HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-04-05 - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes APPROVED
VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK DATE �� ^0
938 King Street
Zoning Board of Appeals
Tuesday, April 5, 2016
Meeting at 8:00 p.m. D IECIEMED
MAY 10 2016
AGENDA VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
1. # 16-005 Daniel Berger & Elyse Echtman
69 Rock Ridge Drive
Construct one story addition & interior alterations.
2. # 16-006 The Deutsch Family Trust
c/o Hugh Stephenson
8 Whippoorwill Road
Construct front porch addition.
3. Approval of March 1, 2016 Zoning Board Summary
BOARD: Steven Berger
Joel Simon
Jamie Schutzer
Donald Moscato, Chairman
Excused Andrew Kaminsky
STAFF: Michael Izzo, Building & Fire Inspector
Courtney McGowan, Esq., Village Counsel
Fred Seifert, Public Access Coordinator/IT
Paula Patafio, Meeting Secretary
BOARD LIASON: Trustee Susan Epstein
Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting
April 5, 2016
Page 1
Mr. Donald Moscato, Chairman, welcomed everyone to the Zoning Board meeting of
Tuesday, April 5, 2016. He noted that although there was a quorum, with Mr. Andrew
Kaminsky being excused it meant that the applicants required all four affirmative votes in
order for their variances to be granted. He offered both applicants the opportunity to
adjourn their application to the May meeting when there would possibly be a full
complement of the Board. Both applicants chose to move forward.
Chairman Moscato 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 their application. He noted that Trustee Susan Epstein was in
attendance as Iiaison from the Board of Trustees as Trustee David Heiser was
recuperating from knee surgery.
Prior to moving to the agenda, Chairman Moscato stated that the Board of Trustees had
requested that they be lead agency for the property on 259 North Ridge Street.
Mr. Michael Izzo, Building and Fire Inspector, noted that the property fronts on Ridge
Street and backs on Eagles Bluff Development. Currently there is a single family house
on the lot. The proposed development is for two market rate homes and two affordable
housing units. Chairman Moscato noted the Board of Trustees as Lead Agency would be
able to modify the Zoning Laws. However Mr. Izzo stated the two market rate homes will
fall under the jurisdiction of the Zoning Board if there are any inconsistencies with the
Zoning Code.
Chairman Moscato called for a vote:
Steven Berger voting aye
Joel Simon voting aye
Jamie Schutzer voting aye
Donald Moscato, Chairman voting aye
The request passed on a vote of four ayes to zero nays.
Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting
April 5, 2016
Page 2
Chairman Moscato stated that the Board of Trustees also submitted a Notification of
Intent to be named Lead Agency for the site plan application submitted by Rye Ridge
Park, LLC on behalf of K&M Realty to amend the development plan for the Bowman
Avenue Development located on the south side of Bowman Avenue, west of the Rye
Ridge Plaza Shopping Center to modify the design of the municipal park and add parking
spots for the use of Rye Ridge Plaza. That is where the dog park will be located on that
property.
Chairman Moscato called for a vote:
Steven Berger voting aye
Joel Simon voting aye
Jamie Schutzer voting aye
Donald Moscato, Chairman voting aye
The request passed on a vote of four ayes to zero nays.
Chairman Moscato returned to the agenda, and called for the first item:
1, 416-005 Daniel Berger & Elyse Echtman
69 Rock Ridge Drive
Construct one story addition & interior alterations.
Mr. Steven Berger, Zoning Board member, stated that although the applicant had the
same last name, there was no relation or affiliation between the applicant and Mr. Berger.
John Scarlato Jr., architect for the applicants, addressed the Board. He began by noting
that this was a small addition, 8112 feet by 21 feet to make the kitchen more functional.
The applicant is looking to construct a one-story addition, to expand the kitchen and
create an eating area, with some interior alterations. The existing house is already 486
square feet over the allowable gross floor area and they are proposing to add 178.5 square
feet to the rear of the house by adding a small, one-story addition with a shed roof. Mr.
Scarlato noted the house does not have a basement and the addition will not be seen
because it is in the back of the house and the back yard is fenced in. This addition will
increase the existing non-conforming gross floor area of 3,502 square feet to 3,680.5
square feet. A gross floor area variance of 178.5 square feet is required. The applicant is
compliant with all setbacks and lot coverage.
Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting
April 5, 2016
Page 3
Joel Simon pointed out that there was another application for an addition before the
Zoning Board of Appeals in 2013. The variance at that time was also for an increase in
the gross floor area, but Mr. Scarlaro noted that was for an addition over the garage. Mr.
Simon felt that the work seemed to be getting done in steps. Chairman Moscato noted
that the Board has the history of the home and also noticed the incrementalism. The
variance granted in 2013 was a substantial variance, but that it fit with the character of
the neighborhood so the variance was granted at that time. The new base for the gross
floor area is now 3,502. While the variance overall is a substantial amount above the
allowable for gross floor area, the 178.5 is being considered from the new amount
approved in 2013.
Mr. Scarlato noted that the applicants' needs have changed over time. Chairman
Moscato stated that he would feel comfortable including a condition that there be no
second story added above the one-story addition requested by the applicant.
Mr. Daniel Berger, applicant, addressed the Board. He acknowledged the Board's point
about incrementalism and added that he and his wife have been in the Village for 18
years and would like to stay for years to come. In the last variance application, the master
bedroom was expanded in 2013. At this point they have no other needs beyond
remodeling the kitchen and did not intend to make any other additions to the home.
Chairman Moscato noted that the variance is given to the property, not the owner himself,
and the condition would remain on the property for future owners.
Mr. Jamie Schutzer asked for a review of the plans, for which Mr. Scarlato gave an
overview. Chairman Moscato asked if this application represents the smallest variance
that could be requested to accomplish the applicants' needs. The response was that it was
in order to keep with the style of the house and expand the kitchen so that it is usable.
Mr. Simon noted, for the record, that he had an issue with the size of the increase. Mr.
Scarlato noted there are townhouses behind the property separated by a stone wall and
Mr. Berger added that the neighbors definitely will not see the addition.
Chairman Moscato called for questions or comments from members of the public wishing
to address the Board in support or opposition to the application. There being none, he
called for a motion and second to close the public hearing.
On a motion made by Steve Berger, and seconded by Joel Simon, the public portion of
the meeting was closed and the Board went into deliberation.
The Board reviewed the five factors used by the Zoning Board of Appeals in making
determinations. It was the consensus of the Board that there should be a condition on the
Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting
April 5, 2016
Page 4
granting the variance that the applicants will not submit further application for a second-
story addition above the subject addition.
Chairman Moscato read the following resolution:
Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting
April 5, 2016
Page 5
WHEREAS, an application has been made to the Rye Brook Zoning Board of
Appeals by Daniel Berger and Elyse Echtman (the "Applicant") for a 178.5 square foot
gross floor area variance where the maximum gross floor area is 3,016 square feet,
pursuant to Village Code §250-22(E) and the existing legal non-conforming gross floor
area is 3,502 square feet, in connection with a proposed one-story side addition and
interior alterations on the property located at 69 Rock Ridge Drive, in an R-10 zoning
district on the west side of Rock Ridge Road, approximately 90 feet from the intersection
of Acker Drive and Rock Ridge Drive, said premises being further identified as Parcel
ID# 135.36-1-1 on the Town of Rye Tax Map; and
WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing on the application was opened on
April 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 April 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 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 the
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.
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. There shall be no further second-story addition on the property requested by
the applicant.
Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting
April 5, 2016
Page 6
Chairman Moscato called the roll:
Steven Berger Voting: Aye
Andrew Kaminsky Excused
Don Moscato Voting: Aye
Jamie Schutzer Voting: Aye
Joel Simon Voting: Aye
The variance was granted on a vote of four ayes to zero nays.
Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting
April 5, 2016
Page 7
2. # 16-006 The Deutsch Family Trust
c/o Hugh Stephenson
S Whippoorwill Road
Construct front porch addition.
Mr. Justin Minieri, architect, addressed the Board. He began his presentation by noting
that the house at S Whippoorwill was being renovated. New windows, siding, a roof, and
trim was added to transform it into a craftsman-style home. The front entrance of the
home is not clearly identified. The front door is masked by the grade of the yard, so the
applicant is proposing a front porch. Architecturally adding the front porch will
transform the home to the craftsman style, provide shelter, become a welcome feature,
and identify the entrance to the house. The position of the home is set right on the
building envelope. The applicant will require a front yard setback variance of S feet
where a 40-foot setback is required; therefore the applicant is requesting a 32-foot
setback variance. All other setbacks, FAR, and lot coverage are met and the applicant is
not increasing the impervious coverage of the house. The proposed porch will be at patio
level. He presented the Board with plans for the home. Mr. Minieri noted this is the only
location feasible for the porch. The porch will consist of four tapered pillars, a beam and
a roof. It adds aesthetic value to the home and adds character to the neighborhood.
Mr. Berger inquired about the porch and how far it extends beyond the front of the
neighbors' houses. Mr. Minieri responded that the porch would extend beyond the front
yard setback of the neighboring homes. Mr. Berger stated a condition should be placed on
the approval, if the variance is approved, that the porch will not be enclosed and no
structure will be built on the second floor above the porch. Mr. Berger also raised a
concern with the next owner take the variance as a license to push the house forward and
neighbors also extending their homes further in their front yards.
Chairman Moscato stated that the houses on that street arc extremely aligned and he felt
that an 8-foot variance was too large. He added the purpose, as described in the
application, of waiting for the bus did not seem to require a porch of that size. He pointed
out the applicant is requesting 20% more than the code permits, so it will be the only
house jutting out substantially compared to the other homes on the street. He asked if the
applicant considered a smaller porch that would make less of an impact yet still be
attractive and provide a portico effect. Mr. Berger stated that he felt that the proposed
columns were very large and their size adds to the visual impact of the porch and this
effect is intrusive to the character of the homes on both sides of that street.
Chairman Moscato noted historically, the Board did not favor porticos, but in more recent
times, the current Board has loosened up its approach to requests for variances for
porticos and the Board has moved more toward the aesthetic value of the proposed
Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting
April 5, 2016
Page 8
improvements. Mr. Manieri noted that porticos are just decoration but the proposed
porch is a truly useable porch. It adds charm to the home and people can actually sit on
the porch and talk or relax because it also offers shelter. If the porch becomes too
shallow, no one will be able to sit on the porch. It was also noted that the existing deck
was replaced and the occupants can sit on the back deck.
Chairman Moscato noted that the Zoning Code determines the front yard setbacks and
this house will be sticking out more than anyone else on the street. The issue is not that
the porch will be attractive, the proposal is for an attractive porch, but the porch is too big
in an area that has no variation in the front yard setbacks. The size that will be accepted is
for the architect to propose as an alternative. Chairman Moscato stated at least two Board
members would reject the variance as it is proposed. The applicant was offered the choice
of allowing the Board to vote on the proposed variance or requesting an adjournment to
revise the plan and come back before the Board with a smaller proposed porch. Mr.
Manieri requested an adjournment to the May 3, 2016 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting.
He will review the plan with the applicant with the intention of coming back before the
Board with a slightly reduced variance request.
3. Approval of March 1, 2016 Zoning Board Summary
The approval of the minutes from March 1, 2016 Board meeting was called before the
Board. On a motion and a second, the minutes were approved.
On a motion and a second, the meeting was adjourned 8:50 p.m.
Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting
April 5, 2016
Page 9