Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-09-01 - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes Village of Rye Brook 938 King Street ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS September 1, 2009 Meeting at 8:00 p.m. AGENDA 1) #09-562 Mr. Michael Tucci (Re-Appearance) 226 South Ridge Street Legalize and partially remodel the existing finished converted garage/basement 2) #09-559 Mr. John Michaels (Re-Appearance) 51 Mohegan Lane Legalize the existing rear deck 3) #09-572 Mr. & Mrs. William Russillo (Re-Appearance) 11 Knollwood Drive Construct a new rear deck 4) #09-550 Mr. & Mrs. Daniel Dragomir 15 Brook Lane Legalize rear patio on grade and stand-by generator 5) Approval of July 7, 2009 Zoning Board Summary BOARD: Don Moscato, Chairman Michele Fredman Jeffrey Rednick Excused: Steve Berger Salvatore Crescenzi STAFF: Michael Izzo, Building Inspector Jennifer L. Reinke, Esq.,Village Counsel Fred Seifert, Public Access Coordinator Paula Patafio, Meeting Secretary Zoning Board of Appeals September 1,2009 Page 1 Mr. Don Moscato, Chairman, welcomed everyone to the September 1, 2009 meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. He introduced Village staff and Counsel, and began the meeting by noting that Mr. Crescenzi and Mr. Berger were excused from the meeting. The result is that with three (3) members of the Board in attendance the applicants would require all three (3) yes votes in order for the variance requests to be approved. Mr. Moscato noted that as each applicant was called upon they would be offered the option of continuing or adjourning to the October meeting when there might be a full compliment of the Board. Mr. Moscato took two (2) matters out of order. He noted that a request was received from Mr. John Michaels to adjourn his application to the October Zoning Board meeting. The second request for adjournment came from Mr. & Mrs. William Russillo, who submitted a letter to Mr. Michael Izzo, Building Inspector. The Board agreed to grant both adjournments. Mr. Moscato called for the first item on the agenda: 1) #09-562 Mr. Michael Tucci (Re-Appearance) 226 South Ridge Street Legalize and partially remodel the existing finished converted garage/basement Demetrios Adamis, Esq., from the firm of Gioffre and Gioffre, legal counsel for the applicant addressed the Board. Mr. Adamis began his presentation with a brief background on the application. He stated that the applicant is seeking to restore 226 South Ridge Street to a one-family home. The garage was converted to living space in 1966, prior to the applicant's purchase of the home in 1998. At the time the applicant purchased the home he occupied the dwelling. The planned alterations are minor and will not modify the exterior at all. This application responds to the Village's concerns regarding occupancy. The issue of impervious surface coverage was brought up at a prior meeting and the applicant's architect has provided data regarding impervious surface coverage on this property. Mr. Adamis requested an adjournment to the October meeting. The consensus of the Board was to grant the adjournment. It was noted that this was a public hearing and members of the public were in attendance, therefore, Mr. Moscato called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in support or opposition to the application. Zoning Board of Appeals September 1,2009 Page 2 Dean Santon noted that he was addressing the Board as a resident and not in his capacity as Village Trustee. He stated that the last time this matter was before the Board was in June and the impervious surface coverage question that was raised pertained to coverage in the front yard. He stated that it appears that more than 30% of the front yard is impervious surface. Michael Izzo, Building Inspector, noted that a memo was received from the applicant's architect that shows that the impervious coverage for the total lot coverage is compliant. However, it does not address the issue of front yard coverage. He requested that the applicant instruct his architect to prepare this information for review by staff and the Zoning Board members. Mr. Santon pointed out that the home was being used illegally as a two-family dwelling. Violations were issued and the applicant attempted to convert the home to a two-family home. The application changed and now the applicant was seeking a variance for parking from the Zoning Board. Mr. Santon felt that there was better solution to the problem. Converting the garage back to parking means one less car parking in front of the home. It would also mean that some of the impervious surface could be removed, and the size of the variance would be reduced. Mr. Adamis noted that the garage was converted in 1966. The inspection and application process at that time was less formal. Asking the applicant to restore the garage causes a financial hardship on the applicant. There is no detriment to the neighborhood and no added burden on the community by leaving the garage as living space. There is a benefit to the Village in connection with returning the home to a one-family dwelling. Initially the applicant was requesting permission to convert the home to a two-family dwelling. The applicant has made concessions. In working with the Village the applicant has come to the point where they are happy to move forward with legalizing a one-family home. Mr. Adamis noted that the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment. Mr. Adamis noted this would be an expanded one-family home with a bedroom in the basement. Mr. Izzo noted that if the variance is approved, then the application would be further reviewed. He stated that the only portion of the application that was before the Zoning Board was the parking issue. Mr. Izzo reiterated his request to have the applicant's architect prepared the calculations as to what the amount of impervious coverage is in the front yard. Mr. Adamis pointed out that the variance request is for three parking spaces, each space being 9' x 19'. The parking has been this way for many years and there have never been any issues regarding the parking on this property. Zoning Board of Appeals September 1,2009 Page 3 Mr. Moscato directed that the applicant's architect provide the Board with the additional information requested regarding front yard impervious surface coverage. And, with the consensus of the Board, the matter was adjourned to the October meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Moscato called for the next matter on the agenda: 4) #09-550 Mr. & Mrs. Daniel Dragomir 15 Brook Lane Legalize rear patio on grade and stand-by generator Peter Klein, architect, addressed the Board. He stated that he provided information to the Board regarding the generator, including the decibel reading. Mr. Klein stated that the applicant has chosen to accept the Board's offer and be adjourned to the October meeting. Mr. Moscato noted that this was a public hearing, and asked for a brief overview of the matter for the benefit of the public. Mr. Klein responded that the applicant was asking for a variance on the location of the generator and the maximum amount of impervious coverage for an on-grade patio that was constructed in the rear of the home. The patio and generator were constructed in 2008 during a second story addition. It was noted that in June of 2006 an application was made for the construction of a second story addition, but no mention of a patio or generator was made. During construction the Building Department noticed the additional work and a Notice of Violation was issued. As a result, the applicant is now before the Zoning Board seeking relief in the form of variances. Mrs. Dragomir noted that the generator was installed on what they believed was the side of the home. She stated that it is fully screened by landscaping. They had extra stone and extended the patio, not realizing that it needed a variance. The issue is the amount of impervious surface coverage. Photographs of the generator have been presented to the Board. Mrs. Dragomir noted that during power outages they had rented a diesel generator. This new generator much quieter. Mr. Moscato noted that many residents would like to install permanent generators. They make an application to the Village to ensure that the installation is code compliant. There are matters to be reviewed such as noise, location, setbacks. In a sense, if people are allowed to install permanent generators without supervision Zoning Board of Appeals September 1,2009 Page 4 and approval problems could arise. There are provisions within the Village's Code that must be followed. Mr. Moscato called for members of the public wishing to address this application. Dean Santon, once again as a resident, addressed the Board. He noted that these homes are on a flood plain. The western branch of the Blind Brook is right down the street. In the flood plain, more than anywhere, additional impervious surface is important. He could not understand how an electrical contractor did not know that electrical permits needed to be applied for with the installation of the generator. He pointed out that there was no permit for this generator at all. If the generator was placed in the right location then no variance would be required, but a permit would still have been required. He felt that correcting this matter meant zero hardship for the applicant and that it should be moved to the proper location. The professionals for this applicant should have known that variances were required. It was also noted that neighbors of the applicant have complained. Mr. Moscato asked for a clarification on the size of the stone patio. He noted that in viewing the plans it is clear that this patio is quite large. It was noted that if the patio was 508 square feet less there would be no need for a variance. The applicant noted that she would be willing to remove a portion of the patio to correct this problem. Mr. Moscato granted the adjournment to the October meeting. 5) Approval of July 7, 2009 Zoning Board Summary Jennifer Reinke, Esq., Village Counsel, requested one additional minor change to the summary. The Board approved the summary as amended. There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 8:44 p.m. Zoning Board of Appeals September 1,2009 Page 5