Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-03-06 - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK 938 King Street Zoning Board of Appeals Tuesday, March 6, 2007 Meeting at 8:00 p.m. AGENDA 1. #06-460 Dr. Gerald Cohen (Re Appearance) 301 South Ridge Street Conduct a commercial dentist office as a non-resident of the premises 2. #06-444 Ms. June Scharf (Re Appearance) 8 Magnolia Drive Construct a rear, two-story addition, and a second-story addition over the existing garage 3. #04-466 Mr. & Mrs. Giulio Conciatori 4 Arlington Place Legalize two rear additions, a rear deck and rear patio on grade 4. #07-468 Mr. & Mrs. Brian Salvatore 47 Valley Terrace Construct a front two-story addition, a new front porch, and extend the existing carport 5. #07-469 Mr. & Mrs. Andrew Rogovic 29 Winding Wood Road Construct a one-story side addition to expand the existing one-car garage to a two-car garage 6. Approval of February 6, 2007 Zoning Board Summary Zoning Board of Appeals March 6,2007 Page 1 BOARD: Joseph Pellino, Acting Chairman Salvatore Crescenzi Ronald Rettner (arrived at 8:08 p.m.) Michael Siegel Absent: Mark Harmon, Chairman Board of Trustee Liaison: Trustee Joan Feinstein STAFF: Michael Izzo, Building Inspector Paula Patafio, Meeting Secretary Mr. Joseph Pellino opened the meeting by noting that Mr. Mark Harmon, Chairman, was excused from the meeting. He stated that he would be Acting Chairman for the meeting, and welcomed everyone to the March 6, 2007 meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Pellino explained that although there was a quorum, with three (3) members of the Board in attendance, all applicants would need all three (3) yes votes in order to be granted the variances that they were seeking. He pointed out that there was a possibility that Mr. Ronald Rettner would be arriving shortly. All applicants on the agenda would be offered the option of adjourning to the next monthly meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals, adjourning to later in the meeting in the hope that Mr. Rettner would arrive, or proceeding knowing that they would need three (3)yes votes in order to be granted the requested variance(s). While allowing the applicants the time to discuss their options with their counsel and/or architects, Mr. Pellino called for the first matter on the agenda. 1. #06-460 Dr. Gerald Cohen (Re Appearance) 301 South Ridge Street Conduct a commercial dentist office as a non-resident of the premises Mr. Pellino noted that the attorney for the applicant, Bruno Gioffre, Esq., had submitted a request to adjourn the matter to the April meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Board was informed that the applicant recently had surgery and would not able to attend the meeting. The matter Zoning Board of Appeals March 6,2007 Page 2 was considered and, with the consensus of the Board, the request was granted. Mr. Pellino noted that the Zoning Board of Appeals normally holds its meeting on the first Tuesday of the month, however, Tuesday April 3rd is a holiday. After a brief discussion, the Board decided to rescheduled the meeting to Tuesday, April 10, 2007. Mr. Rettner arrived, and Mr. Pellino called for the next item on the agenda: 2. #06-444 Ms. June Scharf (Re Appearance) 8 Magnolia Drive Construct a rear, two-story addition, and a second-story addition over the existing garage Mr. Paul Bialowas, architect, addressed the Board as the representative for the applicant. He noted that this application was before the Board on July 11, 2006, at which time the Board and the applicant addressed drainage issues and concerns expressed by the neighbors. The public hearing was adjourned, and the applicant retained the services of an engineer. The engineer prepared a drainage plan in response to these comments and concerns. A plan was submitted to the Village, reviewed and amended, and the final plan was approved by the Village's Junior Engineer, Mr. Michal Nowack. Mr. Bialowas reviewed the approved plan with the Board. He noted that an adjacent home, 7 Magnolia, had recently constructed a very similar addition to their home. The Board was presented with photographs of the area, which were made part of the record. Mr. Pellino called for members of the pubic wishing to address the Board in support or opposition to the application. The homeowner of 10 Magnolia addressed the Board. She began by noting that this proposed addition was not the same as the addition built onto 7 Magnolia. Specifically, 7 Magnolia's addition was constructed above the garage, but there was no additional second story side extension. She noted that the plans that she reviewed with the Village's Junior Engineer on Monday, March 5th, were not the same plans that were being reviewed by the Zoning Board. Zoning Board of Appeals March 6,2007 Page 3 Mr. Michael Izzo, Building Inspector, stated that the plans before the Board were the approved plans. The resident continued, questioning how a drywell that was proposed to be constructed at the top of Magnolia Drive would help with storm water runoff. In addition, she noted that the drain which was being proposed would be constructed on the applicant's lawn and it was an open grate. She questioned the safety and aesthetics of this drain. She noted that the homes on Magnolia are extremely close together, with 8 and 10 Magnolia being closer than the rest of the homes on this street. The resident stated that the sign advising residents of the meeting was installed over the weekend. This notification did not give her sufficient time to research the matter, however, having been told by the Junior Engineer that a swale would be constructed, she noted that there was a swale between these two (2) homes, and it had filled in over the years. She felt that if the applicant constructed a swale, it too would disappear over the years. She asked who would be required to maintain the swale. She noted that there are drainage problems in the area that must be considered before granting the applicant any variance to construct, and increase impervious surface. She stated that she lived in this home for 27 years and that it was her belief that this addition would drastically effect the quality of her life. She asked that the matter not be decided at this meeting in order to allow her time to hire her own engineer, and to bring in real estate brokers that would advise the effect of this type of change to the neighborhood would have on her home. She stated that the properties on this street are on a slant. The area of the proposed construction of 8 Magnolia faces her rear yard and the windows would overlook her kitchen. The privacy that she has had up to now would be destroyed. Mr. Bialowas noted that it was this neighbor's concerns that prompted the creation of the drainage plan. He noted that the proposed addition projects into the applicant's rear yard. In an R-15 zone, under the bulk regulations, a home that is 3,147 square feet is allowed. The applicant is currently at 2,915 square feet and is proposing a total of 3,712 square feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance in connection with the maximum gross floor area for a total of 565 square feet. Mr. Bialowas noted that the proposed construction meets all other setbacks. Mr. Michael Siegel questioned whether or not the applicant complied with the notification requirements. It was noted that the drainage plan was approved on February 25, 2007 and the sign was installed on February 27th Mr. Bialowas stated that the Affidavit of Compliance has been submitted to Zoning Board of Appeals March 6,2007 Page 4 the Village. The sign was installed in the driveway, in the front of the house. Mr. Ronald Rettner asked if the addition could be scaled back. Mr. Bialowas reminded Mr. Rettner that the matter was previously before the Board in July. The applicant incorporated the comments from that meeting into the plans that are currently before the Board. Mr. Bialowas noted that no swale was going to constructed. He also pointed out that the drainage grate is on the applicant's property and the intention is to catch the runoff from the additional impervious surface on the property. This will be a circular gate, approximately two feet in diameter. The applicant proposes to screen this grate with landscaping. Mr. Michael Izzo, Building Inspector, noted that the elevation at the structure seems to be about 93'. When comparing this to the neighbor's property it shows that 10 Magnolia is higher than the applicants' property. The plans clearly show that the properties slope from 10 Magnolia to 8 Magnolia. He also pointed out that the Village's Junior Engineer reviewed the plans, and the plan before the Board this evening is the final, approved plan. The resident of 10 Magnolia addressed the Board again. She stated that Mr. Nowak is the person that showed her the proposed swale. She noted that water ponds between the two homes and, even in the summer months, the property is wet. The swale was supposed to direct the water away from the homes, to alleviate this problem. She stated that the plan before the Board this evening was not the plan she reviewed in the Building Department yesterday. She also requested that a drywell be installed closer to the bottom of the property to catch the storm water runoff, noting that Magnolia is a hill and with no where to go, the water will just sit at the bottom of the hill. Mr. Pellino called for additional members of the public wishing to address the Board in support or opposition. There being no one, he turned to the Board for questions and comments. It was noted that the windows on the proposed addition are set up high to let light in and to protect the privacy of its residents and neighbors. The applicant has gone to the additional expense of creating a storm water management plan. Mr. Rettner asked if the windows could be placed differently. In response Mr. Bialowas stated that the windows could be installed so that the sill of the window would be above the line of site. Zoning Board of Appeals March 6,2007 Page 5 The public portion of the meeting closed, and the Board went into deliberation. Upon the Board's return, Mr. Pellino read the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Ms. June Scharf for a gross floor area variance of 565 square feet, in connection with the proposed construction of a rear, two-story addition, and a second story addition over the existing garage, on property located at 8 Magnolia Drive in an R-15 District on the south side of Magnolia Drive, 360 feet from the intersection of Magnolia Drive and King Street. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 136.21, Block: 1, Lot 17. WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on March 6, 200, 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 obtained approval from the Village's Junior Engineer for a drainage plan to minimize runoff from the increased square footage of the house; and 2) The applicant has agreed to raise the sill level of the three (3) windows facing east on the new addition to a point above eye-level; and 3) The proposed additional will present no change to the character of 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. 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 of the structure. DATED: March 6, 2007 Joseph Pellino, Acting Chairperson 4 Ayes, 0 Nays Zoning Board of Appeals March 6,2007 Page 6 Zoning Board of Appeals March 6,2007 Page 7 2. #04-466 Mr. & Mrs. Giulio Conciatori 4 Arlington Place Legalize two rear additions, a rear deck and rear patio on grade Mr. John Scarlatto, Jr., architect, addressed the Board. He noted that because of a prior commitment, the applicants were not able to attend this meeting. He began his presentation by noting that this colonial home was built in the early 1970's. It has no basement, and is built over a crawl space. Most of the work on the home was done in the early 1970's, a short time after the house was built. The home is located in an R-10 zone, and the lot is slightly undersized. The property backs up to an R-25 zone and is 100' in depth and 124' in width. When the additions were made to the rear of the home, both additions violated the rear yard setbacks. Under the Amnesty Program, the applicant is looking to legalize the two rear additions, the rear deck, and the rear patio on grade. The minimum required rear yard setback is thirty (30) feet. The applicant proposes to legalize the one-story rear addition at the north elevation with a rear yard setback of 28.58 feet; legalize the one-story rear addition at the south elevation with a rear yard setback of 27.49 feet; and legalize the rear deck with a rear yard setback of 22.13 feet. In addition, the maximum permitted gross floor area is two 2,923 square feet. The applicant's proposed additional legalizations will result in a gross floor area of 3,372 square feet. Mr. Scarlatto noted that there is no accessory building on this site, although the Village's Code does allow for it. Mr. Pellino noted that the Board received a letter form a neighbor of Mr. Conciatori, Dr. Gerald Cohen, in support of the application. This letter was made part of the record. Mr. Pellino 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 or comments from the Board, the public portion of the meeting was closed and the Board went into deliberation. Upon the Board's return, Mr. Pellino read the following resolution: Zoning Board of Appeals March 6,2007 Page 8 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Mr. & Mrs. Guiulio Conciatori for a 1.42' rear yard setback variance for the two one-story additions; a 2.51 rear yard setback variance for the south elevation addition; and a 7.87' rear yard setback variance for the deck; as well as a 449 square foot gross floor area variance, in connection with the legalization of two-rear additions, a rear deck, and rear patio on grade, on property located at 4 Arlington Place, in an R-10 District, on the east side of Arlington Place, 120 feet from the intersection of Acker Drive and Arlington Place. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 135.44, Block 1, Lot 37. WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on March 6, 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) The applicant came forward under the terms of the Village Board's amnesty program; and 2) The changes were done approximately 30 years ago and would impose a sever hardship on the applicant to remove the changes to the house. The hardship outweighs any negative impact to the surrounding neighborhood. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the application is hereby granted on the following conditions: 1) No further building permits may issue respecting this property without the consent of this Board given upon a properly noticed and hear application in accordance with the Village Code unless the proposed construction will not enlarge the footprint of the structure. 2) The Village Board's amnesty program not withstanding, this Board does not endorse the applicant's actions of not having the proper permits in place prior to construction. DATED: March 6, 2007 Joseph Pellino, Acting Chairperson 4 Ayes 0 Nays Zoning Board of Appeals March 6,2007 Page 9 Zoning Board of Appeals March 6,2007 Page 10 3. #07-468 Mr. & Mrs. Brian Salvatore 47 Valley Terrace Construct a front two-story addition, a new front porch, and extend the existing carport Mr. John Scarlatto, Jr., architect, addressed the Board. He noted that this property was in the R-7 Zone. The home is small, has an attic, but has no basement. There was an addition that was constructed prior to their purchase. The kitchen, which sits to the front of the home, is very small. In order to expand it the home must be extended in the front. The proposed addition is a two-story addition. Eight feet of the carport has been removed, and a front porch is being proposed to be constructed adjacent to the front portico. There are no variances required for the construction of the porch. The home is currently non-conforming regarding height setback, and this non-conformity will be slightly increased. There is also an existing single side yard set back issue. The total side yard setback remains the same, but it is also non-conforming. The minimum required total of two side yards setback is 40 feet. The one-story garage addition will result in a total of two side yards setback of 33.17 feet, resulting in a request for a 6.83 foot variance. In addition, the maximum permitted gross floor area is 3,222 square feet. The applicant's existing non-conforming gross floor area is 3,297 square feet. The proposed garage addition will result in a gross floor area of 3,465 square feet. A gross floor area variance of 243 square feet is required. Mr. Scarlatto addressed the previous additions to this home, noting that there was a renovation of the bathroom over the garage, and a two-story rear addition which were constructed in 1986 by the previous owner. Mr. Salvatore Crescenzi reviewed the F.A.R. requirements, and noted that this home would now be 900+ square feet over what is allowed. This is just below a 50% increase. He asked Mr. Scarlatto if it would be possible to scale back on the size of the addition. Mr. Scarlatto noted that a smaller addition could be constructed, but in order to meet the homeowners' requirements, the additional space was added. It was his opinion that the addition has been kept to a minimum. Mr. Rettner felt that this home sits very close to the neighbor's home. Mr. Brian Salvatore, the applicant, addressed the Board. He noted that the setback issues have always been there. The homes in this area are close, and this is true for the entire neighborhood. In order to make the home meet their requirements this 8' x 8' space is needed. This addition is not Zoning Board of Appeals March 6,2007 Page 11 inconsistent with the neighborhood. The carport meets the 25' front yard setback. Mr. Izzo agreed to the statement that the carport meets the front yard setback, noting that no unenclosed off-street parking can be created within 25' from the front property line. The Board expressed its concern about the increase to the footprint of the home. Mr. Scarlatto stated that the applicant would be willing to shave off 2' from the carport, which would reduce the variance required to 3'. Mr. Rettner asked that the carport be removed and only the addition be constructed. Mr. Pellino called for members of the pubic wishing to speak in support or opposition to the application. The resident from directly across the street addressed the Board in support to the application. Another resident from Valley Terrace also addressed the Board in support to the application. There were no further comments from the Board, and the public portion of the hearing was closed and the Board went into deliberation. After a brief discussion with Mr. Scarlatto, it was decided that the matter would be adjourned to the next meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. 5. #07-469 Mr. & Mrs. Andrew Rogovic 29 Winding Wood Road Construct a one-story side addition to expand the existing one-car garage to a two-car garage Mr. John Scarlatto, Jr., architect, addressed the Board. He noted that this matter was before the Board in September, variances were granted, and the applicant went before the Architectural Review Board. It was noted that having a one-car garage is out of character with the neighborhood so, although the initial request for a variance to construct a two-car garage was denied, the applicant is back with a new request. The new plan has one garage door, and the garage has been scaled back. It is now one large garage, as opposed to two. The minimum required total of two side yards setback is 40 feet. The one-story garage addition would result in a total of two side yards setback of 33.17 feet. In addition, the maximum permitted gross floor area is 3,222 square feet. The applicant's existing non- conforming gross floor area is 3,297 square feet. The proposed garage addition will result in a gross floor area of 3,465 square feet. Mr. Scarlatto Zoning Board of Appeals March 6,2007 Page 12 noted that an accessory structure of 500 square feet could be constructed on this property. Mr. Pellino 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 comments and questions. Mr. Crescenzi noted that the existing footprint of the home would now be changed. He noted that the previously approved one-bay garage required a variance of 7'. Public portion of the hearing was closed, and the Board went into deliberation. Upon the Board's return, Mr. Pellino read the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Mr. & Mrs. Andrew Rogovic for a minimum required total of two side yard variance of 6.83 feet and a 243 square foot variance in connection with the maximum permitted gross floor area, in connection with the proposed construction of a one-story side addition to expand the existing one-care garage to a two-car garage, on property located at 23 Old Orchard Road in an R15 District, on the east side of Old Orchard Road, 385 feet from the intersection of Crossway and Old Orchard Road. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 135.26, Block 1, Lot 69. WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on March 6, 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) The garage application is a reasonable use of the property; 2) The changes are minor and present no adverse impact to the neighborhood. Zoning Board of Appeals March 6,2007 Page 13 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 hear application in accordance with the Village Code unless the proposed construction will not enlarge the footprint of the structure. DATED: March 6, 2007 Joseph Pellino, Acting Chairperson 4 Ayes 0 Nays Zoning Board of Appeals March 6,2007 Page 14 Zoning Board of Appeals March 6,2007 Page 15 6. Approval of February 6, 2007 Zoning Board Summary Mr. Pellino called for comments on the February 6, 2007 summary. The summary was approved as submitted. Mr. Pellino reminded everyone that next month's meeting would be held on Tuesday, April 10, 2007, in Village Board's Conference Room. There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Zoning Board of Appeals March 6,2007 Page 16