Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-04-01 - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes Village of Rye Brook 938 King Street ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Tuesday, April 1, 2008 Meeting at 8:00 p.m. AGENDA 1) #07-481 Ms. Laurie Kaufman (Re Appearance) 249 Tree Top Lane Partition off the existing garage to create a finished, heated storage space 2) #08-518 Church of Our Lady of Mercy. 319 South Ridge Street Construct an addition to the existing mausoleum and a new maintenance garage 3) #08-516 Shelley Fidler& Meg Fidler Sigal 23 Churchill Road Legalize existing side two-story addition at the north elevation 4) #08-514 Mr. Kenneth Tullipano 12 Osborne Place Legalize existing detached, two-car garage 5) #08-517 Ms. Maria Rusciano 52 Hillcrest Avenue Construct an addition and perform interior alterations to convert the existing one-family house to a two-family dwelling 6) 908-510 Mrs. Phyllis Friedlander (Re Appearance) 5 Magnolia Drive Expand the existing driveway and off-street parking, and install a new front walk 7) #08-508 Ms. Lillian Albrecht 27 Hillandale Road Legalize the existing carport Zoning Board of Appeals April 1,2008 Page 1 8) #08-515 Mr. & Mrs. Eric Brittleman 28 Country Ridge Circle Construct a new front porch 9) #08-512 Ms. Cheryl Benson 4 Deer Run Remove and replace the existing wood deck 10) Approval of March 4, 2008 Zoning Board Summary BOARD: Mark Harmon, Chairman Salvatore Crescenzi Joseph Pellino Ronald Rettner Michael Siegel STAFF: Michael Izzo, Building Inspector Fred Seifert, Public Access Coordinator Paula Patafio, Meeting Secretary Board of Trustee Liaison: Trustee Dean Santon Mr. Mark Harmon, Chairman, welcomed everyone to the April 1, 2008 meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. He called for the first matter on the agenda: 1) #07-481 MS. LAURIE KAUFMAN 249 Tree Top Lane Partition off the existing garage to create a finished, heated storage space Mr. Harmon noted the applicant, Ms. Kaufman, had requested an adjournment. It was noted that this matter has been before the Board for several months. The request for an adjournment was discussed between the Board members and it was the consensus of the Board that the application be adjourned to the May 6, 2008 Zoning Board meeting. Zoning Board of Appeals April 1,2008 Page 2 Mr. Harmon noted that this matter was previously referred to the Village's Counsel for interpretation and assistance. In addition, a decision was forwarded to counsel and the question asked was why the decision doesn't give the Zoning Board the ability to provide some relief if that is the decision of the Board. The Zoning Board is waiting for a response. Mr. Harmon called for the second item on the agenda: 2) #08-518 CHURCH OF OUR LADY OF MERCY 319 South Ridge Street Construct an addition to the existing mausoleum and a new maintenance garage Daniel Laub, Esq., from the firm of Cuddy and Feder, and attorney Anthony Gioffre addressed the Board as representatives for the applicant, Our Lady of Mercy's Church and St. Mary's Cemetery. Mr. Harmon noted that the Board received a letter from the Westchester County Department of Planning. He asked if the applicant was aware of this letter, as the purpose of the letter was to stop the Zoning Board from making a decision on this matter at this evening's meeting. Mr. Laub noted that Westchester County Planning Department received a referral on this proposal back in 2003. At that time they had no comment. The applicant was very surprised by the letter and the fact that they are now saying that they do not have the information that was provided to them five (5) years ago. Mr. Joseph Pellino noted that this matter has been before the Village's Planning Board for sometime, and no recommendation has been made. Mr. Laub responded that the plans have been revised in response to comments from the Village's Planning Board. Anthony Gioffre, Esq. noted that this matter is now before the Board of Trustees. He stated that a call has been made to the Westchester County Planning Board in regard to this matter, but the call has not yet been responded to. In 2003 a letter was received from Edward Buroughs, ACP, Deputy Commissioner of Westchester County Planning Board. The body of the letter addressed to Marilyn Timpone Mohamed dated December 4, 2003 was read into the record. It was noted that at that time there were no County or intermunicipal planning concerns. Mr. Gioffre noted that the plan has been modified since 2003, Zoning Board of Appeals April 1,2008 Page 3 but it has been modified to make the proposed construction a better fit. The project has been scaled down, more mitigation has been proposed, and architectural design features have been implemented. Mr. Gioffre noted that the Rye Brook Planning Board has reviewed the application and has issued a recommendation. Mr. Michael Izzo, Building Inspector, noted that the recommendation was made to the Board of Trustees of the Village of Rye Brook. Mr. Gioffre noted that the applicant would prefer that a decision be made tonight by the Zoning Board as the matter was pending before the Board of Trustees. It was noted that the Board of Trustees has final approval authority. Mr. Harmon pointed out that members of the public were in attendance at the meeting, and the public hearing would be opened in order to receive comments on the application. He also noted that the Zoning Board could issue a determination, based upon conditions placed on that approval. Mr. Harmon declared the public hearing opened, and asked that the applicant make its presentation. Mr. Laub noted that St. Mary's Cemetery is located off of High Street and Ridge Street, with the means of ingress and egress located off of High Street. The proposed addition to the mausoleum is in the corner of the property, off of Ridge Street, near the 287 overpass bridge. The addition is approximately 700 square feet in size, and would add approximately 1948 crypt spaces. Part of the proposed improvements will be grading and landscaping. Mr. Laub presented the Board with a factual rendering of what the building will look like once completed, and noted that the variances being requested include a 2.4' height setback and a front yard variance of 9'. When I287 was created certain property along South Ridge Street was taken, and the State now owns a portion of the corner of the property and a piece along the front of the existing mausoleum. The existing mausoleum is 2.2' off of the front yard and it was constructed and approved in 1971. The original property that was taken for I287 was taken in 1957, and this moves the property line inwards from the corner of the property. Therefore, the existing mausoleum is non-conforming. In the approval in 1971 by the Town of Rye noted the non-conforming portion of the building, and then granted approval. There were three (3) phases of construction and each phase was granted a Certificate of Occupancy. Mr. Laub noted that there is a significant amount of landscaping planned for this project. The entrance to the mausoleum will still be through High Street. Coming up South Ridge Street the new addition will not be visible. The lighting will be shielded, and there would be no noise or lighting impacts. Mitigation has been proposed, as has storm water management, and the applicant believes that the proposed construction would not be a detriment to the surrounding neighborhood. Zoning Board of Appeals April 1,2008 Page 4 Mr. Gioffre noted that the building will be set back 20' from the side walk. What is being proposed would have been conforming were it not for the fact that property line is not straight; it goes in and out on that proportion of the property because of the taken that occurred when I287 was constructed. The proposed addition lines up with the existing building. If the building was pulled back further it would result in the loss of crypt spaces. At this time the cemetery is filled to capacity. The number of crypts being proposed were decided upon using the number of requests and inquiries that St. Mary's receives per year. Mr. Gioffre noted that one of the key changes made to the plan was based upon comments and recommendations by the Planning Board. Originally the fagade was a flat facade. He presented the Board with artistic renderings of what the building would look like after the chances. He pointed out that cutbacks were added to soften the appearance of the addition. The frontage along South Ridge Street is about 36' feet in width. The addition extends backwards and wraps around the existing mausoleum. Landscaping has been proposed which will offer screening to the residents. Mr. Gioffre noted that the Thruway Authority has been positive about this project, and are willing to allow landscaping to be added on their portion of the property. Mr. Harmon noted that he had an opportunity to review the Planning Board's recommendation as presented to him by Mr. Izzo. He noted that the Planning Board has elicited and received comments from the Westchester County Department of Planning. Mr. Harmon asked that the Planning Board's resolution be made part of the Zoning Board of Appeal's meeting record. Mr. Gioffre noted that the landscaping proposed will wrap around the building to screen the proposed construction. He also noted that this is the only space left for expansion. Mr. Harmon called for members of the public wishing to be heard in support or opposition to the application. Mr. Harmon stated that a letter was submitted from a Brookridge resident in opposition to the application. The resident, who was in attendance, addressed the Board. He noted that the changes that are being proposed are easily seen by the residents who live across the street. The mausoleum has been hemmed in by the thruway, the existing mausoleum, and the balance of the cemetery. The taxpayers and owners of the properties on the other side of the street will have a dramatic effect on their quality of life. This building will have a noise impact in the form of echoing, as well as visual impacts. Another impact is the blockage of sunlight by the height of the building. The building is being pushed forward eleven feet, and Zoning Board of Appeals April 1,2008 Page 5 the proposed landscaping is being depicted as full grown trees which will not be the case for many years. The applicant is has noted that certain matters will not have an effect, but they have not study the possible effects. Another Brookridge resident questioned the construction of the new maintenance garage. Mr. Harmon noted that the garage does not require a variance. Dean Santon, Hillendale Road, addressed the Board as a resident of the Village. He noted that he was not before the Zoning Board either for or against the application. He stated that an application was before the Board of Trustees five (5) years ago. The public hearing has not occurred at the Board of Trustee level and the Board of Trustees is the Lead Agency. The applicant has requested an adjournment of public hearing that was scheduled by the Board of Trustees. Mr. Harmon turned to the Board for questions and comments. Mr. Joseph Pellino noted that it is important for everyone to understand the history of this cemetery. This once was a much larger track then currently exists today. The State exercised its eminent domain rights and a fairly substantial track of land when I287 was being constructed. The cemetery property was not divided by the thruway and in the early 1990's the parcel on the opposite side of the thruway was sold to a developer. Mr. Pellino questioned whether or not there was any property left on High Street that could be purchased by the Church. Mr. Laub noted that the former United Hospital property was sold at an auction after the hospital went bankrupt. The applicant contacted the new owners and they are in the midst of a project. New York State has also been contacted, but it is very difficult to purchase State owned land. There is no guarantee that the State will ever sell its property. Mr. Laub noted that the location for the proposed construction was chosen because it is the logical location for the addition. Mr. Gioffre noted that the applicant was willing to increase the landscaping in the front of the mausoleum. It was noted that the existing mausoleum is landscaped with trees that are now over ten years old. Mr. Gioffre reiterated that the applicant believes that the proposed addition will have a minimal impact. Mr. Harmon closed the public portion of the hearing. He noted that the Zoning Board would be seeking clarification in connection with the existing non- conformities. He noted that if the applicant had to come back to the Zoning Board for the variances required that the additional 30 day wait would create a hardship Zoning Board of Appeals April 1,2008 Page 6 for the applicant. The Board discussed the matter and the consensus of the Board was to adjourn the matter to the May 6, 2008 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. Mr. Harmon requested that the applicant supply the Board with additional information regarding sound issues that the new construction would cause. Mr. Harmon called for item #3 on the agenda: 3) #08-516 SHELLEY FIDLER & MEG FIDLER SIGAL 23 Churchill Road Legalize existing side two-story addition at the north elevation Mr. Harmon noted that the firm that he works for was of-counsel to the applicant's father many years ago. There is no affiliation now and, therefore, he saw no reason to recuse himself from deliberating on this application. The Board agreed. Daniel Laub, Esq., of the firm of Cuddy & Feder, addressed the Board as the legal counsel for the applicant. He noted that there is an existing two-story residence originally built in 1953. In 1959 an addition was built and a Certificate of Occupancy was issued. It has now been discovered that the addition required variances at the time of construction but none were sought or granted. There are no changes or construction needed. This is simply a legalization of what was done now that they are trying to sell the home. Mr. Harmon called for members of the public wishing to be heard in support or opposition to the application. There being no one, he turned to the Board members for questions and comments. Mr. Pellino asked if contact was made to the Town of Rye to see if the Certificate of Occupancy and variances granted could be located. Mr. Izzo noted that there was a search and nothing was found. Mr. Laub noted his office conducted also conducted a search and found nothing. Mr. Izzo noted that there was no Certificate of Occupancy was issued for the 1959 construction. Mr. Harmon noted that the public portion of the hearing was closed. The Board briefly discussed the application and Mr. Harmon prepared the following resolution, which was read into the record: Zoning Board of Appeals April 1,2008 Page 7 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Ms. Shelley Fidler and Ms. Meg Fidler Sigal for a 3' side yard setback and a 4.5' total of two side yards setback variances, in connection with the proposed legalization of the existing side two-story additional at the north elevation, on property located at 23 Churchill Road in an R-15 District, on the east side of Churchill Road, 120 feet from the intersection of Winding Wood Road South and Churchill Road. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 135.26, Block: 1, Lot: 11. WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on April 1, 2008, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and WHEREAS, the Board, from the application and after viewing the premises and neighborhood concerned, finds: 1) A building permit was issued for the construction of the addition at the end of construction; 2) The requested variance will not adversely impact the surrounding neighborhood; and 3) Applicant has voluntarily brought this matter to the attention of the Village. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the said application is hereby granted. Dated: April 1, 2008 Mark Harmon, Chairman AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 Zoning Board of Appeals April 1,2008 Page 8 Zoning Board of Appeals April 1,2008 Page 9 4) #08-514 MR. KENNETH TULLIPANO 12 Osborne Place Legalize existing detached, two-car garage Attorney Joseph Vita addressed the Board. He noted that the home was constructed in 1954 and purchased by Mr. Tullipano's parents in 1964. A rear two-car garage was constructed at that time. At this time the applicant is trying to sell the home and the garage must be legalized. It was noted that the applicant has brought this matter to the attention of the Village. Attorney Vita stated that years ago banks and title companies were not as diligent as they are today in terms of searching out any violations of record. Within the last ten to fifteen years there has been much more stringent requirements. The records today are much more accurate and complete; however, years ago they were not as well kept. Mr. Harmon called for members of the public wishing to address the application in support or opposition. There being no comments, he turned to the Board members for their comments and questions. Mr. Pellino noted that he was familiar with the property and did not see a problem with granting the variance. Mr. Izzo noted that the permit that was granted for the construction of the garage was issued on October 6, 1954. The Zoning Code that changed the setbacks was adopted 30 days prior to that date, in the beginning of September 1954. For whatever reason, the permit was granted under the old Code. Mr. Harmon closed the public portion of the meeting. The Board prepared a resolution on this matter and once complete Mr. Harmon read the resolution. Zoning Board of Appeals April 1,2008 Page 10 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Mr. Kenneth Tullipano for a 2.5' side yard setback and a 2.2' rear yard setback variances, in connection with the proposed legalization of the existing detached, two-car garage, on property located at 12 Osborne Place in an R-2F District on the south side of Osborne Place, 55 feet from the intersection of Osborne Place and Osborne Place. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 141.28, Block: 1, Lot: 22. WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on April 1, 2008, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and WHEREAS, the Board, from the application and after viewing the premises and neighborhood concerned, finds: 1) A building permit was issued for the structure; 2) The structure has been in existence for more than 50 years and does not adversely effect the neighborhood concerned; and 3) It appears this matter was not raiser earlier through no fault of the applicant. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the said application is hereby granted. Dated: April 1, 2008 Mark Harmon, Chairman AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 Zoning Board of Appeals April 1,2008 Page 11 Zoning Board of Appeals April 1,2008 Page 12 6) #08-510 MRS. PHYLLIS FRIEDLANDER (Re Appearance) 5 Magnolia Drive Expand the existing driveway and off-street parking, and install a new front walk Mr. Harmon reminded everyone that he had recused himself from this application at the prior meeting. Mr. Pellino, Acting Chairman, called for the presentation on this application. Mr. Izzo reminded the Board that this was a continuation of a public hearing. Mr. John Scarlato, architect for the applicant, addressed the Board. He noted that the plans have been amended. The concept of parking the cars further back was removed and the driveway was only increased by 11" so that cars can be pulled back far enough to be able to exit the driveway a little easier. The front walkway was removed and the driveway was widened. Now two cars can park. Mr. Izzo noted that the Village's Engineer must review the application and the permit will not be issued unless he is satisfied with the storm water control. Mr. Pellino called for members of the public wishing to address the application in support or opposition. There being no one wishing to address the matter, and no comments from the Board, the public hearing was closed. The Board prepared the resolution, and Mr. Pellino read it into the record: Zoning Board of Appeals April 1,2008 Page 13 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Mrs. Phyllis Friedlander for a 110' variance in the impervious surface coverage request and side yard setback of 18" to accommodate parking, in connection with the proposed expansion of the existing driveway and off-street parking, on property located at 5 Magnolia Drive in an R-15 District on the north side of Magnolia Drive, 317 feet from the intersection of King Street and Magnolia Drive. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 130.77, Block: 1, Lot: 33. WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on March 4, 2008 and continued to April 1, 2008, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and WHEREAS, the Board, from the application and after viewing the premises and neighborhood concerned, finds: 1) The applicant has made significant changes to his plans to reduce the impervious surface variance request; and 2) The variances will not adversely impact the neighborhood. . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the said application is hereby granted on the following condition: 1) Construction shall begin within one year of the approval of these variances. Dated: April 1, 2008 Joseph Pellino, Acting Chairman AYES: 3 NAYS: 1 Mark Harmon, Chairman - recused Zoning Board of Appeals April 1,2008 Page 14 Zoning Board of Appeals April 1,2008 Page 15 05) #08-517 MS. MARIA RUSCIANO 52 Hillcrest Avenue Construct an addition and perform interior alterations to convert the existing one-family house to a two-family dwelling Mr. Harmon stated that he recalled this matter from a previous Zoning Board of Appeals meeting and asked if anyone knew what the outcome was. Mr. Izzo, Building Inspector, stated that in 2007 an application was presented to the Planning Board and the Zoning Board of Appeals. Both Boards denied the application. The applicant went back to the drawing board and has now submitted a new application in its entirety. Although the applicant is seeking the same results, the scope of work is entirely different. Mr. Harmon asked for a copy of the meeting summary from the 2007 meeting, and a review of the Planning Board summary and recommendation. Mr. Scarlato noted that Marilyn Timpone Mohamed, Village Planning Consultant, reviewed the application by going through the old and then the new at a recent Planning Board meeting. Mr. Izzo stated that the Planning Board approved the application pending the granting of the variances by the Zoning Board of Appeals in 2007. However, the Zoning Board did not grant the variances. Mr. John Scarlato, architect, noted that he did not represent the applicant during the first submission, however, he was at the meeting where the discussion about the project took place. The applicant is looking to take a one-family home and make it into a two-family home. Mr. Harmon asked that Mr. Scarlato show the differences between this project and the previous project. Mr. Scarlato noted that the first submission was for the creation of a duplex house, which required the addition of another full unit. The existing home is a small two bedroom house, located on a corner lot — which means it has two front yards. The addition being proposed at this time is a much smaller addition which lines up with the existing side of the house. There is one entry in the front for the first unit and one entry in the rear for the second unit. The existing side door which will access the first unit will remain. Mr. Scarlato noted that architecturally the front of the house does not change. It was also noted that the garage is 12' away from the house, as required by the Village's Code. The first variance required is a result of the applicant's request to change the home from a one-family home to a two-family home. This is a two-family residential zone; however, any change to the outside of the home requires a variance. A second variance is needed because the first apartment does not have access to the rear yard. It was noted that windows are considered a means access. Zoning Board of Appeals April 1,2008 Page 16 Mr. Izzo clarified this situation for the Board. He noted that section 250-25 L(2)c of the Village's Code addresses the matter of ingress and egress to a two-family home. It states that "....any dwelling may be converted to use by more than one family provided that all of the following standards are met and maintained." One of those standards reads, "service access from the rear yard of the building is provided for each apartment." Mr. Harmon asked for clarification of a service access. Mr. Izzo noted that his interpretation is that each apartment must have some sort of access from the rear yard, without having to go through the other apartment. Mr. Scarlato noted that this is a 50' x 100' lot, located in an R-2 Zone. There is no issue with parking, and the garage will remain. Additional landscaping has been proposed. It was noted that the existing house is non-conforming in connection with the front yard setback. Mr. Izzo agreed, noting that the plane of the foundation is not moving forward. The increase is based on the fact that the front yard is non-conforming. The proposed addition will be aligned with an existing non-conformity. It is being extended to make the house 25' wider. If this was not a corner lot there would be a lesser sized variance required. Mr. Scarlato continued his presentation, noting that the impervious surface coverage was being increased, and the proposed addition brings the home over the maximum gross floor area by 167 square feet. All of the proposed construction is being done to create the second apartment. Each dwelling must have a minimum dimension of 20', and 728' square feet that is considered living space. There is also a requirement for useable open space for the purposes of recreation. These numbers are based upon each dwelling unit. There are no issues with lot coverage but rather open usable space; 1024 square feet of green space exists. Basically there is a 10' by 30' strip of open space on this property. Mr. Izzo presented the Board with the resolution from the prior meeting (2007). It was noted that at that time the applicant failed to demonstrate that the property cannot be used in its present condition. Mr. Harmon noted that this question remains unanswered. He asked why the home could not be enlarged as a one- family home. Mr. Rettner stated that he had several issues with this application, and the series of variances that were required was one of them. The consensus of the Board was that the application required substantial variances. The applicant was offered an adjournment in order clarify issues raised at this meeting, and to attempt to minimize the number of variances required. Mr. Harmon noted that there are a lot of confusing issues connected to this Zoning Board of Appeals April 1,2008 Page 17 application and all five members of the Board had questions that need to be answered before the application could go any further. There are just too many variances being requested. Although sympathetic to the fact that this is a small house, it was felt that an addition to enlarge the one family home would be more appropriate. The applicant accepted an adjournment to the May meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Harmon called for item #7 on the agenda: 7) #08-508 MS. LILLIAN ALBRECHT 27 Hillandale Road Legalize the existing carport. John Scarlato, architect, addressed the Board. He noted that an application to remove and replace an existing carport that was in need of repair was before the Board several months. The carport had been in existence for many years. The variances were granted the carport was reconstructed, pulling it back 1' further from the property line then what had existed. The problem occurred when reviewing the surveys. There are now three surveys with three different setbacks. Mr. Izzo reiterated that an application was before the Zoning Board of Appeals to reconstruct the existing carport that had been there since the 1940's. The application was based on a survey of the property from 1966 which reflected a 3.0' existing side yard setback. Mr. Scarlato shrunk the carport and made it 4.0' from the property. A second survey (an as-built survey) showed that the 1966 survey was incorrect. And a third survey shows the first two surveys as incorrect. All three surveys were done by the same company, with the final survey having dated July 26, 2007. Mr. Izzo noted that the distance from the carport to the property line varies from 3" to 4'. At this time no one is sure which survey is valid. It was noted that the adjacent property is up the grade from the applicant's property. There is sufficient screening of the carport, and the most effected neighbor is in support of the application. It was also noted that the building permit and variances were approved based on the existing 1966 survey that was used for the site plan. The real problem at this time is trying to find out where the structure is and where the property line really is. Mr. Pellino felt that the initial variances that were granted were no longer valid because of the issue now before the Board. Mr. Izzo noted that the structure was Zoning Board of Appeals April 1,2008 Page 18 built exactly as depicted on the plans drawn up by Mr. Scarlato. The plan called for a carport to be "x" amount of feet wide and that was built. Mr. Izzo recommended that another survey, done by a different company, be completed to clarify all of the outstanding questions. The structure was built in conformance with the plans, and the only way to settle this matter would be to get a second opinion. The Board members agreed with Mr. Izzo and offered the applicant an adjournment to the May 6, 2008 meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Scarlato accepted the adjournment and thanked the Board for its time. Mr. Harmon called for item #8 on the agenda: 8) #08-515 MR. & MRS. ERIC BRITTLEMAN 28 Country Ridge Circle Construct a new front porch Mr. John Scarlato, architect, addressed the Board. He noted that the applicant just purchased the home and they are looking to change the look of the house. It was noted that there is an existing two-story portico. The applicant is looking to cut down the roof of the portico to make it lower, and extend it creating a front porch in the front of the dining room. In order to accomplish this, a front yard setback variance is required. The porch will not come out any further than the existing stoop. The Village's Code requires a 40' front yard setback, and currently there is 33.5', which means that the existing home is non-conforming. The maximum height setback ratio is 2.6', and the existing gable is already violating it. This non- conformity will be reduced. The second variance required is for lot coverage. The code allows 16% and the main house already covers 17.1%. The covered porch will increase this nonconformity to 18.1%. Mr. Harmon called for members of the public wishing to address this application in either support or opposition. There being no one, he turned to the Board for comments and questions. Mr. Harmon pointed out that the application also included the extension of the porch, which extends the non-conformity. This extension brings the front of the house closer to the street. It was noted that the porch will be 8' x 28'. The Board felt that the variances could be reduced and asked the applicant to consider ways to reduce them. In order to accomplish the review, the Board granted the applicant an adjournment to May 6, 2008. Zoning Board of Appeals April 1,2008 Page 19 9) #08-512 MS. CHERYL BENSON 4 Deer Run Remove and replace the existing wood deck. Mr. Donald LeBlanc, the contractor for the applicant, addressed the Board. He began by noting that there is an existing deck in the rear of the home. The deck extends along the side of the house to allow for access from the kitchen area. However, the deck near the kitchen is only approximately 1' in width and is really not usable. A heavier set person cannot fit in order to gain access to the main portion of the deck. The portion of the deck along the side of the home will be permanently removed, and the deck to the rear of the home will be widened. It was noted that a letter was received from the adjacent neighbor requesting that additional landscaping be installed. The letter was made part of the record. It was noted that there was a good amount of mature vegetation already in place and because of the topography of the property the deck is not really visible to the neighbors. As the stairway would be visible the applicant agreed to plant one or two trees in that area. Mr. Izzo, Building Inspector, noted that the original deck was built when the house was originally constructed. The deck to the side of the home is unusable and the remaining portion of the deck is small. The applicant addressed the Board, noting that she has lived in this house since it was built. The deck was never really usable and they are simply trying to make a space where they can sit outside. The rear yard is unusable as it is almost always wet, there are swales, and it slopes downward. Mr. Harmon called for members of the public in support or opposition to the application, and for questions and comments from the Board. Mr. Ronald Rettner asked, as requested by the neighbor, that additional landscaping be added. Mr. LeBlanc noted that from the vantage point of the existing deck the only portion that will be visible to the neighbor will be the stairs and the applicant has agreed to plant a few trees in that area. Mr. LeBlanc also noted that the neighbor's view of the applicant's house will not change. The applicant's property is 6' below the elevation of the neighbor's property. The elevation of the deck 9'6" and at the far corner, because the property slopes downward, it is 11'9". It was noted that currently the square footage of the existing deck is 432 square feet. The new deck will be 444 square feet. A Zoning Board of Appeals April 1,2008 Page 20 variance of 9'6" is required for the rear yard setback. The second variance is for the allowable maximum coverage for a deck as 4% is allowed under the Village's Code. The applicant is requesting a variance for .015%. It was noted that neither variance is substantial, the size of the deck has been scaled back, and the portion of the deck on the side of the home will be removed. The public portion of the hearing was closed and the Board discussed the variances. The Board felt that it would be a good idea to view the property prior to making a decision. The applicant will review the size of the proposed deck and come back to the Zoning Board with an explanation of why the size of the deck cannot be reduced. This matter was adjourned to the next Zoning Board meeting in May. 10) APPROVAL OF MARCH 4, 2008 ZONING BOARD SUMMARY The summary was approved as submitted. There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 11:11 P.M. Zoning Board of Appeals April 1,2008 Page 21