Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-08-05 - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes Village of Rye Brook 938 King Street ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS August 5, 2008 Meeting at 8:00 p.m. AGENDA 1) #08-535 Mr. & Mrs. John Steele 198 Betsy Brown Road Construct a rear one-story addition with full unfinished basement 2) #08-536 Dr. & Mrs. David Lawrence 15 Magnolia Drive Construct a two-story addition and remove a portion of the rear deck 3) #08-537 Mr. & Mrs. Seth Solomons 47 Mohegan Lane Construct a two-story addition; a partial second story addition; a new front portico; and new deck 4) Discussion of proposed amendments to Village Code Chapter 250 5) Approval of July 1, 2008 Zoning Board Summary BOARD: Michael Siegel, Acting Chairman Salvatore Cresenzi Don Moscato Jeffrey Rednick Excused: Mark Harmon, Chairman STAFF: Michael Izzo, Building Inspector Paula Patafio, Meeting Secretary Zoning Board of Appeals August 5,2008 Pagel Mr. Michael Siegel, Acting Chairman, welcomed everyone to the August 5, 2008 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting. He noted that Mark Harmon, Chairman, was excused from the meeting. Mr. Siegel called for the first item on the agenda: 1) #08-535 MR. & MRS. JOHN STEELE 198 BETSY BROWN ROAD CONSTRUCT A REAR ONE-STORY ADDITION WITH FULL UNFINISHED BASEMENT Andrea Steele, architect and applicant, addressed the Board. She noted that they were looking to construct a rear one-story addition with full unfinished basement. She pointed out that the proposed construction was not out of character with the neighborhood and would not have an adverse effect. Mrs. Steel also noted that this is a corner property, the home is legally non-conforming, and the proposed construction reduces the existing non-conformity. Mrs. Steele stated that she spoke to all of her neighbors and they were in support of the application. She also noted that it is vacation time and no one was available to come to the meeting. Mr. Siegel called upon members of the public wishing to address the application in support or opposition. There being no one, he turned to the Board for comments or questions. There were no questions. Mr. Siegel closed the public portion of the hearing and the Board began deliberation and preparation of the resolution. After a brief discussion, and preparation of the resolution, Mr. Siegel re-opened the hearing and read the following resolution: Zoning Board of Appeals August 5,2008 Page 2 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Mr. & Mrs. John Steele for a front yard setback variance of five (5) feet, in connection with the proposed construction of a rear one-story addition with full, unfinished basement, on property located at 198 Betsy Brown Road in an R-10 District on the south side of Betsy Brown Road, at the intersection of Sylvan Road and Betsy Brown Road. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 135.44, Block: 1, Lot: 5; and WHEREAS August 5, 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 reduce and maintain, but not enlarge existing legal non-conformities; 2) The proposed construction will not adversely impact or alter the character of the neighborhood. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the said application is hereby granted. Dated: August 5, 2008 Michael Siegel, Acting Chairman Mr. Siegel called the roll: Don Moscato Voting Aye Jeffrey Rednick Voting Aye Salvatore Cresenzi Voting Aye Michael Siegel Voting Aye The application was granted by four ayes to zero nays. Zoning Board of Appeals August 5,2008 Page 3 Zoning Board of Appeals August 5,2008 Page 4 Mr. Michael Izzo, Building Inspector, addressed the Board. He noted that the matter of Dr. & Mrs. David Lawrence was improperly noted. Jonathan D. Kraut, Esq., partner in the law firm of Friedman, Harfenist, Langer & Kraut, LLP addressed the Board. He noted that he represented the applicants and understood that there was a procedural issue dealing with impervious surface coverage. He stated that he had consulted with his clients and they asked that the application be heard and a condition be placed on the granting of the variance that the applicants will remove the appropriate amount of impervious surface coverage from the driveway area, putting them into compliance. This will render the property more in conformity with the Village's Code. Mr. Siegel repeated what he understood — that the applicant would not be seeking a variance in connection with impervious coverage, and asked the applicant's counsel to confirm. Mr. Kraut stated, "If I did not make it clear enough, yes." The Board approved the condition, and allowed the matter to be heard. 2) #08-536 DR. & MRS. DAVID LAWRENCE 15 MAGNOLIA DRIVE CONSTRUCT A TWO-STORY ADDITION AND REMOVE A PORTION OF THE REAR DECK Mr. Kraut introduced the architect for the project, Joseph Lazarcheck from the firm of Joseph P. Lazarcheck, aia. Mr. Kraut began the presentation by noting that the Lawrences have lived in this home for approximately 30 years. The total of two side yard setbacks is 40' and the applicant is proposing 35.8', however, it should be noted that because of the unusual shape of the property the area requiring the variance is a small sliver of the proposed addition. Mr. Kraut presented the Board with a photo board of photographs of the home. He pointed out that as part of this application, a portion of the rear deck is being removed. He also noted that the roof has a very shallow pitch and the lowest point of the roof structure is in the same corner of the property as the sliver requiring the variance. Mr. Kraut noted that the proposed construction would result in the enlargement of the master bedroom and recreation areas, and includes the addition of an additional bedroom and bathroom. Mr. Kraut stated that the neighbors are aware of the application and there was no one in opposition to the application. Mr. Kraut and Mr. Lazarcheck offered to answer any questions from the Board. Mr. Siegel called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in support or opposition to the application. There was no one. He turned to the Board and Village staff for comments and questions. Zoning Board of Appeals August 5,2008 Page 5 Mr. Michael Izzo, Building Inspector, asked for clarification. He wanted to be certain that the applicant would be reducing the amount of impervious surface to less than what currently exists. The property is now legally non-conforming. Mr. Kraut responded that the impervious coverage would be reduced by removing an existing portion of the driveway. In addition a portion of the deck would be removed. Mr. Izzo noted that as long as what is proposed regarding impervious surface is less than what is there no variance would be required. A reduction to an existing non-conformity does not require a variance. Mr. Kraut noted that the applicant would accept the condition that there must be less impervious surface coverage than what currently exists now. Mr. Izzo asked that a number be affixed. Under the Village's Code 7,961.6 square feet of impervious surface is allowed and the existing is 8,143.34 square feet. The proposed addition would bring the total to 8,289.34 square feet. The applicants have agreed to bring the impervious surfaces to a number under 7,961.6 square feet. Mr. Izzo stated that if an existing non-conformity is reduced then it not required to be notice. Mr. Kraut reiterated that the impervious surface will be pulled below what is existing. Mr. Siegel noted that the public portion of the hearing was closed and the Board went into deliberation. Upon completion of the resolution, Mr. Siegel reconvened the meeting and read the following resolution: Zoning Board of Appeals August 5,2008 Page 6 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Dr. and Mrs. David Lawrence for a total of two side yards setback variance of 4.2 feet, in connection with the proposed construction of a two-story addition and removal of a portion of the rear deck, on property located at 15 Magnolia Drive in an R-15 District on the west side of Magnolia Drive, 515 Feet from the intersection of Comly Avenue and Magnolia Drive. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 130.78, Block:l, Lot: 3; and WHEREAS August 5, 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 requested variance is not substantial; 2) The applicant is reducing an existing non-conformity related to the size of the deck on the property; and 3) The proposed construction will not adversely impact the character of the neighborhood. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the said application is hereby granted on the following condition: 1) The variance is hereby conditioned on the providing of satisfactory to the Village Building Department that total impervious coverage on the property be less than 8143.34 square feet. Dated: August 5, 2008 Michael Siegel, Acting Chairman Mr. Siegel called the roll: Don Moscato Voting Aye Jeffrey Rednick Voting Aye Salvatore Cresenzi Voting Aye Michael Siegel Voting Aye The application was granted by four ayes to zero nays. Zoning Board of Appeals August 5,2008 Page 7 Zoning Board of Appeals August 5,2008 Page 8 3) #08-537 Mr. & Mrs. Seth Solomons 47 Mohegan Lane Construct a two-story addition; a partial second story addition; a new front portico; and new deck John Scarlato, architect, addressed the Board as the representative for the applicant. He presented photos of the existing home, and tax assessment cards for similar surrounding homes. Mr. Scarlato noted that this home is a front-to-back split level, with a small master bedroom. From the road the home appears much smaller than it is. The existing home is legally non-conforming, and is situated on a triangular shaped property located on a cul-de-sac. The applicants are looking to construct a master bedroom, walk-in closet, and a bathroom, with most of the addition in the rear of the house. The addition will be constructed over the existing dining room. The proposed addition will not be out of character with the neighborhood, nor will it create a detriment. In order to accomplish the goals of the applicants, they are required to apply for and receive a minimum rear yard setback variance, a total of two side yard setback variance, and a variance for maximum allowable gross floor area. Mr. Scarlato noted that the variances required is actually for a small portion of the addition. Mrs. Solomons noted that she approached every resident on Mohegan Lane, on this cul-de-sac, and no one opposed the proposed construction. She noted that an adjacent property owner from Lincoln Avenue was in attendance. Mr. Scarlato noted that the addition would be constructed over the existing footprint of the house. He reminded the Board that the garage counts in the F.A.R. and the garage counts for almost 500 square feet. He also noted that the basement counts towards the F.A.R. because of the style of the home. The number over sounds big, but a portion of that is the garage and the garage is not livable space. Mr. Moscato asked if the size of the variance could be made smaller. Mr. Scarlato noted that other designs and possibilities were reviewed but they did not work as well, and the number of variances required were higher. He felt that the plans before the Board were modest, the rooms were very tight and tighten them any further would mean that the applicant would end up with rooms that would not work very well. Mr. Siegel called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in support or opposition. The resident of 51 Lincoln Avenue addressed the Board, the owner of the property behind the applicant's property. She noted that she wanted to be sure that the addition doesn't encroach further back on the property. Now that she has viewed the plans and finds that it does not, she had no objection. Zoning Board of Appeals August 5,2008 Page 9 It was noted that there is a large tree in the rear yard that will need to be removed. Mr. Scarlato stated that he thought the tree was a Maple tree. Since this application was not required to go before the Planning Board, there is no requirement in place to replace the tree. Mr. Izzo stated that the applicant must comply with Chapter 235 of the Village Code regarding tree removal. The public portion of the meeting was closed and the Board went into deliberation. Mr. Siegel re-opened the meeting and read the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Mr. & Mrs. Seth Solomons for a rear yard setback variance of 0.5 feet; a total of two side yard variance of 1.5 feet, and a gross floor area variance of 560.75 square feet, in connection with the proposed construction for a two-story addition, a partial second story addition, a new front portico, and new deck, on property located at 47 Mohegan Lane in an R-12 District on the south side of Mohegan Lane, 520 feet from the intersection of Pine Ridge Road and Mohegan Lane. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 135.41, Block: 1, Lot: 26 and WHEREAS August 5, 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 setback variances are deminims; 2) There is no significant change to the footprint of the house; 3) The proposed structure is in character with the neighborhood; 4) The garage is counted as part of the gross floor area although it is not livable space; and 5) The proposed project does not have any opposition from the community. Zoning Board of Appeals August 5,2008 Page 10 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the said application is hereby granted on the following conditions: 1) Tree removal for the project must comply with Chapter 235 of the Village's Code. Dated: August 5, 2008 Michael Siegel, Acting Chairman Mr. Siegel called the roll: Don Moscato Voting Aye Jeffrey Rednick Voting Aye Salvatore Cresenzi Voting Aye Michael Siegel Voting Aye The application was granted by four ayes to zero nays. Zoning Board of Appeals August 5,2008 Page 11 Zoning Board of Appeals August 5,2008 Page 12 4) DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO VILLAGE CODE CHAPTER 250 It was noted that this matter was discussed at the previous Zoning Board meeting. A meeting was held with the Chairmen of both the Planning and Zoning Board of Appeals, the Mayor and Trustees to discuss Chapter 250. Suggestions and comments were presented and incorporated into the proposed changes. The Board began the discussion on this matter by addressing training requirements for the Zoning Board members. It was felt that the wording in the Code needed to be revised to clarify the number of training hours required and the exact time frame, i.e.: the calendar year or fiscal year. The next area of discussion was whether an application should be heard by Planning first, or Zoning. Mr. Cresenzi noted that when an application comes in from the Building Department, it is reviewed by the Building Inspector. If a determination is made that the application requires two (2) different courses of action, then it will go before both Boards. Mr. Cresenzi felt that the determination to go before Planning first was incorrect. Mr. Izzo noted that this is the determination that has been made by the Village's legal counsel. Mr. Cresenzi stated that from a common sense point of view the application should come before the Zoning Board first for a complicated application. He referred to a recent application that by going to Planning first wasted months of reviews and expended a good amount of money before it reached the Zoning Board where the application was denied. The Planning Board can only make recommendations because they do not have the power to grant variances. Mr. Cresenzi noted that the applicants are residents of the Village and the Boards are here to serve them. The goal should be to make decisions the quickest and most cost efficient way. Mr. Izzo noted that the general idea is that the Planning Board reviews an application and works with the applicant to reduce or, in some cases, even eliminate certain variances before the application reaches the Zoning Board. Mr. Cresenzi felt that additional changes to the Code would give the Building Department the tools necessary to send the application to Zoning first, and reduce the hardship that is now being imposed on the residents. Mr. Izzo stated that the comments were duly noted. He referred to and read Chapter 209.1(b) of the Village's Code, noting that there is a list of land use activities that results in review by the Planning Board. Mr. Cresenzi also commented on the changes to the Village's Zoning Code that have been made, i.e.: the Scenic Roads Overlay District. Many properties were impacted and now the Zoning Board sees applications where the homes are legally Zoning Board of Appeals August 5,2008 Page 13 non-conforming. Mr. Izzo noted that studies were done. F.P. Clark and Associates, the Village's consultant, also did a study that calculated the number of houses that became non-conforming as a result of the changes. Mr. Cresenzi stated that he would like to review the studies that were performed. 5) Approval of July 1, 2008 Zoning Board Summary Mr. Siegel noted that he did have some small changes, as did Mr. Moscato, however, since Mr. Harmon was absent the Board felt that the matter should be adjourned to the next Board meeting to allow for his input. The matter was adjourned to the September Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Zoning Board of Appeals August 5,2008 Page 14