Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-10-06 - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes Village of Rye Brook 938 King Street ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS October 6, 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 (Re-Appearance) 15 Brook Lane Legalize rear patio on grade and stand-by generator 5) #09-561 Mr. & Mrs. Brian Berk (Re-Appearance) 11 Edgewood Drive Legalize the rear sports court, spa/patio and chain link fence 6) Approval of August 4, 2009 and September 2, 2009 Zoning Board Summaries BOARD: Don Moscato, Chairman Steve Berger Salvatore Crescenzi Michele Fredman Jeffrey Rednick Zoning Board of Appeals October 6,2009 Page 1 STAFF: Michael Izzo, Building Inspector 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 October 6, 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 in attendance, as well as a full agenda. 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 & Gioffre, legal counsel for the applicant addressed the Board. Mr. Adamis gave an overview of the application, and explained how the applicant came to be before the Zoning Board of Appeals. He noted that the variance being requested was for approval of the three off-street parking spaces. The applicant's prior application was in connection with the legalization of the two-family home. After discussions with the Village, the application was changed to legalization of the one-family home, thereby reducing the occupancy. The home was built in 1957, and the garage was converted in 1966. The applicant purchased the property in 1998 and occupied the home at that time. Mr. Adamis noted that the planned alterations needed to legalize the basement/garage are minor and will not modify the exterior of the home. At previous meetings the impervious surface coverage of this property was questioned. Data was provided to show that the impervious surface coverage on this property is Code compliant. A question arose regarding the impervious surface coverage of the front yard. The architect for the applicant has estimated front yard coverage to be 43%. Mr. Izzo, Building Inspector, stated that the Village's Code allows for 30% impervious surface coverage on a front yard, however, this portion of the Village's Code came into effect in 2003. If the driveway was legally installed, then this issue would be grandfathered in. The problem is that there is no way to ascertain whether or not the driveway was Zoning Board of Appeals October 6,2009 Page 2 legally installed. Mr. Izzo noted that the garage was converted without a permit and it is possible that the driveway was expanded to the size that it is today at that time. Returning the garage to its original state would only result in one off-street parking space where the applicant is required to have two. Mr. Adamis stated that the applicant has not made any changes since he purchased the home. Michele Fredman asked for clarification on the number of spaces that the applicant was requesting. Mr. Izzo responded that the requirement is two off-street parking spaces that comply with the Village's Code. The applicant has no code compliant parking spaces. Currently there are three parking spaces within 25' from the property line, and the applicant was requesting a variance in order for the spaces to remain. Mr. Moscato noted that converting the garage back from living space would be a financial burden on the applicant. On the other hand, the granting of one off-street parking space would reduce the amount of impervious surface in the front yard. Mr. Moscato called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in support or opposition to the application. Mr. Dean Santon, of Hillendale Road, and a Trustee of the Village addressed the Board in his individual capacity. He stated that under the Village Code you are not allowed to create unenclosed parking spaces within 25' from the property line. Although the Board had requested a calculation of impervious surface coverage for the front yard, no actual submission was given by the architect; just an approximation. He felt that the Board had the right to mitigate the impact of variance applications and, in this instance, could ask that the garage be re-converted back to parking and reduce the parking area in the front yard to one space. Mr. Moscato called for a motion to close the public portion of the hearing. On a motion made by Mr. Sal Crescenzi, and seconded by Ms. Michele Fredman, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Moscato called the roll: Steve Berger Voting Aye Salvator Crescenzi Voting Aye Michele Fredman Voting Aye Jeffrye Rednick Voting Aye Don Moscato, Chairman Voting Aye After a short deliberation, Mr. Moscato requested that Village Counsel draft a resolution. He temporarily adjourned the matter for the drafting of the resolution. Zoning Board of Appeals October 6,2009 Page 3 Mr. Moscato called for item #2 on the agenda: 2) #09-559 Mr. John Michaels (Re-Appearance) 51 Mohegan Lane Legalize the existing rear deck Mr. John Michaels, the applicant, addressed the Board. He noted that he built a deck in 1977 and applied for and received a variance prior to construction. The deck is 14' x 20' and ten years later it required repair. The deck was reconstructed in the exact footprint of the original deck. Mr. Izzo noted that it was discovered that the initial application for the construction of the deck contained an error in the size of the variance that was required. A 3' variance was granted when in actuality a 17.9' variance was required. The variance was granted relying on the survey that was submitted at that time. Mr. Klein, the applicant's current architect, has submitted an Affidavit noting that remedial work would need to be done to bring the deck to Code. Mr. Moscato called for members of the public wishing to address the application in support/opposition. 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. Mr. Moscato called the roll: Steve Berger Voting Aye Salvator Crescenzi Voting Aye Michele Fredman Voting Aye Jeffrye Rednick Voting Aye Don Moscato, Chairman Voting Aye After a brief discussion, the matter was temporarily adjourned to allow counsel the time to construct the resolution. Mr. Moscato re-called item #1: Zoning Board of Appeals October 6,2009 Page 4 RESOLUTION WHEREAS application has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Mr. Michael Tucci for a variance in connection with the proposed legalization and partial remodel of the existing finished converted garage/basement, on property located at 226 South Ridge Street, in an R-2F District on the west side of South Ridge Street, 50 feet from the intersection of Crescent place and South Ridge Street. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 141.35, Block: 2, Lot: 34; and WHEREAS a duly advertised public hearing was held on June 2, 2009, and continued to July 7, 2009, August 4, 2009, September 1, 2009, and October 6, 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 reviewing the premises and neighborhood concerned and upon considering each of the factors set forth at Section250- 13(G)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brook Code finds: 1) Leaving the parking area in its present state is a detriment to the character of the neighborhood due to its location along a prominent gateway to the community, but no new adverse impacts will be created as a result of the variance; 2) The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by another method feasible for the applicant to pursue because the applicant would incur substantial financial hardship to reconvert the garage area back to a garage and even if garage was re-converted, a parking variance would still be required; 3) The variance is not substantial; 4) The variance will not create an adverse impact on physical or environmental conditions; and 5) The difficulty has been self-created. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the said application is hereby granted. DATED: October 6, 2009 Mr. Don Moscato, Chairman Mr. Moscato called the roll: Steve Berger Voting Aye Salvator Crescenzi Voting Aye Michele Fredman Voting Nay Jeffrye Rednick Voting Aye Don Moscato, Chairman Voting Nay The variance has been granted on a three ayes to two nays vote, with no abstentions. Zoning Board of Appeals October 6,2009 Page 5 Zoning Board of Appeals October 6,2009 Page 6 Mr. Moscato called for item 93 on the agenda: 3) #09-572 Mr. & Mrs. William Russillo (Re-Appearance) 11 Knollwood Drive Construct a new rear deck Mr. Russillo, applicant, addressed the Board. He noted that he was before the Board requesting variances in order to construct a new rear deck. He stated that he had submitted a plan for a smaller deck, but had decided to revert back to the original plan, with some modifications. Mr. Russillo noted that he would like to stay within the outline of the existing patio. Mr. Izzo noted that the Wetland Code states that 100' from the actual water course is considered the wetland buffer. In this case, the entire house is in the buffer. The Village Engineer has it in his purview to grant an administrative permit because less than 10 yards of earth are affected, and the disturbance is minimal. Mr. Izzo noted that a plan is required in order to grant the variance. The plan needs to be submitted in advance, the numbers need to be modified, and the plan must be reviewed by the Building Department. There is no way of knowing the size of the deck or the amount of impervious surface coverage until the plans have been received and reviewed. The application was adjourned to the November 3, 2009 meeting to allow the applicant the time needed to provide new plans. 4) #09-550 Mr. & Mrs. Daniel Dragomir (Re-Appearance) 15 Brook Lane Legalize rear patio on grade and stand-by generator Alan D. Singer, Esq., of the firm of Welby, Brady & Greenblatt, LLP, addressed the Board. He stated that he had submitted information to the Board regarding the generator in connection with noise level. He noted that there were two issues: additional impervious surface coverage as a result of the enlarged patio and the positioning of the generator. Mr. Izzo stated that no application was made for the installation of a generator. The Village's Code states that all generators must be located in rear or side yard. Zoning Board of Appeals October 6,2009 Page 7 He, as the Building Inspector, has made the determination that the generator is in the front yard. Mr. Singer noted that the applicant is requesting the variance in order to leave the generator where it is. He stated that in terms of noise it was no louder than a vacuum, and there have been no complaints from the neighbors. In addition, he stated that the applicant was instructed by their architect that no permit was required. It is also the applicant's belief that the generator only intrudes on the front yard by a 1 to 1 1/2 feet. Mr. Moscato noted that in 2005 a front yard setback was granted for the construction of the porch on this property. At that time four variances were sought and granted. After the approval was received, the addition was constructed, and the final inspection was done, the generator and stone patio came into the picture. Mr. Singer noted that the patio is encased in stone and removal of even a portion of it would be very costly for the applicants. In addition, a drywell was installed in order to mitigate any storm water runoff from the home. Mr. Singer stated that there are no neighbors in opposition and the patio does not affect the character of the neighborhood. He felt that the applicants innocently constructed the patio while relying on the information provided by their architect. Mrs. Dragomir asked if the generator was moved 1' if that would be sufficient. She also noted that there is landscaping in front of the generator, and proposed fencing. Mr. Izzo noted that he interpreted the Code, which states no generators shall be constructed in a front yard, and that moving back the generator by 1' does not satisfy the requirements of the Code. In order for the generator to remain where it has been installed, the applicants would need a variance. If not, they must move the generator to the rear of the home. Mr. Moscato called for members of the public wishing to address the application in support or opposition. Dean Santon addressed the Board, as a resident of Rye Brook. He felt that the applicant should do the right thing and move the generator to the rear yard, and that he and his professionals should have known that a permit would be required prior to installation of the generator. The patio has been constructed in an area of flooding. Any impervious surface added does affect the health and welfare of the community. There being no further comments, Mr. Moscato called for a motion to close the public hearing. On a motion made by Mr. Jeffrey Redneck, and seconded by Mr. Steve Berger, the public hearing was closed. Zoning Board of Appeals October 6,2009 Page 8 Mr. Moscato called the roll: Steve Berger Voting Aye Salvator Crescenzi Voting Aye Michele Fredman Voting Aye Jeffrye Rednick Voting Aye Don Moscato, Chairman Voting Aye The Board discussed the variances required. Though invited to do so, the applicant did not offer to amend the request for a smaller variance (for a smaller patio). Mr. Moscato polled each member, and then read the resolutions, separately, for each matter. The consensus was that both variances should be denied. Zoning Board of Appeals October 6,2009 Page 9 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Mr. & Mrs. Daniel Dragomir for a variance to allow a generator to be located in a front yard in connection with the proposed legalization of a stand-by generator, on property located at 15 Brook Lane in an R-10 District on the east side of Brook Lane, 340 feet from the intersection of Sunset Road and Brook Lane. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 135.65, Block 1, Lot: 24; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on September 1, 2009, and continued to October 6, 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 as Section 250-13(G)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brook Code, finds: 1. The variance is substantial when differentiating between the rear and front yards; 2. The Variance will result in ad adverse impact on the environmental conditions of the neighborhood; 3. The need for the variance is self-created; and 4. The variance allowing the generator to remain in the front of the house will result in an overall reduction of the character of the neighborhood. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the said application is hereby denied. Dated: October 6, 2009 Don Moscato, Chairman On a vote of 5 nays to 0 ayes, the variance in connection with the generator was denied. Zoning Board of Appeals October 6,2009 Page 10 Zoning Board of Appeals October 6,2009 Page 11 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Mr. & Mrs. Daniel Dragomir for an impervious surface coverage variance in connection with the proposed legalization of existing rear patio on-grade, on property located at 15 Brook Lane in an R-10 District on the east side of Brook Lane, 340 feet from the intersection of Sunset Road and Brook Lane. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 135.65, Block 1, Lot: 24; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on September 1, 2009, and continued to October 6, 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 as Section 250-13(G)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brook Code, finds: 1. The variance is substantial; and 2. The need for the variance is self-created because the traditional permitting process was not followed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the said application is hereby denied. Dated: October 6, 2009 Don Moscato, Chairman On a vote of 5 nays to 0 ayes, the variance in connection with the patio was denied. Zoning Board of Appeals October 6,2009 Page 12 Zoning Board of Appeals October 6,2009 Page 13 Item #5 was called before the Board: 5) #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, noted that he was ready to address some of the concerns from the Board expressed at his prior appearance. He stated that three letters were submitted from his neighbors in support of the application. In addition, he stated that he has submitted a wetland investigation report, and a description of the sports court spa/patio by his contractor. Mr. Berk presented the Board with a new survey which depicts the distance form the sports court to the property line and the existence of the mesh fence. Although the survey now submitted does provide additional information, it does not bear a fresh revision date compared to the survey already on file. The company hired to do the installation of the sports court had informed the applicant that no permit was required for this type of installation and, therefore, no permit was applied for. Mr. Berk noted that the Brook is half way between his property and the property to the rear of his home. It is approximately between 8' and 10' away from the property line. He also noted that from the end of the sports court to the property line there is 81.7'. Approximately 10 yards of fill was brought in to level the rear yard for the sports court. Mr. Izzo stated that in addition to the fill, the gravel is also counted as fill. A change in grade triggers the need for a permit. Mr. Moscato asked what mitigation would be expected if this application were to go before the Planning Board. Mr. Izzo noted that the disturbance of land that results in a change of elevation results in a site plan review, and mitigation is part of the review. Mr. Moscato noted that the Village's Planning Consultant has not reviewed this application. He felt that Marilyn Timpone Mohammed from the firm of F.P. Clark Associates should review the plans, along with the Village's Engineer. Mr. Berk will work with the Village's Building Inspector to attempt to determine whether or not the site plan review was triggered by the work performed on the property. The matter was adjourned to the next Zoning Board meeting. 6) Approval of August 4, 2009 and September 2, 2009 Zoning Board Summaries Mr. Moscato, with the consensus of the Board, adjourned the review of the August 4d' and September 2nd summaries to the November meeting. Zoning Board of Appeals October 6,2009 Page 14 Mr. Moscato returned to item #2: 2) #09-559 Mr. John Michaels (Re-Appearance) 51 Mohegan Lane Legalize the existing rear deck Attorney Reinke was called upon to read the Michael's resolution. Zoning Board of Appeals October 6,2009 Page 15 RESOLUTION WHEREAS application has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Mr. John Michaels for a 17.9' rear yard setback variance in connection with the proposed legalization of the existing rear deck, on property located at 51 Mohegan Lane, in an R- 12 District on the east side of Mohegan Lane, 450 feet from the intersection of Mohegan Lane and Pine Ridge Road. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 135.41, Block: 1, Lot: 24; and WHEREAS a duly advertised public hearing was held on June 2, 2009, and continued to July 7, 2009, August 4, 2009, September 1, 2009, and October 6, 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 reviewing the premises and neighborhood concerned and upon considering each of the factors set forth at Section250- 13(G)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brook Code finds: 1. Variance will not create an adverse impact to the neighborhood because the dimensions of the deck will not change and the deck is screened form the neighboring properties; 2. Variance is not substantial; 3. Variance will not adversely impact environmental conditions of the neighborhood; 4. Benefit applicant seeks cannot be achieved without the requested variance; 5. Variance is self-created. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the said application is hereby granted under the following conditions. 1. The applicant must submit documentary proof from a licensed architect that the existing deck is structurally sound prior to the issuance of a building permit; 2. The applicant must bring the existing deck into compliance with all applicable Codes; and 3. At such time as the existing deck is determined to be structurally unsound, requiring demolition, this variance shall be null and void. DATED: October 6, 2009 Mr. Don Moscato, Chairman Mr. Moscato called the roll: Steve Berger Voting Aye Salvator Crescenzi Voting Aye Michele Fredman Voting Aye Jeffrye Rednick Voting Aye Don Moscato, Chairman Voting Aye The variance has been granted on a five ayes to zero nays vote, with no abstentions. Zoning Board of Appeals October 6,2009 Page 16 Zoning Board of Appeals October 6,2009 Page 17 There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 11:30 p.m. Zoning Board of Appeals October 6,2009 Page 18