Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-08-01 - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK 938 King Street Zoning Board of Appeals Tuesday, August 1, 2006 Meeting at 8:00 p.m. Agenda 1. 406-437 Mr. & Mrs. Patrick Leahy (re-appearance) 33 Argyle Road Build a rear, wood deck 2. 406-444 Ms.June Scharf (re-appearance) 8 Magnolia Drive Construct a rear, two-story addition, and a second story addition over the existing garage 3. #06-450 Mr. & Mrs. Mordechai Bitton 39 Winding Wood Road Construct a 1-1/2 story two-car garage addition; a second story side addition over the existing family room; and a front covered porch 4. # 06-425 Mr. & Mrs. Michael Ricci 500 Ellendale Avenue Legalize finished basement, rear deck and shed, expand existing driveway and steps at front 5. Approval of August 1,2006 Zoning Board Summary BOARD: Joseph Pellino,Acting Chairman Salvatore Crescenzi Ronald Rettaer Michael Siegel Excused: Mark Harmon, Chairman STAFF: Michael Izzo, Building Inspector Paula Patafio,Meeting Secretary Trustee Joan Feinstein, Liaison from the Board of Trustees Zoning Board of Appeals August 1,2006 Page 1 Mr. Joseph Pellino, Acting Chairman, noted that there was a quorum and the meeting could begin, however, having only three (3) members of the Board present meant that each applicant would require all three (3) yes votes for their variances to be granted. He asked for the consensus of the Board and applicants regarding delaying the start of the meeting. The consensus was to delay the start of the meeting in anticipation of Mr. Ronald Rettner's arrival. Mr. Pellino thanked everyone for their patience. It was noted that Mark Harmon, Chairman, was excused from the meeting. Mr. Pellino called the meeting to order at 8:06 p.m. Mr. Michael Izzo, Building Inspector, noted that due to vacation schedules an error was made on the part of the Village in connection with publication of the meeting. It is the Village's responsibility to ensure that there is a five (5) day notification published prior to the public meetings, however, the announcements for this meeting were sent to the papers too late. After a brief discussion, the Zoning Board members waived this requirement and allowed the properly noticed matters to be heard. Mr. Pellino called for the first item on the agenda: 1. # 06-437 Mr. & Mrs. Patrick Leahy (re-appearance) 33 Argyle Road Build a rear, wood deck Mr. Pellino noted that the Zoning Board was given notification that the applicant has withdrawn their application. Mr. Pellino called for item 92 on the agenda: 2. # 06-444 Ms.June Scharf 8 Magnolia Drive Construct a rear, two-story addition, and a second story addition over the existing garage Mr. Pellino called for the applicant or its representative to address the Board. There was no one in attendance. Mr. Izzo had no information on whether or not the applicant intended on being heard at this meeting but noted that there was only three (3) weeks between Zoning Board meetings. It was felt that perhaps the applicant was not able to prepare the information necessary to be heard at this meeting. At the suggestion of Mr. Michael Siegel, and with the consensus of the Board, the matter was adjourned to end of the meeting in order to give the applicant additional time to arrive at the meeting. At that time a decision would be made in connection with this matter. Zoning Board of Appeals August 1,2006 Page 2 Mr. Pellino called for item 43 on the agenda: 3. #06-450 Mr. & Mrs. Mordechai Bitton 39 Winding Wood Road Construct a 1-1/2 story two-car garage addition; a second story side addition over the existing family room; and a front covered porch John Scarlato, Jr., architect, addressed the Board. He began his presentation by noting that when the applicants' purchased the home they knew that they were going to need to renovate it in order to fit their needs. The applicant has been told that the house started out as a barn, however, Mr. Scarlato noted that he could not find any record to back up this statement. Over the years, and prior to the Bittons purchasing the home, the house went from a ranch style home into a Cape. They layout is poor, there is no basement, and the attic has been utilized as living space. The property abuts the parkway, and the rear yard has an existing in ground swimming pool and deck located directly behind the home that was constructed in the 1970's. The back end of the rear yard drops off towards the parkway. It is the applicants' hope to convert this home into a Colonial. After reviewing the property and the home, the current plan was created. The intent is to make the front of the house look like the front. The existing two-car garage is being converted into living space (a family room), and a master bedroom is proposed to be constructed over this existing garage. A new two-car garage, a 23' square, will be added in front of the existing garage, and a front porch is also proposed. The addition of the new garage is really the only change to the footprint of the building. Mr. Scarlato reviewed the front, side, and rear yard setback requirements for the Board. He also reviewed the gross floor area as exists and as proposed, and the maximum lot coverage (which is currently at 18% where 16% is allowed). It was noted that the existing home is a legal non-conforming structure. Mr. Scarlato also noted that the impervious surface coverage would not be changed significantly as the plans take the impervious surface from the driveway and constructs a garage over it. He noted that because there was no basement, every inch of the home was included in the calculation of existing gross floor area. The home is not a large home, and the additions would not make it a McMansion. The applicant respectfully requested that their application be granted. Mr. Pellino called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in support or opposition to the application. Mr. Bitton, applicant, addressed the Board. He noted that they want to remain in Rye Brook and have looked at other homes. After much research they have found that this option, expanding this home, is the best plan for them. When they purchased the home the Village's Code was much different than what exists today. At the time of their purchase Zoning Board of Appeals August 1,2006 Page 3 they were ensured that they would be able to expand this house. However, due to the changes in the Code they have now been advised that they would require several variances. They were also informed that it would be easier for them to tear down the home and start from scratch. This, however, is not in their budget. The current plans reflect work that can be done using their budget, and making the changes to the home that would fit the needs of his family. Mr. Salvatore Crescenzi questioned the front yard and existing side yard setbacks. Mr. Scarlato noted that the existing driveway is set further back from the road. He also noted that every room in this house counts as floor area because there is no basement. Mrs. Bitton addressed the Board. She noted that the neighbors are in support of the application, and would be willing to write letters of support if needed. She also noted that there is a safety issue in connection with the staircase that leads to the second floor. This staircase is an attic staircase and the stairs angle straight up. Her children have fallen on these steps and she was looking forward to having them replaced with a normal staircase. Mr. Crescenzi stated that the Zoning Code has changed over the years, however, side yard and front yard setbacks have existed since 1974. The Zoning Board and the Building Inspector are here to enforce the Zoning Code, and to protect all residents of the Village. He felt that the number of variances being requested was too high. He asked if the applicant would be willing to revise the plans, which would result in fewer and smaller variances. Mr. Scarlato responded that the existing house is non-conforming. This is typical lot for the area, a 100' x 100' lot, however the rear portion of the property drops off and the existing pool prohibits the construction of the addition in the rear of the home. There are several hardships for this applicant that should be considered. Mr. Joseph Pellino agreed with Mr. Cresenzi in that there were too many variances required in connection with this application. He questioned whether or not the proposed construction met the height setback for the Village. Mr. Scarlato responded that the variances required in connection with height setback only involved the two corners of the roof, and the front gable. Mr. Pellino also felt that an alternate plan could reduce the required variances. Mr. Scarlato stated that other plans were reviewed, but were not feasible because of the layout of the home and property. He noted that the applicants were attempting to keep the house in character with the neighborhood. It is for that reason that the length of the house is not being changed. Mr. Michael Siegel noted that floor area tries to regulate the mass of a home. He asked Mr. Scarlato if he had the square footage of the surrounding homes. Mr. Scarlato responded that he could research this issue if the Board felt that this information would be helpful. Zoning Board of Appeals August 1,2006 Page 4 Mr. Ronald Rettner felt that this was a large house. He agreed with the other Board members in that an alternate plan could reduce the mass of home and the size and number of variances being requested. He stated that the job of the Zoning Board is to protect the rights of homeowners while protecting all residents. Mr. Pellino reiterated that the sizes and number of variances being requested were too large. He noted specifically he had problems with variances 1, 7and 8. Mr. Scarlato offered to review the plan with the applicants and see where the numbers could be reduced. Mr. Bitton noted that they were trying not to tear the house down, and he pointed out that many of the homes in his neighborhood have been granted variances in connection with additions. Mr. Scarlato asked if it was possible for the application to be adjourned until further review. After a brief discussion with the applicant, Mr. Bitton stated that they would not need the adjournment and asked that the application be withdrawn. The request was duly noted and there was no further discussion on the matter. The next item on the agenda was called before the Board: 4. # 06-425 Mr. & Mrs. Michael Ricci (re-appearance) 500 Ellendale Avenue Legalize finished basement, rear deck and shed, expand existing driveway and steps at front Mr. Scarlato, the architect for the applicant, addressed the Board. He began his presentation by noting that this matter was before the Zoning Board of Appeals at the July meeting. The applicant re-noticed the application, and was now prepared to address the two (2) areas that were under debate: the shed and the off-street parking. He reviewed the application for the Board. Mr. Scarlato noted that the shed is 3.6' on the side and 3.8' in the rear off of the property line where 5' is required. There is a building directly behind the shed on the neighbor's property. At the time that this shed was constructed, the property surrounding this property was "family-owned" and the rear yard had no boundaries. Mr. Scarlato noted that there is an existing ramp to the deck that is being removed. The result is in order to access the rear yard the construction of two (2) steps is required. The steps violate the side yard setback requirements of the Village's Code, and the applicant requires a 1.5' side yard variance for the steps. Zoning Board of Appeals August 1,2006 Page 5 Mr. Izzo stated that the ramp that Mr. Scarlato referred to was a handicapped ramp. Once the ramp is removed there needs to be access from the deck to the rear yard. It was noted that the deck is 18" above grade and, therefore, the applicant will only need to construct two(2) steps to accomplish this access. . Mr. Michael Ricci, the applicant, addressed the Board. He noted that the deck is not flush with the side of the house. It is actually 10" to 12" in. As a result, the variance that he was requesting was actually less than 1'. Mr. Izzo stated that the survey indicates that this could be the case. Mr. Scarlato noted that the applicant is looking to extend the driveway approximately 12'. In order to access the rear yard from the driveway a set of steps are needed. Therefore two side yard variances are required for the set of stairs on both sides of the house. It was noted that there are two (2) stairs on one side of the house and three (3) stairs on the opposite side. The intent of widening the driveway is to remove cars from the street. This is a two-family zone, and parking is an issue. By widening the driveway, and converting a portion of the grass area to parking, the applicant would be able to park four (4) cars in the driveway. Most of the homes in this area have a two-lane driveway. He also noted that the curb cut would not be affected, and that the addition of this off- street parking would be a benefit to the neighborhood. Mr. Ricci noted that the second floor of this home looks over the Village's Highway Department garage. It makes it difficult to rent. He felt that having an off-street parking space would enhance the property and make it a little easier to rent. Mr. Scarlato presented the Board with photographs of neighboring properties within a 250' radius that have two-lane wide driveways. These photographs were made part of the record. Also submitted, and made part of the record, was a letter of support for the application. Mr. Crescenzi reviewed the side yard variance required, noting that the number was not increased. Mr. Pellino questioned the addition of impervious surface in the driveway and asked if there was sufficient drainage. Mr. Izzo noted that there is a drywell and a trench drain in the driveway, however, no study was made in connection with storm water runoff. He did note, however, that the driveway is lower than the street. Mr. Ricci stated that he does not have any water problems in his basement from the existing driveway. There being no further comments from members of the public or Board members, the public portion of the meeting was closed, and the Board went into deliberation. After a brief discussion, the Board returned and reviewed several possible options with the applicant. It was noted that the Zoning Board members were requiring that an engineer be hired by the applicant to review whether or not adequate drainage existed in the driveway. The applicant asked that the matter be adjourned to the September meeting to allow him sufficient time to hire an Zoning Board of Appeals August 1,2006 Page 6 engineer, and complete the analysis. The Board agreed to grant this request, and the matter was adjourned. Mr. Pellino re-called item 906-444, the application of Ms. June Scharf. As no one had arrived to address the matter, the Board adjourned this application to the September meeting. It was noted, however, that if the applicant did not contact the Village, and did not show up for the September meeting, the application would be denied at that time. Mr. Pellino called for the final matter on the agenda: 5) APPROVAL OF July 11,2006 ZONING BOARD SUMMARY The summary for July was approved as submitted. There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:28 p.m. Zoning Board of Appeals August 1,2006 Page 7