Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-05-02 - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK 938 King Street Zoning Board of Appeals Tuesday, May 2, 2006 Meeting at 8:00 p.m. Agenda 1. 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. 2. 906-427 Mr. & Mrs.Jim Seguljic 17 Eagles Bluff Construct a front/side wrap-around porch and a rear/side second- story addition. 3. 406-428 Mr. & Mrs.David Seiden 21 Holly Lane Construct a front entry portico, a rear elevated wood deck and perform interior renovations. 4. 906-429 Michael Rosenblut and Hedy Cardozo 14 Holly Lane Construct a 1-1/2 story two-car garage addition, a rear two story addition, and partial second story addition. 5. 406-430 Mr. & Mrs.Vincent Miata 7 Castleview Court Construct a one-story rear addition with full basement. 6. 906-431 Mr. & Mrs. Scott Zecker 16 Red Roof Drive Construct a rear,wood deck. 7. 406-432 Mr. & Mrs.Michael Lulkin 36 Meadowlark Road Construct a rear, one-story addition. Zoning Board of Appeals May 2,2006 Page 1 8. 406-434 Mr. & Mrs. Neil Flanagan 28 Hillandale Road Construct three front additions, and four rear additions. 9. 906-436 Mr. & Mrs.Joseph Carvin 55 Hillandale Road Construct a new, single-family dwelling with attached garage. 10. Approval of 3/7/06 and 4/4/06 Zoning Board Summaries BOARD Mark Harmon, Chairman Salvatore Crescenzi Joseph Pellino Ronald Rettner Michael Siegel STAFF Michael Izzo, Building Inspector Paula Patafio,Meeting Secretary Mr. Harmon called the May 2, 2006 meeting to order at 8:00 p.m. by calling for the first item on the agenda: 1. 9 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& a second-story addition. Dr. Poplausky began his presentation by noting that he was at the previous Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. The Board expressed a concern regarding the size of his home after the proposed construction in relationship to the size of the other homes in the area. He noted that people look at the character of the area first and then the size of the home before purchasing a new home. People are now looking for larger sized homes. In order to stay in Rye Brook many people come in and purchase smaller homes and enlarge them to fit their needs. He felt that there needed to be some flexibility shown by the Village so that this could be accomplished. He stated that he was looking to enlarge his home to meet his needs, and so that his family could remain in the area. Dr. Poplausky presented the Board with information that he obtained from the Office of the Tax Assessor that showed that this home would be in keeping with the character of the Zoning Board of Appeals May 2,2006 Page 2 neighborhood. Mr. Harmon noted that all the information submitted by the applicant was to be included as part of the record, including the copies of the property cards. Mr. Harmon called for questions from the Board. There being none, he turned to the members of the public for anyone wishing to address the Board in support or opposition to the application. There was no one, therefore, 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: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Dr. & Mrs. Maurice Poplausky for a 719 square foot gross floor area variance, in connection with the proposed construction of a one-story, two-car garage addition, a rear two-story addition, a rear deck, and a second-story addition, on property located at 61 Country Ridge Drive, in an R-15 District, on the west side of Country Ridge Drive, at the corner of Country Ridge Drive and Fairlawn Parkway. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 129.9, Block: 1, Lot 7. WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on March 7, 2006, and continued on April 4, 2006 and May 2, 2006, at which times 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 proposed construction would have substantial visual impact on the surrounding neighborhood; 2) Applicant has not demonstrated that a less intrusive construction plan is not feasible; and 3) Applicant has not demonstrated that the size and visual impact of the proposed construction would be consistent with similar existing homes on similar sized lots. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the application is hereby denied. DATED: May 2, 2006 Mark Harmon, Chairperson 0 Ayes 4 Nays 1 Abstention (Michael Siegel) Zoning Board of Appeals May 2,2006 Page 3 2. 406-427 Mr. & Mrs.Jim Seguljic 17 Eagles Bluff Construct a front/side wrap-around porch and a rear/side second- story addition. Michael Izzo, Building Inspector, stated that the applicants have withdrawn this application. After reviewing the comments from the Zoning Board and the Village's Staff and Consultants, the applicants have submitted new plans that no longer require any variances. Mr. Harmon called for the next item on the agenda: 3. 906-428 Mr. & Mrs.David Seiden 21 Holly Lane Construct a front entry portico, a rear elevated wood deck and perform interior renovations. Mr. Salvatore Crescenzi noted that he is a neighbor of the applicant. He offered to abstain from voting on the application, as he was within the notification area required by the Village. The applicant, Mr. David Seiden, stated that he had no problem with Mr. Crescenzi hearing the application, and voting on it. Mr. Brad DeMotte of DeMotte Architects of Ridgefield, Connecticut, addressed the Board as the representative for the applicant. He began his presentation by noting that the existing house is non-conforming. This is a corner lot, which means that there are two front lot setbacks to be met. The applicant is proposing the removal of the existing front stoop. The new front entry portico will sit 6" into the front yard setback. The deck in the rear of the house will project 9' off the back of the house and is approximately 15' in width. This deck will be used for access to the rear yard. The applicant is proposing the addition of a set of stairs to the deck. The deck sits 6' above grade. The applicant purchased the house last year, and the home had Certificates of Occupancy for the addition constructed in 2003/2004. Mr. Harmon noted that the Zoning Board of Appeals looks at an applicant's reasonable use of a property, as well as the environmental and visual effects to the neighborhood. 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. The public portion of the hearing was closed, and the Board went into deliberation. Zoning Board of Appeals May 2,2006 Page 4 The Board and the applicant briefly discussed the fact that the Zoning Board of Appeals looks for ways to reduce the encroachment on setbacks. It was the consensus of the Board that the applicant had not presented sufficient evidence as to why he could not reduce the encroachments. At the applicant's request, and with the consensus of the Board, the matter was adjourned to the June 6, 2006 Zoning Board meeting. Mr. Harmon called for item 94 on the agenda: 4. 906-429 Michael Rosenblut and Hedy Cardozo 14 Holly Lane Construct a 1 1/2-story two-car garage addition, a rear two story addition, and partial second story addition. Mr. Salvatore Crescenzi stated that once again he was a neighbor of the applicants', and lived not only in the notification area but also directly across the street from the applicant. The applicant, Mr. Michael Rosenblut, stated that he had no objection to Mr. Crescenzi hearing the matter and voting upon it. It was noted that a submission was made by a resident regarding a number of the applications on the agenda. These submission would not included as part of the record as the Zoning Board meeting is an open meeting and the letters were not properly submitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Zoning Board deliberates in public and the letters were submitted directly to the Board. Mr. Harmon asked Mr. Izzo if proof of compliance with the Village's Code regarding notification had been met. Mr. John Scarlatto, Architect for the project, stating that notification was made via first class mail and proof was submitted to the Village's Building Department. An Affidavit was also submitted regarding the posting of the sign. Anthony Gioffre, Esq., the applicants' legal counsel from the firm of Cuddy and Feder, addressed the Board. He began his presentation by noting that his office did contact the Village's Building Department seeking comments from the neighbors or comments from staff, however,no information was provided. Mr. Gioffre noted that this property is located in the R15 Zoning District and that the application required two variances. Both are side yard setback variances. The first is for a side yard variance where 15' feet is required, 17.6' exists, and 12' is proposed. The second variance is for the setback for two (2) side yards where 40' is required, 51.9' exists, and 29'6' is proposed. Mr. Gioffre displayed the plan for the proposed construction for the Board to review. He felt that the balance and analysis to be considered by the Zoning Board have all been met. There will be Zoning Board of Appeals May 2,2006 Page 5 no undesirable effect to the neighbor, or a detriment to any of the neighboring properties. Mr. Harmon requested clarification of the setbacks. Mr. Gioffre noted that the existing setback on the west side was 17.6' and the existing on the east side was 34.3'. The proposed setback on the east side is approximately 12'. Mr. Gioffre noted that this application has been before the Planning Board. In response to its comments, the size of the proposed addition was reduced to reduce the encroachment into the east side yard from 15' to 12'. Therefore, the applicant was now seeking a 5' variance for one side yard, and a total side yard variance as 40' was required and the applicant is proposing 29.6'. The applicant has proposed extensive landscaping to further mitigate any visual impacts. Letters in support of the application have been submitted by two of the most effected neighbors. Mr. Gioffre noted that this is a very small home for the property. The applicant has considered a tear down and re-build of this home, but has instead chosen to propose this modest addition to the existing home. The unique problem for this property is that the access to the garage is to the side of the home. This addition could be constructed to the rear of the premises, but it would require additional variances and having a two car garage in the rear of the premises would not be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. There are no environmental impacts as a result of the proposed addition. Mr. Scarlatto noted that the one-car garage is currently entered through the side of the home. A two-car garage should be 22' in width. The garage cannot be made deeper without tearing apart more than 50% of the home. The way the garage is situated causes a hardship. He pointed out that there would be no change of projection on the west side of the home. Currently the driveway is wide and then turns at the side of the home. The new addition reduces the amount of impervious surface because it negates the need for such a wide driveway. The garage will be constructed on a slab, and constructed in such a way as to preserve a specimen tree located in the rear yard. Mr. Gioffre stressed that the balance of analysis clearly weighs in favor of the applicant, and he pointed out that approximately 10' of blacktop (impervious surface) would be removed with the current plan. 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 their comments. Mr. Harmon noted that the Board was concerned regarding the size of variance being requested for the total side yard setback. The application is proposing 29.6' where 40' is required. Mr. Gioffre reiterated that there is no change of projection into the west side of the property. Zoning Board of Appeals May 2,2006 Page 6 Mr. Gioffre requested an adjournment in order to do additional research on other homes in the area and their side yard setbacks. He asked that the applicant be allowed to return for the June 6, 2006 meeting and present this information to the Board. The Board agreed and Mr. Harmon directed that this matter continue to June 6, 2006. Mr. Harmon called for the next item on the agenda: 5. 406-430 Mr. & Mrs.Vincent Miata 7 Castleview Court Construct a one-story rear addition with full basement. Mr. Vincent Miata, applicant, addressed the Board. He pointed out that the existing house's gross floor area is 3432, and the allowable gross floor area according to the Village's Code is 3269. This proposed construction would require a variance for 414 square feet. Calculations show that the proposed addition would bring the house to 577' over the allowable gross floor area. Mr. Miata presented the Board with photographs of the rear of the home as it exists today. There is a deck that exists on the rear of the home. The applicants are looking to expand the kitchen and dinning room, to accommodate their extended family (children and grandchildren). The intent is to have the deck extend from the dining room to the kitchen. The existing deck will be removed and a basement will be constructed along with the one story addition. Then the new deck will be constructed. There is no height setback issue, and no impervious surface variance would be required. In fact, Mr. Miata pointed out that the impervious surface would be increased by only approximately 150 square feet. He also noted that all the construction would be in the rear of the home. Mr. Harmon called for members of the public wishing to be heard in support or opposition to the application. There were comments or questions from the Board. Therefore, 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 May 2,2006 Page 7 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Mr. & Mrs. Vincent Miata for a 577.42 square foot gross floor area variance, in connection with the proposed construction of a one-story rear addition with full basement, on property located at 7 Castleview Court in an R-15 District on the north side of Castleview Court, 370 feet form the intersection of Castleview Court and Comly Avenue. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 136.21, Block: 1, Lot 26. WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on May 2, 2006, 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 construction is all to the rear of the house and will not enlarge the footprint of the existing home and deck; 2) The construction will not have an adverse visual impact on the surrounding neighborhood; and 3) It is a reasonable use of the property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the application is hereby granted. 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 hear application in accordance with the Village Code unless the proposed construction will not enlarge the footprint or square footage of the structure. DATED: May 2, 2006 Mark Harmon, Chairperson 5 Ayes 0 Nays Zoning Board of Appeals May 2,2006 Page 8 Zoning Board of Appeals May 2,2006 Page 9 6. 406-431 Mr. & Mrs. Scott Zecker 16 Red Roof Drive Construct a rear,wood deck. Mr. Scott Zecker, applicant, addressed the Board along with the contractor on the project. He noted that he was looking to construct a rear deck, to be 3' 1" off the ground level with two stairwells on either side of the deck. The variance required was a 16' variance to the rear yard setback. Mr. Harmon called for members of the public wishing to be heard in support or opposition to the application. No one addressed the Board, therefore, Mr. Harmon turned to the Board for comments and questions. Mr. Ronald Rettner began the discussion by noting that it was his opinion that this was a large variance that was being requested. He questioned why the deck needed to be 3' from grade. Mr. Zecker noted that the access to the rear yard would be through the sliding glass doors from the kitchen, which is 3' 1" above grade. This deck would require approximately three steps to reach the rear yard. He noted that he could construct the deck one step down from the kitchen, which would result in the addition of only two steps on both the right and left side of the deck. He also noted that he could construct a patio without the need for a variance. Mr. Zecker noted that at the time of the home's construction he opted to not construct the deck. As the consensus of the Board was that the variance being requested was too large, the applicant was offered the opportunity to modify the application. The matter was adjourned to the next meeting. 7. 406-432 Mr. & Mrs.Michael Lulkin 36 Meadowlark Road Construct a rear, one-story addition. Robert Colwell Petrucelli, Architect, of Cold Springs, New York, addressed the Board as the representative for the applicants. He began by stating that the applicants were looking to remove the existing deck to the left side of the house and replace it with a family room. The existing deck on the opposite side will be extended. This house was built in 1950 and is an existing non-conformity. The non-conformity will be extended by 1' to the rear. The side yard is 39' and it will remain at 39'. Mr. Harmon called for members of the public wishing to address the application in support or opposition, and/or questions and comments from the Board. There being none, 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 May 2,2006 Page 10 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Mr. & Mrs. Michael Lulkin for a F total side yard variance, in connection with the proposed construction of a rear one-story addition, on property located at 36 Meadowlark Road in an $-20 District on the east side of Meadowlark Road, 399 feet from the intersection of Oriole Place and Meadowlark Road. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 129.84, Block: 1, Lot: 18. WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on May 2, 2006, 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 proposed addition will not increase the existing non- conformity; and 2) It is a reasonable use of the property; and 3) The variance is the minimum required. 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 hear application in accordance with the Village Code unless the proposed construction will not enlarge the footprint of the structure. DATED: May 2, 2006 Mark Harmon, Chairperson 5 Ayes 0 Nays Zoning Board of Appeals May 2,2006 Page 11 Zoning Board of Appeals May 2,2006 Page 12 8. 906-434 Mr. & Mrs.Neil Flanagan 28 Hillandale Road Construct three front additions, and four rear additions. Demetrios Adamis, Esq., Counsel from the firm of Gioffre & Gioffre, addressed the Board with Mr. Jack Kelly, Architect, of Rosen Associates. The applicant, Mr.Neil Flanagan,was also in attendance. Mr. Adamis noted that this home was originally built in the 1930's. This project addresses the living space needs of a family with three (3) children. The house sits on a 50,833 square foot lot in an R-20 District. The current home consists of two stories, an attic, and a small two-car garage totaling 4,299 square feet. The proposed additions total 1,976 square feet. The proposed construction includes a one-story addition, an expanded two-car garage, and an open porch. The variance sought is an area variance from the front yard setback requirement. The Village's Code calls for a 40' front yard setback requirement, unless the front yard setback of the adjoining property exceeds 40'. In this case the Code requirement is determined by using the average of the two (2) adjacent lots. The current setback of the applicant's property is 116.1'. The front yard setback of the home to the north of the property at 30 Hillendale is 114.2'. The property at 24 Hillendale is 198', which is not typical for this neighborhood. This creates the hardship for the applicant. The average between the two homes of 24 and 30 Hillendale calculates the required front yard setback to be 155.1'. The applicant proposes a setback of 113.3', requiring a variance of 43.8'. Mr. Adamis presented the Board with an satellite photograph of the area. He pointed out that front yard setbacks of the additional homes in the area. Mr. Neil Flanagan, applicant, noted that the house to the right of his home was constructed beyond a gully created by the Blind Brook, which is a 20' to 30' drop off. Then the property levels off approximately 170' back and this is the reason for the large front yard setback on this property. He noted that in actuality all he was looking to do was to move forward 4.8'. He also noted that his home sits caddy-corner and the variance really only involves a corner of the garage and not the entire structure. Mr. Adamis noted that the benefit to the applicant clearly outweighs any change to the neighborhood. This is not a substantial variance and will not have a significant environmental effect on the neighborhood. Mr. Harmon called for members of the public wishing to address the application in support or opposition. There were no comments from the public, or members of the Board. 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 May 2,2006 Page 13 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Mr. & Mrs. Neil Flanagan for a 43.8' front yard setback variance in connection with the proposed construction of three (3) front additions, and four (4) rear additions, on property located at 28 Hillendale Road in an R-20 District on the east side of Hillandale Road, approximately 1,100 feet from the intersection of King Street and Hillendale Road. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 130.77, Block: 1, Lot 11. WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on May 2, 2006, 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 variance is the minimum reasonably required to effect the construction; is only approximately 3' closer to the front curb than the existing home, and affects only a small corner of the house due to its situs on the property; and 2) The average front yard setback used to calculate the setback for this home is skewed because the home to the south is setback to an unusually large extent due to topographical considerations; and 3) The proposed construction will not adversely impact the surrounding neighborhood. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the application is hereby denied. 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 hear application in accordance with the Village Code unless the proposed construction will not enlarge the footprint or square footage of the structure. DATED: May 2, 2006 Mark Harmon, Chairperson 5 Ayes 0 Nays Zoning Board of Appeals May 2,2006 Page 14 Zoning Board of Appeals May 2,2006 Page 15 9. 406-436 Mr. & Mrs.Joseph Carvin 55 Hillandale Road Construct a new, single-family dwelling with attached garage. Anthony Federico, Architect, addressed the Board. He began his presentation by noting that this was the site of mercury contamination. The Environmental Protective Association (EPA) was brought in and the problem was mitigated. However, it was later discovered that contamination had spread to the basement of the home, and the home was torn down. This was through no fault of the current owner. The previous home was set back 38' from the front yard property line. The rear yard was large and spacious, and served as a buffer between the property and the Arbors, and it was for this reason that the applicant purchased the home. Mr. Federico noted that this application has been before the Planning Board for approximately three to four months. The location of the proposed house was field staked for a visual review by the Planning Board. The Planning Board completed its review and made a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Harmon asked that the Planning Board's recommendation be made part of the record. Mr. Harmon called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in support or opposition to this application. There being no comments, he turned to the Board members for their comments and questions. Mr. Harmon asked for clarification of the depth of the lot. It was noted that it was 253 feet. The question of why the house could not be located further back was raised. The applicant reiterated that he purchased the home for the large rear yard, and did not want to push the home further back. It was noted that the home to the right had a 92' front yard setback, and the home to the left had a 76' front yard setback. It was also pointed out that the variance was requested was a 10' variance that only involved the front corner of the proposed new home. It is the one-story portion of the garage that projects forward and requires this variance. Mr. Carvin stated that this home was torn down because of the contamination found on the property, through no fault of his own. The home was removed to protect his family, and all of the residents of Rye Brook. The Planning Board considered the use of the rear yard, and a concession was made from the original plans submitted, increasing the setback by an additional 10', from 65' to 75'. The process has been an extreme financial hardship for this family, and he respectfully requested that the Zoning Board approve the variance so that the home may be constructed. 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 May 2,2006 Page 16 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Mr. & Mrs. Joseph Carvin for a 3.5' horizontal circle variance, and a 10.9' front yard setback variance, in connection with the proposed construction of a new single family dwelling with attached garage, on property located at 55 Hillandale Road, in an R-20 District on the west side of Hillandale Road, approximately 1,000 feet from the intersection of King Street and Hillendale Road. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 103.77, Block: 1, Lot: 1. WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on May 2, 2006, 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) In the absence of the variance to the horizontal circle, no home could be constructed on this lot, which previously had an existing non-conformings structure; and 2) The prior home was situated approximately 38' from the front curb so that this home will substantially increase the front yard setback; and 3) The need for reconstruction has been necessitated by action of the EPA in removing the existing home; and 4) The Planning Board has considered this request and after modification to the original application has recommended approval. 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 hear application in accordance with the Village Code unless the proposed construction will not enlarge the footprint or square footage of the structure. DATED: May 2, 2006 Mark Harmon, Chairperson 5 Ayes 0 Nays Zoning Board of Appeals May 2,2006 Page 17 Zoning Board of Appeals May 2,2006 Page 18 Mr. Harmon called for the final matter on the agenda: 10. Approval of March 7,2006 and April 4,2006 Zoning Board Summaries Mr. Harmon called for a vote on the March 7, 2006 and April 4, 2006 summaries. The summaries were approved, as amended. There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m. Zoning Board of Appeals May 2,2006 Page 19