Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-06-05 - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK 938 King Street Zoning Board of Appeals Tuesday, June 5, 2007 Meeting at 8:00 p.m. AGENDA 1. #07-473 Mr. & Mrs. Michael Nissman (Reappearance) 17 Magnolia Drive Install a permanent back-up generator 2. #07-472 Dr. David Lawrence (Reappearance) 15 Magnolia Drive Install a permanent back-up generator 3. #06-467 Dr. David Lawrence 15 Magnolia Drive Legalize the existing rear wood deck 4. #07-0475 Mr. Liborio Pomara 9 Winding Wood Road North Legalize the existing unenclosed off-street parking at the east elevation, and rear patio on grade 5. #07-477 Mr. & Mrs. Robert Lewis 16 Eagles Bluff Construct three, one-story additions; a second story addition; a side porch addition, and a front porch addition 6. #07-478 Mr. Jan Zislis & Mrs. Janice Paletz 15 Woodland Drive Construct a rear two-story addition; rear one-story addition; rear second story addition; new front porch; front dormer and rear-raised patio 7. Approval of March 6, 2007 and May 1, 2007 Zoning Board Summary Zoning Board of Appeals June 5,2007 Page 1 BOARD: Mark Harmon Salvatore Crescenzi Joseph Pellino Ronald Rettner (arrived at 8:09 p.m.) Excused: Michael Siegel Board of Trustee Liaison: Trustee Patricia Sanders Romano Trustee Michael Brown STAFF: Stephen Fews, Assistant Building Inspector Paula Patafio, Meeting Secretary CONVENE Mr. Mark Harmon, Chairman, began the meeting by noting that Mr. Michael Siegel had given advance notice that he would not be able to attend this meeting. He also noted as the fifth member of the Board, Mr. Ronald Rettner, had not yet arrived for the meeting. Mr. Harmon pointed out that in order for an application to be approved each applicant would need the remaining three (3) Board members to vote yes. If the applicant did not receive three (3) yes votes, the application would be denied. Mr. Harmon noted that it has been Mr. Rettner's practice to arrive shortly after 8:00 p.m. He noted that the meeting would be adjourned for 15 minutes to allow for Mr. Rettner's arrival. If by that time Mr. Rettner had not arrived, Mr. Harmon stated that each applicant would be offered the opportunity to request an adjournment to the July meeting. With the consensus of the Board, Mr. Harmon convened the meeting until 8:15 p.m. With the arrival of Mr. Rettner at 8:09 p.m., Mr. Mark Harmon called the meeting to order and welcomed everyone to the June 5, 2007 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. Mr. Harmon called for the first application on the agenda: 1. #07-473 Mr. & Mrs. Michael Nissman (Reappearance) 17 Magnolia Drive Install a permanent back-up generator Zoning Board of Appeals June 5,2007 Page 2 Mr. Harmon noted that the above-referenced application has been withdrawn. He called for the second and third items on the agenda, noting that the applicant was Dr. David Lawrence: 2. #07-472 Dr. David Lawrence (Reappearance) 15 Magnolia Drive Install a permanent back-up generator 3. #06-467 Dr. David Lawrence 15 Magnolia Drive Legalize the existing rear wood deck Mr. Harmon asked the applicant his preference — to have the applications heard together or separately. Dr. David Lawrence, the applicant, addressed the Board. He asked that the applications be reviewed separately. He noted that he recently had his property surveyed and it was found that the property lines were different than on the original blueprints given to him by the developer. As a result, it was discovered that he required a variance in order to place the generator in the area proposed.. Dr. Lawrence noted that he was requesting that the generator be installed on the kitchen side of his home, near the air conditioning unit. The generator is approximately 4' x 2' x 2' and would be adequately screened. In addition, there is a thick row of trees between his property and the adjacent property. This neighbor has expressed support of the application and, in fact, intends to install a similar generator. Mr. Joseph Pellino stated that at the previous meeting he requested that the applicants review backup generators that run on batteries. Dr. Lawrence stated that the contractor discussed this suggestion with him, however the contractor stated that he never heard of this type of generator. Having done some research it was found that a battery run generator is only useful for a limited amount of time. The generator being proposed in this application is a gas run generator. It was noted that a gas line must be run to the generator. Mr. Pellino noted that he was concerned about the noise factor. He felt that the noise could be very disruptive to the neighbors. He also expressed his concern that approving this application would set a precedent. Zoning Board of Appeals June 5,2007 Page 3 Dr. Lawrence stated that the contactor had reviewed the noise level with the Board at the previous meeting. It was noted that the generator is no louder than an air conditioning unit. Dr. Lawrence also pointed out that location that he was proposing for this construction was further away from his neighbors than positioning the generator on the opposite side of his home. He stated that he purchased his home because of the position of the house within this sub-division, and the fact that all neighbors are approximately 150' to 200' away. Mr. Harmon called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in support or opposition to the application. Mrs. Lawrence addressed the Board, noting that their neighbors, the Nissmans, also have an application with the Village to install a similar generator. Mr. Harmon stated that the application by Mr. & Mrs. Michael Nissman had been withdrawn. Mrs. Lawrence reiterated the fact that the Nissmans were in support of the application. Mr. Harmon pointed out that the Village's Code dictates the positioning of generators. If the generator is placed as required by the Code then no variance is required. Since this application does not conform to the Code, the matter must be reviewed by the Zoning Board. Mr. Harmon questioned why the generator could not be constructed in the rear of the home. Dr. Lawrence noted that a gas line must be run to the generator. Placing the generator to the rear of the home would substantially increase the cost of the project. Dr. Lawrence described the driveway side of the home for the Board, noting that the gas line would need to be run under the driveway. Mr. Harmon questioned why a generator was needed. Dr. Lawrence noted that their request came after the recent power outages. He noted that he has a greenhouse, but that is a hobby. As a doctor he sees patients at his home if needed, but he did not want to use this as the reason for the request to install a generator. There being no additional comments, the public portion of the meeting was closed, and the Board went into deliberation. Upon the Board's return, Mr. Harmon noted that the problem that the Board was having was the location of the installation, and the fact that it does not meet the side yard setback requirements in the Village's Code. The applicant was offered an adjournment to review the additional costs involved with moving the generator to the rear yard, as well as reasons that the side yard is best suited Zoning Board of Appeals June 5,2007 Page 4 for this installation. Dr. Lawrence thanked the Board, and accepted the offer to adjourn to the next meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Harmon moved on to Dr. & Mrs. Lawrence's second application: 3. #06-467 Dr. David Lawrence 15 Magnolia Drive Legalize the existing rear wood deck Mr. Joseph Peter Lazarcheck, architect, addressed the Board. He noted that the applicant was coming forward under the Village's Amnesty Plan to legalize an existing deck. Upon completion of a recent survey of the property a difference in property lines and side yards was discovered. It was noted that this deck was built before the Village's Code covered decks and impervious surface coverage. If, in 1985, the survey was accurate the deck would not have required a variance. Mr. Harmon called for members of the public wishing to be heard in support or opposition to the application. There were no questions or comments from the public or members of 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: Zoning Board of Appeals June 5,2007 Page 5 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Dr. & Mrs. David Lawrence for a 1.4' single side yard setback variance, a 2.63% deck coverage variance, and a 181.74 square foot impervious coverage variance, all in connection with the proposed legalization of the existing rear wood deck, located on property at 15 Magnolia Drive in an R-15 District on the south side of Magnolia Drive, 590 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: 130.78, Block: 1, Lot 3. WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on June 5, 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) At the time the deck was built, neither an impervious surface or a deck coverage variance would have been required; 2) The applicants believed, in good faith, that at the time the deck was constructed no side yard variance was required; 3) The applicant has come forward voluntarily under the Village's Amnesty Program; 4) The deck is slatted so as to minimize imperious coverage issues; and 5) The side yard variance extends, but does not increase an existing legal non-conformity. 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 heard application in accordance with the Village Code unless the proposed construction will not enlarge the footprint of the structure. DATED: June 5, 2007 Mark Harmon, Chairperson 4 Ayes, 0 Nays Zoning Board of Appeals June 5,2007 Page 6 Zoning Board of Appeals June 5,2007 Page 7 Mr. Harmon called for the next item on the agenda: 4. #07-0475 Mr. Liborio Pomara 9 Winding Wood Road North Legalize the existing unenclosed off-street parking at the east elevation, and rear patio on grade. Mr. Pomara, the applicant, addressed the Board. He noted that he purchased his home ten years ago, and has had problems with one neighbor over the years. He stated that the neighbor who was in attendance at the meeting has been harassing him. Mr. Harmon stopped Mr. Pomara's presentation, noting that all questions and comments needed to be addressed to the Board only. Mr. Pomara continued with his presentation, noting that he has parked a vehicle in the area in question for approximately nine years and that the space was utilized for parking prior to his purchasing the home. He constructed Belgium blocks around the space for aesthetic reasons, but did not alter the parking space. It was noted that there is approximately 10' between the driveway and the property line. Mr. Harmon noted that the driveway comes off of the street and a vehicle can be parked along side of the house. Mr. Pomara stated that he was before the Board in order to request that the space be legalized. Mr. Harmon called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in support or opposition to the application. The resident from across the street addressed the Board. She noted that this parking area was being used for commercial use. She pointed out that the house was torn down and rebuilt by the applicant and there was no parking space there before the construction. The applicant has a commercial business that he runs from the property and his vehicles are parked on the property. She presented the Board with a photograph of the property and one of the commercial vehicles. She noted that the applicant had an application before the Zoning Board of Appeals in connection with this matter and no variance was granted. This is not a commercial area and the resident felt that the application should be denied. Mr. Harmon directed that the photograph be made part of the record. Mr. Steven Fews, Assistant Building Inspector, noted that the applicant has a Tier I Home Occupation and can legally work from his home. Zoning Board of Appeals June 5,2007 Page 8 Mr. Harmon noted that a violation was issued in regard to this property. Mr. Fews responded that the applicant has a court case pending. Commercial vehicles which cannot be parked in a residential zone, as well as in connection with the illegal installation of this parking space. The next Court date was scheduled for June 6, 2007, and the results of this hearing before the Zoning Board would be presented. Mr. Harmon noted that he went past the home and found two (2) commercial vehicles — one parked in the illegal spot and one parked in the front of the home. Mr. Ronald Rettner noted that there is an ordinance that prohibits the parking of commercial vehicles in this area. Mr. Pomara noted that he has a home office and from time to time employees stop by, or his son-in-law comes by, then there are commercial vehicles. When he son-in-law comes for dinner, he comes in the commercial vehicle, but it is not work related. There are no commercial vehicles there over night. Mr. Harmon asked if the sign was posted regarding the meeting. Mr. Fews noted that he did not have the opportunity to pass by the home and view the sign. Mr. Fews reminded the Board members that the matter also included the legalization of rear patio on grade. The public portion of the meeting was closed, and the Board went into deliberation. When the Board returned from deliberation, Mr. Harmon noted that the Board will not consider an application while there is an appearance ticket open. The applicant must appear before the Town Court before the Zoning Board of Appeals will consider the application. A clarification regarding the Village's Code and the parking of commercial vehicles would be requested from the Village's Attorney. Once the matter before the Court was resolved, then the matter would be placed back on the Zoning Board's agenda. Mr. Fews noted that one of the violations needs to be addressed by the Zoning Board before the Court will render a verdict. Mr. Harmon stated that the Zoning Board was not prepared to address this matter without guidance from the Village's Counsel. He noted that the matters could be separated—the illegal space and legalization of the deck. Zoning Board of Appeals June 5,2007 Page 9 Mr. Pomara stated that he was of the opinion that he is allowed to park a commercial vehicle on his property or on the street up until 7:00 p.m. He was unsure of whether or not parking was permitted on the street over night. Mr. Harmon responded that the Board would be seeking the answers to these questions, by referring this matter to the Village's Counsel. When the matter is scheduled to be before the Board for a second time it will be listed on the Village's website, and the sign in front of the property will be re-installed with the correct date. 5. #07-477 Mr. & Mrs. Robert Lewis 16 Eagles Bluff Construct three, one-story additions; a second story addition; a side porch addition, and a front porch addition Justin Minieni, AIA, the architect for the applicant, addressed the Board. He began his presentation by noting that the application before the Board proposed a second floor addition, two (2) one-story additions, and front and side porches. The applicant requires a variance for the total side yards and a variance in connection with exceeding the F.A.R. The house is a front to rear split, which means that it has two (2) stories in the rear and one (1) story in the front. Mr. Minieni presented the Board with photographs of the home, which Mr. Harmon made part of the record. Mr. Minieni noted that this home is located on a pie shaped lot. The lot configuration creates the hardship. This house blends well into the neighborhood, and the additions would not create a dramatic impact to the neighborhood. The home is set back from the street. The applicant is requesting a modest variance, and it is only for a portion of the addition. Mr. Minieni submitted letters of support from the neighbors, which were made part of the record. It was noted that there were eight (8) letters of support submitted from homeowners on Eagles Bluff. Mr. Minieni stated that the proposed addition would bring the house over the F.A.R. by 441 square feet, of which 150 square feet is located in the rear of the home in the mud room addition and the expansion of the garage to the side of the home. The proposed construction will give this young Zoning Board of Appeals June 5,2007 Page 10 family the much needed additional living space that the applicant is looking for. Mr. Harmon called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in support or opposition to the application. Mr. Lewis noted that he purchased his home in 1968. He pointed out that the side yard variance is only required for a small portion of the sides of the addition because of the configuration of the lot. He stated that the variances being requested are not substantial. A master suite and office is being proposed for the second floor. Mr. Minieri noted that the required total sum of the side yards should be 40'. The variance requested is 8 1/2 feet. A small porch that is replacing an existing stoop creates a 4' encroachment into the side yard. The other side of the home has a proposed front porch that would encroach 4 1/2'. The variances are required for the porches—not the house. Mr. Rettner stated that it is the goal of the Zoning Board of Appeals to try and grant the smallest size variance possible. He asked if there was any way that the applicant could reduce the floor area variance required. Mr. Minieri noted that he would have to sit down with the applicants to review the plan. Mr. Harmon noted that the Village has a floor area limitation to prevent the constructions of large homes that overwhelm the property and the neighborhood. The goal is to not have a negative impact on the neighborhood. He felt that it would be in everyone's best interest if the applicant reviewed the plan to see to what extent, if any, the bulk in front of the house could be reduced. It was also his opinion that the applicant had not presented sufficient proof that the proposed construction would not have an adverse effect on the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Lewis presented that Board with photographs of existing homes on Eagles Bluff, which were made part of the record. He noted that the initial thought was to add only to one side of the home, however, when viewing the plan it was not aesthetically pleasing and, in fact, the home seemed lopsided. The end result was that the home would look out of place in the neighborhood. He pointed out that the house is hidden behind vegetation, and it is set back substantially from the neighboring homes. Zoning Board of Appeals June 5,2007 Page 11 Mr. Harmon suggested that the matter be adjourned to allow the applicant additional time to research the floor areas of the surrounding homes. Mrs. Lewis reminded the Board members that the existing stoop was already non-conforming and that the non-conformity was not being increased. Mr. Salvatore Crescenzi stated that without the expansion, the home conforms in that it meets the total side yard requirement of 40 feet. The consensus of the Board was that the size of the variance could be reduced. The onus of showing why granting the variance would not adversely effect the neighborhood is on the applicant. There are some difficulties, such as the pie shaped lot, but the Zoning Board must take everything into consideration as it is responsible for protecting all of the residents of Rye Brook. Mr. Lewis thanked the Board and asked that the matter be adjourned to the next meeting to allow for the additional time to complete research in connection with the sizes of the surrounding homes. With the consensus of the Board, the matter was adjourned. Mr. Harmon called for a short recess. Upon the Board's return, item #6 on the agenda was called before the Board. 6. #07-478 Mr. Jan Zislis & Mrs. Janice Paletz 15 Woodland Drive Construct a rear two-story addition; rear one-story addition; rear second story addition; new front porch; front dormer and rear raised patio Anthony Gioffre, Esq., from the law firm of Cuddy & Feder, and the applicant's architect, John Scarlato, addressed the Board. Mr. Gioffre noted that the applicant's property was located in an R25 Zone and consisted of 20,000+ square feet. The proposed additions are to the rear of the home. Mr. Scarlato noted that the only addition to the front of the home would be two (2) dormers, which were basically being added for aesthetic reasons. The applicants do not want to tear down the home and construct a new home. They are simply looking to expand the small kitchen and add a family room to the rear of the home. A second story is proposed for a portion of the home, which is also in the rear yard. In addition, it was noted that the garage is not touched. Zoning Board of Appeals June 5,2007 Page 12 Mr. Gioffre noted that this home was constructed in 1947. The applicants' family has expanded, and they need additional living space. Granting the variances required will not produce any undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. The variance is required for the proposed construction of the front porch. The bulk of the addition to this home would be in the rear. Mr. Gioffre presented the Board with photographs of the existing home and the existing landscaping. If the variances are denied, the applicants may have no other recourse but to turn this application into a tear down, however, the applicants are looking to keep the character of the home. Mr. Gioffre contended that the variances requested were not substantial. The Board was presented with a number of photographs of homes in the area, which Mr. Harmon made part of the record. Mr. Gioffre stated that the difficulty here was not self-created, and the applicants were looking to increase the functionality of the house. It was noted that the applicant's neighbor, who resides directly across the street from the subject property, was in attendance, viewed the plans, and left because he did not opposed the application. Mr. Harmon called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in support or opposition to the application. The resident of 17 Woodland Drive, the adjacent property, noted that she did not receive notice of the application. This was not the applicants' fault, but rather a computer glitch at the assessor's office. They found out about the proposed construction when the sign was installed. It was noted that all residents of this area of Rye Brook are extremely concerned about flooding issues. When #13 Woodland Drive was leveled, all the trees were removed and it created additional flooding problems. Having resided in this home for 17 years she noted there never was any flooding, but since the new construction at 13 Woodland Drive was completed her home has been flooded twice, and that was just this year. Another resident addressed the Board. He noted that there is a flooding problem in the area. The homes in this area have been increasing in size. Additional impervious surface has been added, and the instances of flooding has increased. Mr. Harmon called for questions from the Board. Mr. Rettner noted that there is a lot of controversy regarding the drainage in this area. He asked Zoning Board of Appeals June 5,2007 Page 13 the applicants' representatives what steps have been taken to address the additional impervious surface. It was noted that Mr. Victor Carosi, Village Engineer, has reviewed the storm water runoff. Mr. Carosi and Mr. Izzo are reviewing, and will continue to review, the application. Mr. Rettner suggested additional storm drains to catch the runoff. Mr. Harmon noted that variances granted on Edgewood included conditions that storm water drains be constructed. Everyone is aware of the problems with storm water runoff and drainage in this area. Mr. Harmon noted that the existing home is 8 1/ feet from the property line, and that this is a substandard size lot for this area. If the home was torn down in order to construct a new home, the home would have to be 66' from the property line. A lot of homes in this area have been torn down and rebuilt within the constraints of the Village's Code. Mr. Harmon noted that he understood that an attempt was made to put the bulk of the addition in the rear. He questioned why a 17' variance should be considered for the front porch. He felt that that the front of the house should not be extended, and that this was a substantial variance. Mr. Gioffre noted that a tear down might not be in keeping with the character of the area. The applicants do not want to do a tear down because it would require substantial variances and increase their costs. Mr. Harmon stated that he appreciated the efforts made by the applicant to minimize the effect and variances required. This is a sub-standard lot, but he could not agree with pushing the house closer to the street. He noted that the Village's Code has been changed to prevent homes from being constructed closer to the street. Mr. Scarlato suggested that perhaps a portico could be designed. Mr. Harmon stated that it was his preference to condition the variance's approval, if that was the Board's choice, on a storm water mitigation plan to be approved by the Village's Engineer that cannot be changed for any reason. It is important that storm water runoff be stored on the property. Mr. Rettner wanted to make sure that the neighbor's concerns were satisfied. He felt that a zero runoff from the property could be accomplished. Mr. Harmon stated that he would be happy with just the retention of the runoff from the additional impervious surfaces. Zoning Board of Appeals June 5,2007 Page 14 Mr. Scarlato noted that storm water review and mitigation is part of the application process. He presented the Board with information on the surrounding homes, including gross floor area. He noted that he attempted to obtain information from the tax assessor's office on homes with comparable square footage. Mr. Harmon pointed out that there are a substantial number of homes in this neighborhood that are smaller. The applicant would like the front porch, but would agree to a portico if this satisfied the Board's request to reduce the front yard variance. Mr. Harmon called for additional comments from the Board and/or members of the public who had not addressed the Board on this matter. There being no further comments or questions, the public portion of the meeting was closed and the Board went into deliberation. The Board went back on the record and offered the applicant an adjournment. Mr. Scarlato felt that adjourning the application would cause a delay, and would put the applicant's behind. The applicant was willing to work with the Board regarding the front porch versus a portico. Mr. Scarlato also noted that the dormers that are being added to the front of the home do not increase the front yard setback. Everyone understands that storm water runoff is a substantial problem in this community, however, it was noted that the application is reviewed by the Village's Engineer and he must sign off on the application. Mr. Gioffre noted that the applicants were willing to work with the Village on storm water runoff mitigation. Mr. Harmon thanked that applicants for their willingness to work with the Village. He noted that the Village has learned from past applications and requested that the applicant come back with the additional information. The applicant was offered an adjournment to the next Zoning Board meeting. Mr. Gioffre thanked the Board for their time, and asked to be placed on next month's agenda. The final matter to be discussed by the Board was the approval of minutes: 6. Approval of March 6, 2007 and May 1, 2007 Zoning Board Summary Zoning Board of Appeals June 5,2007 Page 15 Mr. Harmon asked that the summaries for both the March 6, 2007 meeting and the May 1, 2007 meeting be adjourned to the July Zoning Board meeting. Mr. Harmon noted that the first Tuesday in July was July 3rd. The Board discussed other dates for the meeting, and agreed on July 17th. Mr. Fews was asked to review this date change with Mr. Michael Izzo, Building Inspector, and to advise the staff of the change. There being no additional matters before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 10:35 p.m. Zoning Board of Appeals June 5,2007 Page 16