Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-12-05 - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK 938 King Street Zoning Board of Appeals Tuesday, December 5, 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 (Re Appearance) 301 South Ridge Street Conduct a commercial dentist office as a non-resident of the premises 3. #06-457 Ms. Lillian Albrecht (Re Appearance) 27 Hillandale Road Construct a carport with front gate 4. #06-458 Mrs. Susan Rauso (Re Appearance) 9 Berkley Lane Legalize a rear, one-story addition and rear deck expansion 5. #06-459 Mr. Joseph Coppola 537 Westchester Avenue Construct a one-story addition at the west elevation 6. #06-463 Mr. & Mrs. William Popper 6 Horseshoe Lane Construct a front two-story addition; reconfigure the existing roof; build a new front porch and walk; and create additional off-street parking 7. #06-464 Mr. & Mrs. John Grieco 6 Sunset Road Construct a one-story side addition Zoning Board of Appeals December 5,2006 Page 1 8. Approval of November 7, 2006 Zoning Board Summary BOARD: Mark Harmon, Chairman Salvatore Crescenzi Joseph Pellino Ronald Rettner Michael Siegel Trustee Joan Feinstein, Liaison from the Board of Trustees STAFF: Michael Izzo, Building Inspector Paula Pataflo, Meeting Secretary Mr. Mark Harmon, Chairman, welcomed everyone to the December meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. He began the meeting by noting that item #1 was adjourned in response to a request made by the attorney for the applicant. Mr. Harmon called for item #2. He stated that a letter was received from the applicant's counsel requesting an adjournment. A member of the public addressed the Board in connection with this matter. He noted that this was the second month that he took time out of his busy schedule to attend the meeting in connection with Dr. Cohen's application. He felt that it was unfair that the matter was placed on the agenda, causing residents to come out on this matter when Dr. Cohen would not be showing up. It was noted that in addition to Dr. Cohen not being inconvenienced by having to attend the meeting, the dentist's office was in operation even though Dr. Cohen did not reside in the home. Mr. Michael Izzo, Building Inspector, confirmed that the office was in operation. He stated that the reason for this month's adjournment was that the Village had made an error in the Notice of Hearing on this matter. It incorrectly stated that the application would be granted when, in fact, the matter was actually scheduled for a public hearing and review by the Zoning Board. Mr. Izzo pointed out that the Zoning Board of Appeals is only able to grant a variance, not approve an application. If a variance is approved, the applicant must go before the Board of Trustees to seek a Special Permit. Mr. Harmon stated that with the consensus of the Board this matter would be adjourned to the January meeting, however, he directed Mr. Izzo to inform the applicant and his counsel that this would be the final adjournment for this application. If the applicant did not appear in January, the application would be denied. Zoning Board of Appeals December 5,2006 Page 2 Mr. Izzo questioned whether or not the Board wanted to reschedule the January meeting as it was currently scheduled for January 2, 2007. The consensus was to leave the meeting as scheduled. Mr. Harmon called for item #3: 3. #06-457 Ms. Lillian Albrecht (Re Appearance) 27 Hillandale Road Construct a carport with front gate. Mr. Izzo noted that he did not receive the Affidavit regarding the posting of the sign from the applicant. Mr. Scarlato, architect for the applicant, stated that the sign was posted and that he would deliver the Affidavit to the Village. With this provision, Mr. Harmon asked that the matter be heard. Mr. Scarlato noted that at the last meeting Ms. Albrecht was informed of a neighbor that was in opposition to her application. She contacted the neighbor and clarified her application for him. He misunderstood the application and has now withdrawn his letter of opposition. Mr. Scarlato presented the Board with additional letters of support. He also presented the Board with a letter from the applicant's ex-husband, Mr. Robert E. Albrecht, noting that the carport was in existence in 1948. A survey from 1954 shows the carport. Mr. Scarlato pointed out that this carport was constructed alongside of a 4' high retaining wall. The difference in the terrain between the Albrecht property and the adjacent property screens the carport, and it cannot be seen from the upper property. Mr. Harmon called for members of the public wishing to address the matter in support or opposition to the application. There being no one wishing to address the Board, 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 he following resolution: Zoning Board of Appeals December 5,2006 Page 3 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Ms. Lillian Albercht for an 11' side yard setback variance and a 26' total side yard setback variance, in connection with the proposed construction of a carport on property located at 27 Hillandale Road in an R-20 District, 117 feet from the intersection of Beechwood Boulevard and Hillandale Road. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 135.28, Block: 1, Lot: 33. WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on November 7, 2006, and continued to December 5, 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 carport is replacing a prior carport which was demolished as unsafe and is being replaced; 2. The prior structure likely was in existence prior to establishment of limiting Code provisions; and 3. The unusual side yard topography minimizes any negative community impact. 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: December 5, 2006 Mark Harmon, Chairperson 4 Ayes 1 Nay (Mr. Ronald Rettner) Zoning Board of Appeals December 5,2006 Page 4 Zoning Board of Appeals December 5,2006 Page 5 Mr. Harmon called for the next item on the agenda: 4. #06-458 Mrs. Susan Rauso 9 Berkley Lane Legalize a rear, one-story addition and rear deck expansion Steven Marchasani, architect, addressed the Board. He noted that the applicant appeared before the Board at the prior month's Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. At that time the Board was looking for additional information, i.e.: impacts of the pool, the topography of the rear yard, and photographs of the pool and deck. In order to legalize the rear one-story addition and existing deck, which was constructed around the pool, the applicant required several variances. It was noted that the family room addition was constructed over an existing deck. This room requires a variance of 120 square feet over the floor area ratio. The pool deck encroaches on the rear and side yard setbacks, and total side yard setback. This deck is at grade, however, because the property sloops downward, the rear corner of the deck is below grade. Mr. Marchasani noted that the applicant made an application for the addition, and a Certificate of Occupancy was issued. He also noted that both the addition and deck are in the rear of the house, and neither is visible to the street. 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. Ronald Rettner questioned how long these structures have been in existence. Mr. Marchasani stated approximately nine years. Mr. Izzo noted that the Certificate of Occupancy notes an above ground pool, however, there is no mention of a deck. A point noted previously was that the Building Inspector at that time issued the Certificate of Occupancy for the pool, and even though the deck had already been constructed, it was not mentioned in the application or the Certificate of Occupancy. Mr. Izzo stated that there was no inclusion of a deck in the plans that were submitted at the time of the application for the pool. There being no further discussion or comments on this matter, the public portion of the hearing was closed and the Board went into deliberation. Upon the Board's return, Mr. Harmon noted that the applicant agreed to provide the Board with additional information on this matter and, therefore, the matter was adjourned to the January 2, 2007 meeting. Zoning Board of Appeals December 5,2006 Page 6 5. #06-459 Mr. Joseph Coppola 537 Westchester Avenue Construct a one-story addition at the west elevation Mr. John Scarlato, architect, addressed the Board. He began his presentation by noting that the subject property is a flag-lot located on Westchester Avenue. The access route to this property is a very long driveway, which brings the application over on the impervious surface allowed under the Village's Code. The applicant is looking to construct a modest one-story addition, with the intention being to fill in the L-Shaped portion of the house. The proposed addition is not visible from the street. The second issue involves setbacks. The application exceeds the requirements for a front yard setback, however, the result of the proposed addition would be a 23' rear yard setback. Mr. Scarlato noted that the house is under the F.A.R. With the addition of the proposed 375 square feet, the home would still be 659 square feet less than what is allowed. Mr. Harmon called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in support or opposition to the application. There being no one wishing to address the Board, Mr. Harmon turned to the Board members for their comments. Mr. Joseph Pellino asked what the topography of this property was. Mr. Scarlato responded that this lot is a fairly level lot. Mr. Pellino questioned what provisions were in place for storm water runoff. Mr. Izzo responded that unless an addition to a property is 400 square feet or greater storm water calculations are not required. Even though the Village does not require storm water calculations in an application of this size, anything that is done would put the Village ahead of the game because of the ongoing issues with runoff. The applicant understands that this is not a requirement. Mr. Scarlato noted that the applicant intends on constructing a drywell to catch the runoff from the addition. Mr. Joe Coppola, applicant, addressed the Board. He noted that the property is level and there has never been any collection of water anywhere on the property during his 17 years as the owner. He also noted that his neighbors are at a higher elevation then his property and work done on his property would not affect them. Mr. Harmon noted that the drawings show that an existing portion of the house is 9' from the property line, and the opposite is 2' from the property line. Mr. Izzo noted that this is a non-conforming lot. The public hearing portion of the meeting was closed and the Board went into deliberation. Upon the Board's return, Mr. Harmon offered the applicant an opportunity to have the matter adjourned to the next meeting to allow for additional Zoning Board of Appeals December 5,2006 Page 7 review regarding storm water runoff. The genesis behind this adjournment was to allow the applicant additional time to document that the additional impervious surface would not create water problems for the neighboring properties. It was noted that the Village would not issue a permit until it was satisfied with the drainage on the property. The applicant, being fully aware that the Village did not require a storm water plan for this application, accepted the offer for an adjournment. 6. #06-463 Mr. & Mrs. William Popper 6 Horseshoe Lane Construct a front two-story addition; reconfigure the existing roof; build a new front porch and walk; and create additional off-street parking Mary Faithorn Scott, architect, addressed the Board. She presented the Board with letters of support from the neighbors. It was noted that the applicant required two (2) variances. The first was a floor area variance as the existing house is non- conforming at 3,582 square feet. The addition would increase the home to 4,532 square feet, an additional 950 square feet. The second variance is in connection with off-street parking. This house has a very small den that will be expanded into a larger family room. The second floor addition would expand the master bedroom, bath and closet. The applicant's intention is to make the house more attractive. The applicant is looking to fill in the corners, square out the house, and add a front gable and portico in order to give the front of the house more presence. The result would be an attractive attribute for the neighborhood. The applicant is also proposing an area for two cars to park. This expansion would mean that the parked cars would not block the garage doors, and it would provide access to the front walk and door. The area for the cars would be 16' x 18'. Ms. Faithorn Scott noted that there is a hardship here in that this is a corner lot, meaning that there are two (2) front yards. Mr. Harmon called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in support or opposition to the application. There being none, he turned to the Board for comments and questions. Mr. Pellino asked if the plan presented to the Board was the only plan considered. Ms. Faithorn Scott responded that the plan presented to the Village is the most logical plan. It fills in the corners of the house, creates a front line, and sets the perimeter for the addition. Zoning Board of Appeals December 5,2006 Page 8 Mr. Rettner questioned the size of the existing driveway. Mr. William Popper, applicant, responded that essentially his driveway is three (3) car widths wide. Currently there is a two-car garage and then another small parking area. The applicants own a mini-van and two (2) cars. The side entrance of the home is their every day entrance. The goal is to make the front of the house more defined and to add parking spaces for visitors. There being no further questions, the public portion of the hearing was closed and the Board went into deliberation. Upon the Board's return, a brief discussion with the applicant resulted in a request for an adjournment to the January meeting. With the consensus of the Board, the adjournment was granted to either the January or February meeting of Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Harmon called for item #7 on the agenda: 7. #06-464 Mr. & Mrs. John Grieco 6 Sunset Road Construct a one-story side addition Mr. Grieco, of 6 Sunset Road, addressed the board. He noted that he was looking to construct a one-story side addition to the home. He stated that he was informed by the Building Inspector that he exceeded the total gross floor area, required a side yard variance, as well as a total lot coverage variance. In response, he filed the application now before the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Grieco noted that the he exceeded the total gross floor area by 128 square feet. The Village's Code requires a combined side yard total of 25 feet and the application requires an 8" variance. The minimum allowable total lot coverage required is 20% and the addition will bring the coverage 21.5% resulting in the need of a 1.5' variance. Mr. Harmon called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in support or opposition to the application, and/or Board members with questions or comments. Mr. Harmon questioned whether or not a previous variance was granted for construction on this property. Mr. Grieco stated that each variance is granted on its own merit and, although he could not understand what bearing this had on the application before the Board, he noted that there were prior variances. It was his Zoning Board of Appeals December 5,2006 Page 9 opinion that they should not effect this application. Mr. Harmon disagreed. He felt that the Board should have the history of prior variances before they could make a decision on the current application. Mr. Izzo noted that in order for the Building Department to search out individual variances for a property they would need to review the files in the Building Department and the archived files. It would be very difficult, would mean a lot of legwork, and he could not guarantee that all information was available. Mr. Harmon noted that as prior variances were granted the Board should have all of the information available prior to making a decision. Mr. Izzo noted that this is a legal existing non-conforming property. Mr. Harmon stated that having all information on prior approvals on a property may or may not effect the granting of a variance. Mr. Grieco replied that it didn't make any sense to him. He stated that the previous Board granted the variances on their own merits. Therefore, it is what it is. Prior variances should not reflect on the current variance. He also noted that all variances that have been granted have been minimal variances. Mr. Rettner pointed out that the Board was trying to get the whole picture. Mr. Pellino stated that the Board should discuss the matter of prior variances at a later date by placing the matter on an agenda for discussion. He noted that he agreed with Mr. Harmon that the Board should have the entire picture before granting a variance. The public portion of the hearing was closed and the Board went into deliberation. Upon their return, Mr. Harmon read the following resolution: Zoning Board of Appeals December 5,2006 Page 10 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Mr. & Mrs. John Grieco for a 128 square foot gross floor area variance, a .73' total side yard setback variance, and a 1.5% total lot coverage variance, in connection with the proposed construction of a one-story side addition, on property located at 6 Sunset Road in an R-10 District on the south side of Sunset Road, 180 feet from the intersection of Lincoln Avenue and Sunset Road. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section: 135.73, Block: 1, Lot: 31. WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on December 5, 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 variances are deminimus in nature; and 2. Taken together with prior variances approved, the total proposed construction will not adversely impact the nature and character of the community. 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: December 5, 2006 Mark Harmon, Chairperson Salvatore Crescenzi Voting Aye Joseph Pellino Voting Aye Ronald Rettner Voting Aye Michael Siegel Voting Aye Mark Harmon Abstained Zoning Board of Appeals December 5,2006 Page 11 Zoning Board of Appeals December 5,2006 Page 12 8. APPROVAL OF NOVEMBER 7, 2006 ZONING BOARD SUMMARY Mr. Harmon requested one correction to the Summary. The summary was approved as amended. There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. Zoning Board of Appeals December 5,2006 Page 13