Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-05-01 - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK 938 King Street Zoning Board of Appeals Tuesday, May 1, 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. #07-468 Mr. & Mrs. Brian Salvatore (Re-Appearance) 47 Valley Terrace Construct a front two-story addition, a new front porch, and extend the existing carport. 3. #07-470 Mr. & Mrs. Howard Wynn 18 Paddock Road Enlarge the existing deck 4. #07-472 Dr. David Lawrence 15 Magnolia Drive Install a permanent back-up generator 5. #07-473 Mr. & Mrs. Michael Nissman 17 Magnolia Drive Install a permanent back-up generator 6. Approval of March 6, 2007 Zoning Board Summary BOARD: Mark Harmon, Chairman Salvatore Crescenzi Joseph Pellino Ronald Rettner (arrived at 8:16 p.m.) Michael Siegel Zoning Board of Appeals May 1,2007 Pagel STAFF: Michael Izzo, Building Inspector Steven Fewes, Code Enforcement officer Paula Patafio, Meeting Secretary CONVENE Mr. Mark Harmon welcomed everyone to the May 1, 2007 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. He thanked Mr. Joseph Pellino for Chairing the March 6, 2007 meeting in his absence, and noted that there was no meeting held in April. He welcomed the Board of Trustee Liaison, Trustee Patricia Sanders Romano, as well as Trustee Paul Rosenberg. Mr. Harmon noted that there were six (6) matters on the agenda, and called for the first item: 1. #06-460 Dr. Gerald Cohen (Re Appearance) 301 South Ridge Street Conduct a commercial dentist office as a non-resident of the premises It was noted that this matter has been before the Zoning Board for several months. The public hearing was re-opened when the response to the question of whether or not a prior application had been submitted to the Village on this property was received. It was found that a similar variance request was made by the applicant, and that it was denied. A copy of this prior decision has been made part of the record. Mr. Harmon asked that the applicant address this matter. Les Marin, Esq., of counsel to the firm of Cohen Timko & Moses, LP, attorneys for Dr. Cohen, addressed the Board. He noted that at the last Zoning Board Meeting the 1994 decision was presented. The applicant believes that the prior application has no relevance on the present application. That application was to convert a one (1) family house to a dental office. There were residents that were against that application. At this time, however, there is only one resident that is opposed to the application and it is a contractor that was terminated by Dr. Cohen. Mr. Marin also noted that the Zoning Ordinances have been amended since the time of the first application. Zoning Board of Appeals May 1,2007 Page 2 Mr. Marin asked if the Zoning Board received a letter from Diane Holtz, a resident of Rye Brook, dated January 2, 2007 in support of the application. He asked that this information be made a part of the record. Mr. Michael Izzo, Building Inspector, stated that he did not have a copy of the letter. It was noted that in checking the fax number, it was possible that the letter was not faxed to the Village. Mr. Marin presented the Board with a copy of Ms. Holtz' letter in support of the application. Mr. Harmon responded to the comment that there was only one resident who expressed opposition to the application. He noted that at prior meetings, where the matter was placed on the agenda but the applicant requested adjournments, resident did attend the meeting with the intent to express their opposition during the public hearing. Next Mr. Harmon addressed the matter of prior variances. He stated that at the public hearing the applicant was asked whether or not the property had been the subject of a prior variance application. The response was that there were no prior applications with respect to this property. The initial application requested the ability to use the property as a professional office, without Dr. Cohen being the resident, therefore, it was Mr. Hannon's belief that it did have relevance when considering the current application. Mr. Marin noted that his office was not aware of the prior application. Mr. Harmon stated that the applicant was aware of the application. Mr. Marin noted that the public hearing on this matter was closed in January of 2007. He asked if there were any meetings by the Board on this matter since that date. Mr. Harmon noted that all meetings of the Zoning Board are public meetings. The Zoning Board does not hold Executive Sessions. Mr. Marin stated that the applicant was informed that there is a Task Force that is meeting next week in order to evaluate mixed use zoning in certain areas of the Village, which include the area of the subject application. This Task Force consists of the Building Inspector, Village Engineer, a representative of the Village Planner's office, and Trustee Sanders Romano. Therefore, Mr. Marin respectfully requested that the decision on this application be held off until the Task Force has made its decision. Mr. Harmon felt that this was an inappropriate request, especially in light of the length of time that this matter has been carried on the Zoning Board's agenda. He noted that the applicant could withdraw the application to wait Zoning Board of Appeals May 1,2007 Page 3 for the Task Force's results, which would be appropriate. Then the Zoning Board could entertain a future application. Mr. Marin noted that at the January meeting, when the public hearing was initially closed, Mr. Pellino was not in attendance. He asked that the matter be adjourned until Mr. Ronald Rettner was present. Mr. Harmon noted that there was no prohibition on Mr. Pellino's ability to vote on this matter. He has been privy to subsequent submissions, and minutes of the prior meeting. In addition, Mr. Pellino availed himself of the videotape from the January meeting. There being no further comments, the public portion of the meeting was closed and the Board went into deliberation. Mr. Rettner joined the meeting at 8:16 p.m., and Mr. Harmon gave the applicant the opportunity to address him. As there were no further questions, the Board continued its deliberation. Upon the Board's return, Mr. Harmon read the following resolution: Zoning Board of Appeals May 1,2007 Page 4 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Dr. Gerald Cohen for a variance to conduct a commercial dentist office as a non-resident of the premise, on property located at 301 South Ridge Street, in an R2-F District on the east side of South Ridge Street, at the intersection of Garibaldi Place and South Ridge Street. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 141.43, Block: 1, Lot: 38; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on January 2, 2007, and continued to February 6, 2007, and May 1, 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 the neighborhood concerned finds: 1) Applicant previously sought a variance to permit the use of the property for a commercial dentist office as a non-resident and the application was denied; 2) Applicant has not demonstrated that any conditions or circumstances have changed since his prior application was denied; 3) It appears that any hardship applicant may suffer is self-created; 4) Applicant has not demonstrated that use of the property consistent with applicable zoning provisions will result in an unreasonable diminution in the value of the property; and 5) Applicant has not demonstrated any reason why this property is or should be treated differently from all other similarly situated properties along the Ridge Street corridor that are not zoned commercial. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the said application is hereby denied. Mark Harmon, Chairman DATED: May 1, 2007 Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Zoning Board of Appeals May 1,2007 Page 5 Zoning Board of Appeals May 1,2007 Page 6 Mr. Harmon called for the next matter on the agenda: 2. #07-468 Mr. & Mrs. Brian Salvatore (Re Appearance) 47 Valley Terrace Construct a front two-story addition, a new front porch, and extend the existing carport. Mr. John Scarlato, Jr., architect, addressed the Board. He noted that this matter was previously before the Board and, in response to some of the comments made by Board members and Village Staff, the plan has been revised. The carport has remained the same, but 2 feet has been removed from the addition on both floors. This reduction reduced the F.A.R. and allowed the applicant the ability to leave the carport as originally designed. Mr. Scarlato noted that the numbers and the drawings have changed, and he offered to review the changes for the Board. He began his presentation by noting that this house was built in 1941, and when the applicants purchased this home it was under the old zoning code. One of the biggest issues with this application is the floor area calculation. He pointed out that there is no basement in this home, but there is an attic. If the square footage of the attic, which is 435 square feet, was removed from the calculations it would reduce the size of the variance required. Mr. Izzo corrected Mr. Scarlato by noting that the Village's Code includes the calculation of attic space only in an R-25 zone. As this property is located in an R-7 district, the attic space is not included when calculating the gross floor area of the house. Mr. Harmon suggested that the applicant and his representative take a brief adjournment and re-run the numbers. He noted that the Board would need to see the numbers for the existing non-conformity and the numbers when the proposed addition is included. The applicant accepted the adjournment. Mr. Harmon called for the next application on the agenda: 3. #07-470 Mr. & Mrs. Howard Wynn 18 Paddock Road Enlarge the existing deck Zoning Board of Appeals May 1,2007 Page 7 Steve Marchesani, architect for the applicant, addressed the Board. He noted that the existing deck is non-conforming. There are two planters and a set of stairs. The applicant is looking to eliminate the planters and extend the deck, and then add a staircase at the end of the deck. The idea is to square off the deck to the edge of the house. 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 called for comments and questions from the Board. Mr. Harmon questioned why the deck was being expanded. Mr. Marchesani noted that the intent was to enlarge the deck to make it more usable by the applicant's family, and to square it off with the house. The planters are located on either side of the stairs, and these planters will be removed. 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: Zoning Board of Appeals May 1,2007 Page 8 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Mr. & Mrs. Howard Wynn for an eight (8) foot side yard and 15.41 foot total of two (2) side yard variances, in connection with the proposed construction of enlarging the existing deck, on property located at 18 Paddock Road in an R15 District on the west side of Paddock Road, 165 feet from the intersection of Crossway and Paddock Road. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 135.26, Block: 1, Lot: 45 and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on May 1, 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 the neighborhood concerned finds: 1) The requested variance is limited to permitting the extension of stairs from the existing deck, the enlargement of which will not otherwise be non-conforming; and 2) The additional intrusion into the side yard is deminimus. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the said application is hereby granted on the following conditions: 1) Construction shall begin within one (1) 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 or square footage of the structure. Mark Harmon, Chairman DATED: May 1, 2007 Ayes: 4 Nays: 1 Zoning Board of Appeals May 1,2007 Page 9 Zoning Board of Appeals May 1,2007 Page 10 The Board took a brief recess. Upon the Board's return, the meeting was re- convened and Mr. Harmon recalled the application for Mr. Brian Salvatore. Mr. Scarlato noted that the applicant was looking to expand some of the living space in the home. The kitchen and bedroom above it are very small. A 6' by 9' addition has been proposed for these two (2) rooms. The roofline will also be raised. A front porch is also proposed and, the existing carport will remain as is. The original intent was to push it out a little further but the additional 2' has now been removed. This is a 50' by 125' lot and there are side yard setback issues. Nothing is being made worse than what is existing. The side yard setbacks are staying as is. The applicant needs 8' for a single side yard setback where 3.8' exists. The side with the carport has a 4.2' setback. The total side yard setback is 8.5' and the applicant needs 11.5'. The front height setback is minimal and is only needed on a very small section of the roof. The footprint change is 54' on the first floor and 54' on the second floor. There is also additional square feet added to the attic. The total square footage added is 164 square feet. The house is already non-conforming. The total square footage over the allowable is 446 square feet. Mr. Scarlato noted that the original plans brought the house to 900 square feet over the total allowable. The Code allows for a house to be 2,217.4 square feet. The existing house is 2,499 square feet, and with the addition the house will be 2,663 square feet. Mr. Izzo noted that the requested variance should be for 164 square feet, because under the zoning regulations what they have now is legally non- conforming. The applicant is not required to obtain a variance for floor area that is not being changed. Mr. Scarlato presented the Board with photographs and information on three (3) different houses in the neighborhood. He noted that the tax records show that these houses are over the allowable square footage. The homes are located on Valley Terrace and Tamarack Road. Mr. Harmon asked that the copies of the tax assessment sheets be made a part of the record. Mr. Scarlato also presented Mr. Harmon with a letter from Debbie and Blake Kerrick of 47 Valley Terrace Road in support o the application. Mr. Harmon asked that this letter be made part of the record. Zoning Board of Appeals May 1,2007 Page 11 Mr. Harmon called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in support or opposition to the application. Mr. Salvatore, the applicant, addressed the Board. He noted that the home conforms with the character of the neighborhood and that he has support of all of his neighbors. He pointed out that in response to the comments received from the Zoning Board members and Village Staff, the required variance has been reduced to 164 square feet. The new plans incorporate all of the suggestions and comments received. Mrs. Kim Salvatore, applicant, also addressed the Board in support of the application. Mr. Harmon reviewed the plans for the Board, noting that the side yard variances were required since the existing non-conformity is being extended. The height setback is also being extended and, therefore, a variance is required. The applicant has responded to the Board and Staff's comments, and revised plans were submitted to reduce the extent of the variances. There being no additional comments or questions, 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 of Appeals by Mr. & Mrs. Brian Salvatore for a 446 square foot gross floor area variance, a 4.2' single side yard setback variance, an 8.5' total of two (2) side yard setback variances, and a 1.35' side height setback ratio variance, in connection with the proposed construction of a front two-story addition and a new front porch, on property located at 47 Valley Terrace in an R-7 District on the east side of Valley Terrace, 219 feet from the intersection of Ridge Boulevard and Valley Terrace. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 135.59, Block: 1, Lot: 56; and Zoning Board of Appeals May 1,2007 Page 12 WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on March 6, 2007, and continued to May 1, 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) Applicants have significantly revised their application to reduce the extent of the variances sought and the potential adverse impact to the neighborhood; 2) The side yard setback and height setback ratio variances sought will not enlarge the non-conformity, or extend an existing legal non-conformity; 3) The surrounding neighbors have expressed approval for this application and applicant has offered evidence that the proposed addition will be in conformity with the existing neighborhood. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the said application is hereby granted on the following conditions: 1) Construction shall begin within one (1) 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 or square footage of the structure. Mark Harmon, Chairman DATED: May 1, 2007 Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Zoning Board of Appeals May 1,2007 Page 13 Zoning Board of Appeals May 1,2007 Page 14 4. #07-472 Dr. David Lawrence 15 Magnolia Drive Install a permanent back-up generator The Contractor for Dr. Lawrence addressed the Board. He noted that the applicant was looking to install the generator because of recent storms and the loss of power in the area that resulted in flooding, frozen pipes, and the loss of heat. Since this property is subject to flooding in the basement, it requires the use of a sump pump. The applicant has contacted his neighbors, none of whom have any objections. As a matter of fact the homeowner of #17 Magnolia has a similar application before the Zoning Board. The generators will be constructed between the two (2) homes and, in this way, will not affect the neighboring homeowners. The specifications on the generators have been submitted. The contractor noted that the cabinets are insulated, and that the generators test themselves for twelve minutes once a week, with the noise decibel level being approximately equal to what the noise from a lawn motor would be. Mr. Pellino felt that the generators would be better positioned in other areas of the property versus installing them between the two (2) homes. He also asked for a description of the screening that is proposed for the generators. Mr. Izzo reminded the Board that screening is a requirement of the Village Code and would be reviewed and approved as part of the application process. 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 additional comments. Mr. Ronald Rettner noted that he reviewed the applications and he agreed with Mr. Pellino in that the proposed locations of the generators should be changed. The contractor pointed out that the air conditioning units for these homes are already located in this area. He felt that it would make sense to add the generators to this area. Mr. Michael Siegel pointed out that a gas main must be run to the generators. The contractor responded that there would 5' of 3/4" piping and a meter. The plumber has submitted the application to Con Edison. Mr. Harmon noted that the Village's Code does not regulate air conditioning units, but it does regulate generators. He also noted that the Zoning Board of Appeals May 1,2007 Page 15 Village amended the Code to specifically address back-up generators. There are specific regulations and setbacks to be followed. Mr. Harmon felt that additional, more compelling information should be submitted by the applicants regarding why the generators need to be located between the two (2) homes. He felt that these two (2) homes have large enough rear yards to accommodate the generators. He noted Dr. Lawrence's application placed the generator 5 1/2 feet from the property line. He asked for additional information that would help the Board come to the conclusion that there is a necessity for placing this unit so close to the property line. The Board offered the applicant an adjournment. Mr. Harmon noted that the applicant is not required to re-notice, however, the sign must be re- installed. Mr. Joseph Pellino noted that this type of generator would supply electric to pre-selected circuits. He asked if there were battery back-ups that would accomplish the same goals. The contractor noted that he was a mechanical contractor and was only familiar with generators. He accepted the Board's offer for an adjournment to the next Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. Mr. Harmon granted an adjournment to the applicant. Mr. Harmon called for the next item on the agenda: 5. #07-473 Mr. & Mrs. Michael Nissman 17 Magnolia Drive Install a permanent back-up generator The contractor for the prior application was also the representative for this application. Mr. Harmon offered this applicant an adjournment. The contractor accepted on behalf of this homeowner. Mr. Harmon addressed the final matter on the agenda: Zoning Board of Appeals May 1,2007 Page 16 6. Approval of March 6, 2007 Zoning Board Summary It was noted that the summary needed additional information and, therefore, the approval of the March summary was adjourned to the June meeting. There being no further business before the Zoning Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:28 p.m. Zoning Board of Appeals May 1,2007 Page 17