Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-04-01 - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK Village Hall, 938 King Street Rye Brook, New York ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TUESDAY, APRIL 1, 2003 AGENDA 1. #03-307 Mr. & Mrs. Michael Smith 446 North Ridge Street Construct a 3700 square foot addition within the 2-year period requiring a fire suppression sprinkler system, and not install said system. 2. 403-306 Mr. & Mrs. Michael Elpern 18 Holly Lane Construct 1" and 2nd floor additions and an attached garage totaling 1440 square feet, requiring a fire suppression sprinkler system, and not install said system. 3. Approval of March 2003 Zoning Boar Summary BOARD: Joel Hecker, Chairman Mark Harmon Joan Feinstein Joseph Pellino Ronald Rettner STAFF: Michael Izzo, Acting Building Inspector Paula Patafio, Meeting Secretary Mr. Joel Hecker, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 8:10 p.m. He apologized for the delay in commencing the meeting, but noted that the full compliment of the Board was now present. Zoning Board of Appeals April 1,2003 Page 1 of 8 Mr. & Mrs. Michael Smith, applicants, requested that they be heard second. The architect for their project had called them and informed them that he was stuck in traffic. Mr. Hecker called for item #2 on the agenda: 2. #03-306 Mr. & Mrs. Michael Elpern 18 Holly Lane Construct 1St and 2nd floor additions and an attached garage totaling 1440 square feet, requiring a fire suppression sprinkler system, and not install said system. Mr. Eric Jacobsen, the architect, addressed the Board. He presented Mr. Michael Izzo, Acting Building Inspector, with the receipts from the notification process. Mr. Jacobsen noted that the home, which is currently 2,149 square feet, has no sprinkler system. This is one of the smaller homes in the area. The Elperns have decided to expand the house. They are proposing a 640 square foot addition, with another 800 square feet of alteration work to the existing structure. This alternation work consists of moving windows, doors, and structural walls. Between the two portions of the project, the total square footage of the construction/improvements will be 1,440 square feet, which is 67% of the existing floor area. Rye Brook's Code requires that any construction that adds or alters anything over 50% of the floor area requires the installation of a sprinkler system. Mr. Jacobsen noted a large part of the addition is a garage and the alternations are fairly minor in scope. Mrs. Elpern presented the Board with photographs of the neighboring homes. She pointed out that the homes in the area are much larger than her home. Mr. Hecker noted the photographs included 10, 18, 20, 21 and 22 Holly Lane. Mr. Hecker asked if there were any members of the public wishing to speak in support or opposition to the application. Mrs. Andersen of 28 Country Ridge Drive addressed the Board. She noted that she is concerned over what the proposed addition to the 18 Holly Lane will do to the environment. She pointed out that there is a water/drainage Zoning Board of Appeals April 1,2003 Page 2 of 8 problem in the area and the run-off from Country Ridge— 18, 20, 22 and 24 and Holly Lane 18, 20, 22 and 24 — all runs onto her property, down her driveway and into the lower level of her house. This drainage problem has developed over the years with the construction of additions and alternations to existing structures, and properties, removal of bushes and trees, as well as improper and poor drainage systems in the area. Although presented to the Building Department, this issue has never been addressed. Mrs. Anderson noted that August 20, 2001 she has a 24" flood in the lower level of her property as a result of runoff during a rain storm. This resulted in $70,000 in damages, which was not reimbursable by her insurance. The fire department pumped them out, and at that time the Fire Chief recommended that she bring this matter to the attention of the Building Department. Since that time she has contacted the Village four (4) times. Her concern regarding the proposed construction is that it will make the drainage problems in the area worse. She asked that the Village carefully review the matter of the drainage in the area. Mr. Mark Harmon noted that this request does not fall under the purview of the Zoning Board. The Board must review the application on its own merits. The drainage in this area is beyond the jurisdiction of the Zoning Board of Appeals. He suggested that Mrs. Anderson contact the Village Building Department to discuss the matter of drainage. Mr. Hecker requested a map of the area for the Board's review. Mr. Izzo presented the Board with the area map. Mr. Kim of 33 Country Ridge Drive addressed the Board. He asked for clarification of the variance. His concern was whether or not the home would now encroach on the neighboring properties or the street. Mr. Hecker stated that there was no request for a side, rear or front yard variance in connection with this application. Mr. Jacobsen noted that one side of the home will be moved outward 11' 6", which will bring it 29' feet from the property line but this portion of the addition does not require a variance. A resident of Hawthorne Avenue noted that he was in attendance at the meeting to view the outcome of the requests for variances from the Village's Sprinkler Ordinance. Zoning Board of Appeals April 1,2003 Page 3 of 8 Mr. Ronald Rettner asked for an elaboration on what the applicant intended on doing to make their addition more fire retardant. He felt that if the applicant was requesting a variance, they should be willing to include other fire safety measures in their construction. The Zoning Board must consider public safety. He suggested that the applicant create a two-hour wall, or at least add another layer of fire proof sheet rock in the area of new construction. Mr. Jacobsen noted that the application meets all of the egress requirement in terms of windows and doors, with the exception of a window in the master bedroom which will be replaced. The applicant is proposing the use of 5/8" fire coated sheetrock. The new areas will have a fire/smoke detector system, which will be hard wired and interconnected. He reminded the Board that this project involves adding a garage and removing a wall between the existing garage and home. He asked the Board to consider the fact that the improvements, which are considered when calculating the requirement for a floor area variance, are minor. If the improvements were not made at this time, the applicant would not be required to install a sprinkler system. For this reason the applicant was requesting a waiver of the requirement. Mr. Harmon asked for guidance from the architect. He felt that the Village Code was clear and simply states that if you are doing alterations to more than 50% of the floor area then the sprinkler system is required. He asked what was unique about this situation versus other construction within the Village. Mr. Pellino agreed with Mr. Harmn. He stated that this law was designed for public safety. He asked what made this application different from any other that would be before the Board. Mrs. Elpern noted that the majority of the work was alternations versus the addition of living space. Her home is very small, much smaller than the other homes in the area. A larger home can construct a larger addition because they have the square footage. It was noted that if the Elperns chose to just do the alterations at this time, and then wait the two-year period to construct the garage addition, conformance with the sprinkler system ordinance would not be required. A sprinkler system for this home would cost $10,000. Mr. Jacobsen noted that there are five rooms in the home that will not be touched during the Zoning Board of Appeals April 1,2003 Page 4 of 8 construction. However, if the sprinkler system is required these rooms would also have to be renovated. This would be an added expense to the applicant. Mr. Rettner agreed that there is an expense to the sprinkler system, but he felt that fire safety was of extreme importance. Mr. Jacobsen noted that if half of a square foot was deleted no variance would be required. The addition to the garage is a 24' x 11'6" addition, which is a total of 276 square feet. The entire square footage of the garage is calculated into this application because of the removal of a wall between the existing garage and the proposed garage. Mr. Elpern noted that three areas of the house that are considered new construction are not really new construction. A bathroom is being turned into a closet. In the master bedroom windows and doors are being installed. The addition of the new garage is also considered new construction. The applicant noted that in the areas of the renovations they will be adding better fire retardant materials. There being no further comments, the public portion of the hearing was closed and the Board went into deliberation. Upon their return, Mr. Hecker read the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Mr. & Mrs. Michael Elpern for a relief of the fire suppression sprinkler ordinance, in connection with the proposed construction of a first and second floor addition, and an attached garage, on property located at 18 Holly Lane in an R-20 District on the north side of Holly lane, approximately 785 feet from the intersection of Fairlawn Parkway, said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section 1, Block 5, Lot B19. WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on April 1, 2003, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and Zoning Board of Appeals April 1,2003 Page 5 of 8 WHEREAS the Board, from the application and after viewing the premises and neighborhood concerned, finds: 1) The residence is smaller than others in the neighborhood and therefore the percentage increase requested would not be similar for other residents seeking a similar addition; 2) A substantial percentage of the change constitutes the removal of an existing garage wall; 3) A variance would not be required if the addition was constructed without the improvements at this time. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the said application is hereby granted on the following conditions: 1) The garage walls and ceiling shall have double layers of 5/8" fire proof sheet rock installed. 2) Construction shall begin within one year of the granting of the variance. Joel Hecker, Chairman Dated:April 1, 2003 Vote: Mark Harmon Voting No Joan Feinstein Voting Aye Joseph Pellino Voting No Ronald Rettner Voting Aye Joel Hecker Voting Aye Mr. Harmon commented that he felt that the impact of this section of the Code is ominous, but compliance is required. He disagreed with the calculation of the square footage for this application. He felt that not more than 50% of the house was being altered and on that basis no variance was required. This was the basis for his negative vote. Zoning Board of Appeals April 1,2003 Page 6 of 8 Mr. Hecker returned to item #1 on the agenda: 1. #03-307 Mr. & Mrs. Michael Smith 446 North Ridge Street Construct a 3700 square foot addition within the 2-year period requiring a fire suppression sprinkler system, and not install said system. Mr. David Mayerfeld addressed the Board as the architect for this project. He noted that one year ago this application was presented to the Architectural Review Board for approval. At that time the question of the sprinkler system came up. The drawings and square footage were reviewed with the building inspector. The Village has copies of the inspections made on this property over the years. It was Mr. Mayerfeld's opinion that in 2000 the construction was beyond the 50% mark, and in 2001 the construction was considered to be 85% complete. However, no Certificate of Occupancy was issued. Mr. Izzo has inspected the addition within the past month and presented the applicant with a small punch list of items to be completed before the C.O. could be issued. This punch list is approximately 2% of the construction. In reviewing the file Mr. Izzo noted that the electrical inspection was completed in August of 2002. He was unsure why the final inspection was not completed at that time. The applicant requested interpretation of the Village's Code, and whether or not the two-year period has been met. Mr. Izzo pointed out that the Code does not define what the two-year period is. If the Board decides that the applicant requires the variance, then they were prepared to move forward with that request. Mr. Mayerfeld noted that he was hired to work on this project two years ago. He presented the Board with photographs of the home, and the addition. He presented the Board with a memorandum signed by the building inspector (Mr. William Gerety), dated May 28, 2002, in which he determined that the construction was more than 50% complete. Mr. Hecker asked if there was anyone wishing to address the Board in support or opposition to this application. There being no one, and no further discussion from the Board, the public portion of the meeting was closed. Zoning Board of Appeals April 1,2003 Page 7 of 8 At the conclusion of the Board's deliberations, Mr. Hecker addressed the applicant. He noted that it was the consensus of the Board that they do not have legal authority to interpret this section of the Code. Therefore, they were not in a position to rule on the interpretation. The Board would defer to the Village of Attorney, who would be required to set forth applicable statutes, case law, and opinion regarding the measurement of the two-year time period. The applicant was advised that they have the right to have their own attorney involved if they wish to do so. They can have their attorney submit a memorandum of law, or any other documents they wish in support of their opinion. Mr. Hecker requested that the determination from the Village Attorney be presented to the Board ten (10) days prior to the next meeting for their review. Any additional information that the applicant wished to have included should also be submitted within that timeframe. This matter was adjourned to the May 6, 2003, the next meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Hecker called for the final item before the Board. 3. Approval of March 2003 Zoning Board Summary The summary was approved as submitted. There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m. Zoning Board of Appeals April 1,2003 Page 8 of 8