Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-10-02 - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes Village of Rye Brook 938 King Street ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Tuesday, October 2,2007 Meeting at 8:00 p.m. 1) #07-490 Mr. Brian Greaige 10 Jennifer Lane Construct a second-story addition over the existing dwelling 2) 407-492 Ms. Maria Rusciano 52 Hillcrest Avenue Construct an addition and perform interior alterations to convert the existing one-family house to a two-family dwelling BOARD: Mark Harmon, Chairman Salvatore Crescenzi Joseph Pellino Ronald Rettaer Michael Siegel STAFF: Michael Izzo, Building Inspector Paula Patafio,Meeting Secretary Mr. Mark Harmon called the Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting to order at 8:00 p.m. He welcomed everyone and noted that there was a short agenda before the Board. The first matter on the agenda was called before the Board: 1) #07-490 Mr. Brian Greaige 10 Jennifer Lane Construct a second-story addition over the existing dwelling Mr. Greaige, the applicant, addressed the Board. He began his presentation by noting that he was requesting permission from the Village to construct a second story addition to his home. This addition would include the construction of a master bedroom and bathroom, and extending the two existing small bedrooms on the second floor of the home. He noted that the proposed addition would not increase the footprint of the house, but would allow his family the additional living space that they needed. Mr. Greaige noted that the homes in this neighborhood are small, and were constructed on cement slabs. Many of these Zoning Board of Appeals October 2,2007 Page 1 homes suffer from mold problems, as does his home. One of his son's suffers from allergies and separation anxiety. Having the bedrooms upstairs, and close together,will help him with both issues. Mr. Greaige noted that many of the homeowners in this area have torn down the existing structures and built much larger homes. His proposed addition would be in keeping with the character with the neighborhood. It was noted that the applicant had made a previous request for variances in connection with a prior addition to the home. Mr. Harmon called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in support or opposition to the application. A resident of 4 Jennifer Lane addressed the Board in opposition. She stated that in her opinion this type of construction would change the character of the neighborhood. She also felt that in the long run building larger homes on these smaller lots would have an effect on the value of the other homes in the area. She felt that any construction done to the homes in this area should be done within the Village's Code versus being granted a variance. A second resident of 4 Jennifer Lane addressed the Board, also in opposition. He stated that the prior construction done to this home required variances. He felt that the Village's Code was put in place to protect the residents and that granting a variance for these types of construction defeated the reasons for the original Code. He felt that the size of the property should be the guide for how large a house can be constructed. Houses in this area of the Village are getting closer and closer to each other because they are becoming larger and larger. Another resident addressed the Board in opposition to the application. She noted that the houses in this area are close together. She was in support of the first construction, done years ago, but felt that this proposed addition would affect her quality of life. She noted that there were storm water runoff problems and she asked that the Zoning Board take this into consideration when approving applications. Mr. Joseph Pellino noted that he wanted to be sure that the building's height, when completed and in comparison to other surrounding structures, would not be out of character with this neighborhood. Mr. Greaige responded that the homes in this area are very small and many people have already added a second story, including homes surrounding his home. In regard to storm water runoff, he noted that the water just comes up from the ground, as the water table in this area is very high. There are underground springs, which is the reason that these homes were built on cement slabs instead of having basements. The ground in this area is clay, like the bottom of a lake, and the water does not sink in. Mr. Greaige noted Zoning Board of Appeals October 2,2007 Page 2 that when the house was constructed it was constructed to fit the neighborhood. He did not feel that this addition would effect the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Ronald Rettner stated that he had concerns about the water level in this neighborhood, and storm water runoff. He asked if the applicant would agree to the construction of additional drywells as a condition of approval. The applicant responded that he was willing to accept Mr. Rettner's suggestion as a condition of approval. He also offered to plant additional trees and shrubs for screening. Mr. Michael Izzo, Building Inspector stated, for the record, that the applicant is not required to do storm water management because he is not increasing the footprint of the home. Mr. Salvatore Crescenzi questioned the gross floor area of the home and asked for clarification on the size of the variance being requested. Mr. Izzo noted that the proposed construction would increase the home by 300 square feet. He noted that there is an existing non-conforming situation regarding the gross floor area. In addition, it was noted that the side yard setbacks are also existing non- conforminities. The set backs are not changing or increasing because the addition is not expanding the footprint, however, as noted by Mr. Izzo that the applicant is extending a non-conformity by going up. Mr. Pellino noted that the approval from the prior application stated that any further additions must come before the Zoning Board of Appeals. Therefore whether or not the applicants' addition required any variances it would have to be reviewed by the Zoning Board. Mr. Harmon requested the minutes of the meeting from the prior application on this property for review by the Board. Mr. Izzo responded that he would supply the Board with these minutes. The applicant presented the Board with photographs of the home,which Mr. Harmon made part of the record. Mr. Harmon noted that he was also unsure about the issue of the height setback ratio, and questioned whether or not there was another way to achieve the applicant's goal. Mr. Greaige noted that the peaks of the houses in this area are the same. If he lowers his it would not be consistent with what is with the neighborhood. There are more houses in this are being knocked down and rebuilt, and monster houses are going up. This is not his intention. The Board took a brief recess to allow Mr. Izzo the time needed to retrieve the minutes in connection with the prior application on this property. Upon Mr. Izzo's return, Mr. Harmon called the meeting back to order and the members of the Board were given an opportunity to review the information on the prior application. It was noted that Mr. Pellino had recused himself from the Zoning Board of Appeals October 2,2007 Page 3 review of the first application on this property. Mr. Pellino responded that at that time he had received a certified mailing on the proposed construction and he, as a resident,had questions on the project. The public portion of the meeting was closed and the Board went into deliberation. Upon the Board's return, the applicant was asked to explore how the plans can be altered to avoid the need for the side yard height setback variance. Mr. Harmon noted that an attempt was being made in this area to maintain the premises that the homes in this area should be one and a half stories in order to keep proposed new additions/constructions in character with the neighborhood. The applicant responded that the side yard height setback ratio variance has to do with an area that is 3 '/2' x 10' on the left side of the house. The applicant noted that he was staying over the footprint of the house with the proposed addition. The Board offered Mr. Greaige the opportunity to adjourn the matter to review the plans and see if he could come back with an alternative to his request for the height setback variance. Mr. Greaige noted that he did not want to loose the window of opportunity to construct this addition, but agreed to review his plans. With the consensus of the Board, the matter was adjourned to the next month's meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Harmon noted that the applicant was not required to do another certified mailing. He would be required to reinstall the sign with the correct information. 2) #07-492 Ms. Maria Rusciano 52 Hillcrest Avenue Construct an addition and perform interior alterations to convert the existing one-family house to a two-family dwelling Mr. Harmon noted that this matter would be held over to the next Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Zoning Board of Appeals October 2,2007 Page 4