Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-06-03 - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes Village of Rye Brook 938 King Street ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS June 3, 2008 at 8:00 p.m. AGENDA 1) #08-518 Church of Our Lady of Mercy (Re Appearance) 319 South Ridge Street Construct an addition to the existing mausoleum and a new maintenance garage 2) #08-521 Mr. & Mrs. Funtleyder (Re Appearance) 13 Beechwood Boulevard Construct a new single family dwelling with attached three-car garage and rear patio on grade 3) #08-515 Mr. & Mrs. Eric Bittleman (Re Appearance) 28 Country Ridge Circle Construct a new front porch 4) #08-517 Ms. Maria Rusciano (Re Appearance) 52 Hillcrest Avenue Construct an addition and perform interior alterations to convert the existing one-family house to a two-family dwelling 5) #08-523 Mr. & Mrs. Michael Kellman 7 Bonwit Road Expand the existing front portico 6) #08-525 Mr. & Mrs. Michael Suesserman 25 Rockinghorse Trail Replace the front portico and construct a new rear landing with steps to grade Zoning Board of Appeals June 3,2008 Page 1 7) #08-529 Mrs. Connie Rosner 2 Magnola Drive Replace the existing deck 8) #08-528 Mr. & Mrs. James Arnett 282 North Ridge Street Construct a one-story, two-car garage addition, one second-story addition, convert the existing garage to living space and re-grade the property 9) #07-481 Ms. Laurie Kaufman (Re Appearance) 249 Tree Top Lane Partition off the existing garage to create a finished, heated storage space 10) #08-512 Ms. Cheryl Benson (Re Appearance) 4 Deer Run Remove and replace the existing wood deck. 11) Discussion of proposed amendments to Village Code Chapter 250 12) Approval of May 6, 2008 Zoning Board Summary BOARD: Mark Harmon, Chairman Salvatore Crescenzi Don Moscato Jeffrey Rednick Michael Siegel STAFF: Michael Izzo, Building Inspector Paula Patafio, Meeting Secretary BOARD OF TRUSTEE LIAISON: Trustee Dean Santon Zoning Board of Appeals June 3,2008 Page 2 Mr. Mark Harmon, Chairman, welcomed everyone to the June 3, 2008 meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Harmon called for the first item on the agenda: 1) #08-518 Church of Our Lady of Mercy (Re Appearance) 319 South Ridge Street Construct an addition to the existing mausoleum and a new maintenance garage Anthony Gioffre, Esq. and Daniel Laub, Esq., legal counsel from the firm of Cuddy and Feder addressed the Board. Mr. Laub noted that they were in attendance to review the application and respond to any questions from the Board or members of the public. Mr. Harmon noted that additional information had been requested at the previous meeting. Mr. Laub gave a brief recap of the application and the outstanding issues. He noted that there were two (2) variances being requested and he made a review of the balance of analysis. He noted that the variances proposed would accommodate an additional 210 casket spaces. One important point to note is that these crypt spaces are needed, especially in light of the fact that there are no ground spaces available. This is the last area on the property that can be built upon. These crypts are meaningful and St. Mary's is trying to help those people who are looking to lay their loved ones to rest. There are no other options available at this cemetery. The last phase of construction sold out before this application was made. Mr. Laub presented the Board with a Petition of approximately 100 names of individuals who are in support of the application. At this time the Superintendent of the Cemetery has a list of over 60 people looking for internment information and spaces. It is also important to note that the proposed building will offer the opportunity for families to be interned together. As part of the Catholic faith, individuals are to be buried and there must be a place to worship. This new building will offer both. Another issue to be considered is that cemeteries in New York State are required by law to dedicate funds for the perpetual care of the cemetery. A minimum of 25% of the proposed construction will go into that fund. This cemetery is now 150 years old, and is well maintained. The applicant has heard the comments from the Village and has scaled back the plans. At this point in time the applicant is seeking approval of the variances so that the project can move ahead. Zoning Board of Appeals June 3,2008 Page 3 Mr. Harmon noted that there was a question raised at the previous meeting regarding seeking approval of variances from the previous phase. He asked if an appeal had been filed. Mr. Laub stated that his firm found that there was nothing to appeal. The Village's application process allows for review when an application has been denied by the Building Inspector. That was not the case in this instance— the applicant received the required Certificates of Occupancy at the end of the construction. Anthony Gioffre, Esq. pointed out that an opinion has been issued on this matter via a privileged document. Mr. Harmon responded that the opinion does not address the question. Mr. Harmon questioned when the report on the noise impact study would be finalized and ready for review. Mr. Michael Izzo, Building Inspector, noted that the Village Engineer spoke with the firm preparing the report and they indicated that the report would be completed by the end of the week. Mr. Harmon asked what time constraints would mandate the granting or denial of the variances tonight. Mr. Gioffre noted that this matter has been before the Village for quite some time. He respectfully submitted that it would be appropriate for the Board to grant approval at this time. He also noted that the matter would be before the Board of Trustees at its next regular meeting. Mr. Harmon noted that he did not receive any information from the Board of Trustees that would indicate that their determination would be based on the Zoning Board's decision to grant or not grant the variances. Mr. Harmon opened the application to the Board members for discussion. Mr. Don Moscato stated that he had hoped that the architect would be available to respond to his questions. He noted that his primary concern was about the fagade facing Ridge Street. He also expressed concern about the buffer being only 1' wide. He addressed the crypts in the front of the building that are tandem crypts (one casket and a second casket in front of it). Mr. Laub noted that the crypts are stacked and that the change to the fagade was made in response to comments from the Village's Boards, Staff, and Consultants. Moving the building backward, as little as a foot, would mean that these crypt spaces would be lost. Mr. Moscato noted that removing crypt spaces would remove the requirement for the Variance. Mr. Laub stressed that the applicant cannot reduce the number of crypts and still meet the needs of the community. Mr. Harmon asked if the front of the building was moved back 5' and there were single crypts instead of tandum how many crypt spaces would be lost. Mr. Laub responded that all 210 casket spaces would be lost. These spaces are a modular design. The building can only be reduced by the length of a casket space. Zoning Board of Appeals June 3,2008 Page 4 Mr. Gioffre reiterated that moving the building back as much as V removes the casket space. A discussion regarding the actual number of crypt spaces that would be lost took place. The applicant contends that if the building was moved back a total of 210 crypt spaces would be lost. The loss of this many crypt spaces effects the application as the building was designed in response to a need from the community. Mr. Harmon asked for the consensus of the Board. After a brief discussion, the Board decided that the public hearing should be adjourned to the July meeting for receipt of the sound report and confirmed data on crypt spaces. The applicant agreed to the adjournment, and thanked the Board for its time and consideration. Mr. Harmon called for the second matter on the agenda. He reminded the Board that this was also a re-appearance. 2) #08-521 Mr. & Mrs. Funtleyder (Re-Appearance) 13 Beechwood Boulevard Construct a new single family dwelling with attached three-car garage and rear patio on grade Anthony Gioffre, Esq., from the firm of Cuddy and Feder, addressed the Board as legal counsel for the applicant. It was noted that the architect, chief engineer, and the applicants were also in attendance and available to respond to questions. He began his presentation by noting that new plans were provided to each Board member (these plans have not yet been submitted to the Planning Board). He offered to review the new plans and point out the changes for the benefit of the board members, and members of the public. Mr. Gioffre reiterated that since the last time this matter was before the Zoning Board the plans have been changed. The front yard setback variance being requested is now for the front porch. Previously the driveway area was extended into the side yard. This has also been reduced. The stairs from the rear yard have now been moved to the side yard and the only variance now being requested was the 12.73 foot contextual front yard setback. Mr. Gioffre reviewed how front yard setbacks are reached. As a result of various different developments, the front yard setbacks vary in this area of Rye Brook. Zoning Board of Appeals June 3,2008 Page 5 Mr. Gioffre stated that his firm referred to the Assessor's Records. He presented the information obtained from the Assessor's office as it pertained to front yard setbacks. Mr. Harmon stated that Mr. Laub did a fine job presenting the plans and responding to the questions asked at the previous meeting. He felt that there were still a few questions that the Board raised that required answers. Mr. Harmon turned to the Board for questions or comments. Mr. Moscato noted that this is a 1.09 acre site. The house is positioned to the extreme right of the property. He stated that he was concerned about the visual impact of the house. This is a 112' wide house with a height of approximate 30'. Moving the house further away from the street mitigates the visual impact. Mr. Gioffre pointed out that the portion of the property that is not used as it is in the flood plain. He also noted that the variance being requested has been reduced significantly in compliance with comments and suggestions made by the Village staff, consultants, and Boards over the past several months of review of this application. Mr. Harmon called for members of the public wishing to be heard in support or opposition to the application. Dean Santon, Village Trustee and resident of Hillendale Road, addressed the Board. He noted that the applicant's attorney made reference to different setbacks within the Byram Ridge area, and different sized lots. He felt that the information presented was inaccurate and he reviewed several of the setbacks in the area. Mr. Santon that this issue has been reviewed and the applicant has reduced the variance requested in response to comments from the Planning Board, staff, and consultants. At this time the applicant is seeking a 12.73' setback variance. Mr. Santon also pointed out that he is a Byram Ridge area resident, and he too was concerned about upholding the Village's Code. He stated that it was his opinion that the applicant could be made more compliant with the Village's Code, but he has been extremely responsive to the requests made by the Village. Mr. Hank, a resident of Woodland Drive, addressed the Board. He felt that a home could be constructed on this property without requiring any variances. This area is changing and smaller homes are being torn down to make room for larger new homes. He felt that the applicant could scale back the size of the home and build a house within the Village's Code. McMansions that are being constructed in this area have an effect on the neighboring homes, both in changing the character of the area and in producing additional storm water runoff that can only exacerbate the flooding issues in the area. Zoning Board of Appeals June 3,2008 Page 6 Mr. Harmon noted that he has resided in the Hillendale area for 21years. This area has a unique character within the Village which should be preserved, however, people have the right to seek variances. The Zoning Code is not static and it is not arbitrary and it must be viewed by looking at what is happening in the neighborhood and the Village as a whole. The Zoning Board of Appeals weighs the various factors. A lot of the issues that are germane to the site and that show what is right for this parcel are more properly considered at the planning stage. The previous variance request made by the applicant was considered excessive. The applicant amended the plans and took a home that now sits 52.39' from the road and moved it further back. The applicant has demonstrated substantial good faith and has made an effort to build a house that would maintain the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Crescenzi agreed with Mr. Harmon. He noted that the applicant has worked with the Village and reduced number and size of the variances requested. Mr. Michael Siegel also agreed with Mr. Harmon. Mr. Moscato noted that the architect has created plans that reduce the need for excessive variances, however, it was still his opinion that the variance could be reduced further. Mr. Jeffrey Rednick also agreed with Mr. Harmon that the applicant has responded to the comments and questions from the Village, staff, and consultants. He felt that the applicant has come up with a reasonable request. The public hearing was closed and the Board began its deliberation. During the discussion Mr. Harmon prepared and reviewed the resolution for the Board. Upon the Board's return, Mr. Harmon read the resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Mr. & Mrs. Funtleyder for a 12.73' contextual front yard setback variance, in connection with the proposed construction of a new single family dwelling with attached three-car garage and rear patio on grade, on property located at 13 Beechwood Boulevard in an R-25 District on the east side of Beechwood Boulevard at the intersection of Beechwood Boulevard and Beechwood Circle. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 136.21, Block: 1, Lot: 38; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on May 6, 2008 and continued on June 3, 2008, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and Zoning Board of Appeals June 3,2008 Page 7 WHEREAS, the Board, from the application and after viewing the premises and neighborhood concerned, finds: 1) Although the requested variance is substantial, the applicant has worked to minimize the variance requested and has reduced that request by more than 50%; 2) The new home will be setback further from Beechwood Boulevard than the existing home; 3) The alternative constructions that could have been built, as-of-right, likely would have had a more substantial negative impact on the character of the neighborhood; and 4) The location of the home, as a corner lot of the Hillandale Circle, makes this a uniquely situation property; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the said application is hereby granted. Dated: June 3, 2008 Mark Harmon, Chairman Mr. Harmon called the roll: Salvatore Crescenzi Voting Aye Don Moscato Voting Nay Jeffrey Rednick Voting Aye Michael Siegel Voting Aye Mark Harmon Voting Aye The application was granted with four yes votes to one no vote. Zoning Board of Appeals June 3,2008 Page 8 Zoning Board of Appeals June 3,2008 Page 9 3) #08-515 Mr. & Mrs. Eric Bittleman (Re Appearance) 28 Country Ridge Circle Construct a new front porch John Scarlato, architect, addressed the Board. He noted that the applicant was unable to be in attendance at the meeting for personal reasons. He reviewed the change in the plans made in response to comments from the Zoning Board. He noted that the porch has been reduced to the width of the portico, the second story gable was removed, and the portico will only be one story high. Mr. Michael Izzo, Building Inspector, stated that he has not had the opportunity to review the new plans. Mr. Harmon noted that the Board would not make a decision until the Building Inspector was able to review the plans. It was, however, noted that the changes to the plans were an improvement. There were no comments from the members of the Board or members of the public and the matter was adjourned to the July meeting. Mr. Harmon called for item #4: 4) #08-517 Ms. Maria Rusciano (Re Appearance) 52 Hillcrest Avenue Construct an addition and perform interior alterations to convert the existing one-family house to a two-family dwelling John Scarlato architect, addressed the Board noting that the applicant was also in attendance. He stated that the new plans eliminated one variance request. The existing house does not have access to the rear yard and creating a door to the rear yard does not make sense. The front yard setback has been improved. The proposed porch has been reviewed and now the plans call for a portico versus a full porch. The front yard setback has been reduced, and the amount of additional impervious surface has also been reduced. The second floor of the addition has been made smaller, and the Irenhyl Hill front yard setback was being extended by not increased. Mr. Izzo pointed out that when reducing an existing non-conformity no notice is required. He clarified that there are two setbacks because this is a corner property. The height setback has been improved upon, and the F.A.R. (Floor Area Ratio) has been reduced. The back unit has been made much smaller, and the house will Zoning Board of Appeals June 3,2008 Page 10 now consist of one two-bedroom unit and one one-bedroom unit. The house will be consistent with the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Scarlato presented the Board with copies of letters in support of the application. Mr. Harmon asked that the letters be made part of the record. The residents in support reside at 55, 51, 43 Hillcrest. Mr. Scarlato reviewed the assessment cards for neighboring properties. He noted that there are other two-family homes in this area. These show that the F.A.R. and front yard setback being requested are consistent with the neighborhood. Mr. Scarlato noted that the old part of the house stays the same. The second unit will be for a single person or a couple. 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 for questions and comments. Mr. Moscato questioned access to the units. Mr. Scarlato noted that there were separate entrances to both units. Mr. Moscato asked what the benefit to the applicant would be. Mr. Scarlato noted that it would be financial. He reiterated that a two-family house in this neighborhood blends with the neighborhood. Mr. Harmon closed the public hearing and prepared the resolution on this matter. The Board deliberated and Mr. Rednick noted that he did not see a hardship with this application. Mr. Harmon noted that changing a home from a one family home to a two family required a variance, however, he felt that the variances could be further minimized. The applicant has been before the Board before and the application was denied. She has now come back in with different plans that are much less intrusive to the neighborhood. The main issue for the Board members was that this house was acquired as a one family house and the applicant has not demonstrated that the home cannot be used as such. Mr. Scarlato noted that part of the denial for the first application was the non-scaling back or attempting to reduce the sizes of the variances. Mr. Harmon agreed that the applicant has scaled the plans back, however, there are still a number of variances being requested. Mr. Harmon asked that this matter be referred to Village Counsel for review. With the consensus of the Board, the matter was adjourned to the July meeting. Mr. Izzo was instructed to request an opinion from the Village's Counsel whether or not the issue of a Use Variance exists in connection with this application. Mr. Harmon suggested that the applicant be prepared to address this matter at the next meeting. Zoning Board of Appeals June 3,2008 Page 11 Mr. Harmon called for the next item on the agenda: 5) #08-523 Mr. & Mrs. Michael Kellman 7 Bonwit Road Expand the existing front portico Mr. Scarlato addressed the Board as the architect for the applicant. He noted that the applicant was looking to extend the existing portico. The stairs are not being touched. The minimum front yard setback required by the Village's Code is 35 feet. The applicant has proposed a front yard setback of 27.4 feet. Mr. Izzo noted that the Building Department does not consider stairs when calculating a setback. The landing for the stairs is what is used. The front stoop is 34.4' and the portico will align with the stoop. The existing non-conformity is not being increased. Mr. Harmon called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in support or opposition to the application. There being no one, and no questions from the members of the Board, the public portion of the meeting was closed and Mr. Harmon prepared the resolution for the application. Mr. Harmon read the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Mr. & Mrs. Michael Kellman for a 4.8' front yard setback variance, in connection with the proposed expansion of the existing front portico, on property located at 7 Bonwit Road in an R-12 District on the north side of Bonwit Road, 100 feet from the intersection of Elm Hill Drive and Bonwit Road. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 135.42, Block: 1, Lot: 40; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on June 3, 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 proposed construction will not increase the existing front yard setback; and Zoning Board of Appeals June 3,2008 Page 12 2) It will not adversely impact the character of the neighborhood concerned. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the said application is hereby granted. Dated: June 3, 2008 Mark Harmon, Chairman Mr. Harmon called the roll: Salvatore Crescenzi Voting Aye Don Moscato Voting Aye Jeffrey Rednick Voting Aye Michael Siegel Voting Aye Mark Harmon Voting Aye The application was granted with five aye votes. Zoning Board of Appeals June 3,2008 Page 13 Zoning Board of Appeals June 3,2008 Page 14 6) #08-525 Mr. & Mrs. Michael Suesserman 25 Rockinghorse Trail Replace the front portico and construct a new rear landing with steps to grade Mr. Siegel recused himself from the application because of a close relationship with the applicant. John Scarlato addressed the Board as the architect for the applicant. He noted that the front portico is in need of repair and therefore will require a variance because there is an existing non-conformity. He also noted that the stairway to the existing egress in the rear of the home are being slightly enlarged. This property backs up to the school property. Mr. Harmon called for members of the public or members of the Board wishing to address the Board in support or opposition to the application. There were no comments or questions. Mr. Harmon declared the public hearing closed and he prepared the resolution, which was read upon completion: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Mrs. & Mrs. Michael Suesserman for a 7' front yard setback variance and a 10.7' rear yard setback variance, in connection with the proposed replacement of the front portico and construction of a new rear landing with steps to grade, on property located in an R-15 District on the east side of Rockinghorse Trail, 170 feet from the intersection of Dorchester Drive and Rockinghorse Trail. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 192.75, Block: 1, Lot: 8; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on June 3, 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 proposed front yard construction will not increase the existing front yard setback; Zoning Board of Appeals June 3,2008 Page 15 2) There is no feasible means to effect the rear entrance without seeking a variance, which is the least intrusive which could be sought to accomplish the exit; and 3) Neither variance will adversely impact the character of the neighborhood. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the said application is hereby granted. Dated: June 3, 2008 Mark Harmon, Chairman Mr. Harmon called the roll: Salvatore Crescenzi Voting Aye Don Moscato Voting Aye Jeffrey Rednick Voting Aye Michael Siegel Recused Mark Harmon Voting Aye The application was granted with four aye votes and one member was recused. Zoning Board of Appeals June 3,2008 Page 16 Zoning Board of Appeals June 3,2008 Page 17 7) #08-529 Mrs. Connie Rosner 2 Magnola Drive Replace the existing deck Kent Johnson, architect for the applicant, addressed the Board. He noted that the deck on this home that fronts Magnolia Drive needs replacement. It will be replaced to the exact dimensions of the existing deck. Mr. Harmon called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in support or opposition to the application. There being no one, he turned to the Board for questions or comments. The public portion of the hearing was closed and Mr. Harmon prepared and read the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Mrs. Connie Rosner for a 19.9' front yard setback variance, in connection with the proposed replacement of the existing deck, on property located at 2 Magnolia Drive in an R-15 District on the south side of Magnolia Drive, at 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: 136.21; Block: 1, Lot: 20; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on June 3, 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 proposed replacement of the deck will replicate exactly the existing deck which is in need of repair; 2) The front yard affected is a second front yard on King Street which is screened from view; and 3) The requested variance will not adversely impact the character of the neighborhood concerned. Zoning Board of Appeals June 3,2008 Page 18 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the said application is hereby granted. Dated: June 3, 2008 Mark Harmon, Chairman Mr. Harmon called the roll: Salvatore Crescenzi Voting Aye Don Moscato Voting Aye Jeffrey Rednick Voting Aye Michael Siegel Voting Aye Mark Harmon Voting Aye The application was granted on a vote of five ayes to zero nays. Zoning Board of Appeals June 3,2008 Page 19 Zoning Board of Appeals June 3,2008 Page 20 8) #08-528 Mr. & Mrs. James Arnett 282 North Ridge Street Construct a one-story, two-car garage addition, one second-story addition, convert the existing garage to living space and re-grade the property Mr. Harmon noted that this application has been before the Planning Board for Site Plan Review. The Planning Board has taken action on that application, but the Zoning Board has not been apprised of that decision. Mr. Izzo, Building Inspector, noted that the resolution from the Planning Board was provided to the Zoning Board members, attached to the memo from F.P. Clark and Associates, for their review. Mr. Harmon stated that a memo from the Planning Board is usually submitted to the Zoning Board. Mr. Izzo responded that the memo was being prepared but had not yet been finalized. The Chairman of the Planning Board has corresponded with the Village's attorney on this matter. One of the benefits in having the Planning Board act first is that they review most of the issues and the plans are modified in response to this review. Although the Planning Board may have approved this resolution, the conditions of approval have not been relayed to the Zoning Board. Mr. Harmon noted that he did not have a chance to review the resolution but was willing to listen to the presentation on the application. Stephan Marchesani, the architect for the applicant, noted that this matter has been before the Planning Board. There was a problem with flooding in the rear of the property, and the garage was moved over. This change created the need for variances. Another issue is the front entrance which is within the 60' scenic road setback. Mr. Harmon called for members of the public who wished to address the Board in support or opposition to the application. No one in attendance wished to address the Board. Mr. Harmon questioned the reason for having to move the garage. It was noted that the garage was moved to the first floor level because of the water problem with the basement and garage. Mr. Harmon asked if pumps or a drainage system could be installed to make the space usable as a garage. Mr. Izzo noted that Mr. Victor Carosi, Village Engineer, would be the best person to respond to this question. It was noted that the flooding that occurs in the existing garage under the structure and this has to do with the fact that the elevation of the garage is lower than the property in front of it. There is no water tight seal that can be placed at the bottom of the garage door to keep the water out. Mr. Victor Carosi, Village Engineer, previously advised Mr. Izzo that soil samples were taken from the property and found that retention in this area would be null. This means that a drywell would not work. Converting the garage door to a solid wall solves the Zoning Board of Appeals June 3,2008 Page 21 flooding. Waterproofing can be done when the wall is put up. The existing garage will now be the basement of the home. Mr. Arnett addressed the Board. He noted that there are pumps on the property, but they do not help because the flooding is widespread. He pointed out that his entire front yard floods and it flows out over the sidewalks and into Ridge Street. Mr. Harmon noted that the garage that is being proposed is setback further from the street than the existing garage. The applicant stated that there was no other way to create a two car garage. A detached garage would require a variance, and it would mean additional impervious surface. Mr. Harmon requested information on the gross floor areas on the houses surrounding the applicants'. The architect did not have this information. The Board briefly discussed the F.A.R. and it was noted that the basement space is not included in the calculation. Mr. Izzo stated that as a garage it was included in the calculations, but now it is being converted to storage space and it would not be included. At this time the public hearing was closed and the Board began its deliberation. Mr. Harmon prepared the resolution. Mr. Harmon read the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Mr. & Mrs. James Arnett for a 14.27' front yard setback variance, an 8' single side yard setback variance, a 7' total of two side yards variance, and a 507 square foot gross floor area variance, in connection with the proposed construction of a one- story two-car garage addition, one second story addition, converting the existing garage to living space and re-grading of the property, on property located at 282 North Ridge Street in an R-15 District on the west side of North Ridge Street, 500 feet from the intersection of Meadowlark Road and North Ridge Street. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 135.27; Block: 1, Lot: 10; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on June 3, 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: Zoning Board of Appeals June 3,2008 Page 22 1) The current garage cannot be used for its intended purpose due to flooding issues that cannot be controlled; 2) The proposed location of the garage, although it results in substantial variances, is the least intrusive construction that can be accomplished for the reasonable use of the property; and 3) The improvements to the home will result in a structure that is consistent with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the said application is hereby granted. Dated: June 3, 2008 Mark Harmon, Chairman Mr. Harmon called the roll: Salvatore Crescenzi Voting Aye Don Moscato Voting Aye Jeffrey Rednick Voting Aye Michael Siegel Voting Aye Mark Harmon Voting Aye The application was granted on a vote of five ayes to zero nays. Zoning Board of Appeals June 3,2008 Page 23 Zoning Board of Appeals June 3,2008 Page 24 9) #07-481 Ms. Laurie Kaufman (Re Appearance) 249 Tree Top Lane Partition off the existing garage to create a finished, heated storage space Mr. Harmon noted the application has been withdrawn. Ms. Kaufman will be returning the garage to the former use. 10) #08-512 Ms. Cheryl Benson (Re Appearance) 4 Deer Run Remove and replace the existing wood deck. Mr. Izzo noted that neither the applicant or her contractor contacted the Village. In addition, there was no information regarding posting of the sign, or notification to surrounding property owners. As a result, Mr. Harmon asked that the applicant be advised that the application would be adjourned to the July meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. At that time, if no response has been received, the application would be considered to be withdrawn. Mr. Izzo was directed to contact the applicant and advise her of the Board's decision. 11) Discussion of proposed amendments to Village Code Chapter 250 Mr. Harmon opened the matter for discussion. He noted that a member of the Zoning Board has been invited and will be attending a June 9th meeting with the Chairman of the Planning Board, two liaisons from the Board of Trustees, and Mr. Izzo. He asked if any member of the Zoning Board wished to attend this meeting. As no other member volunteered, Mr. Harmon noted that he would attend the meeting. This meeting will review how the process should go when there is a site plan approval. Mr. Harmon thanked the Board of Trustees for the opportunity to comment on the amendments. He asked that each member of the Board comment on this matter for the record. Mr. Moscato commented on the words "spirit and intent" used in the proposed amendments. He stated that he believed in the notion of both spirit Zoning Board of Appeals June 3,2008 Page 25 and intent and that it is a part of the guidelines that the Zoning Board of Appeal members should use in their deliberations. Mr. Harmon thanked the Board of Trustees for soliciting the comments of the Zoning Board. Regarding the spirit and intent language he felt that spirit and intent will always have a place in the construction and application but it doesn't have a place in the actual Code. This language should be stricken from the Code. When the Code is applied the Boards must be mindful of the intent. There is a provision that refers to a condition which would apply to all variances granted that the construction must run diligently over the course of one calendar year. He stated that he would prefer to see wording that meant more than just getting started. Mr. Hannon's last comment dealt with how matters are passed between the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Planning Board. Generally it is a better idea for the Planning Board to work on a matter and then refer it to the Zoning Board after approval where they feel it is appropriate in obtaining a determination. The caveat should be made from the Planning Board to Zoning Board where it appears that doing so will facilitate the ability of the Planning Board to complete its work and not just because they are not sure what the Zoning Board will do. There should also be a finding that no additional variances will be needed in connection with the site plan approval. Mr. Harmon noted that he would attend the meeting on behalf of the ZBA. Mr. Moscato stated that applicants think that once Planning Board approves an application they think that the Zoning Board will approve. These are two separate entities that review separate issues and this is not always the case. Mr. Harmon reiterated that he would attend the meeting and present the comments to the Board of Trustees. 12) Approval of May 6, 2008 Zoning Board Summary Mr. Harmon noted that he had several changes, one was substantial. He asked that in connection with the application from the Church of Our Lady of Mercy that the minutes reflect that the number of crypt spaces that would be lost if the building is moved back is 210 if the variance is not granted. Zoning Board of Appeals June 3,2008 Page 26 Trustee Dean Santon, as liaison to the Zoning Board, addressed the Board. He noted that the June 9t' meeting is scheduled for 7:30 a.m. and it is a public meeting. He also noted that more than one member of the Zoning Board can attend this meeting. Trustee Santon asked how the Zoning Board would be communicating its opinion to the Board of Trustees. Mr. Harmon stated that as liaison to the Zoning Board he had hoped that Trustee Santon would report the comments. In addition the Board can refer to the tape of the meeting. There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m. Zoning Board of Appeals June 3,2008 Page 27