Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-11-03 - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes Village of Rye Brook 938 King Street ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS November 3, 2009 Meeting at 8:00 p.m. AGENDA 1) #09-572 Mr. & Mrs. William Russillo (Re-Appearance) 11 Knollwood Drive Construct a new rear deck 2) #09-561 Mr. & Mrs. Brian Berk (Re-Appearance) 11 Edgewood Drive Legalize the rear sports court, spa/patio and chain link fence 3) #09-576 AGENT: Lite Brite Signs For Win Ridge Realty 100 South Ridge Street Install two signs ("CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL") on the converted theatre building; one at the South Ridge Street elevation and one at the Bowman Avenue elevation 4) #09-575 Win Ridge Realty 1 Rye Ridge Plaza Install two wall signs ("RYE RIDGE") on the existing building at the converted theatre 5) #09-578 Mr. & Mrs. Amir Leshem 7 Sleepy Hollow Road Construct a one-story addition, a two-story addition, and a second- story addition 6) Approval of August 4, 2009, September 1, 2009, and October 6, 2009 Zoning Board Summaries Zoning Board of Appeals November 3,2009 Page 1 BOARD: Don Moscato, Chairman Salvatore Crescenzi Michele Fredman Jeffrey Rednick Excused: Steve Berger STAFF: Michael Izzo, Building Inspector Jennifer L. Reinke, Esq., Village Counsel Marilyn Timpone Mohamed, Village Consultant Fred Seifert, Public Access Coordinator Paula Patafio, Meeting Secretary BOARD OF TRUSTEE LIAISON: Trustee Paul Rosenberg Mr. Don Moscato, Chairman, welcomed everyone to the November 3, 2009 meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. He introduced Village staff and consultants. He noted that Steve Berger was excused from the meeting. In order for an application to be granted the applicant must receive three (3) aye votes. He stated that each applicant would be given the opportunity to adjourn to the next meeting, when there may be a full board, or to move forward this evening. Mr. Moscato called for the first item on the agenda: 1) #09-572 Mr. & Mrs. William Russillo (Re-Appearance) 11 Knollwood Drive Construct a new rear deck Mr. Moscato noted that a request to adjourn has been submitted by John G. Scarlato, Jr., the architect for the applicant. The applicant is revising the deck size and will submit amended plans. With the consensus of the Board, Mr. Moscato granted the adjournment. Zoning Board of Appeals November 3,2009 Page 2 Mr. Moscato called for item 92 on the agenda: 2) #09-561 Mr. & Mrs. Brian Berk (Re-Appearance) 11 Edgewood Drive Legalize the rear sports court, spa/patio and chain link fence Mr. Brian Berk, applicant, addressed the Board. He asked that he be allowed to make his presentation, but stated that he preferred to adjourn the application to the December meeting. Jennifer Reinke, Esq., Village Counsel, noted that the applicant could make the presentation and then the vote could be adjourned. Mr. Berk began his presentation by noting that the Board has been provided with an amended report, which shows that the property was re-surveyed to determine whether or not the sports court is within the wetlands buffer. The new survey shows that the project is not within the 100' buffer of the wetlands. The wetland specialist referred to in the report has sent an email to the Village, which was made part of the record. Mr. Berk noted that he reviewed the report and the questions about soil sampling have been resolved. He stated that he did not remove any trees from the property in order to construct the sports court, and noted that a portion of the property was re-graded to level the area. Mr. Berk offered to respond to questions from the Board and members of the public. Mr. Moscato noted that there were photographs taken of the property, which he requested be made part of the application. Mr. Michael Izzo, Building and Fire Inspector, addressed the Board. He discussed the photos taken of Mr. Berk's property, noting that the date the photo was taken was in the lower right hand corner of the photo. He showed the Board each picture, explained where it was taken from, and what it showed, i.e.: the blue mat, 6'x 6 railroad ties, the slope, the Beechwood Tree, and the area that was described. It was noted that one of the photographs, a close-up of a net, shows a way that soil is kept from washing away. Another photo is of the net that catches the balls. The slope is on the side of the court. Mr. Berk noted that there was a swing set on the property, which was removed. The area where the sports court has been constructed was basically a flat portion of property, with the exception of one corner, which was built up. Zoning Board of Appeals November 3,2009 Page 3 Ms. Marilyn Timpone Mohamed, Village Consultant, addressed the Board. She noted that she was asked to review the information available to see what potential environmental issues were related to the construction. There are no as-built plans and so it is difficult to go back and look at the site and determine what was there before. She noted that two aerial photographs have been submitted. She stated that she did not make a site visit, however, from the mapping she could ascertain that certain things were done. She stated that in order to construct the sports court the disturbance was not limited to the court itself. The court is 42' x 35' feet; a total of 1400 square feet, therefore, the area of disturbance is greater than 1400 square feet. She also noted that based on the mapping it looks as if the slope range is 10% to 27% slopes. These are regulated slopes within Rye Brook's Code, however, there is no way to determine the exact amount of steep slopes that have been disturbed. Based on documentation from the applicant, the southwest corner is approximately 5' to 6' above the existing slope. The work was done at the corner of the property; furthest away from the Terranova property. Ms. Timpone Mohamed estimated that the disturbance area would have been approximately 900 square feet. If an application had been submitted, the grading would have required site plan review by the Planning Board. It is impossible to determine where the edge of the wetland was. The survey shows where the stream lays now, but streams do not stay in the same place. Ms. Timpone Mohamed stated that it appears that there may have been trees taken down. She noted that the grading practices used on the site were very poor as evidenced by the old fashioned matting used to stabilize slopes. One thing is certain, the slopes were being stabilized because the person laying the mats had concern that the soil would wash away. The trees have fill pressed against them and it can rot the bark. Mitigation should include removing the soil from around those trees. Mr. Moscato questioned how close the slope was to the stream. Mr. Izzo noted that it was between 15' and 17' feet behind the court. Soil has been dumped behind the court, as have rocks and other debris. Mr. Izzo noted that installing this sort of structure requires digging and excavation, which means that workers were in that area digging. Ms. Timpone Mohamed noted that the survey gives an approximate location of the stream, however, the width of the wetlands cannot be determined by the survey. If the stream is wider than shown on the survey, then the buffer moves closer to the court. Until the stream area is delineated there is no way to determine where the wetland buffer starts. At this time there is not enough information to determine the edge of the stream and the extent of the 100' buffer. Zoning Board of Appeals November 3,2009 Page 4 Ms. Fredman questioned what changes the volume and pattern of the stream's flow. Ms. Timpone Mohamed noted that rain fall and/or a change in grade has the potential of changing the flow pattern of the stream. Ms. Fredman asked if Ms. Timpone Mohamed could go back and see what the stream bed was like before the installation of the sports court, about three (3)years ago. She asked that the Village's consultant extrapolate information from the project in 2005 and see if the stream was wider at that time. Mr. Berk noted that he has not seen any great change in the stream over the past 13 years. Mr. Moscato noted that both the steep slopes and the re-grading of the property would have triggered a site plan review. He suggested that the Board make a site visit. Mr. Moscato called for members of the public wishing to address this application. Dean Santon of Hillendale Road addressed the Board. Mr. Santon is also a Trustee of the Village, but was addressing the Board as a resident. He began by noting that you cannot grade within 25' of a tree and, clearly, that is not what has happened here. Also to be considered are the steep slopes on the property. He felt that the application should be reviewed by the Planning Board. Mr. Jeffrey Rednick agreed with Mr. Santon that the matter should be heard by the Planning Board. Mr. Moscato concurred. Ms. Michele Fredman also agreed, noting that there were too many planning considerations. Mr. Berk noted that he is trying to be as cooperative as possible, and has provided the Village with all of the information that has been requested. The application was adjourned to the December 1, 2009 meeting. Mr. Moscato called for item #3: 3) #09-576 AGENT: Lite Brite Signs For Win Ridge Realty 100 South Ridge Street Install two signs ("CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL") on the converted theatre building; one at the South Ridge Street elevation and one at the Bowman Avenue elevation Mr. Shawn Dixon, representative for the applicant, addressed the Board. He stated that the applicant would like to make a brief presentation, but that they preferred to adjourn the matter to the December meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. He noted that the applicant was requesting permission to install two signs; each sign being 32 square feet. Zoning Board of Appeals November 3,2009 Page 5 He felt that the proposed signage was consistent with the character of the community, and that the signs would not overpower the facade of the building. It was also noted that this structure is set back from the street and is below the grade level of South Ridge Street. Because of the orientation of the property, the applicant is requesting two (2) signs; one visible from South Ridge Street and one visible from Bowman Avenue. Mr. Moscato noted that if the size of the signs were reduced, the applicant would require only one variance— for the second sign. Dean Santon of Hillendale Road addressed the Board. He noted that he had a chance to see the renderings of the signs but not their placements. He felt that the restaurant would not be at a disadvantage by having only one sign on the building. With the consensus of the Board, the matter was adjourned to December 1, 2009. The public hearing was not closed. Mr. Moscato called for item #4: 4) #09-575 Win Ridge Realty 1 Rye Ridge Plaza Install two wall signs ("RYE RIDGE") on the existing building at the converted theatre The applicant's legal counsel, Katherine Zalantis, Esq., from the firm of Silberberg Zalantis, LLP addressed the Board. She introduced the representatives from Win Ridge Realty. She noted that the applicant was considering requesting an adjournment, however, she also noted that the applicant was looking for an interpretation of the Building Inspector's Notice of Disapproval. A letter was submitted by the applicant to the Village the week prior to the meeting. Mr. Moscato noted that he had not received the letter and requested a copy from Attorney Zalantis. Upon inspection of the letter it was noted that it was addressed to the wrong municipality, which accounted for why it was not received. Attorney Zalantis apologized for the error. She summarized the position of the applicant, noting that they were trying to create a sense of destination. The goal is to keep the shopping center viable in these tough economic times and to give the merchants the opportunity to succeed. The applicant has invested a substantial amount of money in the plaza side of the shopping center over the past few years. Attorney Zalantis reviewed the criteria by which the Zoning Board must review an application. She stated that the applicant was taking the position that no variance was required since they were replacing the existing signage with a more conforming signage. Zoning Board of Appeals November 3,2009 Page 6 It was noted that the tenants apply for their own signs. It was also noted that this matter has not been before the Planning Board, but has been reviewed by the Architectural Review Board (ARB). Mr. Izzo explained that the matter was put on the agenda of the ARB in error while he was on vacation. Mr. Salvatore Crescenzi noted that the Village's Code has changed quite a bit since 1974. There have been many changes to the shopping center since that time. South Ridge Street and Bowman Avenue are two entryways into Rye Brook. He felt that the variances requested were significant. Attorney Reinke noted that there were two applications before the Zoning Board. The first was a determination of the Building Inspector's decision. If the decision is deemed to be correct, then the second application is for relief in the form of a variance. Mr. Izzo noted that there is a free standing sign which contains the names of the stores. Dean Santon, in his capacity as a resident, noted that the Village has worked with the applicant over the years and has been very supportive. He pointed out that there are residential areas that abut the shopping center property. He suggested that perhaps the signage for the center should be reviewed in totality. The application was adjourned to the December 1st meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Moscato called for item #5: 5) #09-578 Mr. & Mrs. Amir Leshem 7 Sleepy Hollow Road Construct a one-story addition, a two-story addition, and a second- story addition Mary Faithorn Scott, Architect for the applicant, addressed the Board. She introduced the applicants, Mr. & Mrs. Leshem. She noted that two variances were required. The first was a front height setback ratio variance, and the second was a gross floor area variance. The maximum allowable front height setback is .60 where the applicant is proposing a setback ratio of .70 at the Sleepy Hollow frontage. The second variance is for 580 square feet. The allowable gross floor area for this property is 3,957 square feet and 4,537 square feet is proposed. Zoning Board of Appeals November 3,2009 Page 7 Ms. Faithorn Scott described the property, noting that the home was a 1950 split level with a small galley kitchen and small bedrooms. The applicant provided the board with photos of other homes in the area which are over the Floor Area Ratio (FAR). Many of these homes have been updated. The design of the applicant's home is in keeping with the neighborhood, and achieves the goal of meeting the family's needs. Nine neighbors have submitted letters in support of the plans. Mr. Moscato questioned whether or not this is the minimum variance that can be requested in order to achieve the applicant's purpose. The house was built in 1957 and in 1994 a two story addition was constructed— as of right. In 2003 a pool was added. There are no accessory buildings on site. Ms. Faithorn Scott noted that the pitch of the roof has already reduced. She felt that the variance being requested was very small considering the visual effect it will have on this home. Mr. Moscato noted that the footprint of the house increases by about 25%. Although this is a large lot; 21,000 square feet, this is still a substantial increase to the footprint. Mrs. Leshem noted that variances have been granted for projects on much smaller lots. It was also noted that the applicant will be adding a third garage. No trees will be removed in creating the third garage, and the curb cut will remain the same. Ms. Fredman felt that the variances were significant. She noted that this project would be adding impervious surface. She felt that the applicant should consider retaining additional storm water on the property. Mr. Izzo noted that a storm water plan would be submitted as part of the application process. Mr. Moscato called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in support or opposition. There being no one, and no further questions from the Board, the public portion of the meeting was closed by a motion made by Jeff Rednick and seconded by Michele Fredman. Mr. Moscato called the roll: Salvatore Crescenzi Voting Aye Michele Fredman Voting Aye Jeffrey Rednick Voting Aye Don Moscato, Chairman Voting Aye Upon the Board's conclusion of its deliberation, Mr. Moscato read the following resolution: Zoning Board of Appeals November 3,2009 Page 8 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Mr. & Mrs. Amir Leshem for a front height setback ratio variance and a gross floor area variance in connection with the proposed construction of a one-story addition; a two-story addition; and a second-story addition on property located at 7 Sleepy Hollow Road in an R-15 District on the north side of Sleepy Hollow Road, at the intersection of Lawridge Drive and Sleepy Hollow Road. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section 129.75, Block 1, Lot 17; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on November 3, 2009, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and 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, after viewing the premises and neighborhood concerned, and upon considering each of the factors set forth at Section 250-13(G)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brook Code finds: 1) The variances will not create an undesirable change to the neighborhood because the applicant has removed a design change to reduce the size of height of the gable; 2) The variances will not create an adverse effect on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and 3) The variances are self-created. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the said application is hereby granted on the following conditions: 1) The storm water management plan submitted to the Building Department be designed pursuant to Village of Rye Brook Code and also capture as much additional impervious surface coverage as practical given the physical dimensions of the property. DATED: November 3, 2009 Don Moscato, Chairman Mr. Moscato called the roll: Salvatore Crescenzi Voting Aye Michele Fredman Voting Aye Jeffrey Rednick Voting Aye Don Moscato, Chairman Voting Aye Zoning Board of Appeals November 3,2009 Page 9 Zoning Board of Appeals November 3,2009 Page 10 6) Approval of August 4, 2009, September 1, 2009, and October 6, 2009 Zoning Board Summaries The Board approved the August 4, 2009 summary. Changes and corrections were submitted for the September 1, 2009 and October 6, 2009 summaries, and approval was adjourned to the next meeting. There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 11:40 p.m. Zoning Board of Appeals November 3,2009 Page 11