Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-06-07 - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK 938 King Street ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS RNOV -2 2016 Monday,June 7,2016 at 8:00 m. VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK Meeting P BUILDING DEPARTMENT AGENDA A PPS E 1. #16-010 DATE % Jonathan Yellon&Marcie Meehan 6 Paddock Road Construct a two story addition and 2"d story addition;new front porch;new rear patio;interior alterations;legalize rear deck&legalize garage addition permitted in 1955. 2. #16-012 David Taerstein&Dyan Taerstein 156 Country Ridge Drive Construct 2nd story addition; expand front porch; rear landing & legalize garage setback. 3. #16-013 Joshua Klein&Karen Klein 9 Bishop Drive South Expand existing driveway adding 399 square feet. 4. #16-015 Claudia Ribas Ferrer&Amy A.Hecht 84 Tamarack Road Legalize existing detached garage permitted on 10/25/58 & rear addition constructed without a permit. 5. #16-014 Rye Ridge Park LLC Rye Ridge Plaza Expand existing Rye Ridge Plaza rear parking lot, and construct a Village passive park on the adjacent property. 6. Approval of May 9,2016 Zoning Board Summary Zoning Board or Appeals June 7,2016 Page 1 or 1 BOARD; Glenn Brettschneider Joel Simon Jamie Schutzer Donald Moscato,Chairman Excused: Steven Berger STAFF: Michael Izzo,Building&Fire Inspector Courtney McGowan,Esq.,Village Counsel Fred Seifert,Public Access Coordinator/IT Paula Patafio,Meeting Secretary BOARD LIASON: Trustee David Heiser Mr.Donald Moscato,Chairman,welcomed everyone to the Zoning Board meeting of Tuesday,June 7, 2016. He noted that there was a quorum,however, in order for a variance to be approved the applicants would need to have four affirmative votes. The applicants were offered the opportunity to adjourn to July meeting. All applicants on the evening's agenda chose to move forward. Chairman Moscato introduced Village counsel, staff, and Board of Trustees Liaison David Heiser. He 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 was a full agenda,and called for the first item: 1. #16-010 Jonathan Yellon&Marcie Meehan 6 Paddock Road Construct a two story addition and 2nd story addition;new front porch;new rear patio; interior alterations; legalize rear deck & legalize garage addition permitted in 1955. John Scarlato,Jr.,architect,addressed the Board. He noted ha the application has been before the Planning Board prior to being placed on the Zoning Board's agenda. There has also been a review by FP Clark & Associates, the Village's Planning Consultants. He pointed out that the two car garage was built after the house was built, and the zoning code changed since that time. The applicant began the application process for the new two story additions, front porch, rear patio, and interior alterations and then learned that there was an issue with the existing garage and deck.Although on the initial plans for the construction of the house, the garage was constructed sometime after the house was built and it does not have a Certificate of Occupancy. The application now before the Zoning Board of Appeals will legalize the garage as well as the existing deck. Zoning Board of Appeals June 7,2016 Page 2 of 2 Chairman Moscato noted that the applicant was requesting nine variances. The consensus of the Board was that there were too many variances, and that the variances were substantial. The applicant was asked to review the plans to see if he could reduce the number and size of the variances. Mr. Scarlato noted that the original house offered a master bedroom suite and a two car garage. The house was built without the garage. A few years later the garage was built without a permit. He reviewed the variances that were required to legalize the garage and deck which included: a front yard setback variance of 1.6 for the for the garage; a single side yard setback variance of 6.9' for the garage;a two side yards setback variance of 22.7'for the garage;a single side yard setback variance of 5.9'for the deck;a two side yards setback variance of 21.7' for the deck;a two side yard setbacks variance of 1.5' for the second story addition;a front height setback ratio variance of.023'for second story addition;a side height setback ratio variance of.44 for the second story addition;and a gross floor area variance of 361 square feet for the proposed additions. The home is a ranch style and the proposed addition will be constructed as a second floor. The applicant needs the additional living space. The addition will be in character with the homes in the area. Mr. Scarlato reviewed lot sizes, and gross floor coverage,for other homes in the surrounding area. Chairman Moscato questioned the height of the deck. Mr. Scarlato noted that it is approximately 1'. The property is landscaped and the deck is behind the garage. Chairman Moscato asked the applicant if he could reduce the size of the variances being requested. Jonathan Yellon,applicant,addressed the Board. He noted that he did not plan on constructing over the deck. The deck was there when he purchased the home and he is now before the Board to legalize it. Mr.Scarlato noted that the deck is 16' x 21",it and it is hidden in the rear yard. Chairman Moscato noted that the existing garage, constructed in 1955, is quite large but he would not recommend removing it. He suggested placing conditions on the resolution on the regarding the deck and garage. Chairman Moscato called for members of the public in favor or opposition to the application. There being no one, and no additional questions or comments from the Board, the public portion of the hearing was close and the Board began deliberation. Upon the Board's return,Chairman Moscato read the following resolution: Zoning Board of Appeals June 7,2016 Page 3 of 3 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, an application has been made to the Rye Brook Zoning Board of Appeals by Jonathan Yellon & Marcie Meehan(the"Applicants") for(1) a 1.6 foot front yard setback variance where the minimum allowable setback in the front yard is 40 feet pursuant to Village Code §250-22(G)(1) in connection with the proposed legalization of the existing garage; (2) a 6.9 foot single yard setback variance where the minimum required setback is 15 feet pursuant to Village Code§250-22(G)(2)(a) in connection with the proposed legalization of the existing garage; (3) two side yards setback variance of 22.7 feet where the minimum required total of two side yards set back is 40 feet pursuant to Village Code §250-22(G)(2)(b) in connection with the proposed legalization of the existing garage; (4) a single side yard setback variance of 5.9 feet where the minimum required single side yard setback is 15 feet pursuant to Village Code §250-22(G)(2)(a) in connection with the proposed legalization of the existing deck;(5)two side yards setback variance of 21.7 feet where the minimum required total of two side yards setback is 40 feet pursuant to Village Code §250-22(G)(2)(b) in connection with the proposed legalization of the existing deck;(6)two side yards setback variance of 1.5 feet where the minimum required total of two side yards setback is 40 feet pursuant to Village Code §250-22(G)(2)(b) in connection with the proposed second story addition; (7) a front height setback ratio variance of.023 where the maximum allowable front height setback ratio is.60 pursuant to Village Code §250-20(I)(1)in connection with a proposed second story addition; (8) a side height setback ratio variance of .44 where the maximum allowable side height setback ration is 1.60 pursuant to Village Code §250-20(I)(2) in connection with a proposed second story addition;(9)a gross floor area variance of 361 square feet where the maximum allowable gross floor area is 3,228 square feet pursuant to Village Code §250-20(E) in connection with the proposed additions, all on the property located at 6 Paddock Road, in an R-15 zoning district on the west side of Paddock Road,approximately 200 feet from the intersection of Winding Wood Road and Paddock Road, said premises being further identified as Parcel ID# 135.34-1-22 on the Town of Rye Tax Map;and Zoning Board of Appeals June 7,2016 Page 4 of 4 I WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing on the application was opened on June 7, 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 June 7,2016;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 all of the variances: 1) The variances WILL NOT create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood; 2) The benefit the applicants seeks CANNOT be achieved through another method, feasible for the applicants 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 self-created. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,that said application for the(1) 1.6 foot front yard setback variance; (2)the 6.9 foot single side yard variance; (3) the 22.7 two side yards setback variance;(4)the 5.9 foot single side yard setback variance;(5)the 21.7 two side yards setback variance;(6)the 1.5 foot two side yards setback variance;(7) the.023 front height setback ratio variance;(8)the.44 side height setback ratio variance; and(9)the 361 square foot gross floor area variance,is hereby GRANTED subject to the following conditions: 1. No permit or certificate of occupancy shall be issued until the Applicants have paid in full all application and consultant fees incurred by the Village in connection with the review of this application. Zoning Board of Appeals June 7,2016 Page 5 of 5 2. There will be no construction of an addition above the deck without approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals. 3. If the deck is removed, the variances with regard to the legalization of the existing deck will be rescinded. On a motion,and a second,the resolution was adopted when the roll was called: Glen Brettschneider Voting Aye James S.Schutzer Voting Aye Joel Simon Voting Aye Don Moscato,Chairman Voting Aye The resolution was granted on a vote of 4 ayes to zero nays. 2. #16-012 David Taerstein&Dyan Taerstein 156 Country Ridge Drive Construct 2nd story addition; expand front porch; rear landing & legalize garage setback. Justin Minieri, architect for the applicant, addressed the Board and noted that the applicants were requesting three variances. In 1968, a variance was granted to construct a one-story garage addition. A new survey uncovered that the garage was built 10' closer to the property line than it should have been. To legalize the garage the applicants need a variance of.74 feet for a single side yard setback. At this time the applicants are proposing a second floor addition. The Taerstein family is growing and they need space. The second floor addition will house a master bedroom suite. They are also proposing an expansion of the front porch which is small and non-descript, and the existing master bedroom will become a child's bedroom. The proposed addition is non-intrusive to the neighbors. Mr. Minieri presented the Board with some specifics from other homes in the area. He noted that the applicants are not creating anything that is overwhelming to the neighborhood.The porch will improve the look of the house. There being no further discussion, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed and the Board began deliberation. Glenn Brettschneider noted that he would be abstaining from voting on this application as he felt he did not have sufficient background to make his decision. Zoning Board of Appeals June 7,2016 Page 6 of 6 The Board reviewed thea application and using the five factors reviewed each f pp g c o the three variance requests individually. It was noted that letters from 157 Country Ridge, 85 Country Ridge, and 167 Country Ridge were submitted for the Board's review. Chairman Moscato read the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, an application has been made to the Rye Brook Zoning Board of Appeals by David Taerstein & Dyan Taerstein (the "Applicants") for (1) a .74 foot single side yard variance where the minimum required single side yard setback is 10 feet pursuant to Village Code §250(6)(G)(2)(a) in connection with the proposed legalization of the existing garage; (2)an .8%main building coverage variance where the maximum allowable lot coverage is 16%pursuant to Village Code §250-37(B) in connection with proposed construction; and (3) a 769 square foot area variance where the maximum allowable gross floor area is 3,343 square feet pursuant to Village Code §250-20(E) in connection with the proposed addition on the property located at 156 Country Ridge Drive in an R-15 zoning district on the east side of Country Ridge Drive,approximately 700 feet from the intersection of Rocking Horse Trail and Country Ridge Drive. Said premises is further identified as Parcel ID# 129.74-1-15 on the Town of Rye Tax Map; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing on the application was opened on June 7, 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 June 7,2016;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 Zoning Board of Appeals June 7,2016 Page 7 of 7 250-13(G)(2)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brook Code, finds with respect to the single side yard setback variance: 1) The variance WILL NOT create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood; 2) The benefit the applicants seeks CANNOT be achieved through another method,feasible for the applicants 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 NOT self-created. 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 main building coverage variance: 1) The variance WILL NOT create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood; 2) The benefit the applicants seeks CANNOT be achieved through another method,feasible for the applicants 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. 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 applicants seeks CANNOT be achieved through another method,feasible for the applicants to pursue,that does not require the variance; 3) The variance IS substantial; Zoning Board of Appeals June 7,2016 Page 8 of 8 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 for the (1) single side yard setback variance; (2)main building coverage variance;and(3)gross floor area variance is hereby GRANTED subject to the following conditions: 1. No permit or certificate of occupancy shall be issued until the Applicants have paid in full all application and consultant fees incurred by the Village in connection with the review of this application. 2. Enclosure of the front porch is not permitted without approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals. On a motion,and a second,the roll was called for each variance: First Variance: Glen Brettschneider Voting Abstain James S. Schutzer Voting Aye Joel Simon Voting Aye Don Moscato,Chairman Voting Aye Second Variance: Glen Brettschneider Voting Abstain James S.Schutzer Voting Aye Joel Simon Voting Aye Don Moscato,Chairman Voting Aye Third Variance: Glen Brettschneider Voting Abstain James S.Schutzer Voting Aye Joel Simon Voting Aye Don Moscato,Chairman Voting Aye The resolution was granted on a vote of 3 ayes to zero nays, 1 abstention. Zoning Board of Appeals June 7,2016 Page 9 of 9 3. #16-013 Joshua Klein&Karen Klein 9 Bishop Drive South Expand existing driveway adding 399 square feet. Paul Berte, PE, Fusion Engineering, the applicant's representative, noted that the applicants moved to this home in April of his year. They were looking to expand their driveway. The expansion will begin at the garage door and continue to the street. This expansion will allow two cars to parallel park with access to the edge of the driveway. No other alterations are planned. Chairman Moscato called for questions and comments from the Board. It was noted that this is a relatively new house. Mr. Berte provided the Board with photos of other homes in the area, as well as plans for the expansion. There is a minimum front yard setback of 25' for any unenclosed off street parking facility. The applicant is proposing no setback. It was also noted that the applicant is adding 399 square feet where 400 square feet is the threshold for creation of a storm water management plan. The Board felt that additional parking could be created without the excessive expansion of the driveway. If the driveway is expanded,a significant tree must be removed. Mr. Michael Izzo, Building Inspector, noted that creating a parking space could affect the Bulk standards of the Village.He felt that it was possible to reduce the proposed driveway without forfeiting the ability to park two cars along side of each other. It was also noted that the allowable side yard setback is conforming, and the one-car garage was built without a Zoning variance. Chairman Moscato asked for the consensus of the Board. The discussion produced the results that the Board wanted mitigation, and a possible elimination of the variance. Chairman Moscato suggested that after hearing the sentiment of the Board,the applicant call for an adjournment to discuss the options. Mr. Izzo, Building Inspector, noted that he needed to see the plans before a decision could be made. The Zoning Board of Appeals cannot complete a zoning review at this meeting if a redesign is proposed. The applicants requested an adjournment to discuss their options. Chairman Moscato noted that the matter would be recalled at the end of the meeting. Chairman Moscato called for the next item on the agenda: Zoning Board of Appeals June 7,2016 Page 10 of 10 4. #16-015 Claudia Ribas Ferrer&Amy A.Hecht 84 Tamarack Road Legalize existing detached garage permitted on 10/25/58 & rear addition constructed without a permit. Tapani Talo, the architect for the applicants, addressed the Board. He noted that the applicants could not attend the meeting,however,they have submitted a letter to the Village explaining the circumstances of the work done to the home. When the applicants purchased the home they were a family of three. Over the years,as with many families,they have grown and their family now includes four children. The upper and lower decks were closed in to create bedrooms for the children,and a small bedroom was converted to closet space. The home was expanded to fit their needs and now works perfectly for them. The addition has allowed them to remain in a home they love. In addition,the applicants require a variance for a detached garage. The footprint of the deck did not change and the zoning was different at the time it was constructed in 1958. The applicants require two variances. A 1.7 foot side yard accessory structure setback variance for the detached garage, and a 597 square foot gross floor area variance for the rear addition. The property is located in an R-7 Zone. Chairman Moscato noted that there were two options. The first was to tear down the addition and garage,the second was to grant the variances. He noted that the Board received several letters from neighbors in support of the variances being granted. The architect has submitted photographs of the home as part of the record. Chairman Moscato stated that he felt this was a unique application. He called for comments from the Board. There being none he called for comments from members of the public. As there were no additional comments or questions, the public portion of the hearing was closed, and the Board began deliberation. It was noted that the applicants brought this matter to the attention of the Village. The architect has designed plans to bring the property into compliance with flood prevention and work is being done to bring the property up to Code. Chairman Moscato read the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, an application has been made to the Rye Brook Zoning Board of Appeals by Claudia Ribas Ferrer & Amy Hecht (the "Applicants") for(1) a 1.7 foot Zoning Board of Appeals June 7,2016 Page 11 of 11 side yard accessory structure setback variance where the minimum required side yard setback for an accessory structure is 5 feet pursuant to Village Code§250(6)(B)(1)(a)in connection with the proposed legalization of the detached garage; and (2) a 597 foot gross floor area variance where the maximum allowable gross floor area is 2,602 square feet pursuant to Village Code§250-23(E)in connection with the proposed legalization of the rear addition on the property located at located at 84 Tamarack Road in an R-7 zoning district on the west side of Tamarack Road, approximately 50 feet from the intersection of Argyle Road and Tamarack Road. Said premises is further identified as Parcel ID#135.52-3-10 on the Town of Rye Tax Map;and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing on the application was opened on June 7, 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 June 7,2016;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 side yard setback variance: 1) The variance WILL NOT create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood; 2) The benefit the applicants seeks CANNOT be achieved through another method,feasible for the applicants 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. WHEREAS, the Board, from the application, after viewing the premises and neighborhood concerned, and upon considering each of the factors set forth at Section Zoning Board of Appeals June 7,2016 Page 12 of 12 250-13(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 applicants seeks CANNOT be achieved through another method,feasible for the applicants 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 for the(1)side yard variance and the (2) gross floor area variance is hereby GRANTED subject to the following conditions: 1. No permit or certificate of occupancy shall be issued until the Applicants has paid in full all application and consultant fees incurred by the Village in connection with the review of this application. On a motion,and a second,the resolution was adopted when the roll was called: Glen Brettschneider Voting Aye James S.Schutzer Voting Aye Joel Simon Voting Aye Don Moscato,Chairman Voting Aye The resolution was granted on a vote of 4 ayes to zero nays. Chairman Moscato recalled item#3: 3. #16-013 Joshua Klein&Karen Klein 9 Bishop Drive South Expand existing driveway adding 399 square feet. The applicants agreed to redesign the driveway, reducing the impervious surface and creating a swoop where the driveway would transition in width and the curb cut would remain the same. Mr. Izzo noted that he needs a plan indicating the changes for review. Joel Simon noted that he was amenable to the proposal, as was Chairman Moscato. The Board thanked applicants for their effort to reduce Zoning Board of Appeals June 7,2016 Page 13 of 13 the size of the variance. The new plan will create two parking spaces at the garage (a one car garage),but not widen the driveway for the entire length. Chairman Moscato noted that the application cannot be approved tonight as revised plans must be reviewed by the Building Inspector. With the consensus of the Board, the application was adjourned to the next Zoning Board of Appeals meeting,and after the variance has been granted,will be reviewed by the ARB. 5. #16-014 Rye Ridge Park LLC Rye Ridge Plaza Expand existing Rye Ridge Plaza rear parking lot, and construct a Village passive park on the adjacent property. Chairman Moscato noted that the Board of Trustees is the Lead Agency. The application is before the Zoning Board for approval of several variances. Steven Silberberg, Esq., legal counsel for the applicants, gave the Board an overview of the project. He noted that the application has been reviewed by the Board of Trustees,the Planning Board, Village Consultants,and Staff. He called upon the Planner for the project, James Ryan, for a review of the application, plans,and variances required. Mr. Ryan noted that many of the variances are substantial but not a basis to turn down the applicants' request. There will be no impacts on the neighboring proprieties. Mr. Ryan noted that there are three lots that are involved. He reviewed the variance for the Win Plaza LLC property. The Scenic Roads Overlay District applies to this lot. Both the Planning Board and Board of Trustees requested that a sidewalk be installed on the Bowman Avenue side to facilitate access to the park area. This sidewalk encroaches into the setback. The applicants are requesting a Scenic Roads Overlay District vegetative buffer variance of 16 feet, and relief from the minimum required side yard setback for unenclosed off-street parking. The K&M lots require four variances. The variances include relief from the required horizontal circle, a street frontage variance of 218.9 feet, relief from the required 25' setback for unenclosed off-street parking for Lot A and a street frontage variance of 151.7 feet for Lot B. Everyone has worked hard to make this a good plan for the Village/Residents,Win Ridge,and K&M. The curb cuts/access for the proposed park come off of the Win property. There is handicap accessibility. Bike racks have been added. Easier access for maintenance has been added. Stormwater control has been enhanced. The only affected neighbor is the peninsula portion of the K&M property. Zoning Board of Appeals June 7,2016 Page 14 of 14 Chairman Moscato asked if there would be signage for the park and parking area. Mr.Ryan noted that this was still being worked out. Mr. Ryan noted that the applicant's video presented to the Zoning Board this evening did not show some of the changes requested by the Board of Trustees. He took the Board through the Video. Chairman Moscato noted that there are several active and passive parks in the Village.He asked if it was the intention of the Village to seal this park off at night. Mr. Ryan stated that he believed that this park will be open from dusk to dawn. The original park was going to be a more passive park. This project is a win-win as the shopping center will have increased parking and the Village will have an additional park. Chairman Moscato noted that the Board received the Board of Trustees' SEQRA Findings Statement, a 40+page document,today. Attorney Silverberg noted that this document contains findings issued by the Village Board in 2006 related to the split between the strip and the peninsula and has been updated to incorporate the changes to the park proposal. He reminded the Board that this is not a typical project. Mr. Ryan noted that landscaping will be done. The quality of vegetation will be improved from the previously approved plan. Chairman Moscato noted that he felt comfortable with the nature of the variances. He noted that the Board would address each variance individually. Chairman Moscato called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in support or in opposition to the application. There being none, he called upon Trustee David Heiser for his personal viewpoint. Trustee Heiser noted that he has been a resident of Rye Brook for 27 years. This park represents an improvement. He is in favor of it and feels that overall it will be a valuable addition to the Village. The applicant has been very receptive to what the Board of Trustees and the Planning Board has suggested. They have tried to be responsive. Chairman Moscato noted that this is a gateway into Rye Brook. He noted that traffic on Bowman Avenue increases when children are released from the Middle School. Traffic has been reviewed. Trustee Heiser noted that this lot has a strange configuration. There is not much else that it could be used for. Once it becomes Village Parkland,the Village will take responsibility for the maintenance. Zoning Board of Appeals June 7,2016 Page 15 of 15 The consensus of the Zoning Board was in favor of granting the variances. Chairman Moscato called for a motion to close the public hearing and the public hearing was closed. Chairman Moscato read the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, an application has been made to the Rye Brook Zoning Board of Appeals by Rye Ridge Park, LLC(the "Applicant') for(1) a 10 foot horizontal circle variance for lot A, where the minimum horizontal circle is 90 feet pursuant to Village Code §250-32(F)(2) in connection with the proposal to subdivide the existing parcel;(2) a 218.9 street frontage variance for Lot A where the minimum required street frontage is 225 pursuant to Village Code§250-32(F)(3)in connection with the proposal to subdivide the existing lot;(3)a 2.5 side yard setback variance for an unenclosed off-street parking facility on Lot A where the minimum side yard setback for an unenclosed off-street parking facility is 2.5 feet pursuant to Village Code § 250-6(G)(1)(d)(2) in connection with the proposed subdivision of the existing lot; (4)a 151.7 street frontage variance for Lot B where the minimum required street frontage is 225 feet pursuant to Village code§ 250-32(F)(3)in connection with the proposed subdivision of the existing lot;(5)a 16 foot Scenic Road Overlay District vegetative buffer variance where the minimum required vegetative buffer in the Scenic Road Overlay District is 35 feet pursuant to Village Code §250-7(F)(6)(c)in connection with the proposed addition of parking spaces;and(6)a 2.5 foot side yard setback variance for an unenclosed off-street parking facility where the minimum side yard setback for an unenclosed off-street parking facility is 2.5 feet pursuant to § 250-6(G)(1)(d)(2) in connection with the proposed expansion of existing unenclosed off-street parking facility on the property located at Bowman Avenue in an C-1 &C-11?district on the south side of Bowman Avenue, approximately 960 feet from the intersection of South Ridge Street and Bowman Avenue. Said parcels are further identified as Parcel ID#141.27-1-7& 141.26-1-1 on the Town of Rye Tax Map;and WHEREAS,a duly advertised public hearing on the application was opened on June 7,2016,at which time all those wishing to be heard on the application were given such opportunity;and Zoning Board of Appeals June 7,2016 Page 16 of 16 L WHEREAS,the Board closed the public hearing on June 7,2016;and WHEREAS, the proposed action was the subject of an Amended Findings Statement adopted by the Village Board of Trustees as Lead Agency on May 24, 2016 pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act(SEQRA);and WHEREAS,the Board has received a copy of the Amended Findings Statement; 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 horizontal circle variance: 1) The variance WILL NOT create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood; 2) The benefit the applicants seeks CANNOT be achieved through another method,feasible for the applicants 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. 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 street frontage variance for Lot A: 1) The variance WILL NOT create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood; 2) The benefit the applicants seeks CANNOT be achieved through another method,feasible for the applicants 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. Zoning Board of Appeals June 7,2016 Page 17 of 17 L 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 2.5 side yard setback variance for an unenclosed off-street parking facility for Lot A: 1) The variance WILL NOT create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood; 2) The benefit the applicants seeks CANNOT be achieved through another method,feasible for the applicants 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. 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 street frontage variance for Lot B: 1) The variance WILL NOT create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood; 2) The benefit the applicants seeks CANNOT be achieved through another method,feasible for the applicants 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. 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 Scenic Roads Overlay District vegetative buffer variance: 1) The variance WILL NOT create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood; 2) The benefit the applicants seeks CANNOT be achieved through another method,feasible for the applicants to pursue,that does not require the variance; Zoning Board of Appeals June 7,2016 Page IS of IS 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. 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 side yard setback variance for an unenclosed off-street parking facility on the existing lot: 1) The variance WILL NOT create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood; 2) The benefit the applicants seeks CANNOT be achieved through another method,feasible for the applicants 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, the Board, as Involved Agency pursuant to SEQRA, has reviewed all areas of environmental concern within its jurisdiction and hereby adopts as its own the Amended Findings Statement which was adopted by the Lead Agency on May 24,2016. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that said application for the (1) a 10 foot horizontal circle variance for lot A; (2) street frontage variance for Lot A;(3)side yard setback variance;(4)street frontage variance for Lot B;(5)Scenic Road Overlay District vegetative buffer variance; and (6) the side yard setback variance for an unenclosed parking facility on the existing lot is hereby GRANTED subject to the following conditions: 1. No permit or certificate of occupancy shall be issued until the Applicants 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 June 7,2016 Page 19 of 19 I On a motion,and a second,the resolution was adopted when the roll was called: Glen Brettschneider Voting Aye James S.Schutzer Voting Aye Joel Simon Voting Aye Don Moscato,Chairman Voting Aye The resolution was granted on a vote of 4 ayes to zero nays. 6. Approval of May 9,2016 Zoning Board Summary The Board approved the summary for the May 9,2016 Zoning Board meeting,as amended. There being no additional business before the Board the meeting was adjourned at 10:35 pm. Zoning Board of Appeals June 7,2016 Page 20 of 20