Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-12-01 - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes Village of Rye Brook 938 King Street ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS December 1, 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 evaluation 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) #09-579 Mr. Michael Keilman 17 Berkley Lane Construct a second-story garage addition; a second-story rear addition; a two-story rear addition; a new front portico; and a new rear deck. 6) #09-582 Dr. & Mrs. Stanley Rothman 2 Elm Hill Drive Subdivide the property thereby reducing the size of the lot, and legalize the existing non-conforming front yard setback. Zoning Board of Appeals December 1,2009 Page 1 7) Approval of November 3, 2009 Zoning Board Summary BOARD: Don Moscato, Chairman Steve Berger Salvatore Crescenzi Michele Fredman Jeffrey Rednick STAFF: Michael Izzo, Building Inspector Fred Seifert, Public Access Coordinator Paula Patafio, Meeting Secretary BOARD OF TRUSTEE LIAISON: Trustee Paul Rosenberg BOARD OF TRUSTEE MEMBER: Dean Santon Mr. Don Moscato, Chairman, welcomed everyone to the December 1, 2009 meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. He introduced Village staff and consultants, and noted that there was a full compliment of the Board, however, Jennifer Reinke, Esq., Village Counsel, was excused from attendance at the meeting. 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 had been received from the applicant and, with the consensus of the Board, the adjournment was granted. Zoning Board of Appeals December 1,2009 Page 2 Item #2 was called before the Board: 2) #09-561 Mr. & Mrs. Brian Berk (Re-Appearance) 11 Edgewood Drive Legalize the rear sports court, spa/patio and chain link fence Mr. Moscato noted that the applicant has retained counsel and his counsel has requested an adjournment to the January, 2010 meeting to allow him the time needed to review the issue. The Board granted the adjournment. 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 evaluation and one at the Bowman Avenue elevation Shawn Dixon, the representative for the applicant, addressed the Board. He noted that this was the second appearance for the applicant. He reviewed the application, noting that the applicant was originally seeking permission to install two wall mounted signs, with a total square footage of 64 square feet. The applicant has amended the request, reducing the size of the signs to 30 square feet each. Mr. Dixon noted that this property is setback 450' from South Ridge Street, and the location of the building is below street grade level. The applicant will occupy the corner of the building, which faces both Bowman Avenue and South Ridge. The signs are designed to obtain visibility from the two thoroughfares. The restaurant entrance will be located on South Ridge Street. Mr. Dixon noted that he supported the application with exhibits that were submitted at the prior meeting. He noted that stores such as the sports store and pharmacy have better visibility because of their locations and yet their signs are larger than what is allowed by Village Code. He felt that the signage the applicant was requesting was reasonable, and would not affect the character of the area. Mr. Moscato thanked the applicant for reconsidering the size of the signs, which reduced the number of variances required. Ms. Michele Fredman noted that the applicant compared their visibility to that of the pharmacy and the sports store. She felt that the applicant's position was better Zoning Board of Appeals December 1,2009 Page 3 than both of these stores. She suggested that one (1) 30' sign be installed on South Ridge Street and perhaps a 10' sign on the Bowman Avenue side. Mr. Moscato stated that he reviewed the Village's Code as it pertains to signs. He noted that some of the signage within the shopping center is non-compliant, and reminded the Board that each application is viewed on its own merits. He called for members of the public wishing to be heard in support or opposition to the application. There being no one wishing to address this matter, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. On a motion made by Jeffrey Rednick, and seconded by Salvatore Crescenzi, the public hearing was closed. The Board began deliberation. After a brief discussion, Mr. Mosacto noted that the consensus of the Board was that granting the variance would not affect the character of the neighborhood, nor did it create a detriment. The Board prepared a resolution, which Mr. Moscato read into the record: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Win Ridge Realty for a sign size variance and a sign quantity variance in connection with the proposed installation of two (2) signs on the converted theatre building; one (1) at the South Ridge Street elevation and one (1) at the Bowman Avenue elevation, on property located at 100 South Ridge Street in a C1-P District on the west side of South Ridge Street, at the intersection of Bowman Avenue and South Ridge Street. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook, as Section 141.27, Block: 1, Lot: 6; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on November 3, 2009, and continued on December 1, 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: Zoning Board of Appeals December 1,2009 Page 4 1) The variance permitting two (2) signs is consistent with the existing character of the neighborhood because Chase Bank, which is similarly situated to the applicant in terms of location, has two (2) signs (one on its Bowman Avenue elevation and one on its South Ridge Street elevation); 2) The variances will not create an adverse effect on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; 3) Although the variances are mathematically substantial due to the additional sign, the addition of a second sign will not have a substantial impact on the neighborhood; 4) The benefit sought by the applicant (visibility) cannot be achieved by some other method, feasible for the applicant to pursue; and 5) The alleged difficulty is self-created. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the said application for a variance from the maximum allowable number of signs is hereby granted. DATED: December 1, 2009 Don Moscato, Chairman Mr. Moscato called the roll: Steve Berger Voting Aye Salvatore Crescenzi Voting Aye Michele Fredman Voting Nay Jeffrey Rednick Voting Aye Don Moscato, Chairman Voting Aye Variance granted on a vote four (4) ayes and one (1) nay. Zoning Board of Appeals December 1,2009 Page 5 Zoning Board of Appeals December 1,2009 Page 6 4) #09-575 Win Ridge Realty 1 Rye Ridge Plaza Install two wall signs ("RYE RIDGE") on the existing building at the converted theatre Catherine Zalantis, Esq., of the firm of Silberberg Zalantis, LLP, addressed the Board as legal counsel for the applicant. She noted that a letter was submitted on November 19, 2009 to address the concerns of the Zoning Board from the prior month's meeting. She noted that there was significantly less signage being proposed then what was there. The location of the signs has been depicted on the plans. Rick Hoag, architect, addressed the Board. He stated that the applicant has created a plaza area in the center. When the fagade was renovated, the applicant was looking to replace the sign on the Bowman Avenue side of the building. Now that the signage for the movie theater has been removed, the applicant has proposed signage which is an architectural element of the corner of the building. It was noted that there will be two lower level tenants that will front on the Plaza side. The signage for the new tenants are not part of the applicants' application. Mr. Berger noted that there will be changes to the free standing sign on Bowman Avenue and on South Ridge Street. It was pointed out that there is no application in connection with the signage on South Ridge Street. Mr. Moscato questioned what dictated the need for such a large sign. The applicant said that the section of this building is unique in that it faces both South Ridge Street and Bowman Avenue. There has been a trend in recent years in trying to brand shopping centers. For instance, "You can find it in Rye Ridge." The tenants of the center need a marker. Improvements have tied the east and west side of the shopping center together. The only signs that will go on the plaza building are the location signs. The store signs will go on the awnings in front of each store. The proposed signage is a channel letter sign. The front sign is colored green, and the sides are translucent. At night the sign will light up and will only glow out of the front of each letter. Mr. Moscato called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in support or opposition to the application. There being no one, 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. The Board began its deliberation starting with the need for Zoning Board of Appeals December 1,2009 Page 7 "branding." They also discussed the fact that the signage being proposed is much smaller than the signage that previously existed on the theater. Mr. Moscato read the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Win Ridge Realty for two (2) sign total variances (91.6 square feet— 30 = 61.6 square feet) in connection with the proposed installation of two (2) wall signs on the existing building at the converted theatre, on property located at 1 Rye Ridge Plaza in a C1-P District on the west side of South Ridge Street, at the intersection of Bowman Avenue and South Ridge Street. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook, as Section 141.27, Block: 1, Lot: 6; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on November 3, 2009, and continued on December 1, 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) No undesirable change to the community; 2) Requested variance is substantial, but reduces overall variance from previous sized signage; and 3) No adverse effect on physical or environmental conditions of neighborhood. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the said application is hereby granted. DATED: December 1, 2009 Don 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 Zoning Board of Appeals December 1,2009 Page 8 The variance was granted on a vote five ayes and zero nays. Zoning Board of Appeals December 1,2009 Page 9 Zoning Board of Appeals December 1,2009 Page 10 5) #09-579 Mr. Michael Keilman 17 Berkley Lane Construct a second-story garage addition; a second-story rear addition; a two-story rear addition; a new front portico; and a new rear deck. The project architect, Justin Minieri, began the presentation for the Board. He noted that the applicant is proposing the construction of a one-story, one bay, garage addition. Currently there are two garage bays. Above the garage the applicant is looking to expand the family room and add an additional bedroom. A portico will be added to the front of the home, and a new deck will be constructed in the rear of the home. The dining room will also be expanded to align with the current kitchen. The proposed construction results in a 12% increase, which is a total of 486 square feet over the allowable gross floor area. Because of the topography of the property, the slope in the rear exposes the basement which results in the basement being considered in the allowable square footage. Mr. Minieri presented the Board with photographs of the house as it currently exists. He also presented the Board with comparables within the notification circle. Mr. Minieri noted that the variance requested is not a large variance. This is a modest modification to this home. The proposed construction will not cause a detriment to the neighborhood. The deck is in poor condition and it is being replaced. Mr. Izzo, Building Inspector, was asked about storm water management. He responded that a storm water management program will need to be created. The Architectural Review Board (ARB) will review landscaping. Mr. Moscato called for questions from the Board. He noted that the applicant was before the Zoning Board to see if the variances would be granted and then the matter will return to the Planning Board to address the outstanding issues. Mike Fineman, engineer, noted that the application was before the Planning Board. The storm water management plan will be presented to the Village. The additional impervious surface comes from the driveway. He noted that the front of the house is higher than the rear of the home, and that the property slopes toward Ridge Street. There is a change in elevation; the property is higher on Berkley than on Ridge Street. There is a 4' drop. Mr. Moscato noted that Ms. Timpone Mohamed, Village Consultant, has reviewed this application. Ms. Fredman noted that this is a work in progress. There is a Zoning Board of Appeals December 1,2009 Page 11 request for a stone wall. Mr. Fineman noted that the wall is proposed for the driveway because of re-grading work that will take place. The wall will start out as a 3' high wall and will taper to ground level. It will support the grade. This property has a scenic road overlay buffer. The existing driveway and proposed wall is in the front yard setback. It was noted that the Board of Trustees is in the process of reviewing and amending the portion of the Village's Code that deals with the Scenic Overlay District. Mr. Izzo noted that this lot can support a little over 7000 square feet of impervious surface and the applicant is proposing 4600 of impervious coverage. This is a very large lot. Mr. Moscato called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in support or opposition. There being no one, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. On a motion made by Salvatore Crescenzi, and seconded by Jeffrey Rednick, the public hearing was closed. 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 Board went into deliberation, and the following resolution was prepared and read into the record: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Mr. Michael Keilman for a Scenic Roads Overlay District front yard setback variance of 17.09 feet, a Scenic Roads Overlay District vegetative buffer variance of 712 feet, and a gross floor area variance of 485.4 square feet in connection with the proposed construction of a first story garage, a second story rear addition, a two story rear addition, a new front portico and a new rear deck on property located at 17 Berkley Lane in an R- 15 District on the east side of Berkley Lane, 360 feet from the intersection of Berkley Lane and Berkley Drive. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Villager of Rye Brook, as Section 135.43, Block: 1, Lot: 8; and Zoning Board of Appeals December 1,2009 Page 12 WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on December 1, 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 result in an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood because no improvements proposed to be constructed within the expanded front yard setback and vegetative buffer required pursuant to the Scenic Roads Overlay District regulations will be visible from Ridge Street, which is the scenic road and the gross floor area variance is consistent with the character of the neighborhood; 2) The variances will not create an adverse effect on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; 3) The variances are not substantial because the Scenic Roads Overlay District variances will have no detrimental impact on the neighborhood since the Scenic Roads Overlay District regulations were not intended to encompass frontages like Berkley Lane, which are not visible from the scenic road and the gross floor area variance is larger than it would otherwise be due to the inclusion of the basement in the overall square footage of the house; 4) The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some other method., feasible for the applicant to pursue; 5) The alleged difficulty is self-created; and 6) The variance required is the minimum necessary to achieve the benefit sought by the applicant. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the said application for variances is hereby granted. DATED: December 1, 2009 Don 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 Variance granted on a vote five ayes and zero nays. Zoning Board of Appeals December 1,2009 Page 13 Zoning Board of Appeals December 1,2009 Page 14 6) #09-582 Dr. & Mrs. Stanley Rothman 2 Elm Hill Drive Subdivide the property thereby reducing the size of the lot, and legalize the existing non-conforming front yard setback. Mr. Moscato noted that this application has been before the Planning Board, and has now been put before the Zoning Board of Appeals for a determination as to whether or not the requested variances would be granted. The applicant was asked to give a chronological report of the changes made to-date at the suggestion of the Planning Board. The applicant's architect, Mr. Douglas Vaggi, addressed the Board. He stated that the variances being requested are the result of the proposed sub-division. The applicants have owned the house for the past 27 years. They are now looking to downsize, but stay in Rye Brook. They put the house on the market and found that developers were interested in the property, and not the home. Their goal was to take down the mansion house and sub-divide the property. The applicants took the house off of the market and began to review alternative ways of obtaining their goals, and protecting the mansion. After much review, a sub-division line has been established. In order to make the sub-division work a 20' strip along Betsy Brown must be included in the square footage of the newly created lot. This strip of land will remain undeveloped. Now no variances are required for the proposed home, but four variances are required for 2 Elm Hill Drive. The first variance will be for the front yard setback. The existing garage, constructed in the 1950's, will be legalized as part of the application. The next variance involves impervious surface coverage. A portion of the existing driveway will be removed to lessen the impact. The applicant has met with the Planning Board with a full package of plans for the two properties. At that time there was a separate one-family house proposed with a detached garage. This plan needed variances for the garage and total impervious lot coverage. The Planning Board, and Village Consultant, suggested that the applicant take another look at the plans and come up with a way to reduce the number of variances required. The new sub-division plans reduced the variances required to four, one of which is pre-existing. Mr. Moscato noted that his preference would be to grant variances on the new lot versus creating an odd shaped lot. Ms. Fredman noted that what the applicant was doing was admirable. They are attempting to preserve a structure, and create two lots that would prohibit further sub-division. Zoning Board of Appeals December 1,2009 Page 15 Mr. Rednick noted that the Zoning Board is charged with minimizing the size and number of variances. He stated that he was not troubled by the creation of the odd shaped lot. Mr. Berger concurred with Mr. Rednick. Mr. Moscato called for members of the public wishing to address the application in support or opposition. Dean Santon of Hillendale Road addressed the Board as a resident of the Village and not in his capacity of Trustee. He noted that this is a unique property. He agreed with Mr. Rednick and Mr. Berger in that the Zoning Board's charge is to minimize the number and size of variances required. He pointed out that this oddly shaped lot is not a flag lot. The driveway for the second lot will be on the far end of Betsy Brown, right near Crawford Park. They are reducing the driveway for the manor house, thus reducing the amount of impervious surface. The applicant's home was the manor house of the Elm Hill Farm estate. The owners are trying to preserve it, which is very admirable. The applicant will run their utilities underground on the 20' wide strip, which will remain as a vegetative buffer. The owner of 340 Betsy Brown Road, the property which faces the side of the 2 Elm Hill property, addressed the Board. He noted that he was worried about that strip of land and how it would be maintained. He also noted that the additional impervious surface would add to the flooding and freezing in the area. There is a water table problem in this area that needs to be considered. The open land absorbs the water; the additional impervious surface could make the problem worse. In addition, the new home will be constructed on top of the hill and the runoff from the impervious surface would need to be mitigated. He also felt that the proposed home would be much larger than most of the homes on Betsy Brown. Currently no homes in this area have a three-car garage. A home of this size will definitely change the character of the neighborhood. Another concern raised was the issue of snow plowing on the dead end. It was noted that snow is usually piled up in the area that will now be the driveway for the new home. Mr. Moscato noted that if the sub-division approved, the applicant can build the proposed home as-of-right. After additional discussion, the consensus of the Board was to keep the public hearing open, and adjourn the matter to the January 5, 2010 Zoning Board meeting. Village Counsel will be asked to review this application and prepare a resolution. 7) Approval of November 3, 2009 Zoning Board Summaries Zoning Board of Appeals December 1,2009 Page 16 Mr. Moscato called for a vote on the September summary, as amended. On a motion made by Mr. Crescenzi, and seconded by Mr. Rednick, the summary was approved on a five aye to zero nay vote. On a motion made by Mr. Rednick, and seconded by Mr. Crescenzi, the October summary was adopted, as amended, by a vote of five ayes to zero nays. On a motion made by Mr. Rednick, and seconded by Mr. Crescenzi, the November summary was adjourned to the January meeting. There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m. Zoning Board of Appeals December 1,2009 Page 17