Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-07-11 - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK 938 King Street Zoning Board of Appeals Tuesday, July 11, 2006 Meeting at 8:00 p.m. Agenda 1. 406-447 Ms. Eileen Leary 7 Wyman Street Legalize a rear deck; rear shed, and enclosed breezeway 2. 906-443 Mr. & Mrs.Peter Messina 4 Hawthorne Avenue Construct a 12 x 14' unheated aluminum sunroom in the rear 3. 406-437 Mr. & Mrs.Patrick Leahy 33 Argyle Road Build a rear,wood deck 4. 406-425 Mr. & Mrs.Michael Ricci 500 Ellendale Avenue Legalize finished basement, rear deck and shed, expand existing driveway and steps at front 5. 906-441 Mr. & Mrs.J.Ackerman 9 Bobbie Lane Construct a 1-1/2 story rear kitchen addition and a new rear deck 6. 406-444 Ms.June Scharf 8 Magnolia Drive Construct a rear, two-story addition, and a second story addition over the existing garage 7. 906-448 Cobble Creek Builders Inc. 11 Loch Lane Perform extensive alterations to the existing dwelling, construct a detached carport, second-story addition, front covered porch,rear deck, and 36"high wood fence 8. # 06-449 Frank Drazka,Melissa Drazka,Henry Klein,Kip Konigsberg 44 Lincoln Avenue Subdivide a 10' x 278.33' driveway into three separate tax lots, as identified on the application as lots "A," "B" and"C" Zoning Board of Appeals July 11,2006 Page 1 9. Approval of June 6, 2006 Zoning Board Summary BOARD: Mark Harmon, Chairman Salvatore Crescenzi Joseph Pellino Ronald Rettner(arrived at 8:10 p.m.) Michael Siegel STAFF: Michael Izzo, Building Inspector Mikal Nowak, Junior Engineer Paula Patafio, Meeting Secretary Trustee Joan Feinstein, Liaison from the Board of Trustees Mr. Harmon called the July 11, 2006 meeting to order at 8:00 p.m. He called for the first item on the agenda: 1. # 06-447 Ms. Eileen Leary 7 Wyman Street Legalize a rear deck; rear shed, and enclosed breezeway John Scarlatto, the architect for the applicant, addressed the Board. He noted that applicant was before the Board in order to legalize several items in order to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy in connection with the sale of the home. The deck, which is 18" off the ground, was not considered a deck until recent amendments to the Village's Code. The deck is approximately 25% over what is allowed under the current Village Code. In contrast, Mr. Scarlatto noted that the house is considerably smaller than what could be built on the lot today. The Breezeway does not require any variances, but the rear wooden shed requires setback variances. Removing the deck, breezeway, and shed would create a considerable financial hardship for the applicant who is now in the process of selling her home. Mr. Scarlatto pointed out that Ms. Leary's property abuts the condos. Mr. Harmon called for members of the public wishing to be heard in support or opposition to the application. There being no one,he turned to the Board for their comments and questions. Mr. Joseph Pellino asked for clarification of the required variances. Mr. Michael Leary, the applicant's grandson, responded noting that the above- referenced items have existed for over 45 years. The home is now being sold and the Building Department informed the applicant that variances were required. Mr. Leary noted that the shed was built in the 1950's, and then repaired and/or replaced in 1951. He also noted that the deck was repaired and/or replaced in the early 1980's. Zoning Board of Appeals July 11,2006 Page 2 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: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Ms. Eileen Leary for a 3.5' rear yard setback variance, a .6% lot coverage variance, both in connection with the legalization of a rear deck, and a 4' rear yard and 4.5' side yard setback variance, in connection with the legalization of a rear shed, on property located at 7 Wyman Street, in an R-2F District, on the south side of Wyman Street, at the intersection of Wyman Street and Ridge Street North. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 141.43, Block: 1, Lot 7. WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was continued on July 11, 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 deck was constructed prior to the enactment of present code restrictions respecting decks such that it was a legal use of the property when built; and 2) Applicant has failed to demonstrate any basis on which to grant a variance respecting the rear shed which would require two substantial variances of 80% or more. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the application is hereby granted as to the deck, and denied as to the shed, on the following conditions: 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 heard application in accordance with the Village Code unless the proposed construction will not enlarge the footprint of the structure. DATED: July 11, 2006 Mark Harmon, Chairperson 5 Ayes 0 Nays Zoning Board of Appeals July 11,2006 Page 3 Zoning Board of Appeals July 11,2006 Page 4 2) 406-443 Mr. & Mrs.Peter Messina 4 Hawthorne Avenue Construct a 12' x 14' unheated aluminum sunroom in the rear Mr. Rand Perry of Betterliving Sunrooms of New York addressed the Board. He began his presentation by noting that the applicant was proposing the construction of a 12' x 14' unheated aluminum sunroom in the rear of the home. The rear yard setback for this Zoning District is 65'. The applicant would require a variance of 36.75'. In addition, the maximum lot coverage allowed under the current Code is 12%, and the proposed construction would result in coverage of 13.26%. The applicant required a 1.26% total lot coverage variance. Mr. Harmon called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in support or opposition to the application. Mr. Peter Messina, applicant, noted that the Zoning for this area was changed approximately 10-15 years ago when the property surrounding his home was subdivided. The subject property is a smaller lot in this Zoning District. The adjacent neighbor, whose front door is approximately 12' from the property line was granted a variance to construct a two-car garage just last year. It was noted that the surrounding lots are all flag lots. Mr. Pellino asked for additional clarification regarding the construction. Mr. Perry stated that the sunroom was going to be a platform-based structure, which would be anchored by footings. The sunroom would be attached to the house and supported on the footings. The construction will be similar to a deck. Mr. Harmon noted that the homes behind the applicant's property were constructed after the surrounding property was subdivided. The applicant owned their lot and the property prior to the subdivision, and did not own any of the property that was subdivided. The fronts of the new homes ended up facing the rear yard of the applicant's home. The area was re-zoned in connection with the subdivision, and this property is now located in an R-15 Zone. 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 July 11,2006 Page 5 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Mr. & Mrs. Peter Messina for a 36.75' rear yard setback variance and a 1.26% total lot coverage variance, in connection with the proposed construction of a 12' x 14' unheated aluminum sunroom in the rear, on property located at 4 Hawthorne Avenue in an R-15A District on the east side of Hawthorne Avenue, approximately 100 feet from the intersection of Hawthorne Avenue and Westchester Avenue. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 135.83, Block: 1, Lot 34. WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was continued on July 11, 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) This property was subject to an up-zoning by the Village following flag lot developments to its rear and it appears that the application of this change to this lot creates an undue hardship; and 2) The degree of variance that might have been required prior to the change in the applicable zoning code would have been much less substantial if it were required at all. 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. 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 Code unless the proposed construction will not enlarge the footprint of the structure. DATED: July 11, 2006 Mark Harmon, Chairperson 4 Ayes 1 Nay (Ronald Rettner) Zoning Board of Appeals July 11,2006 Page 6 Zoning Board of Appeals July 11,2006 Page 7 3. 406-437 Mr. & Mrs.Patrick Leahy 33 Argyle Road Build a rear, wood deck Mr. Harmon directed that the record should note that photographs were presented to the Board depicting the property. Mrs. Leahy addressed the Board and reviewed the variances required for the construction of the deck, which included rear yard setback and maximum allowable coverage. She noted that there is a rock ledge to the rear of the property, which is a safety issue. When they purchased the home there was a deck and it wasn't until they were in the home and had a good look underneath the deck that they noticed the rock ledge that lie beneath it. The original deck is being reduced in size. Mrs. Leahy noted that this is a not only a functional issue, as the deck will allow the use of the rear yard, it is also a safety issue. The resident of 30 Argyle Road addressed the Board in support of the application. She noted that the deck is truly a matter of safety for the applicants' children, and the neighborhood children who play in this area. She felt that the rock ledge creates a hazard that can be alleviated by the construction of a deck over the area. Mr. Harmon turned to members of the Board for questions and comments. Mr. Pellino noted that some of the rocks looked loose, while the rest seemed to be connected. Mrs. Leahy noted that they had moved some rocks and found that it is one solid, naturally connected rock. It cannot be removed and, therefore, the existing deck will be removed and the new deck will be constructed above the rock ledge. Mr. Harmon noted that the purpose of the deck is to cover the rock ledge. Mrs. Leahy pointed out that the last piece of visible rock is where the end of the deck would be. The footings will not be constructed in the rock ledge. It was noted that the variance required was substantial and the Board felt that additional information was required. The applicant was offered an adjournment to the August meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals in order to collect supporting data for the Board. The applicant accepted the adjournment and will return in August with additional information. Mr. Harmon noted that the applicant would not be required to send out notification via the mailing for the next meeting, however, the sign in the front of the home must be changed to reflect the date of the August meeting. Mr. Harmon called for the next item on the agenda: Zoning Board of Appeals July 11,2006 Page 8 4. 406-425 Mr. & Mrs.Michael Ricci 500 Ellendale Avenue Legalize finished basement, rear deck and shed, expand existing driveway and steps at front Mr. John Scarlato, architect, addressed the Board. He began his presentation by noting that the applicant was looking to legalize the shed to the rear of the property. This shed was built years ago without a permit. In order to comply with current Zoning, the applicants require a variance. The shed, which was constructed on a concrete slab, would need to be demolished and replaced if no variance was granted. Mr. Scarlato noted that the side of the applicant's home abuts the Village's property; the highway garage. The shed acts as screening for the applicant, and is actually constructed up against an accessory building from the house behind it. The deck conforms, but the ramp does not conform. Therefore the existing ramp will be removed. Two additional steps must be constructed in order to access the rear yard (to get down to grade). The edge of the stairs from the deck violates the setback code. It was noted that putting the stairs to the rear of the deck would require many more stairs. Mr. Scarlato noted that this is a two-family house and since it makes more sense to park on the property, the applicant is proposing the expansion of the existing driveway. The retaining wall along the driveway violates the setback. This is a congested area and it would be a plus for everyone if the applicant is granting the variances needed to widen the driveway. The expansion of the driveway would make it functional. Mr. Scarlato noted that Ellendale Avenue has alternate side of the street parking, which adds to the problems with the parking in the area. It was noted that the Village's Code does not allow off-street parking within 25' of the property line. It was felt that additional review of the Village's Code was required before a decision could be made regarding expansion of the driveway. The driveway is currently a two-lane driveway, which is non-conforming. Expanding the driveway would increase the non-conformity. Mr. Ricci noted that the house was not being sold, and that the topographical survey of the property shows the existing shed. Mr. Harmon called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in support or opposition to the application. After a brief discussion, the consensus of the Board was that they required additional information regarding the construction of the off-street parking spaces, and the legalities of widening the driveway. The applicant was offered an adjournment to the August meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. The applicant was directed to properly notice the driveway matter. Zoning Board of Appeals July 11,2006 Page 9 5. 906-441 Mr. & Mrs.J.Ackerman 9 Bobbie Lane Construct a 1-1/2 story rear kitchen addition and a new rear deck John Scarlato, architect, addressed the Board. He began his presentation by noting that the applicants purchased this home approximately ten (10) years ago. At the time they knew that they would eventually have to expand the very small kitchen. The house is currently non-conforming, and the addition of the proposed 250 square feet will increase the non-conformity. It was noted that the front of the house will not change, and that the new deck does not require a variance. Mr. Scarlato stated that other homes in this neighborhood have constructed additions to the rear, including the home directly behind the applicant's property. Mr. Scarlato presented the Board with the Tax Assessor's cards, which were made part of the record. This is a one-story addition, with no change to the roof elevation. 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 questions or comments from 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 July 11,2006 Page 10 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Mr. & Mrs. J. Ackerman for a 373 square foot gross floor area variance, in connection with the proposed construction a 1-1/2 story rear kitchen addition and new rear deck, on property located at 9 Bobbie Lane in an R-10 District on the south side of Bobbie Lane, 530 feet from the intersection of Bobbie Lane and Rockridge Drive. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 135.5; Block: 1; Lot: 37. WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was continued on July 11, 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) All of the proposed construction, only 260 square feet, will be in the rear of the home; 2) None of the addition will be visible from the front of the home; and 3) The addition will not alter the character of the neighborhood. 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. 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 Code unless the proposed construction will not enlarge the footprint of the structure. DATED: July 11, 2006 Mark Harmon, Chairperson 5 Ayes 0 Nays Zoning Board of Appeals July 11,2006 Page 11 Zoning Board of Appeals July 11,2006 Page 12 6. 906-444 Ms.June Scharf 8 Magnolia Drive Construct a rear, two-story addition, and a second story addition over the existing garage Mr. Paul Bialowas, architect, addressed the Board. He presented the Board with a model of the home, a small colonial, which showed the proposed construction. He introduced Mr. Scharf, the homeowner. Mr. Bialowas began his presentation by noting that the home is small and the applicants desperately need additional living space. The Scharf family has three (3) boys and, currently, due to a lack of space they use their dinning room as an office. In order to meet their needs, and enlarge their home, a variance is required. The applicant has made every effort to maintain the character of the home. The addition will be constructed over the existing garage. In the rear of the home there is an existing one-story family room, along side of which an office will be constructed. Above this new office the applicants are proposing the construction of a modest master bathroom. On March 60' a similar Zoning variance was granted to 7 Magnolia. The houses are almost identical in design. The applicant has made every attempt to minimize the size of the addition, and to ensure that there are no effects on the neighbors. The addition will bring the square footage of the home to 3,712 square feet— an increase of 565 square feet. Mr. Harmon called for members of the public wishing to be heard in support or opposition to the application. Mr. Ronald and Mrs. Eileen Valenti addressed the Board. It was noted that a Village received a letter from the Valentis noting their objections to this application. Mr. Valenti summarized the content of their letter. He stated that his neighbor has every right to expand his home, however, they hoped that the architectural plans could be modified. He pointed out that the area that concerned them was the rear, two-story addition. It was their opinion that the second story addition would change the character of the area. The applicants' home towers their home. The addition of the bathroom would create an obstruction, and the view from their bedroom and deck would now be a high wall. The distance between 98 and 910 Magnolia is the closest distance between the homes in this area. Mr. Valenti noted that there was more space between the applicants' home and the adjacent neighbor on the opposite side of the home. They hoped that the applicant would consider placing the addition in that area. Mrs. Valenti also pointed out that there environmental issues that must be addressed, with drainage being a major issue. When it rains, the area is filled with mud. Mr. Bialowas responded to the concerns expressed by the Valentis, noting that the proposed construction is within the zoning setbacks. The plans took into Zoning Board of Appeals July 11,2006 Page 13 consideration impacts to the neighbors. There will only be cosmetic changes to the front of the home. The applicant is willing to hire an engineer or landscape architecture to try and address the existing problems. Mr. Rettner asked if there was a way to reduce the square footage of the proposed addition. He expressed his opinion that the addition could be designed differently to meet the applicant's objective and respect the concerns of the neighbors. Mr. Bialowas responded that the construction was being proposed for the most logical area of the existing home. Mr. Pellino asked if a Plan B approach was considered if the application was not received well. Mr. Bialowas noted that there was no plan B. Mr. Michael Siegel noted that everyone agrees that there are drainage issues. He asked the applicant what steps would be taken to rectify the drainage problems. Mr. Bialowas reiterated that a landscape architect and engineer will be retained to make certain drainage improvements, such as the installation of drywells. Mr. Pellino questioned whether or not a basement would be constructed below the proposed addition. Mr. Bialowas stated that there would be a basement. It was noted that an approved drainage plan must be submitted prior to the decision on the variance being rendered. The public portion of the meeting was closed, and the Board went into deliberation. Upon the Board's return, the applicant was offered the opportunity to adjourn the matter to a future Zoning Board meeting in order to address the drainage issues. It was noted that this information must be submitted to the Village for review by the Village's Engineer. This meant that this matter may not make it back on the agenda for the August meeting, but would instead be heard at the September meeting. Mr. Harmon reminded the applicants that the signage must be updated with the correct date of the hearing. 7. 406-448 Cobble Creek Builders Inc. 11 Loch Lane Perform extensive alterations to the existing dwelling,construct a detached carport, second-story addition, front covered porch, rear deck, and 36"high wood fence Lori Lee Dickson, Esq., legal counsel for the applicant addressed the Board. She noted that this application has been through the process, and has already been before the Planning Board. A permit was granted regarding activity in the wetland buffer and site plan approval has been granted. A variance is required to accommodate the stairs in the front of the property, leading into the front entry. The site plan shows the required front setback is met with the exception of the construction of the four stairs leading to the entry of the home. The required variance does not exceed 6'. The applicant is requesting a 5'8" in total. Zoning Board of Appeals July 11,2006 Page 14 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 comments and questions. It was noted that the structure is non-conforming, and the non-conformity is not being increased. 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 Cobble Creek Builders Inc. for a 5.8' front yard setback variance, in connection with a proposed extensive renovation of an existing home, on property located at 11 Loch Lane in an R-10 District on the north side of Loch Lane, 430 feet from the intersection of Loch Lane and King Street. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 136.21, Block: 1, Lot 4. WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was continued on July 11, 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 variance is sought only to permit the construction of front steps and is not a substantial variance as the existing front setback for the home is otherwise remaining; 2) It is a reasonable use of the property and will not alter the character of the neighborhood; and 3) The Planning Board has reviewed and approved the project. 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 heard application in accordance with the Village Code unless the proposed construction will not enlarge the footprint of the structure. DATED: July 11, 2006 Mark Harmon, Chairperson 5 Ayes 0 Nays Zoning Board of Appeals July 11,2006 Page 15 Zoning Board of Appeals July 11,2006 Page 16 8. 406-449 Frank Drazka,Melissa Drazka,Henry Klein,Kip Konigsberg 44 Lincoln Avenue Subdivide a 10' x 278.33' driveway into three separate tax lots, as identified on the application as lots "A," "B" and"C" Demetrios Adamis, Esq., of the law firm of Gioffre & Gioffre addressed the Board as legal counsel for the applicants. He began his presentation by noting that this proposed subdivision application was being made in order to resolve long stand confusion regarding the 10' driveway from Lincoln Avenue. This subdivision will clear up the uncertainties surrounding ownership for this portion of land that services three (3) properties. Mr. Adamis noted that the matter was before the Planning Board, and was referred to the Zoning Board of Appeals in connection with the required variances. Rye Brook's Codes does not allow the creation of non-conforming lots through subdivision and in order to accomplish this subdivision/solution,variances must be granted. In order to simplify the presentation, Mr. Adamis noted that included in the application package was a color-coded portion of the map, which makes it easier to follow. The lots have been designated as A, B and C. The property was purchased by Kip Konigsberg in 1996 and, also in 1996, the Rye Brook portion of the property was sold to Joseph Lorono, with the exception of the 10' strip. The Tax Assessor of the Town of Rye acknowledged the subdivision of this property in a letter dated June 24, 1996. This status was confirmed in June of 2000 on the Rye Brook's Assessment roles where separate tax lots were created. One for the property sold to Lorono, and one for the 10' driveway. The status was further confirmed with a follow up letter from the Tax Assessor in June of 2000. The Board was provided with copies of this correspondence, and a portion of the current tax map — which was made part of the record. In July of 2000, Mr. Konigsberg sold the Harrison portion of the Lucan property, along with a 5' portion of the driveway to Marcie Klein. In February of 2003 a 2 '/2' portion of the driveway was sold to the Drazkas. The 2 1'2' remaining portion of the driveway was retained by Kip Konigsberg. There are separate tax bills for each of these portions. Mr. Adamis noted that according to Village regulations, the driveway is still part of the Lorono property. The Tax Assessor has determined that there are two (2) 5' parcels of land. The County, however, shows that Marcie Klein owns a 5' strip; a 2-1/2' strip is owned by the Drazkas, and the remaining 2 1/2' strip is owned by Mr. Konigsberg. The purpose of the application is to address and resolve the confusion that has been created. No physical changes are contemplated on this small portion of each lot, which in total are approximately 2 1/2 acres each. Ownership, deeds, future sales, and insurance coverage are all affected. This is an unusual situation, and there is a fear of precedence setting. However, it was Mr. Adamis' belief that this was substantially mitigated by the unique circumstances. The Village Attorney has advised the Tax Assessor's office not to Zoning Board of Appeals July 11,2006 Page 17 establish any further tax lots without there being a formal subdivision approval. He pointed out that this a revenue neutral situation. Sound planning has dictated that this situation be cleared up. Mr. Adamis noted that also submitted as part of the application was a table that scheduled out the area variances being sought for this property located in an R12 Zoning District. The variances being sought are lot size, horizontal circle, frontage, and open space. When conducting the balancing tests, each of the elements are satisfied. There will not be any undesirable change to the neighborhood, as no improvements will be made to this portion of land. The entire driveway is encumbered by easement agreements by each of the owners. This is the only practical way to clarify this situation. There are no other means to achieve the goals of the applicants. This is the only access for the two (2) interior homes and there will not be any additional curb cuts for 42 Lincoln Avenue, whose access is also through this driveway. And, finally, there are no environmental impacts to be considered. The difficulty was created by the Tax Assessor, and the Building Department of the Town of Harrison. This issue has been the subject of extensive study and research. Mr. Adamis noted that the owners of the adjacent properties, who are not effected, are in support of the application. Mr. Harmon called for members of the public wishing to be heard in support or opposition to the application. There being no one, he turned to the Board for comments and questions. Mr. Harmon noted that the Board understood that the subdivision was a practical subdivision, but if granted there would only be one driveway. The changes made by the Tax Assessor created these problems and, as it now stands, this is not acceptable to the Village's Attorney. It was the contention of the Village's Attorney that from the initial inception this constituted an improper subdivision. The reason that this matter is before the Zoning Board of Appeals is because Rye Brook's Code does not permit the creation of non-conforming lots. Therefore, several area variances are required. However, the consensus of the Board was that it was being asked to approve the creation of ridiculous, non-conforming lots. The Board also felt that the developer created the problem by creating access to the properties in Harrison via the portion of property in Rye Brook. The developer and the homeowners now have a problem because the Village's Assessor and the Village are not on the same page. Mr. Harmon stated that he felt that the Village's Attorney should address this matter with the Zoning Board of Appeals at a regularly scheduled meeting. This was the consensus of the Board. Mr. Gioffre noted that the Village Attorney did make a presentation before the Planning Board. The end result is that the access of the road does not change; it is only the title that changes. Zoning Board of Appeals July 11,2006 Page 18 Mr. Harmon noted that access is not one of the problems. The problem is a problem that was created by the Tax Assessor and/or by the Village Attorney being unhappy with the Tax Assessor's decision. This problem should not be solved by creating a subdivision for property that cannot be developed. If a variances are granted the matter returns to the Planning Board for subdivision approval. The Code specifically requires that any lots created must meet the minimum standard. This is an intermediate step. Since the plans do not meet the Village's standards, the Planning Board cannot grant the subdivision approval without the Zoning Board first approving the variances. The Zoning Board's review must include, firsthand, a presentation from the Village's Attorney. Bruno Gioffre, Esq. stated that this has been a journey of close to two years for the applicants. The Village's planners will be reviewing this application. The Planning Board will impose conditions. He felt that it was in everyone's best interest that the application be moved forward. Mr. Pellino noted that the Zoning Board members understand the circumstances, however, the creation of this subdivision does not compute. It was also his opinion that the developer put the applicants in this position. Mr. Gioffre responded that the developer may have been the triggering element, but the buyers believed that they purchased land with the problem resolved. The consensus of the Board members was that this isn't the Village's problem and that there was no reason to create this subdivision. Mr. Gioffre reminded the Board that this was a minor application, involving a 10' strip of land. Mr. Harmon re-stated that it was the Board's consensus that the Village Attorney should make a formal presentation on this matter. Trustee Joan Feinstein, liaison to the Zoning Board of Appeals, stated that she would contact the Village's Attorney and request a presentation to the Zoning Board members at its September meeting. 9) APPROVAL OF JUNE 6,2006 ZONING BOARD SUMMARY A request was made by the Chairman to give Board members additional time to review the summary. Therefore, by consensus of the Board, the matter was adjourned to the August Zoning Board meeting. There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m. Zoning Board of Appeals July 11,2006 Page 19