Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-04-04 - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK Village Hall,938 King Street Rye Brook,New York ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Tuesday,April 4,2006 AGENDA 1) 405-394 (Re-apppearance) Mr. & Mrs.Vellecca 82 Valley Terrace Construct a two-story addition, and perform interior alterations 2) 406-418 (Re-appearance) 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 3) 406-420 (Re-appearance) Dr.Jeff Jablon 8 Red Roof Drive Construct a rear,wood deck 4) #06-422 (Re-appearance) 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 5) #06-426 Mr. & Mrs. Peter Corcoran 14 Brook Lane Legalize an existing aboveground swimming pool and an existing enclosed front vestibule 6) #05-427 Mr. & Mrs.Jim Seguljic 17 Eagles Bluff Construct a front/side wrap-around porch and a rear/side second story addition 7) Approval of February 7,2006 Zoning Board of Appeals Summary Zoning Board of Appeals April 4, 2006 Page I PRESENT BOARD: Mark Harmon, Chairman Salvatore Cresenzi Joseph Pellino Ronald Rettner (arrived at 8:3Op.m.) STAFF: Mr. Michael Izzo,Acting Building Inspector Trustee Joan Feinstein, Liaison/Trustee Paula Patafio, Meeting Secretary Mr. Harmon welcomed everyone to the April 4, 2006 meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals at 8:15 p.m. He began the meeting by noting that there were only three members of the Board present. Mrs. Dorothy Roer's term expired in March and she was replaced by a new member who had not been notified of this meeting. In addition, the Board was not able to reach Ronald Rettner to ascertain whether or not he would be in attendance. Mr. Harmon offered the Board's apology for the delay. He noted that, as a result, although there was a quorum and the meeting could be opened, the applicants would need three (3) yes votes in order for their application to be approved. If one (1) member of the Board voted no, the application would be denied and the applicant would not be able to re-submit the application. They would have to begin the process over with a different application. The presentations could be heard, but the decision of whether or not to adjourn needed to be made prior to the Board going into deliberation. Mr. Harmon offered each of the applicants on the agenda the opportunity to adjourn to the next meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals, tentatively scheduled for Tuesday, May 3, 2006. In addition, Mr. Harmon stated that the Board would delay the start of the meeting in anticipation of Mr. Rettner's arrival. The meeting was adjourned for an additional fifteen minutes. Mr. Harmon reconvened the meeting and called upon the first applicant, offering the opportunity to be heard or to adjourn their application. Mr. & Mrs. Vellecca asked that their application be heard. 1) #05-394 (Re-apppearance) Mr. & Mrs.Vellecca 82 Valley Terrace Construct a two-story addition, and perform interior alterations Mr. Daniel Mayet, architect, with offices located at 309 Greenwich Avenue, Greenwich, Connecticut, addressed the Board as the representative for the applicants. Mr. Mayet noted that the applicants appeared before the Board at its March 2006 meeting. At that time they were asked to review the application, and try and minimize the impacts. The applicants have now submitted a revised plan. Currently the addition is 2357 gross square feet, which is only 429 square feet over the allowed square footage. The addition has been reduced to a minimum. Zoning Board of Appeals April 4, 2006 Page 2 Mr. Mayet noted that the addition is being requested in order to accommodate a member of the Vellecca family who is handicapped. The intention of the addition is to allow this family member mobility within the home. It was noted that there are minimum impacts to the land and the neighborhood as a result of the proposed addition. Mr. Ronald Rettner arrived at the meeting at the conclusion of Mr. Mayet's presentation. Mr. Harmon called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in support or opposition to the application. Mrs. Debra Vellecca, applicant, noted that it is her daughter that is handicapped. This addition is a necessity for her health and well being as this addition will allow for the room necessary to properly bath her and give her physical therapy, as well as allowing her access to the kitchen. The plan has been modified at the Village's request, and now she respectfully requested that it be approved. There being no further comments from members of the public, Mr. Harmon turned to the Board for questions and comments. Mr. Michael Izzo, Building Inspector, noted that previously the application was required to be heard by the Planning Board. The new application does not have to be referred to the Planning Board. Mr. Harmon noted that the total renovation was now 1079 square feet. The proposed addition is located over the garage and to the rear of the home. One addition is over the one-story garage and will go up two-stories. Mr. Mayet noted that there would be no change to the footprint of the house in the front. The footprint does change in the rear of the home, with the addition to the kitchen of 153 square feet. 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 April 4, 2006 Page 3 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Mr. & Mrs. Vellecca for a 429 square foot gross floor area variance in connection with the proposed construction of a two, two-story addition as and performing interior alterations on property located at 82 Valley Terrace in an R-7 District on the west side of Valley Terrace, 100 feet from the intersection of Valley Terrace and Argyle Road. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section 135.51, Block 1, Lot 74; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on June 7, 2005 and continued on April 4, 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) Applicant has presented proof of a personal hardship necessitating substantial renovations and enhancements of their home; 2) Applicant has reduced the requested variance initially sought to the minimum required to accomplish their needs; and 3) The variance will not result in an enlargement of the existing footprint of the home except for a de-minimus addition in the rear. 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. 3) Applicant must file proof of compliance with the posting requirement by submitting an Affidavit of Compliance with the Village's Code. DATE: April 4, 2006 Mark Harmon, Chairman Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Zoning Board of Appeals April 4, 2006 Page 4 Zoning Board of Appeals April 4, 2006 Page 5 Mr. Harmon called for the next item on the agenda: 2) #06-418 (Re-appearance) 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 Dr. Poplausky, the applicant, addressed the Board. He noted that the original presentation to the Board was made at the March meeting. In response to concerns from the Board, the plans were revised. Dr. Poplausky stated that the architect, Steve Machesani, who was scheduled to be at the meeting had not yet arrived, however he offered to answer any questions from the Board or members of the public. Dr. Poplausky noted that his initial application required a variance for the garage. The proposed construction in that area has been removed, as has the proposed mudroom. In addition, the proposed addition to the rear of the home has also been decreased. The plan is to put a second floor on this ranch style home, above the kitchen, living room, and dining room. At this time the application requires a variance for the gross square footage of the house. This variance has decreased from 46.90 to 42.85 square feet with the revisions to the plans in response to concerns that the footprint of the home would be too big as a result of the initial application. Dr. Poplausky presented the Board with photographs of the area, which were made part of the record. He noted that his home would not be the biggest home on the street, nor would it be the smallest. Dr. Poplausky noted that at the previous meeting the adjacent neighbor expressed concern regarding diminished sunlight to his kitchen. In response, he did extensive research on the internet, taking into consideration that there is 41' between the two homes and that his neighbor has a second story to his home. Dr. Poplausky presented the Board with satellite photographs, from different seasons and times, which showed castings of the sun's shadows on the adjacent home. He felt that his addition would not affect the amount of sunlight that reached the neighbor's kitchen area. It was noted that no variance was required in connection of the height of the proposed construction, and that no front yard variance was required as the proposed construction to the garage has been removed from the application. Mr. Harmon called for comments from members of the public in support or opposition to the application. The neighbor of 57 Country Ridge Drive addressed the Board. He felt that the photographs submitted by the applicant did not prove that the sunlight would be blocked by this addition. It was his opinion that this construction would result in substantial loss of sunlight/daylight in his kitchen, an area frequently used by his family, thus affecting his quality of life. Zoning Board of Appeals April 4, 2006 Page 6 Mr. Harmon noted that the applicant had not submitted sufficient evidence regarding the sizes of homes in the area. This is an area where gross square footage of additions has been of concern. The Board is mindful of reasonable uses of homes, and that the Village's Building Code protects all residents. After a brief discussion, the applicant requested that the matter be adjourned to the next Zoning Board meeting. Dr. Poplausky thanked the Board for its consideration. Mr. Harmon called for item 93 on the agenda: 3) #06-420 (Re-appearance) Dr.Jeff Jablon 8 Red Roof Drive Construct a rear, wood deck Michael Boender, architect, addressed the Board as representative for the applicant. He noted that Dr. Jeff Jablon, the applicant, was also in attendance. Mr. Boender noted that this home is located back from the street. In response to a question raised by Mr. Joseph Pellino, Mr. Boender noted that the proposed deck would be constructed to the rear of the home, and is low to the ground, having two separate components. One area of the deck is proposed to be 18" off of the ground and is approximately a 16 x 16 foot area, and the second portion will be almost at grade level and is approximately an 18 x 18 foot area. The rear of the home is screened along the property line with sufficient vegetation. The applicant has discussed this matter with his neighbors and no one has stated any opposition to the application. Mr. Izzo, Building Inspector, noted that as a result to the recent changes to the Village's Code, all decks, regardless of their height, require variances. It is the Village's objective to be certain that all decks are constructed safely. 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 additional 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 April 4, 2006 Page 7 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Dr. Jeff Jablon for a 9.5' variance, in connection with the proposed construction of a rear wood deck, on property located at 8 Red Roof Drive in an R-15 District on the south side of Red Roof Drive, at the intersection of Red Roof Drive and Birth Lane. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section 135.43, Block 1, Lot 5.13; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on March 7, 2006 and continued on April 4, 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 deck will not be more than 18" off grade and will be unobtrusive. 2) The deck will not adversely impact on the neighborhood. 3) It is a reasonable use of the property. 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: April 4, 2006 Mark Harmon, Chairman Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Zoning Board of Appeals April 4, 2006 Page 8 Zoning Board of Appeals April 4, 2006 Page 9 Mr. Harmon called for the next item on the agenda: 4) #06-422 (Re-appearance) 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. It was noted that this matter was adjourned at the March 2006 meeting and the applicant, in response to the Board's concerns, has revised the plans. The new plan reflects the removal of 84 square feet from the kitchen area. Mr. Scarlato presented the Board with new information regarding the application. He began his presentation by noting that this home is a raised ranch. The problem with raised ranches is that the basement area is included in the calculation of useable living area, as well as being included in the calculation of the number of stories of the home. The applicants are looking to expand the usable living area by adding to the master bedroom and the kitchen. The intent is to construct a family room off of the main level of the house, to add square footage to the existing small kitchen, and to add to the master bedroom. The new plan adds approximately 565 square feet to the existing home. The front of the home is unchanged with the exception of the construction of a front portico, and the addition would be constructed in the rear. There are no setback issues in connection with this application. Mr. Scarlato noted that letters of support of the application were submitted to the Village. He presented the Board with additional letters of support. Mr. Scarlato noted that this is an area of the Village with mixed styles and sizes of homes. Lot sizes range from 50' x 100' up to lots of 80' x 150'. He noted that as of right the applicant could add a two-car garage to the front of the home, and put a driveway down the side of the house, but this does not accomplish the goal of the family. The proposed addition would not be out of character with the neighborhood. Photographs of the surrounding homes were submitted to the Board, and made part of the record. Mr. Scarlato reviewed the square footage of the surrounding homes for the Board. Mr. Harmon called for comments in support or opposition to the application from members of the public, or the Board. There being none, 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 April 4, 2006 Page 10 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Mr. & Mrs. Joseph Pistone for a 1,387 square foot gross floor area and a 2.21% lot coverage variance, in connection with the proposed construction of an elevated rear second story addition, a rear one-story addition, new rear deck, new front portico, and installation of new windows, on property located at 98 Valley Terrace in an R-7 District on the west side of Valley Terrace, 260 feet from the intersection of Valley Terrace and Argyle Road. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section 135.51, Block 1, Lot 55; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on March 7, 2006 and continued on April 4, 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 lot is located at the end of a dead end street and backs against a home on a substantially higher grade so that it is uniquely situated in the neighborhood concerned. 2) The proposed construction will not be visible from the street, and it will not affect the bulk of the house as seen from the street. 3) Evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that the square footage of the home proposed is not inconsistent with other similar homes in the surrounding community. 4) Applicant has agreed that they will not construct any accessory structure on the premises. 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. 3) Applicant will fine an Affidavit adopting and confirming the agreement to finding 94 above. DATE: April 4, 2006 Mark Harmon, Chairman Ayes: 3 Nays: 1 Zoning Board of Appeals April 4, 2006 Page 11 Zoning Board of Appeals April 4, 2006 Page 12 5) #06-426 Mr. & Mrs. Peter Corcoran 14 Brook Lane Legalize an existing aboveground swimming pool and an existing enclosed front vestibule Mrs. Corcoran addressed the Board. She noted that this matter was brought to her attention during the process of re-financing her mortgage. She contacted the Village to rectify the matter. She presented the Board with photographs of the home, the pool, and the property. She also presented that Board with a recent survey of the property, all of which were made part of the record by the Board's chairman. Mrs. Corcoran submitted letters in support of the application to the Board from her neighbors at 17 and 18 Brook Lane. It was noted that the vestibule was built as-of-right, however, Mr. Izzo, Building Inspector, noted that the vestibule was constructed without a building permit. Mrs. Corcoran noted that the pool, which was constructed in 2005, was placed on the property with privacy in mind. A chain link fence at the height of 5' surrounds the property. Mr. Izzo, Building Inspector, noted that the vestibule was built without a permit. Mr. Rettner asked if the pool could be moved. The applicant responded that it could be moved, but at a substantial cost. Mr. Pellino noted that the Village's required setbacks were not followed when construction of the pool took place. Mr. Harmon called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in support or opposition to the application. There were no additional questions from the Board, and the public portion of the hearing was closed. The Board went into deliberation. Upon the Board's return,Mr. Harmon read the following resolution: Zoning Board of Appeals April 4, 2006 Page 13 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Mr. & Mrs. Peter Corcoran for a 9' setback variance, in connection with the proposed legalization of an existing aboveground swimming pool and an existing enclosed front vestibule, on property located at 14 Brook Lane in an R-10 District on the west side of Brook Lane, 270' from the intersection of Brook Lane and Sunset Road. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section 135:73, Block 1, Lot 7; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on April 4, 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 variance is necessitated by a self-imposed hardship. 2) The applicant has not demonstrated an undue hardship in complying with the setback requirements. 5) Current placement my pose a health and safety risk. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the said application is hereby denied. DATE: April 4, 2006 Mark Harmon, Chairman Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Zoning Board of Appeals April 4, 2006 Page 14 Zoning Board of Appeals April 4, 2006 Page 15 6) #05-427 Mr. & Mrs.Jim Seguljic 17 Eagles Bluff Construct a front/side wrap-around porch and a rear/side second story addition The architect for the applicant addressed the Board. Mrs. Seguljic was also in attendance, and available to answer any questions from the Board and members of the public. This application encompasses the construction of a wrap-around porch and a rear/side second story addition. The impact to the area is minimal as this house is located on a cul-de-sac. It sits further back from the street than do the other homes on this street. The visual encroachment is minimum and, in fact, the applicant believes that the front porch will enhance the home. Photographs of the home and area were presented to the Board, and made part of the record. The architect noted that this is a triangular shaped lot, with the level portion of the property being located on the side of the home. The frontage is narrower than the rear. Mr. Harmon called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in support or opposition to the application. Mr. Ray Watkins of 20 Eagles Bluff addressed the Board. He presented the Board with photographs of the applicant's property, taken from his property. Mr. Harmon asked that these photographs be made part of the record. Mr. Watkins voiced his objections to the application. He noted that the houses are very close and that all of the applicant's activities are focused on the side of the home closest to his. This includes a large trampoline, which is 15' from the property line, and a tree house, which is 17' from the property line. This tree house is not only used by the applicant's children, but by their friends and occasionally by adults (as shown in the photographs presented to the Board). The result is excessive noise directly beneath his bedroom windows. It was noted that the existing fence was installed by Mr. Watkins in an attempt at creating privacy. The applicant's home is 16' from the shared property line and now they are proposing moving it 3 '/2' closer. At present only 33' exists between the two homes. Mr. Watkins noted that the applicant's storage shed was also constructed on the same side of the property. This applicant has previously constructed an addition to this home several years ago, which has resulted in a much larger home. He asked that the application be denied. Mrs. Seguljic addressed the Board. She noted that several of her neighbors expressed support of this application. In addition she reiterated that the rear yard has a small portion that is level, and that portion is located on the side of the home closest to Mr. Watkins property. The proposed porch will only have a height of 8' and does not require a height variance. The width of the proposed roof is approximately 3'. She pointed out that a roof currently exists over the front door, and it would simply be extended to the side of the home. It was also noted that without the front porch and side wrap around porch no variance would be required. The applicant stated that she would consider removing the porch. The Zoning Board of Appeals April 4, 2006 Page 16 house, which is constructed on a pie-shaped lot, was constructed close to the property lines. Mr. Izzo noted that there are two side yard setback requirements— a minimum of 16' on each side and not less than 40' total combined side yard setback. The Board discussed the matter and with the applicant's approval the matter was adjourned to the May meeting. 7) Approval of the February 7, 2006 Zoning Board Summary. The Board approved the summary as a result of a vote of 4 ayes to 0 nays. There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 10:57 p.m. Zoning Board of Appeals April 4, 2006 Page 17