HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-11-06 - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes Village of Rye Brook
938 King Street
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Meeting at 8:00 p.m.
AGENDA
1) #07-490 Mr. Brian Greaige
(Re-Appearance)
10 Jennifer Lane
Construct a second-story addition over the existing dwelling
2) #07-492 Ms. Maria Rusciano
(Re-Appearance)
52 Hillcrest Avenue
Construct an addition and perform interior alterations to convert the
existing one-family house to a two-family dwelling
3) #07-481 Ms. Laurie Kaufman
249 Tree Top Lane
Partition off the existing garage to create a finished, heated storage
space
4) 907-485 Valenti Communications Corp.
111 South Ridge Street
Erect a free-standing sign
5) #07-493 Mr. William Stingone
1 Castle Landing
Construct a one-story garage addition
6) #07-494 Mr. Richard Montesano
60 Valley Terrace
Construct a two-story front addition, second story addition, and new
front portico
7) 407-497 Mr. & Mrs. Stuart Wechsler
44 Country Ridge Drive
Request a six month extension to the one-year conditional approval
of the previously granted variance
Zoning Board of Appeals
November 6,2007
Page 1
8) Approval of September 4, 2007 and October 2, 2007 Zoning Board Summaries
BOARD: Mark Harmon, Chairman
Salvatore Crescenzi
Joseph Pellino
Ronald Rettner
Michael Siegel
STAFF: Michael Izzo, Building Inspector
Fred Seifert, Public Access Coordinator
Paula Patafio, Meeting Secretary
Board of Trustee
Liaison: Trustee Patricia Sanders Romano
Mr. Mark Harmon, Chairman, called the November 6, 2007 Zoning Board of Appeals
Meeting to order at 8:00 p.m. Before calling the first item on the agenda, Mr. Harmon
called for a few moments of silence for Jay Fidler, a long term resident of the Village of
Rye Brook and a prior member of the Zoning Board Appeals, who passed away last
week.
Mr. Harmon called upon Mr. Michael Izzo, Building Inspector, who informed the Board
that several of the applicants were missing Affidavits regarding the required notification
and proof of installation of signs. Mr. Izzo explained that each applicant is responsible
for the installation of a sign and notification via a mailing. Once the mailing is
completed, and the sign has been installed, an Affidavit must be submitted to the Village.
He noted that the first, fourth, and fifth matters on the agendas were still missing these
Affidavits. Mr. Harmon asked if the signs had been installed in a timely manner for each
of the three applications, and if the Village had proof of mailing. Mr. Izzo responded that
the signs were properly and timely installed, and mailings were completed. Mr. Harmon
directed that each of the applicants be held responsible for submission of the Affidavit to
the Village, and that their applications would be heard with this understanding.
Mr. Harmon noted that there was a lengthy agenda before the Board, and called for the
first matter:
Zoning Board of Appeals
November 6,2007
Page 2
1) #07-490 MR. BRIAN GREAIGE
(Re-Appearance)
10 Jennifer Lane
Construct a second-story addition over the existing dwelling
Mr. Greaige, applicant, addressed the Board. He noted that he appeared before
the Board at the October meeting, at which time the Board expressed a concern
regarding the height of the proposed addition. In addition the adjacent neighbor
had also expressed some concerns regarding screening and drainage. Mr. Greaige
presented the Board with a letter of support from the adjacent property owner,
Ms. Michelle Civetta, which Mr. Harmon made part of the record. Ms. Civetta
reviewed the plans with Mr. Greaige and has requested that the applicant increase
the landscaping between the two properties and that he install the proper drainage
system to ensure no increase in storm water runoff. Mr. Greaige stated that he has
agreed to both requests, which can be made conditions of the approval of the
variances.
Mr. Greaige also presented the Board with a listing of the heights of several of the
homes in the area. He noted that the height was measured at the highest peak of
the house. He stated that his proposed addition would be constructed over the
existing home, and would consist of a master bedroom, bath, and the enlargement
of two (2) small bedrooms. He also stressed that this addition would not be higher
in height than the other homes in the area.
Mr. Harmon asked whether or not the peak of the roof could be lowered. He noted
that the question was whether or not the height or the peak of the roof could be
changed by design in order to reduce the variance which was being requested.
Mr. Greaige responded that there is a peak on the garage and the peak on the
addition will be at the same height. If he lowered the peak of the addition, then he
would have to lower the height of the walls, which would not work with for him
because one of his sons is 6'2". In addition, it would also throw off the aesthetic
balance of the house.
Mr. Harmon called for members of the public wishing to address the application in
support or opposition. There being no one, he turned to the Board for questions
and comments.
Mr. Joseph Pellino stated that at the previous meeting he had questioned whether
or not the construction would be in keeping with the character of the
neighborhood. He noted that after additional review he felt that this was a
reasonable request and use of the property.
Zoning Board of Appeals
November 6,2007
Page 3
Mr. Ronald Rettner questioned whether or not the issue of drainage had been
addressed. Mr. Greaige responded that the new addition will include a 6" gutter,
attached to a leader which will be directed towards a drywell. This drywell is
shown on the plans that have been presented to the Village.
As there were no additional questions or comments from the Board or members of
the public, the public hearing was closed and the Board began its deliberation.
The Board discussed the height setback ratio and its belief that the applicant has
failed to demonstrate why this variance should be granted. Although the Board is
sympathetic to the specials needs of the family, the Board did not feel that the
amount of space being added for a master bedroom, bathroom would require the
granting of such an extensive height setback ratio variance. It was also noted that
this home sits at a higher elevation than most of its neighboring properties.
Mr. Harmon felt that this home would be out of character with the neighboring
homes. Mr. Pellino and Mr. Rettner disagreed with Mr. Harmon, as they both felt
that given the topography of the lot and the design of the addition, it would not be
out of character with the neighborhood.
After reaching a consensus, Mr. Harmon informed the applicant that the Board had
additional concerns regarding the height of the addition and the size of the
variance being requested. Mr. Greaige was offered the opportunity to be
adjourned to the December meeting to demonstrate to the Board why the side
height setback ratio variance could not be lowered. Although not happy with this
alternative, Mr. Greaige stated that he would return December 4, 2007 with new
plans.
Mr. Harmon called for item #2 on the agenda:
2) #07-492 MS. MARIA RUSCIANO
(Re-Appearance)
52 Hillcrest Avenue
Construct an addition and perform interior alterations to convert the
existing one-family house to a two-family dwelling
Mr. Izzo noted that last month the matter was not properly noticed as the gross
floor area variance was omitted. The matter was adjourned, re-noticed, and at this
time the application was ready to be heard.
Zoning Board of Appeals
November 6,2007
Page 4
Mr. Harmon noted that his package from the Building Department was missing the
plans for this application. Mr. Izzo gave Mr. Harmon a set of plans to review.
The reminder of the Board stated that they had received the plans.
The architect for the applicant, Mr. Robak from the firm of Robak Architecture,
LLC of Irvington, New York, addressed the Board. He began by noting that this is
a small addition, totaling 900 square feet. The objective is to turn this single
family home into a two-family home. He pointed out that there are specific code
regulations that the applicant must follow when making this type of conversion,
which require a certain gross floor area be added, which results in the need for a
variance. It was noted that the addition aligns with the existing home, and both
homes on either side of this property. The square footage of the house is
approximately 2200 square feet. The application is also over on allowable
impervious surfaces by approximately 100 square feet, for which a variance is
required. It was noted that there is existing screening that will remain.
Mr. Harmon called for members of the public wishing to address the application in
support or opposition. There being no one, Mr. Harmon turned to the Board for
questions and comments.
Mr. Pellino noted that the Planning Board suggested that the applicant apply for an
impervious surface coverage variance. Mr. Izzo noted that the variance required
was reviewed by the Planning Board, and that Board approved the drawings dated
August 7, 2007on October 16, 2007.
Mr. Harmon noted that the front yard setback is being extended but not enlarged.
The architect explained that the current line of the house is being extended. This
27 foot extension runs away from Hillcrest towards Whitmore. Mr. Harmon also
noted that the application requires a 3' variance in the rear yard, and a front height
setback ratio variance.
The public hearing was closed and the Board deliberated on the application. The
Board expressed a concern over the size of the addition. Mr. Robak noted that in
order to convert this one-family home to a two-family home a minimum of 750
square foot addition is the smallest amount that can be added. He also noted that
there must be a separate entrance for the second floor. The current gross floor
area of the home is 1,382 square feet and the proposed addition will require a
gross floor area variance of 606 square feet. Mr. Robak stated that 90 square feet
of the addition is a stairway, and that the square footage of the garage is also
added in.
Zoning Board of Appeals
November 6,2007
Page 5
The Board continued its discussion and when it reached a consensus, Mr. Harmon
read the following resolution:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by
Ms. Maria Rusciano for relief from the Code to convert a single-family dwelling
into a two-family dwelling and for a 9.45 front yard setback variance, a 3' rear
yard setback variance, a 100 square foot impervious surface coverage variance, a
606 square foot gross floor area variance, and a 1.6 front height setback variance,
all in connection with the proposed construction of an addition and performing
interior alternations to convert the existing one-family house to a two-family
dwelling, on property located at 52 Hillcrest Avenue in an R-2F District on the
west side of Hillcrest Avenue, at the intersection of Irenhyl Avenue and Hillcrest
Avenue. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village
of Rye Brook as Section: 135.76, Block: 1, Lot: 11; and
WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on November 6,
2007, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity;
and
WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on November 6,
2007, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity;
and
WHEREAS, the Board, from the application and after viewing the
premises and neighborhood concerned, finds:
1. Applicant has failed to demonstrate that the property cannot be
reasonably used in its present condition; and
2. Applicant has not demonstrated any need for the requested variances
which are substantial in nature and would materially alter the property
and neighborhood.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the said application is
hereby denied.
Dated: November 6, 2007
Mark Harmon, Chairman
AYES: 4
NAYS: 1
Zoning Board of Appeals
November 6,2007
Page 6
Zoning Board of Appeals
November 6,2007
Page 7
Mr. Harmon called for the third item on the agenda:
3) #07-481 MS. LAURIE KAUFMAN
249 Tree Top Lane
Partition off the existing garage to create a finished, heated storage
space
The applicant, Ms. Laurie Kaufman, addressed the Board. She noted that when
she moved into the Arbors 7+ years ago, she created the storage area that she
needed as a result of moving from a large house. The storage room, which is a
heated room, is part of the garage. Since the creation of this storage spaced,
Ms. Kaufman noted that she has parked her car in the driveway in front of the
garage, the same way most of the other residents of the Arbors do. She noted that
90% of the owners of the townhouses with garages park in their driveways. She
presented the Board with photographs of other units within the Arbors with cars
parked in front of their homes, which Mr. Harmon made part of the record.
Ms. Kaufman noted that she has now been informed that she needs a variance in
order to park her car in the driveway as the Rye Brook Code requires a minimum
of two off-street parking spaces. The size of each space as required by the Code is
175 square feet. The storage room reduces her second space to 137.75 square feet.
Mr. Izzo noted that at the time this storage space was constructed, a permit and a
variance would have been required. The applicant is now seeking to legalize the
removal of one of the two-off street parking spaces required by the Village. The
storage space removes the ability to park two cars in the garage. The Board of the
Arbors Homeowners Association has submitted a letter in connection with the
application. Although not in objection to the application, per se, the Board would
object to any approval which would change the exterior appearance of the
property. They have also made it explicitly clear that neither the applicant nor any
successor owner of the unit will be permitted to use any other parking spaces on
the premises.
Mr. Salvatore Crescenzi noted that the variance would run with the land and not
with the owner, which means that the removal of one of the two parking spaces
would be forever. Mr. Harmon noted that the objective, if granted, would be to
have the variance applied to the current owner and not the property.
Mr. Harmon called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in
support or opposition to the application.
A member of the Board of the Arbors addressed the Board, noting that they do
have an objection to the applicant's application, however, they want to keep the
Zoning Board of Appeals
November 6,2007
Page 8
integrity of the community. She pointed out that there are 512 parking spots for
250 homes, with each unit have two spaces — which means there are only 12
visitor parking spaces. There are two homes that have converted the garage space;
one of which was done 30 years ago. Other units have converted their garages
into office space—but the garage door remains. These homes can only park in the
driveway. There is no space to add additional parking spaces.
The applicant noted that she has resided in this home for seven years. She stressed
that she was not requesting an additional parking space, but rather was requesting
permission to park her car in her driveway, where it has been parked for the past
seven years.
The public hearing was closed, and the Board went into deliberation.
Mr. Harmon questioned whether or not a variance could be granted on the
condition that upon the sale of the unit that garage would be returned to garage
space. As he did not want to set a precedent, Mr. Harmon felt that it would be in
the Village's best interest to close the public hearing, adjourn the application, and
then refer this matter to the Village's Counsel for review and opinion. The
remaining Board members agreed.
Ms. Kaufman noted that if this was a condition of approval, she would be willing
to reconvert the garage back to a garage upon the sale of the unit. The applicant
accepted the adjournment to the next Zoning Board meeting, with the
understanding that the public hearing portion of the application has been closed.
Both Mr. Izzo and Mr. Harmon would direct the Village's Counsel to review this
matter.
Mr. Harmon called for item #4 on the agenda:
4) #07-485 VALENTI COMMUNICATIONS CORP.
111 South Ridge Street
Erect a free-standing sign
The architect for the applicant, Joseph R. Crocco Architects of Armonk, New
York, noted that he was before the Board in order to request permission to install a
free standing sign, which requires two (2) variances. When starting this process,
the applicant's intention was that the sign would conform with the Village's Code,
however, it was not expected that the stone base of the sign would be added into
Zoning Board of Appeals
November 6,2007
Page 9
the calculation of the size of the sign. Mr. Crocco noted that the face of the sign,
which is 20 square feet, will comply with the Village's Code. He presented the
Board with photographs of the proposed sign, which Mr. Harmon made part of
the record.
Mr. Crocco stated that at the current time there is no identification on the building,
other than the street number. The building is glass and aluminum, and does not
offer any place to place a sign. The entrance to this building is below grade, and
the property slopes down from the street. The building is now fully rented and the
tenants have expressed concern that there is no identification. It is very easy to
drive past the building and, therefore the owner is requesting that he be allowed to
construct a sign in the front of the building, in the planter island, which is 10"
from the property line. The Village's Code requires a 10' setback, which would
put the sign in the middle of parking spaces. This is a commercial area and the
building is surrounded by two banks, two gas stations, and the Rye Ridge
Shopping Center. The applicant is simply looking for identification for the
building.
Mr. Harmon called for members of the public wishing to address the application in
support or opposition. There being no one, he turned to the Board members for
comments and questions.
Mr. Pellino questioned whether or not the building was in compliance with the
number of parking spaces required by the Village's Code. Mr. Izzo stated that he
did not have the information, however it was Mr. Crocco's recollection that the
building was under-parked. It was noted that the building was constructed 40 years
ago, prior to the changes in the Village's Code regarding parking.
Mr. Pellino questioned how far from the street the proposed sign would be.
Mr. Crocco responded that there is a sidewalk and then another three or four feet
from the sidewalk. The building belonged to Social Services and was sold
approximately five or six years ago. At this time there are four (4) major tenants,
and they are requesting the identification.
Mr. Crocco noted that in review it was found that the proposed location for the
sign is the best location. He also re-stated that no sign can be installed on the
building as the fagade is glass.
Mr. Rettner asked if a smaller sign could be constructed. The applicant had no
problem with a smaller sign as long as it could be located in the same place.
Zoning Board of Appeals
November 6,2007
Page 10
Mr. Pellino noted that that the sign law went into effect because of concerns over
what South Ridge Street was beginning to look like.
The public hearing was closed and the Board went into deliberation.
The Board began its discussion and reached the consensus that the address on the
building should be sufficient. The Board was willing, however, to allow the
applicant to adjourn the matter to develop evidence why the address on the
building is not sufficient, why a sign could not be installed on the building, and
why they should be allowed to construct this free-standing sign.
Mr. Crocco accepted the adjournment to the December Zoning Board meeting.
5) #07-493 MR. WILLIAM STINGONE
1 Castle Landing
Construct a one-story garage addition
Mr. William Stingone, the applicant, noted that he needed the extra garage
because his family currently has four (4) cars. He noted that as this is a corner
property, there are two front yards to this property which the required setbacks are
based. The two-car garage is on the Castle Landing side of the property, and he is
looking to expand this garage to a three car garage. Mr. Izzo stated that when
looking at the size of the existing garage, which is 16', it is already a three (3) car
garage.
Mr. Stingone responded that because of the configuration of the garage, it would
be extremely difficult to fit another car in this garage. He stated that a portion of
the garage is really storage space, and there is no door for access. He presented
the Board with photographs of the property, which Mr. Harmon made part of
the record.
Mr. Harmon called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in
support or opposition to the application. There being no one, and no members of
the Board with additional questions or comments, Mr. Harmon noted that the
public hearing portion of the meeting was closed. The Board deliberated for a
short period and then Mr. Harmon read the following resolution:
Zoning Board of Appeals
November 6,2007
Page 11
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by
Mr. & Mrs. William Stingone for a 10' side yard variance, a 1.60 side yard height
setback ratio variance, and a 617 square foot gross floor area variance, in
connection with the proposed construction of a one-story garage addition, on
property located at 1 Castle Landing in an R-15 District on the south side of Castle
Landing, at the intersection of Comly Avenue and Castle Landing. Said premises
being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as
Section: 136.22, Block: 1, Lot: 22.
WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on
November 6, 2007, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such
opportunity; and
WHEREAS, the Board, from the application and after viewing the
premises and neighborhood concerned finds:
1. Applicant has failed to demonstrate that the property cannot be
reasonably used without the variance; and
2. The requested variances is substantial and will materially and adversely
impact the neighborhood.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the said application is
hereby denied.
Dated: November 6, 2007
Mark Harmon, Chairman
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
Zoning Board of Appeals
November 6,2007
Page 12
Zoning Board of Appeals
November 6,2007
Page 13
6) #07-494 MR. RICHARD MONTESANO
60 Valley Terrace
Construct a two-story front addition, second story addition, and new
front portico
John Scarlato, architect, addressed the Board. He noted the applicant and his wife
purchased this home a little over five (5) years ago. At that time they reviewed the
zoning code and found that an large addition could be made. Now the Code has
change, and they require variances. It is important to note that this is very small
house — only 938 square feet. It contains two (2) small bedrooms, a small dining
room, small living room, and a small kitchen. The initial concept was to add a
second story to the house. There is more property in the front of the home then in
the rear, and so the addition will be made to the front of the house. There is a
considerable setback in the front. The minimum single yard setback is eight feet,
and the applicant's existing nonconforming single side yard setback is 7.5 feet.
Therefore, the applicant requires a variance of .5 feet. In addition, the minimum
required total of two side yard setbacks is 20 feet, where the applicant has 16 feet,
he will require a 4 foot variance. The next variance is in connection with the gross
floor area, where the applicant will require a variance of 251 square feet. And,
finally, an impervious coverage variance of 192 square feet is required. This is a
50' wide lot in a zone where the majority of the lots are 60' in width.
This application has been before the Planning Board since the addition is more
than 50% of the existing house. The existing home is 34' wide, and the addition
will align with the existing house. The house has an existing detached one-car
garage in the rear of the home. It meets the requirements for an accessory
building. However, since the impervious surface lot coverage is over, prior to the
construction, the applicant will be removing a portion of the existing driveway.
Mr. Scarlato noted that a hip roof line will minimize the height. The home will
blend in well with the neighborhood. Mr. Scarlato provided the Board with
photographs for the neighborhood, which were made part of the record.
Mr. Scarlato noted that he did a study of the neighborhood, and obtained
assessment cards from the Tax Assessor, in order to compare the lot size and size
of the homes in this area.
The recommendations made by the Planning Board regarding impervious surface
coverage and drainage have been incorporated into the plans. Mr. Scarlato noted
that the drainage plan has been approved by the Village's Engineer. Mr. Izzo
noted that the application is still in review by the Planning Board, however the
Planning Board wanted input from the Zoning Board. They want to be sure that
the Zoning Board will approve the variances for the application as it currently
exists.
Zoning Board of Appeals
November 6,2007
Page 14
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 comments and questions.
Mr. Crescenzi noted that the variances have been reduced by accepting the
recommendations of the Planning Board. Mr. Pellino noted that Mr. Carosi has
reviewed and approved the final drainage plan. The applicant will now control
100% of the storm water runoff from the site. After the construction has been
completed there will be a better drainage system then what currently exists.
As there were no further questions for the applicant, the public hearing was closed
and the Board began to deliberate. After a discussion with the Board, Mr. Harmon
prepared the resolution, and then read it for the public:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by
Mr. Richard Montesano for a .5 foot single side yard variance; a 4' total of two
side yard setback variance; a 251 square foot gross floor area variance; and a 192
square foot impervious coverage variance, all in connection with the proposed
construction of a two-story front addition; second story addition, and new front
portico, on property located at 60 Valley Terrace in an R-7 District on the west
side of Valley Terrace, 565 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: 49.
WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on
November 6, 2007, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such
opportunity; and
WHEREAS, the Board, from the application and after viewing the
premises and neighborhood concerns, finds:
1. Applicant is extending but not enlarging existing nonconformities;
2. The proposed construction will be consistent with the surrounding
neighborhood;
3. The lot, as are many surrounding lots, is non-conforming;
Zoning Board of Appeals
November 6,2007
Page 15
4. Applicant has modified the plans to reduce the variances sought in
connection with the site plan approval process; and
5. Applicant's drainage plan has been submitted to , and approved by the
Village's Engineer.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the said
application is hereby granted on the following conditions:
1) Construction shall begin in one (1) year of the granting of the
variance; and
2) No further building permits may issue respecting this
property that will enlarge the footprint or gross floor area of
the home without a properly noticed and hearing and approval
by this Board.
Dated: November 6, 2007
Mark Harmon, Chairman
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
Zoning Board of Appeals
November 6,2007
Page 16
Zoning Board of Appeals
November 6,2007
Page 17
7) #07-497 MR. & MRS. STUART WECHSLER
44 Country Ridge Drive
Request a six month extension to the one-year conditional approval
of the previously granted variance
Mr. Harmon noted that this matter has been removed from consideration.
Mr. Harmon noted that the approval of September 4, 2007 and October 2, 2007 Zoning
Board Summaries would be held over to the December meeting.
As there was no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:51
p.m.
Zoning Board of Appeals
November 6,2007
Page 18