Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-10-03 - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK 938 King Street Zoning Board of Appeals Tuesday, October 3, 2006 Meeting at 8:00 p.m. Agenda 1. 406-449 Frank Drazka,Melissa Drazka, Henry Klein, Kip Konigsberg (Re Appearance) 44 Lincoln Avenue Sub-divide a 10' x 278.33' driveway into three (3) separate tax lots, as identified on the application as Lots "A,""B" and"C" 2. 405-451 Mr. & Mrs. Braren 262 North Ridge Street Remove and reconstruct an existing carport 3. 406-452 Mr. Ralph Rescigno 9 Monroe Place Construct a rear, elevated wood deck and roof structure over a portion of the deck 4. 406-453 Mr. & Mrs. Don Heithaus 60 Winding Wood Road Construct a rear one-story addition, eliminate the existing screened-in porch, enlarge the rear deck and perform interior alterations 5. 406-454 Mr. & Mrs.Andrew Rogovic 23 Old Orchard Road Construct a rear one-story addition, a side 1 1/2 story garage addition, a partial second-story addition, a new front portico and steps, reconfigure the roofline over the existing garage 6. 405-456 Mr. & Mrs. Frank Pugliese 6 Wilton Road Construct a new front covered portico 7. 406-425 Mr. & Mrs. Michael Ricci (Re Appearance) 500 Ellendale Avenue Legalize finished basement, rear deck and shed, expand existing driveway and steps at front 8. Approval of September 5,2006 Zoning Board Summary Zoning Board of Appeals October 3,2006 Page 1 BOARD: Mark Harmon, Chairman Salvatore Crescenzi Joseph Pellino Michael Siegel Absent: Ronald Rettner STAFF: Michael Izzo, Building Inspector Paula Patafio, Meeting Secretary Trustee Joan Feinstein, Liaison from the Board of Trustees Mr. Mark Harmon, Chairman, called the meeting to order by addressing the first item on the agenda. 1) 406-449 Frank Drazka,Melissa Drazka,Henry Klein,Kip Konigsberg (Re Appearance) 44 Lincoln Avenue Sub-divide a 10' x 278.33' driveway into three (3) separate tax lots, as identified on the application as Lots "A,""B" and"C" Mr. Harmon stated the Board received a letter from the firm of Gioffre and Gioffre, legal counsel for the applicant. The applicant requested an adjournment to the November Zoning Board of Appeals meeting and, with the consensus of the Board, the matter was adjourned. Bruno Gioffre, Esq. thanked the Board on behalf of his clients. Mr. Harmon called for item 42 on the agenda: 2) #05-451 Mr. & Mrs. Braren 262 North Ridge Street Remove and reconstruct an existing carport John Scarlato, Jr., architect, addressed the Board. He began his presentation by noting that the applicant was looking to demolish and re-build an existing carport on property located at 262 North Ridge Street. Although uncertain of the date of construction of this carport, Mr. Scarlato noted that it was shown on a plan for the home from 1975. It was pointed out that under the current Zoning Code, the carport does not meet the requirements of the Village. In order to reduce the non- conformity, the applicant has reduced the length of the carport so that it will meet the 40' front yard setback requirement. The two areas that still require variances are impervious surface coverage, which is not being increased, and lot coverage. Mr. Scarlato noted that this is a ranch style house. Zoning Board of Appeals October 3,2006 Page 2 Mr. Michael Izzo, Building Inspector, noted that the Notice of Hearing contained a typographical error on the Village's part. The actual variance being sought was 1.6', and not 6' (the 1. was missing from the Notice). Mr. Scarlato noted that the applicants' mailing was completed in accordance with Rye Brook's Code, and the information therein was correct. In addition, the sign was properly posted. 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 questions and concerns. Mr. Harmon began by asking if Mr. Izzo was aware whether or not a Building Permit had been issued for the original carport. Mr. Izzo stated that he did not have an answer, however, given a few minutes he would be able to review the information and respond to the Board. He suggested that this matter be adjourned to the end of the meeting so as not to inconvenience the other applicants. Mr. Scarlato noted that he would remain to answer any additional questions that the Board may have after receiving the requested information. Mr. Harmon called for the next item on the agenda: 3. 406-452 W. Ralph Rescigno 9 Monroe Place Construct a rear, elevated wood deck and roof structure over a portion of the deck Tim Wetmore, architect, addressed the Board. He noted that the subject property is located on the border of Port Chester and Rye Brook, and began his presentation by noting that the applicant was looking to build a rear, elevated deck because it is difficult to access the rear yard from the first floor. The approximate size of the deck is 590 square feet. He noted that there are steep slopes on the property. This home pre-dates the incorporation of Rye Brook, and the changes to the Code. The proposed construction is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. In order to accomplish the applicant's goal, and construct the deck, the applicant requires a variance in connection with total lot coverage. Mr. Wetmore noted that when calculating the lot coverage only the portion of the property in Rye Brook was used. If the entire lot was used (both the Rye Brook and Port Chester portions) the percentage of deck coverage would drop 6.5% to 2.8%. The existing house size could be much larger in this zone, and the applicant is allowed, as-of-right, to construct an accessory building. Mr. Wetmore noted that the proposed deck was shifted in 6"to avoid the necessity of a side yard variance. Zoning Board of Appeals October 3,2006 Page 3 Mr. Wetmore presented the Board with a petition in support of the application from the surrounding neighbors. Also presented to the Board, and made part of the record, was a photograph of the rear of the home with the existing deck. Mr. Harmon called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in support or opposition to the application. There was no one, and no questions 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: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Mr. Ralph Rescigno for a 5.85% deck lot coverage variance, in connection with the proposed construction of a rear, elevated wood deck and roof structure over a portion of the deck, on property locates at 9 Monroe Place in an R-2F District on the west side of Monroe Place, approximately 220 feet from the intersection of Westchester Avenue and Monroe Place. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 135.84, Block: 1, Lot: 12. WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on October 3, 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 applicant's property has an unusual topography; 2. The applicant has designed the proposed deck to exclude other non- conformities; 3. The extent of the variance is minimized if consideration is given to property in Port Chester; and 4. It appears to be consistent with the surrounding properties. 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: October 3, 2006 Mark Harmon, Chairperson 4 Ayes, 0 Nays Zoning Board of Appeals October 3,2006 Page 4 Zoning Board of Appeals October 3,2006 Page 5 4. 406-453 Mr. & Mrs. Don Heithaus 60 Winding Wood Road Construct a rear one-story addition, eliminate the existing screened-in porch, enlarge the rear deck and perform interior alterations Lisa Piper Gilbert, Architect, addressed the Board. She began her presentation by noting that the applicant was before the Board for two (2) variances. She pointed out that the subject property is on the corner of Latonia and Winding Wood Road, which means that the property has two (2) front yards, even though the address is Winding Wood Road. There is a setback issue in connection with the existing pool, and the existing deck is non-conforming. The applicant is looking to remove the existing screened in porch and construct the addition over that footprint, adding a few feet. Ms. Piper Gilbert presented a drawing for the Board and noted that there was a discrepancy between the application and drawing. The original intent was to expand the deck. After revising the plan, the deck will be reconfigured and the size of the new deck will remain the same as the size of the existing deck. This home has had a Winding Wood Road address for the past 40 years. This was done at the request of the applicant, when there was a problem with people not knowing where Latonia was. The second variance involves the non-conforming rear yard. Mr. Izzo stated that a variance is required because there are two front yards, which would have been the case regardless of whether the address was Latonia or Winding Wood Road. The address does change where the rear yard and side yards are, respectively. The rear yard setback has to do with the addition and not the deck. Any way you look at it, the setbacks are insufficient. Ms. Piper Gilbert presented the Board with photographs and five (5) letters in support of the application from various neighbors. Mr. Harmon noted that these letters and photographs would be made part of the record. 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 questions and comments. Mr. Harmon questioned the dimensions on the addition for the rear or side. Mr. Izzo explained that the plan was by scale. Mr. Harmon noted that if Winding Wood was considered the front yard, then the side yard would not require a variance. In addition, using Winding Wood as the front yard would mean that the rear yard is the portion of the property that abuts against the neighboring property on Latonia. Mr. Izzo stated that Mr. Harmon was correct, using that portion of the property as the rear yard means that the non-conformity is not increased. The public portion of the meeting was closed, and the Board went into deliberation. Zoning Board of Appeals October 3,2006 Page 6 Upon the Board's return, Mr. Harmon read the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Mr. & Mrs. Don Heithaus for a 2.9% deck coverage and a 23' rear yard setback variance, in connection with the proposed construction of a rear, on-story addition, eliminating the existing screened-in porch, enlarging the rear deck, and performing interior alternations, on property located at 60 Winding Wood Road in an R-15 District on the north side of Winding Wood Road, at the corner of Latonia Road and Winding Wood Road. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 135.34, Block: 1, Lot: 11. WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on October 3, 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 construction will not increase the existing non-conformity; 2. The home is situated on a corner lot, thus restraining the definition of side and rear lots; and 3. The surrounding neighbors have stated their approval to this application. 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: October 3, 2006 Mark Harmon, Chairperson 4 Ayes, 0 Nays Zoning Board of Appeals October 3,2006 Page 7 Zoning Board of Appeals October 3,2006 Page 8 5. #06-454 Mr. & Mrs.Andrew Rogovic 23 Old Orchard Road Construct a rear one-story addition, a side 1 '/2 story garage addition, a partial second-story addition, a new front portico and steps, reconfigure the roofline over the existing garage John Scarlato, Jr., architect, addressed the Board. He began his presentation by noting that several variances were required in order to accomplish the applicants' goal. He walked the Board through the plans, noting that the existing house is a small ranch; which is one floor with a partial basement. It is currently non- conforming as it does not meet front yard or side yard setbacks. The addition of the 4' front portico increases the non-conformity in connection with the front yard setback. A second floor will be added over the house, but not over the garage, and the kitchen is being pushed out an additional 5'. The footprint of the garage is moving forward a little bit. The existing house is not changing in length, but the one-car garage will be converted to a two-car garage by lining up the garage with the screened-in porch, which will be removed. The applicants also require a variance in connection with the addition of the second floor. The applicant is allowed 3,222 square feet. The existing house is approximately 2,300 square feet. With the two- car garage the house is coming to 3,502 square feet, which is 280 square feet over the F.A.R. Mr. Scarlato noted that the applicant is allowed 525 square feet of an accessory building. He stated that he took extra care to make sure that the home did not look that much bigger from the street. This is not a tear down renovation. The applicant is renovating the first floor. It was also noted that there is a slight issue with the height setback for a 1- '/2 square foot area of the roof and a 2 square area at the top of the gable. Mr. Scarlato submitted letters of support from the neighbors, and information obtained from the Tax Assessor's office regarding other homes in the immediate area. Mr. Harmon called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in support or opposition, or questions and comments from the Board. Mr. Pellino noted a discrepancy with the plans and the notice of hearing. Mr. Izzo clarified how the front yard setback is determined. He stated that the forward most portion of the building attached to the foundation sets the front yard setback, therefore a 32'3" front yard setback is proposed. Mr. Harmon pointed out that the existing screened-in porch is not in line with the existing home. It is 10' in width and setback from the home. The applicant is proposing to bring the front of the house out to line up with the existing garage. Zoning Board of Appeals October 3,2006 Page 9 After a brief discussion, the Board offered the applicant an adjournment to the end of the meeting to review the plans with the architect with the intent of reducing the variances required. The applicant accepted. 6. #05-456 Mr. & Mrs. Frank Pugliese 6 Wilton Road Construct a new front covered portico Mr. Frank Pugliese, applicant, addressed the Board. He noted that he was before the Board requesting a 2.2' front yard setback variance. Currently, the front door was on an angle internally. The applicant presented a photograph to the Board, which was made part of the record. Mr. Harmon called for questions from the Board, and/or members of the public wishing to address the Board in support or opposition to the application. There was no one wishing to address 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: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Mr. & Mrs. Frank Pugliese for a 2.2' front yard setback variance, in connection with the proposed construction of a new front covered portico, on property located at 6 Wilton Road. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 135.58, Block: 1, Lot: 16. WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on October 3, 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 deminimus and will not alter or affect 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: October 3, 2006 Zoning Board of Appeals October 3,2006 Page 10 Mark Harmon, Chairperson 4 Ayes 0 Nays Zoning Board of Appeals October 3,2006 Page 11 Zoning Board of Appeals October 3,2006 Page 12 Mr. Harmon called for the next item on the agenda: 9. # 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. John Scarlato, Jr., architect, addressed the Board. It was noted that this matter was before the Board at a previous meeting. The reason the application was adjourned was to allow the applicant time to research and respond to questions on drainage. There is now new drainage designed for the driveway, however, the Village's Engineer has not yet reviewed the proposed plan. Mr. Izzo noted that Mr. Carosi's review could be made part of the approval. Mr. Harmon called for members of the public who wished to address the Board in support or opposition to the application. There was no one wishing to address the Board, and no questions from the Board. The public portion of the hearing was closed and the Board went into deliberation. Upon the Board's return, Mr. Harmon read the following resolution: Zoning Board of Appeals October 3,2006 Page 13 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Mr. & Mrs. Michael Ricci for several variances as detailed in the attached Notice of Hearing, in connection with the proposed legalization of a finished basement, rear deck and rear shed; and expansion of the existing driveway, and construction of new masonry steps at front, on property located at 500 Ellendale Avenue, in an R-2F District, on the south side of Ellendale Avenue, 200 feet from the intersection of Ellendale Avenue and Lyon Street. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 141.28, Block:1, Lot. 5. WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on July 11, 2006, August 1, 2006, and October 3, 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 property is uniquely located next to Village property utilized as the Village garage; 2. Applicant has attempted to minimize certain aspects of the application; 3. Several of the variances will permit additional off-street parking which will enhance the safety 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. 3. Applicant must establish to the satisfaction of the Village Engineer the adequacy of its drainage plan. DATED: October 3, 2006 Mark Harmon, Chairperson 4 Ayes 0 Nays Zoning Board of Appeals October 3,2006 Page 14 Zoning Board of Appeals October 3,2006 Page 15 8. Approval of September 5,2006 Zoning Board Summary Mr. Harmon called for a review of the September 5, 2006 Summary. There were no changes or corrections submitted, and the summary was unanimously approved. Mr. Harmon called for application 906-454, which had been adjourned earlier in the meeting: #06-454 of Mr. & Mrs.Andrew Rogovic. Mr. Scarlato noted that after discussing the matter with his clients, they agreed to remove one of the bays of the garage. This would reduce the floor area variance required from 280 square feet to 75 square feet. He noted that he marked up the plans for the Board, but that he would submit new plans reflecting this change. There being no further 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: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Mr. & Mrs. Andrew Rogovic for a 75' gross floor area, 7.7' front yard setback, 3.56' single side yard setback, .025 front height and .015 side height setback ratio variances in connection with the proposed construction of a rear yard one-story addition, a side 1-1/2 story garage addition, a partial second story addition, a new front portico and steps, and reconfigure the roof line over the existing garage, on property located at 23 Old Orchard Road in an R-15 District on the east side of Old Orchard Road, 385 feet from the intersection of Crossway and Old Orchard Road. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 135.26, Block: 1, Lot: 69. WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on October 3, 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. Applicant has agreed to remove its request for a second garage bay to minimize the impact of the proposed construction; 2. The front yard set back variance will enhance the architectural alterations and minimize bulk issues; Zoning Board of Appeals October 3,2006 Page 16 3. The side yard setback non-conformity is not being enlarged; and 4. The side yard height setback variance is necessitated by the existing non- conformities. 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: October 3, 2006 Mark Harmon, Chairperson 4 Ayes 0 Nays Zoning Board of Appeals October 3,2006 Page 17 Zoning Board of Appeals October 3,2006 Page 18 Mr. Harmon re-called item 92: 06-451 of Mr. &Mrs. Braren: Mr. Izzo reviewed the Village's records and found that Certificate of Occupancy had been issued for the existing carport as far back as 1985. It was also noted that this carport was depicted on plans in Mr. Scarlato's possession dating back to 1974. The public portion of the hearing was closed, and the Board went into deliberation. Upon their return,Mr. Harmon read the following resolution: Mr. Harmon read the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Mr. & Mrs. Braren for a 1.6' total side yard setback, 4.3% lot coverage in connection with the proposed removal and construction of an existing carport, on property located at 262 North Ridge Street in an R-15 District on the west side of North Ridge Street, 150 feet from the intersection of West Ridge Drive and North Ridge Street. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 135.27, Block: 1, Lot: 5 WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on October 3, 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 alteration will be replacing an existing carport structure which has a Certificate of Occupancy; 2) The proposed alteration will reduce the existing non-conformity. 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: October 3, 2006 Mark Harmon, Chairperson 4 Ayes, 0 Nays Zoning Board of Appeals October 3,2006 Page 19 Zoning Board of Appeals October 3,2006 Page 20 There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m. Zoning Board of Appeals October 3,2006 Page 21