Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-03-07 - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK Village Hall,938 King Street Rye Brook,New York ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Tuesday,March 7,2006 AGENDA 1) 406-418 Dr. & Mrs. Maurice Poplausky 61 Country Ridge Drive Construct a one-story, two-car garage addition, a rear two-story addition, a rear deck, and a second-story addition 2) 406-419 Ms.Wendy Jacobs and Mr. Mark Glassman 7 Magnolia Drive Construct a rear one-story addition, a side second-story addition, and extend an existing rear masonry patio on grade 3) 406-420 Dr.Jeff Jablon 8 Red Roof Drive Construct a rear, wood deck 4) 06-421 Mr. & Mrs. Bruce Rubenstein 140 Country Ridge Drive Construct a rear, two-story addition 5) #06-422 Mr. & Mrs.Joseph Pistone 98 Valley Terrace Construct an elevated rear second-story addition, a rear one-story addition, new rear deck, new front portico, and install new windows 6) #05-427 Mr. Raymond Rauso At an unimproved lot located on Arlington Place Seek an interpretation by the Village Zoning Board of Appeals, if the subject vacant lot is/is not a pre-existing legal non-conforming building lot in the R-10 Zone; and, if necessary, request a lot size variance. 7) Approval of December 6, 2005 Zoning Board of Appeals Summary Zoning Board of Appeals March 7, 2006 Page I PRESENT BOARD: Mark Harmon, Chairman Salvatore Cresenzi Dorothy Roer Joseph Pellino Ronald Rettner STAFF: Mr. Michael Izzo,Acting Building Inspector Mr. Harmon welcomed everyone to the March 7, 2006 meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. He noted that this was the last meeting for Mrs. Dorothy Roer, whose term expires at the end of March. Mrs. Roer was thanked for all of her hard work on behalf of the Village. Mr. Harmon called for the first item on the agenda: 1) #06-418 Dr. & Mrs. Maurice Poplausky 61 Country Ridge Drive Construct a one-story, two-car garage addition, a rear two-story addition, a rear deck, and a second-story addition Mr. Steve Machesani, architect for the applicant, addressed the Board. He noted that the applicant was proposing the addition of a second floor over the existing one-story structure, and bumping out an additional 10' to the rear of the home. Also included in the application was a two-car garage with an entrance directly into the home. The property is located on a dead end street, and the rear of the property backs up to the golf course. The first variance requested is a 6.6 foot front yard set back. The minimum required for a front yard setback is forty (40) feet. The applicants' proposed garage addition would result in a front yard setback of 33.4 feet at Fairlawn Parkway. The second variance being requested was in connection with the F.A.R. The maximum allowable gross floor area for a property in this zoning district is 3,565 square feet. The applicants' addition would result in a gross floor area of 4,285 square feet. Therefore, a 1,125 square foot gross floor area variance would be required. Mr. Harmon called for members of the public who wished to be heard in support or opposition to the application. The owner of 57 Country Ridge Drive addressed the Board in opposition to the application. He noted that his home was adjacent to the side where the second story addition was being proposed. He felt that by elevating the home with a second story that it would block sun/daylight that he currently enjoys in his kitchen. Zoning Board of Appeals March 7, 2006 Page 2 Mr. Harmon turned to the Board for questions and/or comments. Mr. Harmon began the discussion by asking how many square feet the existing house was. Mr. Michael Izzo, Building Inspector, responded that it was 3,010 square feet. The proposed addition would add 1,680 square feet. The majority of the addition is proposed to be constructed over the first story. The balance is proposed for the left side of the home and out to the rear. Mr. Harmon closed the public portion of the hearing, and the Board continued to discuss the matter with the assistance of the Village's Building Inspector. It was noted that the Village's Code was amended to prohibit oversized houses on lots. The size and shape of the lot must be taken into consideration, as well as the residents' reasonable use of their property. The decision of the Board, with the applicant's approval, was to adjourn this matter to the April meeting when the applicant would return and continue with his presentation. Mr. Harmon stated that no notification via mail was required for this matter, however, the installation of the sign must be completed in accordance with the Village's Code. Mr. Harmon called for item 42 on the agenda: 2) #06-419 Ms.Wendy Jacobs and Mr. Mark Glassman 7 Magnolia Drive Construct a rear one-story addition, a side second-story addition, and extend an existing rear masonry patio on grade The architect for the applicants addressed the Board. He noted that the applicants were proposing modifications to the existing house. The proposed addition would be constructed on the second floor, over the existing garage. The addition would comprise of two (2) bedrooms and a full bathroom. On the first floor an addition was being proposed for the rear of the home. This addition would enlarge the existing kitchen. The applicants are also proposing a grade patio extension to be constructed off of the new addition in the rear. The applicants are being married this year and between the two of them they have four (4) children. They also have family that visit and stay with them. The existing house cannot accommodate the number of people that will be moving into it. Enlarging the kitchen would also accommodate this new, extended family. The applicant is requesting a variance in connection with the maximum permitted gross floor. The maximum permitted is 3,232 square feet and the applicants' additions will result in a structure with a gross floor area of 3,677 square feet. A gross floor area variance of 445 square feet is required. All other Zoning requirements are met. In addition, the height of the building is within the Code. The square foot increase is approximately 13% over what is allowed. The Zoning Board of Appeals March 7, 2006 Page 3 addition over the garage will enhance the character of the house and make it more of a traditional colonial. It was noted that when reviewing the homes within a 50 square radius, this home is the smallest according to the tax roll. Ms. Jacobs noted that even with the addition, their home would still be approximately I I% smaller than the average size of homes in this area. Mr. Harmon called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in support or opposition to the application. A resident from 8 Magnolia Drive addressed the Board. She felt that the plans show an enhancement to the neighborhood and she noted that she was in support of the application. Mr. Harmon noted that the Village received a letter from the attorney representing the owners of 5 Magnolia Drive in opposition to the application. Mr. Harmon stated that the letter would to be made part of the record, however,there was no proof that this attorney represented the homeowner. Ms. Jacobs noted that they have had issues with this particular neighbor in the past. They recently constructed a very large addition, which was not being built to Code. She reported this to the Village, and this caused problems with her and the neighbors. Mr. Izzo noted that the addition to 5 Magnolia was done in late 2003 or early 2004, prior to the changes in the Code. They were issued a Certificate of Occupancy upon completion of the construction. Ms. Jacobs, the current owner of the home, also noted that their proposed addition was on the opposite side of their home, and should not affect the owners of 5 Magnolia. The architect addressed the neighbor's concerns regarding water runoff. He stated that the applicants' proposed the installation of two (2) drywells to be located in the front of the home. These drywells would capture all of the water runoff created by the new impervious surface of the addition and the extension of the patio, as well as most of the water runoff from the existing home. Mr. Izzo noted that he has reviewed the plans and according to the application the applicants are increasing the impervious surface by approximately 300 square feet. He noted that the applicants were making provisions to capture the new runoff, as well as a lot of the existing water that is now running out into the street. Also proposed to be installed are curtain drains. The architect pointed out the location of the drywells and curtain drains on the plans. Steps have been taken in order to deal with additional runoff from the site. Mr. Harmon noted that the owner of record of this property was Ms. Jacobs, and any variance granted will be issued to her as the owner. There being no further comments, 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 March 7, 2006 Page 4 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Ms. Wendy Jacobs for a 445 square foot gross floor area variance in connection with the proposed construction of a rear one-story addition; a side second-story addition; and a rear masonry patio on grade; on property located at 7 Magnolia Drive in an R-15 District on the north side of Magnolia Drive, 418 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 130.77, Block 1, Lot 34; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on March 7, 2006 at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of Appeals, from the application and after viewing the premises and neighborhood concerned, finds: 1) It appears from the application that the proposed construction will result in a home consistent in size and appearance to its surrounding neighborhood. 2) The requested variance is reasonable and granting the increase will not be inconsistent with the intent of the gross floor area restrictions in light of the proposed construction; and 3) In connection with the construction the applicant is improving the drainage facilities at the site. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the said application is hereby granted on the following conditions: 1) Construction shall begin within one (1) year of the granting of the variance. 2) No further building permits may issue respecting this property without the consent of this Board given upon a properly noticed and heard application in accordance with the Village's Code unless the proposed construction will not enlarge the footprint or square footage of the structure. DATE: March 7, 2006 Mark Harmon, Chairman Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Zoning Board of Appeals March 7, 2006 Page 5 Zoning Board of Appeals March 7, 2006 Page 6 Mr. Harmon called for item 93 on the agenda: 3) #06-420 Dr.Jeff Jablon 8 Red Roof Drive Construct a rear,wood deck Mr. Harmon noted that no one was in attendance in connection with this application. Mr. Izzo stated that the applicant was informed that they were on the agenda for this meeting. As a courtesy to the applicant, the matter was adjourned to the April 4, 2006 meeting. If they did not appear at the April meeting the application will be dismissed. Mr. Harmon called for item 94 on the agenda: 4) 06-421 Mr. & Mrs. Bruce Rubenstein 140 Country Ridge Drive Construct a rear, two-story addition The architect and the applicants addressed the Board. The architect noted that the applicants' required a variance in connection with lot coverage. The maximum permitted lot coverage in the R-15 district is 16%. The applicants' existing non- conforming lot coverage is 17.7%. The proposed addition would increase the coverage to 19.7%. Therefore, a lot coverage variance of 3.7% is required. The proposed addition would be constructed in the rear of the home. It would extend out 16', and it would be constructed over an existing concrete area. The applicants proposed plans do not exceed the amount of impervious coverage allowed, or the gross floor area. Mr. Harmon called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in support or opposition to this application. There being no questions from the Board, the public portion of the hearing was closed and the Board went into deliberation. Upon the Board's return,Mr. Harmon read the following resolution: Zoning Board of Appeals March 7, 2006 Page 7 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Mr. & Mrs. Bruce Rubenstein for a 3.7% lot coverage variance, in connection with the proposed construction of a rear, two-story addition, on property located at 140 Country Ridge Drive in an R-1513istrict on the east side of Country Ridge Drive, 250 feet from the intersection of Country Ridge Drive and Rocking Horse Trail. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section 129.74, Block 1, Lot 11; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on March 7, 2006 at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of Appeals, from the application and after viewing the premises and neighborhood concerned, finds: 1) The proposed construction that results in the need for this variance is in the rear of the home over a depressed concrete patio and construction at that site will not adversely impact the neighborhood or result in visual expansion of the home; 2) Applicant has agreed to condition 92 listed below. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the said application is hereby granted on the following conditions: 1) Construction shall begin within one (1) year of the granting of the variance. 2) No further building permits may issue respecting this property without the consent of this Board given upon a properly noticed and heard application in accordance with the Village's Code unless the proposed construction will not enlarge the footprint or square footage of the structure. DATE: March 7, 2006 Mark Harmon, Chairman Ayes: 4 Nays: 1 Zoning Board of Appeals March 7, 2006 Page 8 Zoning Board of Appeals March 7, 2006 Page 9 Mr. Harmon called for the next item on the agenda: 4) 406-422 Mr. &Mrs. Jeff Pistone 98 Valley Terrace Construct an elevated rear second-story addition, a rear one-story addition, new rear deck, new front portico, and install new windows John G. Scarlato, Jr., architect, addressed the Board as representative for the applicants. He noted that the home is a raised ranch located at 98 Valley Terrace. The maximum permitted gross floor area is 2,516 square feet. The applicants' existing non-conforming gross floor area is 3,463 square feet. The proposed additions would result in a gross floor area of 3,987 square feet. A gross floor area variance of 1,471 square feet is requested. In addition, the maximum permitted lot coverage in the R-7 Zone is 23% and the applicants' proposed additions would increase the lot coverage to 26.15%. A variance of 3.15% in connection with lot coverage is required. Mr. Sal Cresenzi addressed Section 209 of the Village's Code. Mr. Michael Izzo, Building Inspector, noted that this portion of the Code would not be applied because the proposed construction was not greater than 50% over the existing square footage of the house. The trigger that sends an application to the Planning Board per Section 209, Site Plan Review, is increasing the floor area by 50% of what exists. Mr. Izzo read the portion of the Code in question, Section 209-1(b)2. Non-conformities are not mentioned in this area of the Code. Mr. Cresenzi pointed out that under the Code 250 square feet is allowed and what exists on this property is already 3400 square feet. He felt that this matter needed to be addressed before the application for variances could be considered. After discussing this matter further, the Board concluded that this application did not need to be referred to the Planning Board. Mr. Scarlato noted that the applicants are looking to expand the usable living area by adding to the master bedroom and the kitchen. The proposed construction will also include a family room off of the main level of the house. Unfortunately, with a raised ranch the lower level is counted in the calculation of square footage. He pointed out that in increasing the size of the kitchen, and adding the family room behind the dining area would accomplish the applicants' goal to increase their usable living area. They proposed the addition of 440 square feet would be located to the rear of the house. There are no issues in connection with impervious surfaces, but the application is slightly over on lot coverage by 3.15%, however, the applicant is allowed to have an accessory building. The house from the street will remain the same. The house to the right of this property has a similar addition. Mr. Scarlato stated that the proposed construction would not out of character with the neighborhood. Zoning Board of Appeals March 7, 2006 Page 10 Mr. Pistone noted that his family consists of two small children, with a third on the way—and he wasn't sure whether that would be the end of his family building efforts. This construction would allow the family to remain in this home. Mr. Pistone noted that his property was a rental property with no upkeep and, in his opinion, is an eyesore. Now that they have purchased it they are looking to make the repairs. The roof needs to be replaced, the wall to the rear is falling apart, and the walkway in the front of the home is in disrepair. He is taking a global look at the home and intends to enhance the neighborhood with the proposed construction. He hoped that his neighbors felt the same. Mr. Izzo noted that this is the last house on Valley Terrace, the dead end. The other side of home is a retaining wall at the end of Betsy Brown Road and there is no thru traffic there. There is a grade differential that prohibits the connection to Betsy Brown. Mr. Harmon asked that the letters of support be made part of the record. Mr. Harmon called for comments in support or opposition to the application from members of the public, or the Board. Mr. Joseph Pellino asked for clarification of the basement space of this house. Mr. Scarlato noted that the basement is half in the ground and half above the ground, it is counted in the floor area and it counts as a story by the New York State Code. In Rye Brook you cannot add another story because it would count as a third floor. Mr. Izzo noted that a variance from the State of New York would have to be granted in order to put a third story on this home, and the whole house would need to be sprinklered. The next step would then be obtaining a variance from the Village of Rye Brook. The Board discussed the application off the record. The outcome of the discussion was a request to the applicant to provide evidence that granting this variance would be in character with this neighborhood. Consequently, the matter was adjourned to the April 4, 2006 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting for additional presentation by the applicant. Mr. Harmon called for the next item on the agenda: 6) #05-427 Mr. Raymond Rauso At an unimproved lot located on Arlington Place Seek an interpretation by the Village Zoning Board of Appeals, if the subject vacant lot is/is not a pre-existing legal non-conforming building lot in the R-10 Zone; and, if necessary, request a lot size variance. It was noted that this application was withdrawn. Zoning Board of Appeals March 7, 2006 Page 11 7) Approval of the December 6,2005 Zoning Board Summary. There was some confusion on the Board's part as to which summary was to be approved. Therefore, the matter was adjourned to the April meeting. There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned. Zoning Board of Appeals March 7, 2006 Page 12