Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-08-05 - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK 938 King Street ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Tuesday,August 5, 2003 @ 8:00 p.m. AGENDA 1. 403-318 Mr. Andrew Azzara 19 Lincoln Avenue Construct a 1 '/2 story addition, a new garden shed, and replace an existing carport. 2. 403-319 Ms. Jocelyn Karp Waite 40 Woodland Drive Construct a 2 story addition which will further encroach on an existing non-conforming side yard set-back and alter in excess of 50% of their existing building floor area. 3. 403-320 Mr. Angelo Tramiontelli 18 Lawridge Drive Construct a new front covered porch and widen driveway 4. Approval of July 1, 2003 Zoning Board Summary BOARD: Mark Harmon, Chairman Joel Hecker Joseph Pellino Dorothy Roer Excused Joan Feinstein STAFF: Michael Izzo, Acting Building Inspector Paula Patafio, Meeting Secretary Mr. Mark Harmon, Chairman, welcomed everyone to the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. He introduced the Board members, noting that Ms. Joan Feinstein was excused from attendance at the meeting. Also in attendance was Mr. Michael Izzo,Acting Building Inspector. Mr. Harmon called for the first item on the agenda. Zoning Board of Appeals August 5,2003 Page 1 of 9 1. 403-318 Mr. Andrew Azzara 19 Lincoln Avenue Construct a 1 '/2 story addition, a new garden shed, and replace an existing carport. John G. Scarlato, Jr., Architect, addressed the Board. He introduced the applicants, Mr. & Mrs. Azzara. Mr. Scarlato noted that the proposed addition conforms to all setbacks. The applicants were referred to the Zoning Board of Appeals in order to request a variance regarding Section 212.4.A.(1) of the Village's Ordinance. Mr. Scarlato read a portion of the Ordinance as follows, "...when adding 50% or more of the building floor area, the entire building shall be sprinklered in accordance with this chapter." The applicant is adding under 50% of the floor area ratio with a 712 square foot addition. The problem arises when discussing the concept of what is renovated space. Mr. Scarlato noted that the Azzara's house is a small, slab house, with no basement or attic. The house is 1450 square feet. The applicants are working with a limited budget and the installation of the sprinkler system would make it impossible for them to renovate the home. The original house will not be touched, no walls will be removed, and no electrical work is being done. However, the applicant has proposed removing two windows in the living room and removing an existing header in the kitchen. These minor renovations, if added into the calculations, bring the floor ratio above 50%. In order to install a sprinkler system, the applicants would have to renovate the entire house because there is no basement or attic to run the pipes through. In addition, they would have to install a pump and holding tank in order to ensure that there is enough pressure for the system to function. Again, without a basement or attic, this means that this portion of the system would need to be located in the house. Although not required by State Law, Aquarian, the water company, requires 2"piping be installed. This causes a financial hardship. Mr. Izzo confirmed that if a homeowner simply replaced windows, in the same opening, with replacement windows, a building permit would not be needed, but the floor area of the room would be included in calculating the floor area being altered. Mr. Izzo noted that in this case the applicant has proposed the removal of a window in a bedroom. Mr. Scarlato stated that if that becomes an issue, the applicant will leave the window as is. Mr. Harmon called for comments from members of the public in support or opposition to the application. Two neighbors requested the opportunity to review the plans, which they found acceptable. There being no further comments, Mr. Harmon called for questions and comments from the Board. Zoning Board of Appeals August 5,2003 Page 2 of 9 The Board discussed the matter of what types of renovations are added into the calculation of floor area ratio. It was noted that the carport, an open structure, does not require a sprinkler system. 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 of Appeals by Mr. Andrew Azarra for relief from the fire sprinkler system ordinance, in connection with the proposed construction of a 1-1/2 story addition, a new garden shed, and replacement of an existing carport, on property located at 19 Lincoln Avenue in an R-10 District, on the east side of Lincoln Avenue, approximately 901 feet from the intersection of Westchester Avenue and Lincoln Avenue. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section 1, Block 5A, Lot 110. WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on August 5, 2003, 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 interpretation of"alteration" here applied to find that 50% of the building floor area is impacted is unreasonable, especially in light of applicant's considered efforts to avoid altering the existing structure; 2) Requiring installation of a sprinkler system would impose a financial hardship on applicant; 3) Applicant has agreed to condition the variance on the installation of a smoke and fire alarm system that will be connected to a central monitoring system. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the said application is hereby granted on the following conditions: 1) Construction shall begin within one year of the granting of the Variance; and 2) Applicant shall submit written acceptance and adoption of finding 93 above. DATED: August 5, 2003 Mark Harmon, Chairperson ROLL: Mark Harmon, Chairman Voting Aye Joan Feinstein Absent Joel Hecker Voting Aye Joseph Pellino Voting Aye Dorothy Roer Voting Aye Zoning Board of Appeals August 5,2003 Page 3 of 9 Mr. Harmon requested that the record reflect that, in considering the applicant's request for a variance, the Board considered whether the code required installation of a sprinkler system for this project. The Board believes that the code provision is vague and ambiguous with respect to the meaning and definition of the word "alteration,",making proper interpretation of the statute difficult at best. The Zoning Board of Appeals will be requesting a joint meeting of the Board of Trustees and the Zoning Board to review this statute, and the undue hardship it causes to residents of the Village who own smaller homes. Mr. Harmon also noted that it was his opinion, and the opinion of the Board, that the Village's Building Inspector was doing an excellent job in reviewing applications, applying the statutes, and making his referrals. Mr. Harmon called for item 92 on the agenda: 2. #03-319 Ms. Jocelyn Karp Waite 40 Woodland Drive Construct a 2 story addition which will further encroach on an existing non-conforming side yard set-back and alter in excess of 50% of their existing building floor area. Mr. Mario Conteros, architect, and Mr. Viger, contract vendee for the home, addressed the Board. Mr. Viger appeared on behalf of the applicant, having been given authorization by the applicant. It was noted that future ownership of this house by Mr. Viger was not based upon the approval of the variances currently before the Zoning Board. Photographs of the existing home and area were submitted to the Board, and made part of the record. Mr. Viger noted that there is an existing two car garage on the right side of the house. This garage is small and two cars cannot fit in the garage. Although the garage has two doors, if you pull two cars in you cannot open the car doors because it is too tight. In order to make this garage useable, an additional 5' must be added. In addition, the applicant proposes the addition of a family room behind the existing garage, and two bedrooms on the second level. The second portion of this application deals with the sprinkler system. The addition constitutes 54% of the existing home. Any additional work done on the existing home, i.e.: changing a header or a window, will add to the amount of renovated space considered for this application. Mr. Pellino questioned whether or not the applicant would be altering any of the rooms in the existing house. The response was that one small bedroom would be converted into the master bathroom. It was noted that the entrance to the house was originally in the front. However, in the early 1960's an open porch was closed in and the entry Zoning Board of Appeals August 5,2003 Page 4 of 9 was relocated to the side of the house. It is very awkward, and the applicant intends to relocate the front door to the front of the house. Therefore, what is currently used as the entry door will be changed into a window; and what is currently a window will be changed into the front door. The applicant noted that he has reviewed other possibilities that would not require a variance. This is a large piece of property and there are other configurations that were considered. However, in keeping with the character of the neighborhood, preserving the character of the home, and saving trees on the property, the proposal before the Board was considered the best possible option. Ms. Dorothy Roer noted that this home is currently non-conforming. She expressed her opinion that it would be better to not increase the non- conformity and change the current plans. Mr. Joel Hecker asked if there was a way to reduce the addition to the garage to minimize the request for the variance. A discussion regarding access to the home from the garage ensued. Mr. Viger noted that garage needs to be big enough to get the job done and the additional 5' would make it functional. Mr. Izzo, Building Inspector, submitted a letter addressed to Mr. Charistopher Bradbury, Village Administration, by Ms. Patricia Rinello of 46 Woodland Avenue in opposition to the application. The letter was made part of the record. Ms. Rinello felt that the minimum side yard variances should be kept in order to maintain the integrity of the neighborhood. Mr. Harmon called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in support or opposition to the application. The resident of 42 Woodland Avenue addressed the Board. She noted that she has reviewed the plans and was in support of the application. She also noted the topography. It was pointed out that the applicant's home is located at the top of a hill. Mr. Viger noted that the property is landscaped with approximately seven to eight White Pines, as well as with mature shrubs. The Board questioned how the proposed construction would impact the mature growth in place. Mr. Viger responded that, in order to facilitate egress/egress to the driveway, one White Pine must be removed. The remaining trees and shrubs will remain. There being no further comments, the public portion of the meeting was closed and the Board went into deliberation. Zoning Board of Appeals August 5,2003 Page 5 of 9 Upon their return, Mr. Harmon read the following resolution: Zoning Board of Appeals August 5,2003 Page 6 of 9 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Ms. Jocelyn Karp Waite for relief from a fire sprinkler system ordinance, relief of the existing, non-conforming side yard setback, and request for a total side yard variance of 10.17 feet in connection with the proposed construction of a two-story addition which will further encroach on an existing non-conforming side yard setback and alter, in excess of 50%, their existing building floor area, on property located at 40 Woodland Drive in an R-20 District, on the south side of Woodland Drive, approximately 1153 feet from the intersection of Beechwood Boulevard and Woodland Drive. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section 1, Block 6, Lot 22A. WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on August 5, 2003, 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 new construction is more than 50% of the existing building floor area and, thus, squarely falls within the Code and applicant has not offered evidence of hardship or other basis for the issuance of a variance respecting the sprinkler system requirements; 2) The requested side yard variance is substantial and would not be in keeping with the distinct character of the neighborhood, other alternatives being available to applicant, and applicant has failed to demonstrate an undue hardship or other factors to weigh the balance of equity in his favor. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the said application is hereby denied. DATED: August 5, 2003 Mark Harmon, Chairperson ROLL: Mark Harmon, Chairman Voting Aye Joan Feinstein Absent Joel Hecker Voting Aye Joseph Pellino Voting Aye Dorothy Roer Voting Aye Mr. Harmon called for item 93 on the agenda: Zoning Board of Appeals August 5,2003 Page 7 of 9 3. 403-320 Mr. Angelo Tramiontelli 18 Lawridge Drive Construct a new front covered porch and widen driveway Mr. Sal addressed the Board as the representative for the applicant. He introduced the applicant, Mr. Tramiontelli, who was also in attendance. This application is for a variance to construct a new front covered porch and to widen the driveway. In order to accomplish this, the applicant requires a 1.1' variance. The applicant presented the Board with photographs of the home for their review. The new structure will not protrude further out than the existing structure. The applicant was looking to minimize the variance, but at the same time have a porch that was useable. Mr. Harmon called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in support or opposition to the application. There being no one, Mr. Harmon turned to the Board for their comments/questions. There being no further comments, the public portion of the meeting was closed, and the Board went into deliberation. Upon their return, Mr. Harmon read the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Mr. Angelo Tramiontelli requesting a maximum main building 1.1% variance, in connection with the proposed construction of a new front covered porch, and widening of driveway, on property located at 18 Lawridge Drive in an R-15 District on the southeast side of Lawridge Drive, approximately 600 feet from the intersection of Sleepy Hollow Road and Lawridge Drive. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Section 1, Block 5, Lot U.3. WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on August 5, 2003, 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) It is a reasonable use of the property; 2) The addition does not substantially increase the existing footprint or extend existing setbacks; and 3) There is no opposition from the neighborhood concerned. Zoning Board of Appeals August 5,2003 Page 8 of 9 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the said application is hereby granted on the following conditions: 1. Construction shall begin within one year of the granting of the variance. DATED: August 5, 2003 Mark Harmon, Chairperson ROLL: Mark Harmon, Chairman Voting Aye Joan Feinstein Absent Joel Hecker Voting Aye Joseph Pellino Voting Aye Dorothy Roer Voting Aye 4. Approval of July 1, 2003 Zoning Board Summary The summary was approved as submitted. ROLL: Mark Harmon, Chairman Voting Aye Joan Feinstein Absent Joel Hecker Voting Aye Joseph Pellino Voting Aye Dorothy Roer Voting Aye There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:20. Zoning Board of Appeals August 5,2003 Page 9 of 9