Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-01-02 - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK 938 King Street Zoning Board of Appeals Tuesday, January 2, 2007 Meeting at 8:00 p.m. Agenda 1. 406-449 Frank Drazka,Melissa Drazka,Henry Klein,Kip Konigsberg 44 Lincoln Avenue Subdivide a 10' x 278.33' driveway into three separate tax lots, as identified on the application as lots "A," "B" and"C" 2. 406-460 Dr. Gerald Cohen (Re Appearance) 301 South Ridge Street Conduct a commercial dentist office as a non-resident of the premises 3. 406-458 Ms. Susan Rauso (Re Appearance) 9 Berkley Lane Legalize a rear, one-story addition and rear deck expansion 4. 406-463 Mr. & Mrs. William Popper (Re Appearance) 6 Horseshoe Lane Construct a front two-story addition; reconfigure the existing roof, build a new front porch and walk; and create additional off-street parking 5. Approval of December 5, 2006 Zoning Board Summary BOARD: Mark Harmon, Chairman Salvatore Crescenzi Ronald Rettner(arrived at 8:12 p.m.) Michael Siegel Excused: Joseph Pellino Trustee Joan Feinstein, Liaison from the Board of Trustees STAFF: Michael Izzo, Building Inspector Paula Patafio, Meeting Secretary Zoning Board of Appeals January 2, 2007 Page 1 Mr. Mark Harmon, Chairman, welcomed everyone to the first meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals for 2007. It was noted that this was the first meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals to be videotaped and telecast. Mr. Harmon began the meeting by announcing that Mr. Joseph Pellino was excused from the meeting. He pointed out that with Mr. Pellino's absence, and Mr. Ronald Rettner's absence, there were only three (3) members of the Board in attendance. Although three (3) members constituted a quorum, and the meeting could proceed, it also meant that an applicant would require all three (3) yes votes in order to be granted the required variances. If one (1) member voted no, the application would be denied. Since Mr. Ronald Rettner normally arrived at 8:15 p.m., Mr. Harmon noted that there was a possibility that he would be attending this meeting. Mr. Harmon stated that he would be offering each applicant the opportunity to adjourn their application, either to later in the meeting or to the next Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. Mr. Harmon called for the first matter on the agenda: 1) # 06-449 Frank Drazka,Melissa Drazka,Henry Klein,Kip Konigsberg 44 Lincoln Avenue Subdivide a 10' x 278.33' driveway into three separate tax lots, as identified on the application as lots "A," "B" and"C Mr. Harmon stated that Bruno Gioffre, Esq., legal counsel for the applicants, had submitted a letter to the Village on December 29, 2006 withdrawing the application. The subject parcel of land will be returned for common use by ownership rendering the application moot. Therefore, with the permission of the Board, the application was withdrawn. Mr. Harmon called for item 92 on the agenda: 2) #06-460 Dr. Gerald Cohen (Re Appearance) 301 South Ridge Street Conduct a commercial dentist office as a non-resident of the premises Les Maron, Esq., of counsel from the firm of Gioffre and Gioffre and legal representative for the applicant, addressed the Board. Mr. Harmon reiterated his offer to have the application adjourned to either the next meeting, or later in the meeting when, perhaps, Mr. Rettner would be in attendance. Mr. Maron asked that the matter be held over to the end of the meeting, as it was the applicant's hope to not have to make another appearance. Zoning Board of Appeals January 2, 2007 Page 2 The Board granted the temporary adjournment, and Mr. Harmon moved to the next item on the agenda. 3) 406-458 Ms. Susan Rauso (Re Appearance) 9 Berkley Lane Legalize a rear, one-story addition and rear deck expansion Steve Marchasani, architect for the applicant, addressed the Board. Mr. Harmon offered the applicant an adjournment. Mr. Marchasani stated that the applicant was prepared to move forward, and he reminded the Board that this was the third appearance for the application. He began his presentation by noting that in response to suggestions from the Board he had amended the plans and was prepared to review the amendments. He noted that with the change to the deck, the side yard setback of 15' was now met. The Board reviewed the photographs, which had been made part of the record at the prior month's meeting. It was noted that the deck was cut back on the above grade level section of the deck. The result of the reduction of 2.85' was an 11.53' total side yard setback variance, and the elimination of the need for the single side yard setback variance. The rear yard setback variance request remained the same. Mr. Harmon called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in support or opposition. There was no one wishing to address the Board, and no further questions from Board members. Therefore, the public portion of the hearing was closed and the Board went into deliberation. Upon the Board's return,Mr. Harmon read the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Mrs. Susan Rauso for a 120 square foot gross floor area variance; an 11.53 total side yard set back variance, a 25.62' rear yard setback variance, and an 8.0% deck coverage variance, in connection with the proposed legalization of a rear one- story addition and a rear deck expansion, on property located at 9 Berkley Lane in an R-15 District on the south side of Berkley Lane, 260 feet from the intersection of Berkley Drive and Berkley Lane. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 135.43, Block: 1, Lot 11. WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on November 7, 2006, and held over to December 5, 2006, and January 2, 2007, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and Zoning Board of Appeals January 2, 2007 Page 3 WHEREAS the Board, from the application and after viewing the premises and neighborhood concerned, finds: 1) Applicant has modified her request to remove the need for a single side yard variance; 2) The topography of the property is such that much of the deck is at ground level; 3) The gross floor area variance request is minimal and does not impact the bulk of the home visually and it does not negatively impact the community. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the application is hereby granted on the following conditions: 1) Construction shall begin within one year of the granting of the variance; and 2) No further building permits may issue respecting this property without the consent of this Board given upon a properly noticed and heard application in accordance with the Village Code unless the proposed construction will not enlarge the footprint or square footage of the structure. DATED: January 2, 2007 Mark Harmon, Chairperson 4 Ayes 0 Nayes Zoning Board of Appeals January 2, 2007 Page 4 Zoning Board of Appeals January 2, 2007 Page 5 Mr. Harmon re-called item 92: 2. #06-460 Dr. Gerald Cohen (Re Appearance) 301 South Ridge Street Conduct a commercial dentist office as a non-resident of the premises Les Maron, Esq. addressed the Board. He noted that he submitted the Affidavit of Service in connection with the mailing of the notification for this matter. The application before the Board was for a Use Variance in connection with property located at 301 South Ridge Street. The property is located in an R-2F zone. Dr. Cohen purchased the property in 1994. It was a two-family house and one apartment was converted into a dentist office, and Dr. Cohen, as a resident of the home, was issued a Certificate of Occupancy for the use of the premises as a residence and dental office. At that time, under the Rye Brook Code, a dental office was a permitted Home Occupation. In 1996 the Village's regulations were amended, and in 2005-2006 further definitions of Home Occupations were added to the Village's Code. During this time Dr. Cohen lived and practiced out of this home. Since that time he has married and had two (2) children, and outgrew the apartment at 301 South Ridge Street. He has purchased a second home on Woodland Drive, and remains a resident of Rye Brook. Mr. Maron noted that Dr. Cohen submitted an application for registration of a Home Occupation in June of 2004, however, this application was not granted. The applicant is not contesting the Village's position that the applicant does not reside on the premise, however, there is a section of the Village's Code that allows residents of the Village to conduct business out of properties where they are not residents of the property. The applicant is now seeking a variance to permit the use of the property as a dental office. Once approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals, an application must be submitted to the Village's Board of Trustees for a Special Use Permit. Mr. Maron noted that there is a financial hardship involved with this application. Dr. Cohen purchased the property for $271,000.00. It was a two-family dwelling at the time. In order to make it suitable for his dental practice, and to up-date the apartments, he expended approximately $400,000.00 to renovate the house. He has received estimates to convert the house back into a resident dwelling for approximately $457,613.00. Mr. Maron presented the Board with photographs of the area that he listed as exhibits. He stated that he did not want to belittle the location, however, in his opinion this location had several qualities that made it more suitable for a professional office versus a residential property. The photographs showed other uses in the area, including the Possilipo Center, Garibaldi Park, and the Food Emporium Shopping Center. The fair market value of the home at this time is $850,000, however, if converted back to a two-family Zoning Board of Appeals January 2, 2007 Page 6 the fair market value would be $720,000. In addition, being allowed to continue using the premise as a dental office would produce additional financial income for the applicant, whereas converting the home back to two-family home would create a large financial loss. Mr. Maron stated that this is a unique situation, and that the property itself is uniquely situated. The property abuts 287 and an overpass. There is a parking lot for the park and the Possilipo Center directly across the street. The subject property is below the grade level of South Ridge Street, and it is well screened. This Special Use Permit would not alter the character of the neighborhood as this office has been in existence for 12 years and no physical changes to the building are proposed. In addition, no operational changes for the practice were being requested. Mr. Maron stressed that what currently exists is what has been previously approved by the Village's Building Department. Therefore, the character of the neighborhood would not change. Mr. Maron stressed that Dr. Cohen loves this community and would like to continue working here. There have been no complaints about the operation since it has been in existence. There was an appearance ticket issued in connection with the violation of non-residency, and there is a pending fine to be paid in connection with the use of the property. Since the time, the practice continues to operate. The applicant has agreed to pay the fines, and was directed to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Planning Board. Mr. Michael Izzo, Building Inspector, noted that the violation needs to be cured. A question was raised regarding current hours of operation. Mr. Maron noted that the dental practice is closed on Sundays and Mondays. On Tuesdays the office is closed as Dr. Cohen, who is the Director of Dental Implantology in at a medical center in Brooklyn, works in Brooklyn. On Wednesday the office hours are from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., and Thursdays and Fridays the hours are also 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Mr. Maron stated that one Thursday a month the office is closed. Dr. Cohen has Saturday hours of 8:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., but is closed one Saturday per month. Dr. Cohen would not be willing to keep the hours exactly the same as a condition of the granting of the variance as he anticipates changing the day that he will be at the Brooklyn hospital. He would like to have the option to change days available to him. Mr. Maron noted that at this time there is one dental assistant, one receptionist, one part time lab technician, and an orthodontist who is there only one or two days per month. The staff will not be expanded. Mr. Izzo noted that this practice was functioning as a Home Occupation use. He pointed out that that the orthodontist is not a resident of the home and should not be practicing here. Mr. Maron presented that Board with letters that have been received from several of the neighbors in support of the application. Mr. Harmon asked that the letters Zoning Board of Appeals January 2, 2007 Page 7 be made part of the record. Mr. Maron concluded his presentation by respectfully requesting that the Zoning Board of Appeals grant the required variance. Mr. Harmon called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in support or opposition to the application. The homeowner of 300 South Ridge Street addressed the Board in opposition to the application. He noted that he was in attendance every time this matter appeared on the Zoning Board's agenda. Having been before the Zoning Board years ago for a renovation to his two- family home, he was confused as to what made this property different than the surrounding properties. All of the items noted, i.e.: 287 and the bridge, and visible from the other properties in the area. He felt that the variance should be denied. There is no unnecessary hardship here. The applicant is not being denied the use of his property. If changes are going to be made for this homeowner, than the entire area should be re-zoned. As a contractor, he questioned the estimates that Dr. Cohen was given to convert the home back to a two-family residence. It was also noted that the subject property was a two-family home, with a dental office. The homeowner felt that granting the variance would set a precedent, other similar Home Occupations would be entitled to the same variances, and other homeowners would request a commercial use for their property. The homeowner also noted that the sign that noticed the meeting was only posted a few days before the meeting. He felt that this, coupled with the prior adjournments, could be the reason that other residents of the area were not in attendance. Mr. Maron stated that proper notification of the meeting was given, and an Affidavit of Service was delivered to the Village's Building Department. Mr. Harmon noted that other residents of the area were in attendance at prior meetings—meetings where the application was adjourned. Therefore, there might be further opposition to the application. Mr. Salvatore Crescenzi questioned the fact that there are two residential units in the home, as well as the dental practice. Mr. Maron responded that no one resides in the second apartment at this time, and that there was no intention of renting it. One apartment is rented, and both are full apartments with kitchens. Mr. Ronald Rettner asked for clarification of how the practice was continuing as the applicant is no longer a resident of the home. Mr. Izzo responded that if the application was not granted, the dental office would need to be closed and the property would need to be converted back to a two-family use. Mr. Harmon questioned whether a variance was granted prior to the construction of the dental office. Mr. Izzo responded that a permit was granted as-of-right by the prior Building Inspector. He reminded the Board that at that time this was a permitted use by a resident. However, over the years the Village has amended its Zoning Board of Appeals January 2, 2007 Page 8 Code and additional restrictions and regulations have been adopted. The applicant must now conform to the new Code. At the time that Dr. Cohen was issued a Certificate of Occupancy, he was fully aware that he needed to be a resident of the property. With this understanding, he undertook the renovations. Now that Dr. Cohen does not reside in the home, he must apply for a Special Use Permit. Mr. Harmon felt that this was a self-imposed hardship. He felt that the Board could not rationalize granting a variance for one property and then turn anyone else down in this area if they wanted to be able to use a portion of their home for a commercial practice. He stressed that granting this variance would set a precedent. The Zoning Board must be mindful of the impact that granting this type of variance would have on the neighbors. The public hearing closed and the Board went into deliberation. After a discussion between the Board members, the meeting went back on the record. Mr. Harmon noted that because of the sensitive nature of the application, the Zoning Board of Appeals would be seeking out the assistance of Village Counsel. The decision will be announced at the next Zoning Board of Appeals' meeting. Mr. Harmon called for item 94 of the agenda: 4) #06-463 Re Appearance Mr. & Mrs. William Popper 6 Horseshoe Lane Mary Faithorn Scott, architect, addressed the Board. She noted that Mr. & Mrs. Popper appeared before the Board in December, 2006. In response to comments from the Board, the plan was amended. She noted that the request for off-street parking was eliminated, and the total gross floor area variance was reduced to 678 square feet. She also noted that 160 square feet of the required variance is actually a wedge of space in the ceiling of the room. If this wedge of space was removed, the variance required would be brought down to 518 square feet. The addition is in the front of the home, and the side of the home remains untouched. The plan is to add over what is now the existing garage. It was also noted that the front yard setback was 60'. The driveway and the pathway will also remain the same. Ms. Faithorn Scott presented a photo board to the Board showing other homes in the neighborhood. She noted that this home would not be out of character with the other homes in the neighborhood. 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 further Zoning Board of Appeals January 2, 2007 Page 9 questions from the Board, the public portion of the meeting was closed and the Board went into deliberation. Upon the Board's return,Mr. Harmon read the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Mr. & Mrs. William Popper for a 678 square foot gross floor area variance, in connection with the proposed construction of a front two-story addition; reconfiguration of the existing roof, and construction of a new front porch and walk on property located at 6 Horseshoe Lane in an R-12 District, on the west side of Horseshoe Lane, at the intersection of Elm Hill Drive and Horseshoe Lane. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 135.50, Block: 1, Lot 51. WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on December 5, 2006, and continued on January 2, 2007, 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) Applicant has altered their proposal to minimize the impact on the community; and 2) Applicant has demonstrated that the proposed construction will be consistent with the homes in the neighborhood. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the application is hereby granted on the following conditions: 1) Construction shall begin within one year of the granting of the variance; and 2) No further building permits may issue respecting this property without the consent of this Board given upon a properly noticed and heard application in accordance with the Village Code unless the proposed construction will not enlarge the footprint or square footage of the structure. DATED: January 2, 2007 Mark Harmon, Chairperson 4 Ayes 0 Nayes Zoning Board of Appeals January 2, 2007 Page 10 Zoning Board of Appeals January 2, 2007 Page 11 5. Approval of December 5, 2006 Zoning Board Summary Mr. Harmon called for comments and or changes to the December summary. He noted that he had submitted his changes. The Board approved the summary as amended by Mr. Harmon. There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m. Zoning Board of Appeals January 2, 2007 Page 12