Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-12-01 - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes APPROVED VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK DATE 0 938 King Street Zoning Board of Appeals Tuesday, December 1, 2015 Meeting at 8:00 p.m. IECEWE Rn AGENDA JAN - 6 20116 1. # 15-015 Ms. Robin Kamin VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK 39 Hillandale Road BUILDING DEPARTMENT Legalize 8'-0" black chain link sports court fence 2. # 15-003 Prakash Krishnan & Raji Krishnan 29 Meadowlark Road Request extension of approval of Zoning variances, Village Code §250-13.H. 3. # 15-005 Douglas Trokie and Leslie Dubin 21 Berkley Lane Request extension of approval of Zoning variances, Village Code §250-13.H. 4. Approval of October 6, 2015 Zoning Board Summary BOARD: Andrew Kaminsky Joel Simon Jeffrey Richman Donald Moscato, Chairman Excused: Steven Berger STAFF: Michael Izzo, Building Inspector Jennifer Gray, Esq., Village Counsel Fred Seifert, Public Access Coordinator/IT Paula Patafio, Meeting Secretary BOARD LIAISON: Excused: Trustee David Heiser Zoning Board of Appeals December 1,2015 Page 1 of 1 Mr. Donald Moscato, Chairman, welcomed everyone to the Zoning Board meeting of December 1, 2015. He introduced Village consultants and staff, and asked that anyone addressing the Board please come to the podium, use the microphone, and state their names and the nature of the application. He noted that there were three applications on the agenda, and stated that Steve Berger was excused from the meeting. He noted that there was a quorum, however, in order for a motion to be approved three out of the four members must vote aye. Applicants would be given the opportunity to adjourn to the next meeting. With the consensus of the Board, he called for the second application on the agenda: 2. # 15-003 Prakash Krishnan & Raji Krishnan 29 Meadowlark Road Request extension of approval of Zoning variances, Village Code §250-13.H. Justin Minineri, Architect, addressed the Board. In June 2015, the Zoning Board granted variances for the subject property. He noted that the post-approval process of retaining a contractor, etc. took longer than expected and, as a result, the applicants require an extension of the variances granted on this project. He requested a six month extension. The hope is to begin construction in April 2016. The applicants are looking to start construction in more favorable weather. Mr. Moscato called for members of the public wishing to address the Board. There being no one he called for a motion to approve. On a motion made by Andrew Kaminsky, and seconded by Joel Simon, the variances were extended for a period of 6 months. Andrew Kaminsky voting aye Jeffrey Richman voting aye Joel Simon voting aye Don Moscato, Chairman voting aye The motion was approved by a motion of four ayes to zero nays. 3. # 15-005 Douglas Trokie and Leslie Dubin 21 Berkley Lane Request extension of approval of Zoning variances, Village Code §250-13.H. Zoning Board of Appeals December 1,2015 Page 2 of 2 Justin Minineri, Architect, addressed the Board. As in the previous application, he noted that the post-approval process of retaining a contractor, etc. took longer than expected. As a result, the applicants require an extension of the variances granted on this project. He requested a six month extension. The applicant is looking to commence construction in more favorable weather. Mr. Moscato called for members of the public wishing to address the Board. There being no one he called for a motion to approve. On a motion made by Andrew Kaminsky, and seconded by Joel Simon, the variances were extended for a period of 6 months. Andrew Kaminsky voting aye Jeffrey Richman voting aye Joel Simon voting aye Don Moscato, Chairman voting aye The motion was approved by a vote of four ayes and zero nays. 1. # 15-015 Ms. Robin Kamin 39 Hillandale Road Legalize 8'-0"black chain link sports court fence Mr. Kaminsky noted that in the interest of full disclosure he lives in this general neighborhood. When the application for site plan approval for the construction of the house was considered by the Planning Board a few years ago, he addressed the Planning Board in favor of the application. When the current application for a fence height variance was submitted to the Zoning Board he went to the property to view the site. The applicants allowed him on the property where he was able to view the subject fence. He did not discuss the application with the applicants and he will be objective in his review of the application. Therefore, he does not feel the need to recuse himself from this evening's discussion and subsequent vote. Mr. Moscato offered the applicant the option to adjourn to the next meeting when Mr. Berger was in attendance. Craig Studer, Architect from the firm of Studer Design Associates, stated that his clients wished to move forward. They also saw no reason where Mr. Kaminsky should recuse himself. Zoning Board of Appeals December 1,2015 Page 3 of 3 Mr. Studer noted that the applicant was before the Board for the legalization of an existing chain link fence. He presented plans for the Board's review and pointed out the existing sports court and fencing. He noted that the current fence is a replacement of a like-kind old wire fence. The fence was unfit and a fence of like- kind was installed. The new fence is 8' in height. Mr. Moscato noted that the fence was an existing non-conformity. Removing the fence, removed the pre-existing non-conformity. Mr. Studer noted that his firm became aware of this issue when the pool fence was being replaced. Mr. Steve Kamin, applicant, noted that the previously existing 8' fence was replaced with an 8' fence. When the error was pointed out, they made an application to the Village to legalize the fencing. Letters and emails have been received, both for and against the application, and all are now made part of the record. The Zoning Board reviews the application against the five factors set forth in the law for the granting of an area variance. He discussed an incident where a homeowner removed shrubbery and landscaping that was blocking the home from the neighbors' line of sight. The removal clearly affected the character of the neighborhood and the neighbor's quality of life, but it was done in accordance with the Village's Code, as-of-right. He asked if the applicants considered removing 2' of the fence or combining it with the pool fencing. The applicant noted that there was a space of 10' between the pool fence and the sports court fence. He also noted that there was an expense with changing the height of the fence. Mr. Kamin noted that they have met all requirements set forth by the ARB and the Village Engineer. Mr. Michael Izzo, Building Inspector, noted that the site plan application for construction of the house did not address the pool, the pool house, the sports court, or the fence. The Kamins were going to work on the house and then come back to the Village for everything else. The applicant noted that they came back to the Planning Board two years later for the other issues. The house and tennis court was discussed, as was lighting and the fencing. The applicant noted they did not intend to deceive or hide anything. The fence was installed and up for nine to ten months, but problems with his neighbors arose when the pool fence was installed. Zoning Board of Appeals December 1,2015 Page 4 of 4 Mr. Moscato called for members wishing to address the Board in support or opposition to the application. He noted that they would try to separate the comments, first taking those in favor of the application and then those against. He would then read portions of the emails received into the record. He noted that Joseph and Wanda Moschitto of 41 Hillendale submitted a letter in support of the application. Mr. Michal Koeing of Old Mill Road addressed the Board. He noted that this is about a 2' difference in the height of a fence. The existing fence was dilapidated and was replaced. There was no detriment caused by replacing the fence. The applicants allowed the neighbors' children access to the sports court. The problems arose when the pool fence was installed. Mr. Moscato read two letters in the record from 37 Hillandale and one from 39 Hillandale. Both are in favor of the application and have no problem with the height of the fence. Mr. Alan and Mrs. Robin Goldberg of 34 Meadowlark Road, the property owner behind the applicants, addressed the Board. He began by stating that he would allow the Board members access to his property to see the applicants' fencing from his viewpoint. He noted that his children did play on the court and they were kicked off and never felt comfortable going back. The sports court and fencing is a few feet away from his property. The sports court and fence affects them, as now his view is of one fence beyond another. He referred to it as the "prison yard effect." Mr. Goldberg stated that it is the Zoning Board of Appeals' roll and responsibility to preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood. For 24 years they had complete privacy and were screened with what was basically a green wall -- shrubbery and vines. Once the old fencing was removed, along with the vegetation that was growing on it and the trees were taken down, the view was opened up to the sports court and fencing. The feeling of privacy was completely gone. The Goldbergs provided photos to the Board. Any new trees that have been planted are too short to adequately provide coverage and it will take years until they provide screening. It was noted that when the applicants removed the vine covered fence the Village's Engineer order trees to be planted. There are no safety issues here. This property has been under construction for two years. This problem was completely created by the applicants. Mr. Goldberg asked that the ZBA please protect the community and their quality of life. He asked that the Board come to his property to see what they see. The applicants stripped the area. The Goldbergs asked that the Kamins do the right thing. Zoning Board of Appeals December 1,2015 Page 5 of 5 Mr. Moscato stated that what he has heard so far is that the neighbors are requesting that the landscaping be restored. They feel the trees that have been planted are not tall enough to screen their view. It was suggested by the Board that the neighbors consider planting on their property as well. Mr. Goldberg pointed out that many of the trees the applicant planted have already died or are dying. Mr. Moscato noted that what the neighbors are now looking at is clearly different then what they were looking at before the construction. The character of the neighborhood has not been affected because the fencing is not visible from street level. The adjacent neighbors are the ones that are affected. The hope is that the applicant and their neighbors can come to a compromise position. The applicant noted that the Village requested that the trees be replaced. The location of the trees was dictated by the Village. The trees were replaced two weeks ago. The applicants have done everything the Architectural Review Board and the Village has asked them to. If the trees die it will hurt the applicants as well. If they die, they will be replaced. Mr. Kamin also noted that he was entitled to put a fence around his property. Mr. Izzo gave his interpretation of the state code with respect to pool enclosures. The Village Code does not allow an 8' high fence in the rear yard. The applicants do not want a strained relationship with their neighbors. Mr. Moscato felt that the neighbors should meet and discuss this matter and come up with something that is amenable to all. Jeffrey Richman also stated that he would like to see a compromise and a reasonable conclusion. Mr. Kamin said the compromise should include the neighbors doing some of the planting, versus everything being put on them. Up to-date it has not been a two way street. Mr. Moscato stated now that the Zoning Board is involved it becomes a different situation. Mr. Moscato stated that the matter could be adjourned to the next meeting to give the applicants and the neighbors time to come up with a compromise. Jennifer Gray, Esq., Village Counsel, stated that if additional plantings are going to be proposed a plan depicting the location and species of plantings should be Zoning Board of Appeals December 1,2015 Page 6 of 6 presented to the Zoning Board for review. The plan could then be referenced in any approval of the variance so that it becomes enforceable by the Village. Mr. Moscato called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in opposition to the application. Dean Santon, former owner of 39 Hillandale Road, addressed the Board. He stated that this should be a simple matter of weighing and balancing of the five standards in the Code for review of a variance request. Mitigation should be the main goal here. He stated the site plan application reviewed by the Planning Board for construction of the house covered more than just the house. Mr. Santon presented the Board with photographs taken of the property over the years. The applicants never mentioned the replacement of the fencing around the sports court when prior applications were reviewed by the Village. The fencing was replaced in 2013. They removed a vine covered fence and replaced it with an 8' black chain link fence with the bad side facing the neighbors. Mr. Izzo noted that there really is no bad side to a chain link fence as you can see through it. Mr. Santon noted that the piping is now on the outside, making the fence easier to scale. Mr. Santon noted the applicant removed trees with the Village's knowledge, but they also butchered other trees, removing much of the canopy on many of them. It was noted that Mr. Nowak is the certified arborist for the Village and that Mr. Izzo is the enforcement arm— if there is a violation Mr. Izzo follows up. Mr. Moscato noted that the issue is mitigation. Mr. Simon felt that the issues that the neighbors have are more than an 8' high fence. Mr. Santon noted the original plan was to put a fence around the pool. There are consequences when you do not follow the Code. The pool fence is in the incorrect location. The applicant had to go back to the ARB for approval because the fence was no longer a split rail fence. If they never deviated from the approved plans there would not be an issue. There were two permits to the project and there were multiple amendments. This was a big project and it did take 2 '/2 years to construct. There was a wall of green created by the branching and ivy covered fence. The trees should be placed where they will get maximum benefit. The neighbors should work together to create a planting plan. Mr. Moscato noted that reducing the fence by 2' is the least expensive route, but he would rather see a compromise between the neighbors. If the applicants and Zoning Board of Appeals December 1,2015 Page 7 of 7 neighbors cannot reach a reasonable compromise, the Zoning Board will make the decision. Another neighbor, Mr. Lulkin of Meadowlark Drive, noted that by removing the fence and the landscape screening, sound now travels further then it did before. This is a significant adverse impact to the neighbors. The Kamins have not shown respect for any of the neighbors. They have the right to do what they want on their property within the purview of the Code, and the neighbors have the right to complain about the visual impacts. The good side of the fence is not facing out. There were trees on the property line but they died. The applicants are not following the rules. He noted that lighting was added. Mr. Izzo requested information regarding photographs; when and where they were taken. He noted that on a recent photograph there is vegetation growing on the new fence. Mr. Studer noted that the applicants are improving their property. He invited the Board to make a field visit. Mr. Kamin stated that he will be happy to meet with the neighbors, but did not want Mr. Santon involved. The Kamins formally requested an adjournment to the January meeting. On a motion made by Mr. Simon, and seconded by Mr. Kaminsky, the public hearing was adjourned. Andrew Kaminsky voting aye Jeffrey Richman voting aye Joel Simon voting aye Don Moscato, Chairman voting aye The motion was approved by a vote of four ayes and zero nays. 5. Approval of October 6, 2015 Zoning Board Summary Mr. Moscato called for a motion and second for the approval of the October 6, 2015 Zoning Board Summary. Zoning Board of Appeals December 1,2015 Page 8 of 8 On a motion made by Mr. Simon, and seconded by Mr. Kaminsky, the summary was adopted. Andrew Kaminsky voting aye Jeffrey Richman voting aye Joel Simon voting aye Don Moscato, Chairman voting aye The motion was approved by a vote of four ayes to zero nays. There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Zoning Board of Appeals December 1,2015 Page 9 of 9