Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-10-07 - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes Village of Rye Brook 938 King Street ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS October 7, 2008 Meeting at 8:00 p.m. AGENDA 1) 908-533 Mr. & Mrs. Bruce Rubenstein 140 Country Ridge Drive Legalize the second-story rear addition 2) #08-530 Mr. Denis McConway 3 Bell Place Construct a partial second story addition 3) #08-537 Mr. & Mrs. Jeffrey Jablon 8 Red Roof Drive Construct a one-story side addition 4) Approval of July 1,2008 and August 5,2008 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 Mr. Mark Harmon, Chairman, welcomed everyone to the October 7, 2008 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting. He called for the first item on the agenda: Zoning Board of Appeals October 7,2008 Page 1 1) 408-533 MR. & MRS. BRUCE RUBENSTEIN 140 Country Ridge Drive Legalize the second-story rear addition Mary Faithorn Scott, architect, addressed the Board. She noted that in 2003 she was the architect that prepared the plans for a kitchen addition constructed on this property. She was given a survey for the property and used it to create her site plan. At that time the left side yard setback was noted as 16.8'. She noted that she was once again retained to prepare plans for a two-story addition in 2006. When the construction was completed, an as-built survey was requested it was discovered that the original survey was incorrect. The new survey showed that the side yard setback was not 16.8' but rather 14.3' where 15.0' is required. This was an honest error, and if the applicant was aware that the addition was non- compliant at the time of the second story rear addition, they would have sought a variance at that time. Ms. Faithorn Scott pointed out that the non-conformity was an existing non-conformity. She presented the Board with photographs of the property, and a copy of the original survey used to draw up her plans. She stated that there is a row of existing Evergreens that serves as screening between the applicants' property and the adjacent neighbor. Ms. Faithorn Scott apologized for the error, and noted that a variance of 1' would legalize this non-conforming condition. Mr. Harmon called for members of the public wishing to be heard in support or opposition to the application. There was no one. Mr. Harmon noted that an email was received from Dean Santon regarding this matter. When Mr. Harmon learned that this correspondence was not shared with the applicant, he directed that the email be used as commentary regarding the process. Mr. Don Moscato questioned whether or not there was a mechanism or process in place to address these types of issues. Mr. Harmon responded that each application is reviewed on its own merit. In this instance this was an error on the architect's part which was not intentional or deceitful. Mr. Harmon asked if there was a previous variance application in connection with this property. Ms. Faithorn Scott stated that there was and she believed that it was in connection with gross floor area. Mr. Michael Izzo, Building Inspector, noted that the application for a zoning variance does not ask if there were previous variance requests other than those variances that would effect the current application. Mr. Harmon stated that the application needs to be revised because the Zoning Board needs to know whether or not previous variances have been granted for each application. Every application before the ZBA should come with a complete history. Zoning Board of Appeals October 7,2008 Page 2 Mr. Izzo noted that when the original variance for the previous application was brought before the Zoning Board of Appeals, the minutes from the meeting of 2006 granting the other variance for the square footage was included in the package. The ZBA was aware that the property was previously granted a variance when the application was granted. Mr. Harmon reiterated that the Zoning Board should have access to prior variance applications on all applications heard by the Board. Mr. Harmon closed the public portion of the hearing and the Board began deliberation. The following resolution was prepared and read: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Mr. & Mrs. Bruce Rubenstein for a F side yard variance, in connection with the proposed legalization of the second-story rear addition, on property located at 140 Country Ridge Drive in an R-15 District on the west side of Country Ridge Drive, 275 feet from the intersection of Rockinghorse Trail and Country Ridge Drive. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 129.74, Block: 1, Lot: 11; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on October 7, 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 error that led to the submission of incorrect plans in connection with a prior application for a building permit was unintentional and inadvertent; 2) The variance sought is not substantial and continues but does not enlarge a previously existing legal non-conformity; 3) The variance will not adversely impact the surrounding neighborhood; and 4) The applicant maintains adequate screening. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the said application is hereby granted. Dated: October 7, 2008 Mark Harmon, Chairman Mr. Harmon called the roll: Salvatore Cresenzi Voting Aye Don Moscato Voting Aye Jeffrey Rednick Voting Aye Michael Siegel Voting Aye Mark Harmon Voting Aye The application was granted by five ayes to zero nays. Zoning Board of Appeals October 7,2008 Page 3 Zoning Board of Appeals October 7,2008 Page 4 Mr. Harmon called for the next item on the agenda: 2) 408-530 MR. DENIS MCCONWAY 3 Bell Place Construct a partial second story addition Mr. Denis McConway, applicant, addressed the Board. He noted that he was looking for a variance in order to construct storage area above the garage. Currently there is a flat roof on the garage that is leaking and needs repair. Mr. Harmon noted that the Notice contained an error. He pointed out that the application reflects that a side height set-back ratio will result in a required variance of 5.5' where 2.4' is permitted. However, there is also reference to a 6.01' variance. There is a huge difference in the variance request. Mr. Harmon asked for input from the architect. Mr. McConway noted that the architect was expected but had not yet arrived. Mr. Harmon offered the applicant an adjournment until later in the meeting, at which time the application would be re-called before the Board. The applicant accepted the adjournment and stepped out of the meeting room to call the architect. 3) #08-537 MR. & MRS.JEFFREY JABLON 8 Red Roof Drive Construct a one-story side addition John Scarlato, architect for the applicant, addressed the Board. He presented photographs of the applicant's property and the surrounding homes. He began his presentation by noting that the applicant requires an F.A.R. (Floor Area Ratio) variance so that the applicants can construct a bedroom and one bathroom on the first floor in order to accommodate their elderly parents who are no longer able to navigate the stairs. The addition will be constructed in the rear of the home. Mr. Scarlato stated that there are no setback or lot coverage issues, however, the F.A.R. allowed is 3,300 square feet and the home is now 4,097 square feet. The addition is proposed to be constructed off the side of the house, towards the rear of the home and will not impact the neighborhood. The study on the first floor will be removed and a bedroom, bathroom, and laundry area will be constructed. There is only a powder room on the first floor and the laundry area is located as you enter the home from the garage and it is a very small space. Mr. Scarlato noted that he reviewed the information available from the tax assessor's office regarding other similar homes in Red Roof Farm and found that there were other adjacent homes that were over the F.A.R. He presented the Zoning Board of Appeals October 7,2008 Page 5 property descriptions of four of these homes to the Board for their review. Mr. Harmon asked that this information be made part of the record. Mr. Salvatore Crescenzi noted that recent changes to the Village's Code made many of the homes in the Village non-conforming in regard to gross floor area. This was an example of the effect of those changes. 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. Mr. Harmon questioned what currently existed on the first floor, and why the laundry room was being moved. Mr. Scarlato noted that the existing laundry room was too small. The addition would basically be a 12'6" x 26' space — two rooms. Mr. Harmon stated that the purpose of the Village's Code in connection with bulk standard law was to try and protect the integrity of the Village. He noted when viewing the plans it is clear that the addition would be visible from the street. In addition, he felt that the basis for the addition wasn't as straightforward as originally stated. Mr. Izzo informed the Board that there was a zoning variance granted for a deck in 2006. This deck is not on grade but rather 2' above ground level. Dr. Jablon, the applicant, addressed the Board. He reviewed what they were trying to accomplish, noting that the entry area is a 5' x 6' area and it is too small to house the entryway and the laundry room. They were trying to create a larger laundry room and add a pantry. The new bedroom is for his wife's parents, when they visit. Although they do not yet reside with the applicant, it is assumed that they will reside with them in the future. They spend a fair amount of time during the course of the year visiting. Dr. Jablon pointed out that the garage is small. Mr. Harmon asked for the consensus of the Board regarding this application. It was noted that one concern was that the Board members were not convinced that the applicant was seeking the smallest variance needed to accomplish the applicants' goal. Four of the five members had this concern. In addition, it was felt that there were other ways in which to accomplish the applicants' goal without having such a large visual impact. Mr. Scarlato asked for an adjournment to review the plans with the applicant. Mr. Harmon stated that this matter would be placed on the agenda for the next Zoning Board of Appeals meeting scheduled for November 3, 2008. Zoning Board of Appeals October 7,2008 Page 6 Mr. Harmon recalled the second matter on the agenda: 2) 408-530 MR. DENIS MCCONWAY 3 Bell Place Construct a partial second story addition Mr. Izzo noted that the application submitted by the architect indicates that the proposed variance is 2.5'. However, the Building Department calculated the variance required at 5.5'. In addition, the Zoning Variance application calls for a 3.1' variance. Mr. Izzo stated that as the building permit application called for one height setback, the Notice of Denial that called for another, and then the Zoning Variance application which called for a third number, it was his opinion that this issue should be worked out before the Board addressed this matter. Mr. Harmon agreed with Mr. Izzo, noting that there were several discrepancies that should be resolved prior to the applicant presenting the application to the Zoning Board. The architect addressed the Board. He noted that one reason for the discrepancy was that an old survey of the property was used. A new survey was done and the numbers have changed. Mr. Harmon suggested that this matter be adjourned to the November 3rd meeting in order to assure that the miscalculations corrected and that the variance request is as minimal as possible. The applicant accepted the adjournment. Mr. Harmon called for the last item on the agenda. 4) Approval of July 1,2008 and August 5, 2008 Zoning Board Summary Mr. Harmon noted that he made some non-substantive changes to July 1, 2008 summary, as have Mr. Moscato and Mr. Rednick. The Board voted to approve both summaries as amended by a vote of five ayes to zero nays. There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 8:48 p.m. Zoning Board of Appeals October 7,2008 Page 7