Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-07-17 - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK 938 King Street Zoning Board of Appeals Tuesday, July 17, 2007 Meeting at 8:00 p.m. AGENDA 1. 907-472 Dr. David Lawrence (re-appearance) 15 Magnolia Drive Install a permanent back-up generator. 2. 907-477 Mr. & Mrs. Robert Lewis (re-appearance) 16 Eagles Bluff Construct three, 1-story additions; second-story addition; side porch addition and front porch addition. 3. # 07-478 Mr. Jan Zislis & Janice Paletz (re-appearance) 15 Woodland Drive Construct a rear 2-story addition; rear one-story addition; rear second story addition; new front porch; front dormer and rear raised patio. 4. # 07-484 David Whitwell & Renee Giometti 5 Mohegan Lane Legalize the existing side yard wood deck. 5. # 07-476 Mr. & Mrs. Steve Borzoni 11 Jean Lane Construct a second story addition. 6. 907-479 Mr. David Roath 14 Beechwood Blvd. Construct two one-story additions; one second-story addition; new front porch; new rear deck and expand the driveway. 7. 907-480 Mr. Lyle Margolis & Karen Katzman 12 Candy Lane Install a permanent standby generator. Zoning Board of Appeals July 17,2007 Page 1 8. # 07-486 Mr. Daniel Otero & Sabrina Lanosa 14 Eagles Bluff Construct a rear and side two-story addition, a second story addition, and new front porch. 9. Approval of March 6, 207, May 1, 2007, and June 5, 2007 Zoning Board Summaries BOARD: Joseph Pellino, Acting Chairman Salvatore Crescenzi Ronald Rettner (arrived at 8:10 p.m.) Michael Siegel Excused: Mark Harmon Board of Trustee Liaison: Trustee Patricia Sanders Romano Trustee Michael Brown STAFF: Michael Izzo, Building Inspector Paula Patafio, Meeting Secretary CONVENE Mr. Joseph Pellino, Acting Chairman, welcomed everyone to the Tuesday, July 17, 2007 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. He began the meeting by noting that there were only three (3) members of the Board in attendance whereas the full compliment of the Board is five (5). Mr. Pellino noted that the Chairman, Mr. Mark Harmon, was excused from attendance at the meeting, and Mr. Ronald Rettner, the fifth member, has been known to arrive at the meetings as late as 8:15 p.m. While there was a quorum and the applications could be heard, Mr. Pellino wanted all applicants to be aware that it would take a three to nothing vote for an application to be approved. If an applicant received one (1) negative vote, the application would be denied. Mr. Pellino offered the applicants two (2) options. The first was that the meeting could be delayed for ten to fifteen minutes to see if Mr. Rettner would arrive. The second option would be for each applicant to be given the opportunity to adjourn their application to the next meeting. After a brief discussion, the decision was for the Board to grant a brief recess in the hope that Mr. Rettner would arrive for the meeting. Mr. Pellino offered the Board's apology for the delay and thanked everyone for their patience. Zoning Board of Appeals July 17,2007 Page 2 The meeting was reconvened at 8:10 p.m. with the arrival of Mr. Rettner. Mr. Pellino called for the first matter on the agenda, noting that this was a re-appearance for a request to install a back-up generator: 1. # 07-472 Dr. David Lawrence (re-appearance) 15 Magnolia Drive Install a permanent back-up generator. Dr. Lawrence, the applicant, reviewed his application for the Board. He noted that his next door neighbor had a similar application before the Board, but has now withdrawn it. Dr. Lawrence noted that at the last meeting the specifics about the generator and the proposed location were presented to the Board. The Board requested additional information regarding possible alternate locations for the generator that would not require a variance. Dr. Lawrence pointed out that the that the plans that the developer of his home had given him at the time of construction have now been found to be incorrect. The error was discovered when the property was recently surveyed in conjunction with this application. At that time the applicant learned that an existing deck needed to be legalized as a result of the error. He came before the Board, under the Village's Amnesty Program, and requested the legalization of the deck, which was granted at the prior meeting. The application for the back-up generator was adjourned to allow the application to continue his review of the property and come up with alternative locations for the installation. Mr. Pellino stated that he had also requested an estimate of additional costs to move the generator to another location. Dr. Lawrence stated that the area that he was looking to install the generator was adjacent to his neighbor, Mr. Nissam, whose application for a back-up generator was submitted at the same time of this application. He understood that since that time Mr. Nissam has withdrawn his application, but noted that this neighbor did not have an objection to the location and was in favor of the applicant's plan. Dr. Lawrence noted that the homes in this area of Rye Brook are not on top of each other. The homes are comfortably spaced, with the closest home being more than 200 feet away from the proposed location of the generator. Dr. Lawrence reviewed the noise level of the proposed generator. He noted that this specific generator, when on, has a noise decibel level of 72, while a desk fan has a decibel level of 68, and a refrigerator has a level of 70. Zoning Board of Appeals July 17,2007 Page 3 Mr. Pellino noted that these types of generators have two kinds of"on." One is an exercise mode and then there is a full load mode. It was clarified that the full mode decibel level was 72. As requested by the Board, a review of other locations was completed by the applicant. Dr. Lawrence found that placing this generator anywhere else on the property involves significant additional expenses of approximately $5,000.00. The area of the proposed construction is the safest and most unused portion of the property. The property line was incorrectly delineated and a row of trees was planted has been maintained by the Lawrences and the Nissams, who both believed that the plantings were on the property line. It was now discovered that this row of trees and shrubs is actually two to three feet beyond the property line. Dr. Lawrence stated that the proposed location of this generator is economic, takes safety into consideration, and would not effect the surrounding neighbors. He respectfully requested that the Board grant the variance. Mr. Pellino called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in support or opposition to the application. Mr. Michael Izzo, Building Inspector, noted that he had a survey of the property that was part of the application. Unfortunately, he was uncertain whether or not it was the correct survey. Dr. Lawrence noted that the new survey was completed when the application for the generator was submitted. He reviewed the plan in Mr. Izzo's possession and stated that, not being a professional, the plan looked like the correct plan. Mr. Izzo responded that if the plans that were submitted with the application were correct then the variance requested was incorrect. In addition, the survey submitted by the neighbor was also incorrect. Mr. Pellino noted that the requested variance was for a single side yard setback of 9'5". The existing, non-conforming single side yard setback is 10'3". The proposed generator installation would result in a single side yard setback of 5'5". The consensus of the Board was that the variance requested was too large. Mr. Salvatore Crescenzi noted that the applicant was requested to present the Board with alternative locations for the generator. The requested variance for the current location in total is 9'5". The job of the Zoning Board of Appeals is to grant the smallest variance possible and a 9'5"variance is substantial. Dr. Lawrence responded that considering safety and economics, the proposed site is the most feasible. An alternative site would be around the other side of the house, alongside of the garage. However, this site carries with it a financial hardship of approximately an additional $5,000.00. Zoning Board of Appeals July 17,2007 Page 4 As there were no further questions 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: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Dr. & Mrs. David Lawrence for a variance of 9'5" for a single side yard setback and a variance of 3'9" for the total of two (2) side yard variances, and 9'2" side yard setbacks in connection with the proposed installation of a permanent back-up generator, on property located at 15 Magnolia Drive in an R-15 District on the north side of Magnolia Drive, 650 feet from the intersection of King Street and Magnolia Drive. 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 May 1, 2007, and continued to June 5, 2007 and July 17, 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 side yard setback is excessive. The applicant has options available to conform to Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the application is hereby denied. DATED: July 17, 2007 Joseph Pellino, Acting Chairperson 0 Ayes 4 Nays Zoning Board of Appeals July 17,2007 Page 5 Zoning Board of Appeals July 17,2007 Page 6 Mr. Pellino called for item #2 on the agenda: 2. #07-477 Mr. & Mrs. Robert Lewis (re-appearance) 16 Eagles Bluff Construct three, 1-story additions; second-story addition; side porch addition and front porch addition. Mr. Robert Lewis, applicant, addressed the Board. He noted that he purchased this home in 1968 and now was looking to expand the living area. The application before the Board originally proposed a second floor addition, two (2) one-story additions, and front and side porches. 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, and the property is a pie-shaped lot, which creates a hardship. The house is setback from the street, and is in character with the other homes in the neighborhood. At the suggestion of the Zoning Board, the applicant and his architect reviewed the plans. A modified plan has now been submitted to the Village. Mr. Lewis noted that the plans have been reduced by 40%. The front porch has been modified, and the mud room as been removed. The addition of the second story to the front of the house is consistent with neighborhood. Mr. Lewis presented the Board with photographs of surrounding homes, which were made part of the record. The proposed construction will not change the character of the neighborhood. It is important to note that the property is located on a cul-de-sac and that addition will not be visible from the street. Mr. Lewis stated that all of his neighbors are in support of his application. It was also noted that information was obtained from the tax assessor's office and it was found that many of the surrounding homes are much larger than the existing home. The average square footage of surrounding homes is 4,200 square feet. The pie shaped lot and the position of the home on the lot creates a hardship. Mr. Lewis noted that the addition to the kitchen would be 70' from the neighbors' home and he has proposed additional screening. Justin F. Minieri, architect for the applicant noted that the modifications are as small as possible in order to achieve the result that the applicant was looking for. The proposed changes will improve the neighborhood. 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 member for comments and questions. Mr. Rettner thanked the applicant for his willingness to compromise. Zoning Board of Appeals July 17,2007 Page 7 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: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Mr. & Mrs. Robert Lewis for a 4'3" variance on the total of two (2) side yard setbacks and a gross floor area variance of 263 square feet, in connection with the proposed construction of three (3) one-story additions, a second story addition, a side porch addition, and a front porch addition on property located at 16 Eagles Bluff in an R-15 District on the south-west side of Eagles Bluff, 800 feet from the intersection of Meadowlark Road and Eagles Bluff. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 135.27, Block: 1, Lot 46. WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on June 5, 2007, and continued on July 17, 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 revised plan is reasonable for the proposed use of the property and does not adversely impact the area. 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 of the structure. DATED: July 17, 2007 Joseph Pellino, Acting Chairperson 4 Ayes, 0 Nays Zoning Board of Appeals July 17,2007 Page 8 Zoning Board of Appeals July 17,2007 Page 9 3) # 07-478 Mr. Jan Zislis & Janice Paletz (re-appearance) 15 Woodland Drive Construct a rear 2-story addition; rear one-story addition; rear second story addition; new front porch; front dormer and rear raised patio. Anthony Gioffre, Esq., the applicant's legal counsel from the law firm of Cuddy & Feder, and the applicant's architect, John Scarlato, addressed the Board. Mr. Gioffre noted that this application was before the Board at the prior meeting seeking variances for gross floor area and front yard setback. He gave a brief presentation on the application. He noted that the applicant's property is located in an R25 Zone and consists of 20,000+ square feet. The proposed additions are to the rear of the home, and the only addition to the front of the home would be two (2) dormers, which were basically being added for aesthetic reasons. The home was constructed in 1947. Mr. Scarlato noted that the applicant's family has increased in size and they were now looking for additional living space. Mr. Gioffre noted that the applicant has submitted additional documentation to the engineering department, and a memo was issued by Michel Nowak, Junior Engineer. In that memo it was noted that the proposed stormwater management plan is acceptable. Another issue was with the front yard setback. A porch was originally proposed and it has now been removed and replaced with a portico. The encroachment into the front yard has now been reduced by over 50%. Mr. Pellino called for members of the public wishing to address the application in support or opposition to the application. As there were no comments from the public, or members of the Board, the public portion of the hearing was closed and the Board went into deliberation. After a brief discussion, Mr. Pellino asked that the meeting be resumed in order to ask the applicant a question. A neighbor of the applicant requested that additional trees and shrubs be planted to help screen the addition and preserve the privacy that now exists. The applicant was asked if he would agree to this. Mr. Gioffre stated that the applicant had no problem with the addition of this type of screening. The Board returned to its deliberation. Upon the Board's return, Mr. Pellino read the following resolution: Zoning Board of Appeals July 17,2007 Page 10 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Mr. Jan Zislis and Ms. Janice Paletz for a variance in the gross floor area of 817 square feet and a variance of 15.1 feet in the front yard setback in connection with the proposed construction of a rear two-story addition, rear one-story addition, rear second story addition, portico, front former, and rear raised patio, on property located at 15 Woodland Drive in an R-25 District on the east side of Woodland Drive, 783 feet from the intersection of Beechwood Circle and Woodland Drive. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 135.27, Block: 1, Lot 38. WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on June 5, 2007, and continued on July 17, 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 revised plan and drainage analysis performed by the applicant and found acceptable by the Village's Engineering Office addresses the previous concerns of the neighbors and members of this Board; and 2) The revised plan is a reasonable use of the property and will not negatively impact 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 of the structure. DATED: July 17, 2007 Joseph Pellino, Acting Chairperson 4 Ayes 0 Nays Zoning Board of Appeals July 17,2007 Page 11 Zoning Board of Appeals July 17,2007 Page 12 4) # 07-484 David Whitwell & Renee Giometti 5 Mohegan Lane Legalize the existing side yard wood deck. John Scarlato, architect, addressed the Board. He noted that the applicant was before the Board looking to legalize an existing deck. The application was filed when the applicant attempted to sell the home and found out the deck violates the side yard setback. This home is a front to back split level house, with the kitchen in the middle. Originally there was a platform that went down to a patio. The deck was constructed above the patio, which is 3' from the ground. This is a corner lot and the house is built up against the 15' line. It meets the total side yard setback requirement because there is plenty of space on the left hand side of the home. The deck is a minimum sized deck of approximately 10'. In addition, the deck is landscaped from the road, and the neighbors are in support of the application. Mr. Scarlato presented the Board with copies of letters from the neighbors in support of the application, which were made part of the record. Mr. Scarlato stated that the existing deck has stairs that are on a 45 degree angle, and the applicant would be straightening them out. The deck comes off the side of the house and the stairs will exit to the back yard. Mr. Pellino noted that this property is very heavily screened. He did point out that when he passed by the property the notification sign had fallen down. Mr. Scarlato stated that the sign was installed three (3) weeks ago, and if it was knocked down by the wind, it was put upright as soon as it was noticed. Mr. Rettner noted that he had an issue with people finding out that they need a Certificate of Occupancy when they go to sell their home and then coming to the Village for legalization. He wanted it made part of the record that he is not in support of these types of applications. Mr. Scarlato stated that the homeowner was not trying to circumvent the process. When the deck was constructed they were not aware that they needed a building permit. The applicant, Mr. Whitwell, addressed the Board and noted that he has discussed this matter with the Building Department. In fact, Zoning Board of Appeals July 17,2007 Page 13 when an addition was made to the kitchen the plans of the home were reviewed and he received the permits necessary for construction, and no one mentioned problems with the existing deck. Mr. Izzo noted that he did not discuss the deck with the applicant. And, no one in the Building Department would have told him that he did not need a permit for the deck because only he knows the answers to those questions—not the administrative staff. Whether or not the deck required a permit was not discussed with the applicant until this application was made. Michael Brown, Trustee and resident of Rye Brook, addressed the Board. He stated that he is in contract to purchase the home. He spoke in support of the application, noting that the deck is very attractive and makes it easy to come from the kitchen to the rear yard. The resident of 7 Mohegan Lane addressed the Board. He stated that the deck is beautiful. There is sufficient screening, and it cannot be seen until you are close to the house. He noted that the adjacent neighbors were also in attendance and they were in support as well. It was noted that there was no one in opposition to the application. Mr. Crescenzi noted that from the deck to the property line there is 5'10", and from the stairs to the property line there is only 3'6". Mr. Scarlato noted that the stairs were being changed. The public portion of the hearing was closed and the Board went into deliberation. After a brief deliberation, the Board returned and offered the applicant an adjournment to come up with a smaller variance required for the stairs. Mr. Scarlato asked that the matter be moved to the end of the meeting to allow for discussion with the applicant and the contract vendee. With the consensus of the Board, Mr. Pellino placed the application at the end of the agenda. Mr. Pellino called for the next application on the agenda. Zoning Board of Appeals July 17,2007 Page 14 5) #07-476 Mr. & Mrs. Steve Borzoni 11 Jean Lane Construct a second story addition. The architect for the applicant addressed the Board. He noted that the proposed location for the addition was the side of the home located on Jean Lane in an R10, one (1) family zone. The existing home is a slab on grade with three (3) bedrooms. There is not a lot of storage in this home. The proposed addition is a modest addition. In addition, the applicant proposed the addition of a portico. The variance required is minimal; 181 square feet. The intent is to square off the house. Mr. Pellino called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in support or opposition to the application. As there were no questions or comments from members of the public and/or Board members, Mr. Pellino closed the public portion of the meeting and the Board went into deliberation. Upon the Board's return, Mr. Pellino read the following resolution: Zoning Board of Appeals July 17,2007 Page 15 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Mr. & Mrs. Steve Borzom for a 181 square foot gross floor area variance, in connection with the proposed construction of a second story addition, on property located at 11 Jean Lane in an R-10 District on the east side of Jean Lane, 110 feet from the intersection of Brook Lane and Jane Lane. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 135.65, Block: 1, Lot 10. WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on July 17, 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 floor area variance is minimal; 2) The plan represents a reasonable use of the property; and 3) The plan is in character with the surrounding 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 of the structure. DATED: July 17, 2007 Joseph Pellino, Acting Chairperson 4 Ayes 0 Nays Zoning Board of Appeals July 17,2007 Page 16 Zoning Board of Appeals July 17,2007 Page 17 5) # 07-479 Mr. David Roath 14 Beechwood Blvd. Construct two one-story additions; one second-story addition; new front porch; new rear deck and expand the driveway. Mr. Richard Mastacato, the architect for the applicant, addressed the Board. He noted that the variance required is for the one story addition to the front of the house. This extension is 90' from the front property line. The closest house to the street is the applicant's. This is a very large lot, and the houses are spaced far apart. The variance being requested is the smallest variance possible in order to accomplish the goals of the homeowners. A letter in support of the application was made part of the record. Mr. Pellino called for anyone wishing to address the application. Mr. Michael Siegel asked for clarification on the existing non-conformity. Mr. Michael Izzo, Building Inspector, noted that the non-conformity came about as a result of up-zoning. Mr. Rettner asked if anything could be done in order to reduce the variance being requested. The architect reiterated that this is the smallest variance possible in order to accomplish the goals of the applicants. He also noted that this is a small, subtle addition. The public portion of the hearing was closed and the Board went into deliberation. Upon the Board's return, Mr. Pellino read the following resolution: Zoning Board of Appeals July 17,2007 Page 18 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Mr. David Roath for an 18.5' front yard setback variance, in connection with the proposed construction of two one-story additions, one two-story addition, a new front porch, new rear deck and expanding the driveway on property located at 14 Beechwood Boulevard in an R-25 District on the south side of Beechwood Boulevard approximately 100' feet from the intersection of Woodland Drive and Beechwood Boulevard. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 136.29, Block: 1, Lot 6. WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on July 17, 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 original setback became a non-conforming issue as a result of up- zoning legislation past in the last year; 2) The variance in this case is considered minimal and will not adversely impact the surrounding neighborhood; and 3) The proposed is a reasonable use of the property. 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 of the structure. DATED: July 17, 2007 Joseph Pellino, Acting Chairperson 3 Ayes 1 Nays (Ronald Rettner) Zoning Board of Appeals July 17,2007 Page 19 Zoning Board of Appeals July 17,2007 Page 20 7) # 07-480 Mr. Lyle Margolis & Karen Katzman 12 Candy Lane Install a permanent standby generator. Mr. Margolis, the applicant, addressed the Board. He stated that he was looking to install a back-up generator on his property located at 12 Candy Lane. The minimum required single side yard setback is 10' and the existing, non-conforming single yard setback is 7'. The proposed location of the installation of the generator would result in a single side yard setback of 2'. Therefore, a single side yard setback variance of 8' is required. Mr. Margolis addressed the reason why the installation of a back-up generator was critical. This property is located at the lowest point in the neighborhood. The applicant noted that, over time, he has installed several sump pumps and at this time has a total of six (6) to eight (8) sump pumps installoed. During the rain storms in early March and the Nor'easter of April 15th this property sustained severe flooding. During the first flood there was approximately 1 1/z' of water in the basement; approximately 40,000 gallons of water. During the second flood the water level was a foot higher, resulting in approximately 60,000 gallons of water. There is a French drain system around the perimeter of the basement. Despite the fact that power was not lost during both days (March and April 15th), the applicant experienced flooding. Between both storms the applicant incurred tens-of-thousands of dollars of damages and lost numerous irreplaceable personal items such as photographs. In response to these two (2) events, the applicant embarked on a quest to make sure that these types of events were never repeated in the future. Several contractors were contacted. It was found that the current eight (8) pumps installed on this property are capable of pumping out a total of 25,000 gallons of water per hour. Of the eight (8) pumps installed, only two (2) come with a battery back-up, and they can only pump a combined 3,000 gallons of water per hour. There are no batteries commercially available to run the balance of the pumps that are installed. The only reasonable, fail-safe option, is to install a back-up generator because without a reliable power source the pumps are worthless. Mr. Margolis turned the Board's attention to the layout of his property. He noted that Village regulations prevent homeowners from installing a generator on a front yard, and this home is located on a corner lot which means that there are two (2) front yards. The other side lot is 10' from the property line making it impossible to install the generator without a variance. The only other area would be the small rear yard, which is already covered by the deck and the children's jungle gym. For safety Zoning Board of Appeals July 17,2007 Page 21 reasons, he did not want to install the generator in the rear yard. In addition, according to the manufacturer's safety recommendations, and the regulations in the Village's Code, there are only two (2) areas in the rear yard that the generator could be installed. Mr. Margolis presented that Board with photographs of his rear yard and the two (2) possible locations. There are many reasons why it would be dangerous and undesirable to install the generator in the back yard in either of these two (2) locations, the most pressing of which is the fact that there would be no way to keep the children away from the generator. If the generator was installed in the rear yard it would be much more visible and audible to the neighbors. In addition, installation in the rear yard could compromise the drainage system in the rear yard. The proposed location for the generator is on the right side of the home. The adjacent neighbors, Mr. John Grzan and his family, do not object to this location. Mr. Grzan, a member of the Village's Planning Board, reviewed the plans and has contacted Mr. Harmon in support of the application. In addition, the residents of 21 Candy Lane have submitted a letter in support of the application. This letter was presented to the Board and made part of the record. This location would be screened. Mr. Margolis noted that the specifications of the generator were included in the application to the Village. The decibels on the generator are 66 at full operating mode, and 60 decibels at testing mode. Mr. Pellino called for members of the public wishing to address the application in support or opposition. The resident of 29 Argyle Road addressed the Board. She noted that she is not directly effected by this application, but had a question about the noise factor. She noted that more and more people are installing generators and she was concerned about the noise. Mr. Pellino noted that there are regulations within the Village's Code, and screening is included. The absorption of sound has to do with the technology of the manufacturer. Mr. Rettner stated that in his opinion automatic generators are unsightly and dangerous. They emit carbon monoxide. He felt that installation of this generator in the side yard would inconvenience Mr. Margolis' neighbors. Mr. Margolis, once again, pointed out that Mr. John Grzan has reviewed the plan and is in favor of the application. Mr. Margolis stated that he has lost so much in the past six (6) months the installation of a generator is something that needs to be done. The generator will test itself in a test mode approximately once per week. The generator is encased in a Zoning Board of Appeals July 17,2007 Page 22 large steel box on a cement slab. There is a fence that has been installed in the rear yard to protect the children from running into Betsy Brown, which is a very busy street. The fence was constructed with the approval of the Village, and will act as screening of the generator from the street. Mr. Margolis stressed the fact that his neighbors are in support of the application. This generator in the proposed location will be screened as much as possible, and the applicant agreed to make this a condition of approval. If this application is not approved the only alternative would be a portable generator. The problem is that someone has to be home when the power goes out in order to turn the generator on. This puts the applicant at considerable risk, especially considering that he does not work in the area. The public portion of the public hearing was closed, and the Board went into deliberation. The Board reconvened at 10:15 p.m., and Mr. Pellino read the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Mr. Lyle Margolis and Ms. Karen Katzman for an 8' single side yard setback variance, in connection with the proposed installation of a permanent standby generator, on property located at 12 Candy Lane in an R-10 District on the east side of Candy Lane, at the intersection of Betsy Brown Road and Candy Lane. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 135.44, Block: 1, Lot 10. WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on July 17, 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 variance being requested is excessive; and 2) The applicant has options available to conform to the Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the application is hereby denied. DATED: July 17, 2007 Joseph Pellino, Acting Chairperson 3 Ayes 1 Nays Zoning Board of Appeals July 17,2007 Page 23 Zoning Board of Appeals July 17,2007 Page 24 8) # 07-486 Mr. Daniel Otero & Sabrina Lanosa 14 Eagles Bluff Construct a rear and side two-story addition, a second story addition, and new front porch. Mr. Timothy Wetmore, architect, addressed the Board. He noted that 14 Eagles Bluff is located in an R-15 Zone. The existing home is a side-to-side split. The applicant is proposing the addition of a second floor above existing living area. This will be a master bedroom, bathroom, and closet. The existing area will be renovated to create a living room, dining area, and a workable kitchen. The plan has been scaled back. The major problem on the site are the steep slopes in the rear. This creates a very private rear yard, but also limits the space in which to expand the home. Mr. Wetmore noted that a small front porch, with a 6' overall depth, has also been proposed. The steep slopes in the rear result in a hardship for the applicant. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a front and side yard setback of 2'2" and 2'4" respectively. A maximum gross floor area variance of 369 square feet is also required. Mr. Pellino called for members of the public wishing to be heard in support or opposition to the application. The resident of 16 Eagles Bluff addressed the Board. She noted that she was in support of the application. The applicants have cut back the proposed addition to the bear minimum. There really is not a useable back yard on this property. The front yard is actually utilized as a play area for the children, and the front porch will allow the adults a better position to watch over the children. Currently the parents sit in plastic chairs in the driveways. A second neighbor also addressed the Board in support of the application. She noted that all of the children in the area play on the cul-de-sac and that it would be nice to have an area where the parents could sit and watch over them. There being no further comments or questions, the public hearing was closed and the Board went into deliberation at 10:20 p.m. Upon the Board's return, Mr. Pellino read the following resolution: Zoning Board of Appeals July 17,2007 Page 25 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Mr. Daniel Otero and Ms. Sabrina Lanosa for the following variances: 1) a front yard setback variance of 2'2"; 2) a total of two (2) side yard variances of 2'4"; and 3) a gross floor area variance of 368 square feet in connection with the proposed construction of a rear and side two-story addition, a second story addition, and a new front porch, on property located at 14 Eagles Bluff in an R-15 District on the west side of Eagles Bluff, 700 feet from the intersection of Meadowlark Road and Eagles Bluff. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 135.27, Block: 1, Lot 47. WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on July 17, 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 requested variances are reasonable; 2) The plan is a reasonable use of the property in consideration of the topography and real portions of the property; and 3) The plan is consistent with 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; 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 of the structure. DATED: July 17, 2007 Joseph Pellino, Acting Chairperson 4 Ayes, 0 Nays Zoning Board of Appeals July 17,2007 Page 26 Zoning Board of Appeals July 17,2007 Page 27 Mr. Pellino re-called item #4 on the agenda. 4) # 07-484 David Whitwell & Renee Giometti 5 Mohegan Lane Legalize the existing side yard wood deck. Mr. John Scarlato addressed the Board. He thanked the Board for the adjournment and noted that the matter was discussed with the applicant and the contract vendee. A revised plan was devised and he presented the Board with the new information. The angle on the stairway has been removed and the variance has been reduced from 9.2' to 8'. It was noted that one (1) set of plans has been marked up for the Board's review, and the corrected plans, if approved, would be delivered to the Village's Building Department. There being no additional comments or questions from members of the public, Village Staff, or 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: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Mr. David Whitwell and Ms. Renee Giometti for an 8' front side yard setback variance in connection with the proposed legalization of the existing side yard wood deck, on property located at 5 Mohegan Lane in an R-12 District on the east side of Mohegan Lane. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 135.50, Block: 1, Lot 60. WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on July 17, 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 revised plan for the side yard is a reasonable alternative to the original plan. Zoning Board of Appeals July 17,2007 Page 28 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. 3) The applicant shall submit revised drawings showing the granted setback variance, as approved by this Board at the public hearing held on July 17, 2007. This revised plan must be approved by the Building Inspector before any work can commence. DATED: July 17, 2007 Joseph Pellino, Acting Chairperson 4 Ayes 0 Nays Zoning Board of Appeals July 17,2007 Page 29 Zoning Board of Appeals July 17,2007 Page 30 Mr. Pellino addressed the final matter on the agenda: 9) Approval of March 6, 2007, May 1, 2007, and June 5, 2007 Zoning Board Summaries: Mr. Pellino noted that he was asked to sign a resolution from the May summary. No member of the Board had comments or changes and, therefore, the summaries were approved as submitted. There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m. Zoning Board of Appeals July 17,2007 Page 31