays vote. Zoning Board of Appeals July 7,2009 Page 7 Zoning Board of Appeals July 7,2009 Page 8 Mr. Moscato re-called the Coutinho application before the Board. He read the following resolution into the record: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Mr. Trevor Coutinho for the following variances: 1) Change to the exterior of the building; 2) Single rear entrance variance 3) Variance for three (3) off-street parking spaces 4) Variance of 2.8' for a single side yard setback in connection with the proposed construction of a second-story addition; perform interior alterations; and installation of a curb cut at the Highview Avenue elevation to facilitate the legalization of the two-family dwelling, on property located at 20 Wyman Street in an R-2F District on the north side of Wyman Street, at the intersection of Highview Avenue and Wyman Street. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section 141.43; Block 1; Lot 23. WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on June 2, 2009 and continued to July 7, 2009, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; WHEREAS, the proposed action is a Type II action pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act and accordingly, no further environmental review is required; and WHEREAS, the Board, from the application and after viewing the premises and neighborhood concerned, finds: 1) The change to the exterior to accommodate change to a two-family residence is a substantial variance from Code: 2) The requirement of an additional curb cut is substantial (Highview Street); 3) The variances, taken as a whole, are substantial; 4) The need to accommodate the new parking spaces for Highview would result in cars too close to the property line, resulting in an aesthetic detriment to the neighborhood; 5) The applicant's hardship is self-created; Zoning Board of Appeals July 7,2009 Page 9 6) The applicant has not demonstrated a need for the variances that would outweigh the detriment to the neighborhood resulting from the variances. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the following individual variances are hereby denied: 1) DENIED: Change to the exterior of the building; (Vote 0 ayes, 5 nays); 2) DENIED: Variance for three (3) off-street parking spaces (Vote 0 ayes, 5 nays) and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the following individual variances are hereby granted: 1) APPROVED: Single rear entrance variance (Vote 5 ayes, 0 nays); 2) APPROVED: Variance of 2.8' for a single side yard setback (Vote 5 ayes, 0 nays). Dated: July 7, 2009 Mr. Moscato, Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals July 7,2009 Page 10 Zoning Board of Appeals July 7,2009 Page 11 It was noted that Mr. Moscato called the roll for each variance request. It was also noted that two (2) of the four (4) requested variances have been denied. The matter would be returned to the Planning Board with the Zoning Board of Appeals' decision. Jennifer Reinke, Esq. noted that she would prepare a memo to the Planning Board. 4) #09-558 Mr. Pedro Vilca 51 Hawthorne Avenue Reconstruct the missing front wrap-around porch The applicant, Mr. Pedro Vilca, addressed the Board. He noted that he has owned the property for the past eight or nine years and was now proposing to rebuild the porch. The porch serves the two front entrances to the home. The main entrance is now 4' off of the ground and the only way to access the front entrances is to rebuild the porch. He submitted photographs of the home that depicted how the old porch was and how the new porch would be constructed. The porch was removed approximately two (2) years ago because of deterioration. This structure is one of the oldest buildings in Rye Brook. It is a historical building. Mr. Moscato asked the need for the variance. Mr. Vilca stated that the porch must comply with the Village's Code. Although he was proposing the replacement of what was there, the Village's Code has changed over the years. Mr. Crescenzi noted that the zoning for this area is R15A. This was rezoned years ago. This home is located on the corner of Hawthorne and Ridge Street and the applicant is trying to renovate and put it back to the way it was. Jennifer Reinke, Esq. noted that the porch is a non-conforming structure. When the porch was removed the applicant was permitted, as-of-right, to replace it, in kind, within a specific period of time otherwise the porch loses its non-conforming status. Mr. Vilca stated that he did not know that he only had 12 months to replace the porch. Ms. Fredman noted that the porch will not be exactly the same. Mr. Vilca replied that the porch will be 2' closer to the house. It was 10' out and now it will be constructed 8' back. A request for information regarding a shed on the property was made. Mr. Vilca noted that there is no garage or other structure located on this property. He also stated that there are no other structures on lot 51. The shed that is visible from the street is actually on a neighboring property. Zoning Board of Appeals July 7,2009 Page 12 Mr. Moscato noted that there are for sale signs on the home and the lot. Mr. Vilca stated that he hoped to restore the house and sell it. At this time there were no plans for subdividing the property, but it was noted that the lot was over 15,000 square feet and could be separated into two (2) lots. Mr. Vilca pointed out that the porch is critical. It is his intention to try and preserve a historical building, but there is no law to protect the house. It can be knocked down but no one wants to see this 100 year old structure torn down. Jennifer Reinke, Esq. noted that if the house was torn down the variance would apply to the lot; it runs with the land. Mr. Moscato called for questions and comments from the Board. A major concern discussed by the Board was the historical background of this building. Mr. Moscato called for members of the public wishing to address this application. There being no one, he called for a motion to close the public portion of the meeting. On a motion made by Steve Berger, and seconded by Michele Fredman, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Moscato called a brief recess and asked that Village Counsel craft a resolution. Upon the Board's return, the following resolution was read into the record: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Mr. Pedro Vilca for a front yard setback variance of 25.4' at the Hawthorne Avenue elevation and a 33.9' variance at the North Ridge Street elevation and a reduction of the vegetative buffer of 19.6' at the Hawthorne Avenue elevation and 11.1' at the North Ridge Street elevation, in connection with the proposed re-construction the missing front wrap-around porch, on property located at 51 Hawthorne Avenue in an R-15A District on the west side of Hawthorne Avenue, at the intersection of North Ridge Street and Hawthorne Avenue. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 135.75, Block: 1, Lot: 83; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on July 7, 2009, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; WHEREAS, the proposed action is a Type II action pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act and accordingly, no further environmental review is required; and Zoning Board of Appeals July 7,2009 Page 13 WHEREAS, the Board, from the application and after viewing the premises and neighborhood concerned, finds: 1) The porch is needed for access to the existing dwelling; 2) The porch will restore the 114 year old dwelling to its original historic character; and 3) There are no adverse impacts to the neighborhood. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the said application is hereby granted on the following condition: 1) The variance shall only apply to the existing historic structure and shall not apply to the construction of new structures on the property. Dated: July 7, 2009 Moscato, Chairman Mr. Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting Aye Salvatore Crescenzi Voting Aye Michele Fredman Voting Aye Jeffrey Rednick Voting Aye Don Moscato Voting Aye The resolution was passed on a 5 ayes, 0 nays vote. Zoning Board of Appeals July 7,2009 Page 14 Zoning Board of Appeals July 7,2009 Page 15 Mr. Moscato called for the next item on the agenda: 5) #09-559 Mr. John Michaels (Re-Appearance) 51 Mohegan Lane Legalize the existing rear deck Mr. Moscato noted that the applicant requested an adjournment to the August 4th meeting. With the consensus of the Board, the adjournment was granted. Mr. Moscato called for the final item on the agenda: 5) Approval of May 5, 2009 and June 2, 2009 Zoning Board Summaries Mr. Moscato asked that the Board address the May 5, 2009 summary. The consensus was to adopt the summary as amended. Mr. Moscato called the roll and the summary was adopted on a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. Mr. Moscato called for discussion of the June summary. Jennifer Reinke, Esq. noted that she had some changes that were not substantive. The June summary was adopted, as amended by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. On a motion made by Ms. Fredman, and seconded by Mr. Berger, the meeting was adjourned by a vote of 5 ayes to 0 nays at 10:01 p.m. Zoning Board of Appeals July 7,2009 Page 16