Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-03-01 - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes APPROVED VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK 938 King Street DAT 0 , Zoning Board of Appeals Tuesday, March 1, 2016 Meeting at 8:00 p.m. FIF IE � �n�Agenda - 6 2016 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK 1. #15-020 John Annunziata BUILDING DEPARTMENT 5 Argyle Road Construct side addition; rear patio; relocate driveway and extend front portico. 2. # 16-001 Bruce DePaola & Felicia DePaola 128 Country Ridge Drive Construct one story side addition. 3. # 16-003 Philip Saline & Patricia Saline 564 Westchester Avenue Legalize existing two car garage. 4. Approval of February 2, 2016 Zoning Board Summary BOARD: Steven Berger Andrew Kaminsky Joel Simon James S. Schutzer Donald Moscato, Chairman STAFF: Michael Izzo, Building & Fire Inspector Courtney McGowan, Esq., Village Counsel Fred Seifert, Public Access Coordinator/IT BOARD LIAISON: Trustee David Heiser Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting March 1, 2016 Page 1 Mr. Donald Moscato, Chairman, welcomed everyone to the Zoning Board meeting of March 1, 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 three applications on the agenda and a full complement of the Board. He called for the first item on the agenda: 1. #15-020 John Annunziata 5 Argyle Road Construct side addition; rear patio; relocate driveway and extend front portico. Mr. Annunziata noted that the architect, Mr. Mustacato, was running late. He asked to be moved to the end of the agenda. The next item on the agenda was called: 2. # 16-001 Bruce DePaola & Felicia DePaola 128 Country Ridge Drive Construct one story side addition. Chairman Moscato noted that the second on the agenda also required a temporary adjournment as Mr. Mustacato was also the architect for the Applicants. Chairman Moscato called for item #3 on the agenda: 3. # 16-003 Philip Saline & Patricia Saline 564 Westchester Avenue Legalize existing two car garage. Oscar Oballe addressed the Board. He stated that the Applicants were before the Board for the legalization of an existing two car garage. He presented plans to the Board and noted that the garage was constructed in 1953. It was also noted that the minimum Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting March 1, 2016 Page 2 required setback for an accessory building is 5 feet. The Applicants propose to legalize the existing accessory building by requesting a 4.9 foot side yard setback variance and a 2.5 foot side yard setback variance. Michael Izzo, Building & Fire Inspector, gave the Board a brief overview of the application. He stated that the detached garage was permitted in September of 1953, and there was no setback requirement at that time because the Zoning Code was not adopted until 1954 in the Town of Rye. Thus the detached garage pre-dates the zoning code by about a year. The 1930 Town of Rye Code compelled the Building Inspector to issue a Certificate of Occupancy for all structures created after 1930, but no C.O. was issued for this garage. Therefore, it is not considered a legal existing non-conforming structure and it must be legalized now. The two options for the Applicants are to relocate the garage or seek a variance. According to the applicants, relocating the garage is a financial hardship. The design professional for the home owner brought this matter to the attention of the Village. No violations have been issued for this property. Chairman Moscato called for members of the public wishing to speak in favor or opposition to the application. There being no one, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed and the Board went into deliberation. The Board reviewed the five factors, discussing the side yard and rear yard setback reviews separately. The Board treated the application as two separate requests. The first variance for the side yard setback is a substantial variance. There are no environmental or character issues at this time. The variance issues are not self-created because the zoning law came after the detached garage. The original owner built the detached garage therefore the Applicant did not create the hardship. Upon the Board's return, Chairman Moscato read the following resolution: Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting March 1, 2016 Page 3 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, an application has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Philip Saline and Patricia Saline (the "Applicant") for (1) a 2.5 foot side yard setback variance where the minimum allowable setback in the side yard is 5 feet for an accessory building pursuant to Village Code §250-6(B)(1)(h), and (2) a 4.9 foot rear yard setback variance where the minimum allowable setback in the rear yard is 5 feet for an accessory building pursuant to Village Code §250-6(B)(1)(h) in connection with legalizing existing accessory building on the property located at 564 Westchester Avenue in an R2-F zoning district, approximately 40 feet from the intersection of Division Street and Westchester Avenue, said premises being further identified as Parcel ID# 135.83-1-53 on the Town of Rye Tax Map; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on March 1, 2016, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and WHEREAS, the Board closed the public hearing on March 1, 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 §250- 13(G)(2)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brook Code, finds with respect to the side yard setback variance: I. 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 a 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 NOT self-created; and Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting March 1, 2016 Page 4 WHEREAS, the Board, from the application, after viewing the premises and neighborhood concerned, and upon considering each of the factors set forth at §250- 13(G)(2)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brook Code, finds with respect to the rear yard setback variance: 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 a 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 NOT self-created; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, said application is hereby tentatively granted subject to the following conditions. There are no conditions on this one. The roll was called for the Application for both variances. Steven Berger Voting Aye Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye James S. Schutzer Voting Aye Joel Simon Voting Aye Don Moscato, Chairman Voting Aye The resolution was adopted by a vote of 5 Ayes and Zero 0 Nays 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 to review of this application. Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting March 1, 2016 Page 5 Chairman Moscato returned to order of the agenda: 1. #15-020 Jahn Annunziata 5 Argyle Road Construct side addition; rear patio; relocate driveway & extend front portico. Mr. Mustacato, of Richau, Mustacato, Grippi Associates of Rye, addressed the Board. He noted that the Applicant was requesting a front yard setback variance of 26.5 feet, a rear yard setback variance of 10.2 feet, and a variance to increase the maximum allowable building coverage to 21.5%. The house is an existing non-conforming structure. This is a corner lot so it has two front yards. The front entrance is being extended, and the Applicants plan to build a garage addition. The front door faces Argyle Road so the side yard is treated as a rear yard. The yard of the property that abuts this property is a side yard for a home on Ridge Street. This addition will allow the Applicant to create a third bedroom. The existing kitchen will be converted into a bedroom, and a family room will be created, build a new kitchen, and create a two car garage. The plan before the Board is within the Applicants' budget. Architecturally, a one-story addition does not change the character of the neighborhood; many of the neighboring houses are capes or ranches or are low to the ground. The variances requested are the minimum variances needed to construct an addition that would meet the Applicants' needs. Chairman Moscato questioned what was happening with the curb cut of the driveway. The response was that the curb cut is being moved. Chairman Moscato also pointed out a change to the front entrance. Currently there is no roof over the front entrance and the Applicants' plan on adding one. There is a bow window in the front of the home, therefore extending the front portico allows for a clear passage past the window. Mr. Kaminsky questioned if the addition in the rear could be reduced because it is only ten feet from the neighbor's fence and property line. Mr. Mustacato responded that they could not accomplish the type of kitchen and the flow that they wanted to achieve if they reduce the rear addition when coming in from the garage. Because the garage is down a level from the first floor, there must be room for a staircase. If not, someone coming from the staircase would be entering right into the working area of the kitchen. Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting March 1, 2016 Page 6 Chairman Moscato called for questions or comments from the Board, or members of the public wishing to speak in favor or opposition to the application. A neighbor addressed the Board. He noted that he received a letter that this matter was before the Zoning Board. Phil Cambriello, of 153 North Ridge Street, noted that his rear yard floods when it rains. He asked what the Applicants would be doing, if anything, to help lessen the storm water runoff and flooding in the area. Chairman Moscato asked what the sources of the water accumulation were. Phil stated that when it rains water runs down the Applicants' driveway onto his property. Water also comes from the sump pumps on the Applicant's property. Mr. Izzo stated that there is a storm water management plan in place volunteered by the Applicant. The front of the house is on Argyle Road. The architect for the Applicant indicated because of the square footage being added, a storm water management plan was required. That deals with the entire area, including the roof area and the driveway area. The sump pump will be pumped into the dry well so it should not flow into the neighbor's property. The pop up overflow will be located in the middle in the yard. Mr. Izzo also noted that there is grading being done in the yard. The pop up overflow should be at least 10 feet away from the structure and at least 10 feet away from the property line, but will actually much further than that. Mr. Izzo mentioned the DPW has indicated there is a problem with icing in that area. There is a house on Rock Ridge Drive that is pumping and is causing icing. The Applicant will not be allowed to exacerbate that problem. Mr. Michal Nowak, Superintendent of Public Works, will review the application prior to approving it and the Applicant indicated he has already done so. There were questions from the Board about the height of the fence, and the height and type of structure of the neighbor's house. There being no additional comments, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed and the Board went into deliberation. It was noted that the Board was concerned about storm water management and environmental impact. It was noted that the Zoning Board of Appeals' approval can hinge on the approval of the storm water management plan and review of the effects on the environment. The Board reviewed the three variances separately, the front yard setback, the rear yard setback, and the total building coverage. Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting March 1, 2016 Page 7 The Board's statement and assessment of the environmental impact is contingent on the approval by Michael Nowak. The Board has considered this fact and will proceed. Chairman Moscato read the following resolution: Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting March 1, 2016 Page 8 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, an application has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by John Annunziata (the "Applicant") for (1) a 3.5 foot front yard setback variance where the minimum allowable setback in the front yard is 30 feet pursuant to Village Code §250-22(G)(1), (2) a 19.8 foot rear yard setback where the existing non-conforming rear yard setback is 15 feet and the minimum allowable setback for a rear yard is 30 feet pursuant to Village Code §250-22(G)(3); and (3) a 1.5% coverage variance where the maximum allowable main building coverage is 20% under §250-37(B) in connection with the proposed one-story addition on the property located at 5 Argyle Road, in an R- 10 zoning district and Scenic Overlay District, situated the north side of Argyle Road at the intersection of North Ridge Street and Argyle Road, said premises being further identified as Parcel ID # 135.51-1-50 on the Town of Rye Tax Map; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing on the application was open on March 1, 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 March 1, 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 §250- 13(G)(2)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brook Code, finds with respect to the front yard setback variance: 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 a 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; and Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting March 1, 2016 Page 9 WHEREAS, the Board, from the application, after viewing the premises and neighborhood concerned, and upon considering each of the factors set forth at §250- 13(G)(2)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brook Code, finds with respect to the rear yard setback variance: 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 a 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; and WHEREAS, the Board, from the application, after viewing the premises and neighborhood concerned, and upon considering each of the factors set forth at §250- 13(G)(2)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brook Code, finds with respect to main building coverage variance. 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 a variance; 3. The variance IS NOT 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; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the said application is hereby tentatively granted, subject to the following condition: • 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. Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting March 1, 2016 Page 10 The roll was called: Steven Berger Voting Aye Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye James S. Schutzer Voting Aye Joel Simon Voting Aye Don Moscato, Chairman Voting Aye The resolution was adopted by a vote of 5 Ayes and Zero 0 Nays Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting March 1, 2016 Page 11 2. # 16-001 Bruce DePaola & Felicia DePaola 128 Country Ridge Drive Construct one story side addition. Mr. Mustacato, architect, addressed the Board. He noted that the Applicants were before the Board requesting two variances in order to construct a one-story side addition. The property is a corner property which fronts Country Ridge Drive. As a corner property, it has two front yards. The Applicants require two variances; for a front yard setback and an increase in gross floor area, in order to proceed with their plans to construct a one- story addition. This is an existing one-story study on the right side of the house built sometime in the 1960's and was poorly built. The problem is that the room is very narrow and they have tried to come up with a solution to the seasonal temperature issues. The Applicants have decided to increase the width of the room to make it a useable room so that there is a place for seating and a television. A bay window will be added in the front of the room and they plan to veneer the side to match the existing house. Right now it has vinyl siding, so this will improve the overall look of the house. The roof pitch will be increased and the insulation will be increased. The construction will be well screened from the property on Rockinghorse Trail. The addition will improve the appearance of the building and the impact will be minimal because it is only a one-story addition. There was already a variance granted on the house for a two-car garage addition and a master bedroom addition. Chairman Moscato noted that a previous variance was granted on this property. By granting the previous variance, the "bar" was moved higher because the maximum allowable floor area refers to the variance that was granted. The new variance request is based on the previously granted variance not on the original allowance of gross floor area. By looking at the plans, it is clear, and was clear then, that the room is small and unusable and someone looking at this could easily ask for a higher gross floor area variance when the first variance was requested. The Board commented that because twelve years has passed since the prior variance request, there is no concern that the Applicant is seeking to incrementally ask for additional gross floor area. The district is R- 15, and therefore if the lot were not a corner lot, the variance would not be an issue. Mr. Moscato called for questions or comments from the Board. He then called for members of the public wishing to speak in favor or opposition to the application. There being no one, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed and the Board went into deliberation. Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting March 1, 2016 Page 12 Chairman Moscato asked the Board if the variance is substantial and if it is self-created. The Board agreed it is substantial and it is self-created. Upon first read of the application, the variance appears large, but the Board is not against improvement of property so that it is usable for a growing family. The Board has all seen the property in person and on a google map. Upon the Board's return, Chairman Moscato read the following resolution: Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting March 1, 2016 Page 13 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, an application has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Bruce DePaoIa and Felicia DePaola (the "Applicant") for (1) a 7 foot front yard setback variance where the minimum allowable setback in the front yard is 40 feet pursuant to Village Code §250-20(G)(1), (2) a 196 square foot gross floor area variance where the maximum gross floor area of a main building is 3,413 square feet pursuant to Village Code §250-20(E) and the existing legal non-conforming gross floor area is 3,860 square feet, in connection with a proposed one-story reconstruction and addition on property located at 128 Country Ridge Drive, in an R-15 zoning district on the east side of Country Ridge Drive, at the intersection of Rockinghorse Trail and Country Ridge Drive, said premises being further identified as Parcel ID # 129.66-1-14 on the Town of Rye Tax Map; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing on the application was open on March 1, 2016, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and WHEREAS, the Board closed the public hearing on March 1, 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 §250- 13(G)(2)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brook Code, finds with respect to the front yard setback variance: 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 a 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; and Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting March 1, 2016 Page 14 WHEREAS, the Board, from the application, after viewing the premises and neighborhood concerned, and upon considering each of the factors set forth at §250- 13(G)(2)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brook Code, finds with respect to the gross floor area variance: 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 a 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; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the said application is hereby tentatively granted subject to the following condition: • 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. Also make sure the building starts within the allowable window. The roll was called: Steven Berger Voting Aye Andrew Kaminsky Voting Aye James S. Schutzer Voting Aye Joel Simon Voting Aye Don Moscato, Chairman Voting Aye The resolution was adopted by a vote of 5 Ayes and Zero 0 Nays Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting March 1, 2016 Page 15 4. Approval of February 2, 2016 Zoning Board Summary Minutes. The February minutes were approved as amended. There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 8:53 p.m. Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting March 1, 2016 Page 16