Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-01-05 - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK APPROVED 938 King Street Zoning Board of Appeals DATE Tuesday, January 5, 2016 Meeting at 8:00 p.m. ECENED R I Agenda FEB - 3 201$ L # 15-015 (adjourned from 12/1/2015) VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK Ms. Robin Kamin BUILDING DEPARTMENT 39 Hillandale Road Legalize 8'-0"black chain link sports court fence. 2. # 15-019 Michele Mendicino-Daly 81 Hillcrest Avenue Legalize two family dwelling. 3. Approval of December 1, 2015 Zoning Board Summary BOARD: Steven Berger Andrew Kaminsky Joel Simon Jeffrey Richman Donald Moscato, Chairman STAFF: Michael Izzo, Building Inspector Jennifer Gray, Esq., Village Counsel Fred Seifert, Public Access Coordinator/IT BOARD LIAISON: Trustee David Heiser Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting January 5,2016 Page I Mr. Donald Moscato, Chairman, welcomed everyone to the Zoning Board meeting of January 5, 2016. 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 two applications on the agenda and a full complement of the Board. Chairman Moscato congratulated Jeffrey Richman on his move from the Zoning Board of Appeals to the Planning Board. This change will take place next month. Chairman Moscato noted that the last meeting ran long. Documentation has been received from both sides for the first application on the agenda. The goal is to utilize the Board's time more efficiently at this meeting. The first item was called before the Board. 1. # 15-015 (adjourned from 12111201 S) Ms. Robin Kamin 39 Hillandale Road Legalize 8'-0" black chain link sports court fence. Mr. Kamin addressed the Board. He read a quick statement into the record. Mr. Kamin stated that over the past five weeks the applicants and neighbors attempted to reach a positive outcome. Unfortunately, no compromise was reached. The applicants have acted in good faith and attempted to work through the issues with their neighbors. Chairman Moscato called for members of the public wishing to speak in favor of the application. There being no one, he called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in opposition to the application. Mr. Alan Goldberg of 34 Meadowlark Road addressed the Board. it was noted that they attended the December Zoning Board meeting. Mr. Goldberg again extended an invitation to the Board members for a site visit. The parties did try to work out a solution that was amenable to both, but it did not work out. Certified arborists were hired by the Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting January S,2016 Page 2 Goldbergs and they were asked to come up with the minimal amount of tree planting and heights to screen the fence. The applicants' current plan was not received until yesterday. The plan comes close, but the neighbors feel the trees that will be planted are lower in height then those being recommended. Mr. Goldberg stated the solution is simple, the number of trees recommended by the arborists, along with the heights recommended, should be planted. Andrew Kaminsky noted that there should be a compromise on both the applicants' part, and the part of the neighbors. The neighbors are requesting that the applicants screen the fence. They could have requested that the entire court be screened. The arborists have called for a zigzag pattern to the planting of the trees. This will allow for growth of the trees. The neighbors, who did not see the fence prior to the work done by the applicants, are requesting that it be screened now. If the applicants want to keep the 8' high fence, then they must mitigate. Chairman Moscato noted the recommendations from the arborists have been received. The Board will make the decision by reviewing the information presented. Mr. Kamin noted that whatever the Board tells him to do, he will do. He did not have a problem with the pattern of planting for the trees. Mr. Izzo, Building Inspector, stated one of the arborists noted that in order for the trees to survive they must be planted 8' apart. Also recommended was that a portion of the fence be removed to achieve a zig zag pattern for the tree planting. Mr. Moscato stated there also needs to be some comfort level with the maintenance of the trees. Dean Santon, Manhattan, addressed the Board on behalf of the Goldbergs. He reviewed the criteria for approving a variance. Using the merits of the application he finds the Board would be hard pressed to do anything but deny the application. There is only one sports court fence over 6' in the Village of Rye Brook that was approved. The Goldberg's see the entire court and the entire fence. Mr. Moscato noted that he made two site visits. Mr. Kaminsky noted he made a visit previously. Mr. Richman also visited the site. Mr. Santon stated the trees that were planted were substandard, one has died, one is under 6', and they are infested. Mr. Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting January 5,2016 Page 3 Santon stated that all the other sides of the property have received trees that are higher than 4 . The trees must be given enough room to flourish and grow. Mr. Santon suggested an adjournment of the application to allow for additional time for the applicants to present a better screening plan. There being no further discussion or questions, Chairman Moscato called for a motion and second to close the public hearing. Upon a motion by Joel Simon, seconded by Steven Berger, the public hearing was closed. The Board went into deliberation. Each of the five statutory factors for considering a variance was called upon for discussion and the consensus of the Board was reached for each item. Regarding physical or environmental impact to neighborhood, Mr. Moscato does not see this as an issue. He stated the railing of the fence is slightly visible from Hillandale Road, but no part of the fence is visible from Meadowlark. He noted that there was a significant change to the character and quality of life for two residents, but a property owner has right to trim trees on his property and clear brush. Mr. Moscato distinguished between impacts to one or two neighbors versus impacts to an entire neighborhood. Mr. Moscato stated there is no question that a 33% variance is substantial and the need for the variance was self-created once the old fence was removed. But these factors are not determinative in and of themselves. Mr. Moscato noted that the Applicant has the option of bringing the fence down to 6' to comply with the Code, but there will be no mitigation. Alternatively, if the variance is granted to allow the fence to be 8' in height the Board can require mitigation. Mr. Moscato does not see a pressing need for immediate gratification regarding mitigation of visual impacts. When someone takes down a tree on their property and the Village requires the planting of a replacement tree the replacement tree is always smaller than the one taken down. Requiring a larger tree to be planted now,just so visual impacts are mitigated tomorrow, seems unreasonable. The Board discussed various species of trees that could be planted, including Arborvitae and Norway Spruce. Mr. Kamin stated he has no preference for either species. Craig Studer of Studer Design Associates, Inc., representative for the applicants, addressed the Board. Green Giant Arborvitae is not susceptible to deer damage, but initially will not spread to achieve instant screening. He felt that the size and number of Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting January 5,2016 Page 4 trees that the applicants have provided was sufficient. The trees will grow and will arrive at the intended screening. Mr. Kamin stated that he was happy to plant whatever is asked, or directed to plant. Mr. Goldberg stated his preference for Norway Spruce. Mr. Moscato polled the Board as to whether they should require the 4' pool fence to be relocated. Mr. Simon saw no reason to require it to be relocated. Mr. Berger noted that fence was for a different purpose unrelated to this application. Mr. Simon stated planting should be performed in the space currently available. Mr. Richman and Mr. Kaminsky agreed. Village Attorney Jennifer Gray prepared and read the conditions to be placed in the resolution. The applicants were asked whether they have any comments regarding the conditions. Mr. Kamin reviewed each condition and agreed to them. He noted this is his property and his intention was to make it look nice, and maintain it. Specifically discussed where the eleven trees were meant to be planted. After fully vetting the conditions to be placed on the approval resolution, Mr. Moscato read the following resolution: Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting January 5,2016 Page 5 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, an application has been made to the Rye Brook Zoning Board of Appeals by Robin Kamin (the "Applicant") for an 2'-0" rear yard fence height variance where the maximum allowable height of a fence in a rear yard is 6"-0" pursuant to Village Code §250-63(1)(g)(3)(a), in connection with the legalization of 8'-0" black chain-link sports court fence on property located at 39 Hillandale Road, in an R-25 zoning district on the west side of Hillandale Road, approximately 700 feet from the intersection of Beechwood Circle and Hillandale Road, said premises being further identified as Parcel ID# 135.28-1-38 on the Town of Rye Tax Map; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing on the application was opened on December 1, 2015, at which time all those wishing to be heard on the application were given such opportunity; and WHEREAS, the Board closed the public hearing on January 5, 2016; and WHEREAS, the proposed action is a Type II Action pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act, and accordingly, no further environmental review is required; and WHEREAS, the Board, from the application, after viewing the premises and neighborhood concerned, and upon considering each of the factors set forth at Section 250-13(G)(2)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brook Code, finds with respect to the variance: Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting January 5,2016 Page 6 1) The variance will not create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood; 2) The benefit the applicant seeks cannot be achieved through another method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, that does not require the variance; 3) The variance is substantial; 4) The variance will not create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and 5) The need for the variance is self-created. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that said application is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: 1. No permit or certificate of occupancy shall be issued until the Applicant has paid in full all application and consultant fees incurred by the Village in connection with the review of this application. 2. The applicant, her successors or assigns shall submit a plan for review and approval of the Village Arborist to plant eleven 8 ft. Norway Spruce trees, or as many as deemed necessary by the Village Arborist to achieve the maximum visual screening of the sports court fence as reasonably practicable, between the rear fence of the sports court and the pool fence for a length of 50 linear feet for the purpose of mitigating views of the sports court from adjacent properties. The plan shall provide the greatest screening possible, whether in a zig zag pattern or in a single row of trees, depending upon species of the tree and necessary spacing for survivability. Such trees shall replace any of the six 6-foot Norway Spruce trees planted pursuant to plans prepared by Studer Design Associates, Inc., approved by the Rye Brook Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting January 5,2016 Page 7 Planning Board's September 11, 2014 Site Plan Amendment Resolution, which have since died or are dying. The Village Arborist, in his sole discretion, may approve field changes based on growing conditions, appropriate spacing for the survivability of the trees to be planted, and other field conditions, while maintaining the visual screening intended by this condition to the maximum extent practicable. 3. Fabric, privacy slats or other non-vegetative material shall not be installed on the chain link fence surrounding the sports court, nor shall the chain link fence be replaced with opaque fencing of any kind. 4. All plantings required by this approval shall be maintained in a vigorous growing condition. 5. Failure to maintain compliance with these conditions for so long as the 8-foot fence surrounding the sports court remains, shall void the variance granted herein. b. Trees must be planted within six months of the date of this Resolution, unless otherwise extended by the Zoning Board of Appeals upon written request by the Applicant. Chairman Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Aye Andrew Kaminsky Aye Don Moscato Aye Jeffrey Richman Aye Joel Simon Aye The variance was granted on a vote of 5 ayes to zero nays. Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting January 5,2016 Page 8 A five minute recess was called. Upon the Board's return, Mr. Moscato called for the next item on the agenda: 2. # 15-019 Michele Mendicino-Daly 81 Hillcrest Avenue Legalize two family dwelling. Michele Mendicino-Daly, the applicant, addressed the Board. She reviewed the application and reasons why she was before the Board. She noted that she was considering a sale of the property and learned that there was no record of a Certificate of Occupancy. Mr. Michael Boender, architect, was also in attendance and made a presentation to the Board. Chairman Moscato noted the Board received letters regarding this application, and they would be introduced at the appropriate time. He noted there were two matters to be addressed. One was the parking issue and the other was the service access for the second floor. He asked that the service matter be addressed first. Mr. Boender noted there is a requirement that a dwelling converted to a two family home must have a service access to the rear yard. Safety issues, such as a ladder to the second floor, have been met. The home, constructed in the 1960's, was in compliance at the time of construction. Changes to the Zoning Code have created an existing non-conformity regarding parking. Mr. Izzo, Building Inspector, noted that a two family home requires five off-street parking spaces. The driveway is short and cannot provide legal parking outside 25 feet from the front lot line. The distance remaining in the driveway when the first 25 feet from the front lot line is excluded is 16 feet. The Building Inspector noted a legal parking space is a 9' x 20'. Since the applicant does not have room for any legal parking spaces in the driveway, a variance of five off-street parking spaces is requested. This home has been used as a two family house since the 1960's. In October of 1930 this was a one family home based upon the Village's 1930 Existing Conditions Map. It may have been being used as a two Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting January 5,2016 Page 9 family house for a long time, but there is no information indicating a change. The Tax Assessor's office assesses the home as a two family house. Chairman Moscato noted the existing windows are going to be replaced. He asked if a different type of ladder could be installed that may be easier to navigate. It was noted there are windows directly beneath the subject second story window which meant that the ladder could not be installed as suggested. Mr. Izzo noted there is a service access from the first floor to the basement, but there is no access from the second floor. The variances granted run in perpetuity with the home. The overriding issue is safety. The construction of a fire escape would also need a variance. Mr. Kaminsky noted that the application meets the New York State Code and is consistent with other similar applications granted by the Board in the past. While other means of access might be possible, he noted that they are not feasible for the applicant. Chairman Moscato called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in opposition or support to the application. There being no one, the public hearing was closed. He reviewed letters of support submitted by the residents of 63, 75 and 83 Hillcrest, which were made part of the record. Mr. Moscato reviewed the five statutory factors with the Board to determine whether the variance should be granted. Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting January 5,2016 Page 10 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, an application has been made to the Rye Brook Zoning Board of Appeals by Michele Mendicino-Daly (the "Applicant") for (1) a variance from the requirement for service access from the rear yard for each apartment pursuant to Village Code §250-25.M(2)(c) where the second floor apartment does not propose such service access, and (2) a variance for 5 off-street parking spaces where 5 off-street parking spaces are required pursuant to Village Code §250-25.M(2)(d), in connection with the legalization of a two-family conversion on property located at 81 Hillcrest Avenue, in an R2-F zoning district on the east side of Hillcrest Avenue, approximately 250 feet from the intersection of Irenhyl Avenue and Hillcrest Avenue, said premises being further identified as Parcel ID# 135.76-1-40 on the Town of Rye Tax Map; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing on the application was opened on January 5, 2016, at which time all those wishing to be heard on the application were given such opportunity; and WHEREAS, the Board closed the public hearing on January 5, 2016; and WHEREAS, the proposed action is a Type II Action pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act, and accordingly, no further environmental review is required; and WHEREAS, the Board, from the application, after viewing the premises and neighborhood concerned, and upon considering each of the factors set forth at Section 250-13(G)(2)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brook Code, finds with respect to the variances: Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting January 5,2016 Page 11 1) The variances will not create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood; 2) The benefit the applicant seeks cannot be achieved through another method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, that does not require the variances; 3) The variances are substantial; 4) The variances will not create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and 5) The need for the variances is not self-created. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that said application is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: 1. No permit or certificate of occupancy shall be issued until the Applicant has paid in full all application and consultant fees incurred by the Village in connection with the review of this application. 2. If the house is ever torn down, the variances shall be null and void. 3. The applicant shall maintain the second floor egress window and ladder as shown on the submitted plans prepared by Edgewater Group Architects. Chairman Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Aye Andrew Kaminsky Aye Don Moscato Nay Jeffrey Richman Aye Joel Simon Aye The variance was granted on a vote of 4 ayes to 1 nay. Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting January 5,2016 Page 12 Mr. Moscato questioned whether the Board of Trustees should review the Village Code with respect to the requirements for two family conversions as it seems variances are frequently sought from these provisions. The Building Inspector noted that the Village Code was adopted by the Town of Rye in 1954 and it may be useful to revisit these provisions. The Zoning Board members felt that the Village Board should review the Code regarding two family home conversions. 3. Approval of December 1, 2015 Zoning Board Summary Chairman Moscato asked for comments and questions regarding the December 1, 2015 summary. There being none, the summary was approved as submitted. There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned. Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting January 5,2016 Page 13