Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-11-07 - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK 938 King Street Zoning Board of Appeals Tuesday, November 7, 2006 Meeting at 8:00 p.m. Agenda 1. #06-449 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. #05-460 Dr. Gerald Cohen 301 South Ridge Street Conduct a commercial dentist office as a non-resident of the premises. 3. #06-433 Mr. & Mrs. Fred Taylor 1 Westerleigh Court Construct two rear one-story additions, a rear screened-in porch; new front bow window. 4. #06-461 Ms. Stacey Malley 18 Woodland Drive Construct a two-story addition, a second story addition, and new rear deck and landing. 5. #06-455 Mr. & Mrs. Stuart Wechsler 44 Country Ridge Drive Construct two rear two-story additions, two-second story additions, and a front one-story addition. 6. #05-457 Ms. Lillian Albrecht 27 Hillandale Road Construct a carport with front gate. 7. #06-458 Mrs. Susan Rauso 9 Berkley Lane Legalize a rear, one-story addition and rear deck expansion 7. Approval of October 3, 2006 Zoning Board Summary Zoning Board of Appeals November 7,2006 Page 1 BOARD: Mark Harmon, Chairman Salvatore Crescenzi Joseph Pellino Ronald Rettner (arrived 8:14 p.m.) Excused: Michael Siegel Trustee Joan Feinstein, Liaison from the Board of Trustees Trustee Paul Rosenberg STAFF: Michael Izzo, Building Inspector Paula Pataflo, Meeting Secretary Mr. Mark Harmon, Chairman, began the meeting by noting that Mr. Michael Siegel was excused from the meeting due to a death in the family. He also noted as the fifth member of the Board, Mr. Ronald Rettner, was not in attendance in order for an application to be approved each applicant would need the remaining three (3) Board members to vote yes. If the applicant did not receive three (3) yes votes, the application would be denied. As a result, Mr. Harmon offered each applicant on the agenda the opportunity to request an adjournment to the December meeting. With the consensus of the Board, Mr. Harmon offered to convene the meeting at 8:10 p.m. to allow the applicants and their representatives time to discuss a potential adjournment, and in the hope that Mr. Rettner would arrive. Mr. Harmon noted that item #6, the application of Lillian Albrecht was for a variance on property that was located across the street from his home. He asked that applicant's architect, Mr. John Scarlato, consider whether or not he would like Mr. Harmon to recuse himself voting on this matter. Mr. Scarlato stated that it would not be necessary for Mr. Harmon to recuse himself. As a courtesy to the members of the public in attendance, Mr. Harmon noted that item #1, the application of Frank Drazka, Melissa Drazka, Henry Klein, and Kip Konigsberg, was adjourned at the request of the applicant. With the consensus of the Board, Mr. Harmon directed that this matter be placed on the Zoning Board of Appeals' agenda for December. Mr. Harmon also noted that the Board received a letter from the firm of Gioffre and Gioffre, legal counsel for Dr. Gerald Cohen, the second matter on the agenda, requesting an adjournment to the December meeting. Since several residents indicated that they were at the meeting specifically for this application, Mr. Harmon offered them the opportunity to address the Board. The resident of 300 South Ridge Street noted that he took time out of his busy schedule to attend the meeting specifically because of this application. He Zoning Board of Appeals November 7,2006 Page 2 stated that the sign notifying neighbors of the meeting was posted three (3) days prior to the meeting, and the letter notifying him of the application was received approximately one (1) earlier. He felt that many neighbors were unaware of this application because of the short notice. Mr. Harmon stated that the late notice was the reason for the adjournment. The resident asked that the Board ensure that proper notification be made for the next meeting. Mr. Harmon stated that the applicant would not required to complete a second mailing. He would, however, be required to post a sign showing the current information. Several other residents of Garibaldi Place declined Mr. Hannon's offer to address the Board, but noted that they would attend the next meeting and hoped that they would be allowed to make comments at that time. With the consensus of the Board, the matter was adjourned. Bruno Gioffre, Esq., legal counsel for Dr. Cohen, thanked the Board on behalf of his client. Mr. Harmon called for a recess. At 8:10 p.m. Mr. Harmon reminded the applicants of his cautionary introduction, and convened the meeting by calling for item #3: 3. #06-433 Mr. & Mrs. Fred Taylor 1 Westerleigh Court Construct two rear one-story additions, a rear screened-in porch; new front bow window. Mr. Paul Landesman, Architect, addressed the Board. He stated that the applicants were willing to proceed knowing that they would require all three (3) yes votes. He began his presentation by noting that the property was an irregular shaped corner lot. In order to achieve their goal, the applicants required a small rear yard setback. The minimum required setback for the rear yard is 35'. The proposed construction will result in a rear yard setback of 30.7'. Mr. Landesman pointed out that because this was a corner lot, there were two (2) front yards. Mr. Michael Izzo, Building Inspector, agreed with Mr. Landesman in that although the front yard is defined by the address, there are two (2) front yards because the property is a corner lot. Mr. Landesman presented the Board with a blueprint of the house and property, noting the areas of construction. He also noted that the proposed master suite would be located in the rear of the home. He stated that this application would not negatively impact the neighbors, that there were no negative impacts to the environment, and that that there was sufficient screening to soften the visual impact. 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 or comments. Mr. Harmon questioned where the closest home was located. Mr. Landesman stated that there was a waterway to the rear of the property and that the closest house is beyond the waterway, in the Town of Harrison. Zoning Board of Appeals November 7,2006 Page 3 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. Fred Taylor for a 4.3' rear yard setback variance, in connection with the proposed construction of two rear one-story additions, a rear screened-in porch, a new rear deck, and a new front bow window on property located at 1 Westerleigh Court in an R-12 District on the west side of Westerleigh Court, at the intersection of Lincoln Avenue and Westerleigh Court. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 135.41, Block: 1, Lot: 5. WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on November 7, 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 house is on a corner lot and has two (2) front yards so that this rear yard variance request affects a side lot as the home is situated; 2. There is a waterway between the impacted rear yard and the nearest home, thus minimizing any impact; and 3. The proposed variance will not negatively impact the surrounding 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; 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: November 7, 2006 Mark Harmon, Chairperson 4 Ayes, 0 Nays Zoning Board of Appeals November 7,2006 Page 4 Zoning Board of Appeals November 7,2006 Page 5 Mr. Harmon called for the next item on the agenda: 4. #06-461 Ms. Stacey Malley 18 Woodland Drive Construct a two-story addition, a second story addition, and new rear deck and landing. Anthony Gioffre, Esq., from the firm of Cuddy & Feder, addressed the Board as legal counsel for the application. He noted that both the applicant and the architect were in attendance and available to answer any questions from the Board and members of the public. Mr. Gioffre noted that Ms. Malley is the owner of the subject property. She is a resident of Rye Brook, where she currently rents, and the owner of 18 Woodland Drive. When she was ready to purchase a home in Rye Brook, Ms. Malley worked with a real estate broker for over a year. She found a home, placed a bid, did her due diligence, and purchased the property at 18 Woodland Drive. At the time of purchase, the property was located in an R-20 Zoning District. Mr. Gioffre stressed that Ms. Malley would not have purchased the home if there was any indication that she would not be allowed to renovate it. She made an application to the Village for the proposed renovations and began the process. Shortly after, a moratorium was put into effect. Ms. Malley applied for a waiver, and it was granted. She was allowed to continue her process before the Planning Board. Now, as a result of the adoption of the local law in October, the zoning district has changed. It is important to note that the applicant's site plan was approved prior to the adoption of the new local law. Therefore, the applicant respectfully submits that these variances should not be required. Mr. Gioffre noted that when running a test of balances, the results clearly weigh in favor of Ms. Malley. The Board requested a review of the application. Mr. Gioffre noted that Ms. Malley has proposed the demolition of the existing two-car garage and the removal of a portion of the driveway, minimizing the amount of impervious surface. The maximum permitted gross floor area is 5,164.6 square feet and the applicant's proposed additions will result in a gross floor area of 5,380 square feet. Previously the attic space was previously not required to be counted when calculating gross floor area. Now that the law has changed, the attic space is added, and the applicant requires a gross floor area variance. The variance could be obviated but the home that would be produced would be out of character and out of style. Lopping off a top portion of the roof on the side of the home would remove the necessity of a variance, however, it would definitely change the character of the home. Zoning Board of Appeals November 7,2006 Page 6 Mr. Izzo noted that the recent change in the Village's Code added approximately 900 square feet of attic space into the gross floor area calculation that was not previously considered habitable space. Mr. Gioffre provided satellite photographs of the homes in the area, and noted that the renovation is clearly in character with the surrounding homes. There is sufficient landscape screening, and the surrounding neighbors are not impacted by this application. Mr. Gioffre noted that the Planning Board is the lead agency regarding SEQRA. They have found that the plan does remove a substantial amount of impervious surface and provides storm water mitigation. Mr. Harmon called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in support or opposition to the application. There being no comments, he turned to the Board. Mr. Joseph Pellino noted that this matter was before the Planning Board. The Planning Board is required to review any text amendments in its advisory position for the Board of Trustees. They were aware of the moratorium, and the change of the zoning district, and several meetings and work sessions addressed this application. Mr. Harmon asked how the R-25 change affected the side yard height setback ratio. Mr. Izzo noted that the current maximum permitted side height setback ratio is 1.30. The applicant's proposed second story addition will result in a side height setback ratio of 1.60. As a result of the change the applicant would require a side height setback ratio variance of .3. Mr. Gioffre noted that prior to the change the application was compliant with Zoning. Mr. Gioffre noted that the neighbor on the side of the home has expressed his support in connection with the application. He also noted that the house is setback from the street, and the attic space, which will be used for storage, will be accessible by a pull-down stairway. There being no further questions or comments, 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 November 7,2006 Page 7 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Ms. Stacey Malley for a 215.4 square foot gross floor area variance and a .3 side height setback ratio variance, in connection with the proposed construction of a two-story addition, a second story addition, and new rear deck and landing, on property located at 18 Woodland Drive in an R-25 District on the west side of Woodland Drive, 455 feet from the intersection of Beechwood Circle and Woodland Drive. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 135.36, Block: 1, Lot: 25. WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on November 7, 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 purchased this home just prior to consideration of a recent change in the Zoning Code applicable to this District; 2. The proposed construction was designed to conform to then applicable Code provisions; 3. Conforming with the revised Code as respect to the side height variance request would require a substantial change in the plans; 4. The requested gross floor area variance is not extensive; 5. The site of the home on the abutting property minimizes any impact; and 6. Applicant was in the mist of the planning process when the Code change was implemented. 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: November 7, 2006 Mark Harmon, Chairperson 4 Ayes, 0 Nays Zoning Board of Appeals November 7,2006 Page 8 Zoning Board of Appeals November 7,2006 Page 9 5. #06-455 Mr. & Mrs. Stuart Wechsler 44 Country Ridge Drive Construct two rear two-story additions, two second story additions, and a front one-story addition. Mary Faithorn Scott, architect, addressed the Board. She noted that the applicants were in attendance to respond to any questions from the Board. She reviewed the variances that were required in order to construct the addition. Ms. Faithorn Scott began her presentation by noting that the existing home is a 1950 house, with an existing one-story garage that is non-conforming. The applicant proposes to add a mudroom and put a second story over the garage. The rear of the home has an odd roof line, therefore the applicant's plans for the second floor propose the extension of the roof to square off the home. In addition, the first floor of the existing house will be expanded, with the den becoming a larger family room. Ms. Faithorn Scott presented photographs of neighboring two story homes that are much larger by comparison. In addition, three (3) neighbors have signed a petition in support of the application, which was presented to the Board. Mr. Harmon called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in support or opposition of the application. There being none, he turned to the Board for comments and questions. Mr. Pellino noted that there was previous construction on this home. Ms. Faithorn Scott noted that she was the architect for the previous owners who did apply for and were granted a variance, however, they decided to sell the home and move instead of constructing the addition. That application was before the Board more than one year ago. Mr. Pellino asked if there were any alternatives to the current plan. Ms. Faithorn Scott noted that architecturally she was trying to fill in the corners of the home, and that this was the only plan. She also noted that the majority of the construction is in the rear of the home. 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 November 7,2006 Page 10 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Mr. & Mrs. Stuart Wechsler for a 1.5' single side yard variance and a 468 square foot gross floor area variance, in connection with the proposed construction of two rear two-story additions, two second story additions, and a front one-story addition, on property located at 44 Country Ridge Drive, 306 feet from the intersection of Fairlawn Parkway and Country Ridge Drive. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 129.59, Block: 1, Lot: 15. WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on November 7, 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 bulk of the addition, necessitating the gross floor area variances, is in the rear of the home so that the bulk of the home will not be out of character with the surrounding neighborhood; and 2. The side yard additions extend, but do not enlarge, an 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; 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: November 7, 2006 Mark Harmon, Chairperson 4 Ayes 0 Nays Zoning Board of Appeals November 7,2006 Page 11 Zoning Board of Appeals November 7,2006 Page 12 6. #05-457 Ms. Lillian Albrecht 27 Hillandale Road Construct a carport with front gate. Mr. Harmon noted that as per the discussion earlier with Mr. Scarlato, architect for the applicant, he would not be recusing himself from deliberations on the application. John Scarlato addressed the Board. He clarified that the gate and fence are located behind the carport, and that the gate, fence, and carport have been in existence for many years. During his research he was able to locate a survey from 1966 that showed the carport, as well as assessment cards and photographs of the home which indicated that the carport existed before that date. The applicant was going to repair the carport and found that it was beyond repair and needed to be torn down and be rebuilt. The house is set back from the street and is located on property that is 102' wide. This is one of the narrowest properties in this area. There is a difference of approximately 10' to 12' in grade from the abutting property. The carport sits 4' from the property line. The carport is barely visible from the street, and there is screening in the form of shrubs and bushes. This home predates the Village's Code of 1954 and there is no proof that a building permit was ever made for the construction. However, there is also no proof that one wasn't. Mr. Izzo noted that the Certificate of Occupancy does not refer to the carport. He also noted that he has exhausted every venue of locating a Certificate of Occupancy for the carport. Ms. Hope Klein, the daughter of the applicant, noted that the carport has existed for 40 to 50 years. Mr. Harmon called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in support or opposition to the application. It was noted that an e-mail was received from a neighbor who was opposed to the construction of the carport. This neighbor stated that he preferred a fully enclosed garage. Mr. Scarlato noted that the text of the e-mail indicated that the resident was unaware of the existing carport and that it was a replacement and not a new construction. Mr. Scarlato also noted that the nearest resident, Mr. Gary Zuckerman, was in support of the application. There being no further comments or questions, the public portion of the hearing was closed, and the Board went into deliberation. Upon the Board's return, a brief discussion regarding the need for evidence that the carport was not illegally construction ensued. Mr. Scarlato agreed to conduct an additional search for proof of a building permit or Certificate of Occupancy that shows the carport's construction; or any information that shows that this carport was not illegally constructed. As a result, the matter was adjourned to the December meeting. Zoning Board of Appeals November 7,2006 Page 13 7. #06-458 Mrs. Susan Rauso 9 Berkley Lane Legalize a rear, one-story addition and rear deck expansion Steven Marchansam, architect, addressed the Board. He noted that the applicant was looking to legalize a rear one-story addition and existing deck, which was constructed around the pool. He noted that the applicant made an application for the addition, and a Certificate of Occupancy was issued. The addition and deck are both in the rear of the house, and neither is visible to the street. Mr. Harmon called for members of the public wishing to address the application in support or opposition. The applicant noted that the deck, which he constructed out of lumber, has been around the pool for eight years. The deck was put up around the same time as the pool was installed. The Building Inspector at that time, Mr. William Garrity, gave the approval for the construction and issued the Certificate of Occupancy. The applicant also noted that there is a retaining wall located behind the pool. In addition, he stated that to remove the deck and pool and bring it into conformity would be a financial hardship. The question of how the applicant was issued a violation was raised. The response was that a complaint was received by the Building Department from one of the applicant's neighbors. Mr. Izzo noted that a deck, of any height, requires a building permit. In this case, a variance would also be required. Mr. Harmon asked for additional information on the deck and the Code that was in effect at the time of construction. He also noted that the Board would like to see photographs of the pool and deck, the topography of the property, and proof of a lack of impact. The applicant agreed to provide the Board with additional information. With the consensus of the Board, this matter was adjourned to the December meeting. Mr. Harmon noted that although no certified mailing would be required, the applicant must install a sign. 8. APPROVAL OF OCTOBER 3, 2006 ZONING BOARD SUMMARY The Summary was approved with one typographical correction submitted by Mr. Harmon. There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. Zoning Board of Appeals November 7,2006 Page 14