Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-10-04 - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK APPROVED 938 King Street GAIL_// Zoning Board ofAvveals Tuesday,October 4,2016 Meeting at 8:00 p.m. D �, (� E W E D Ap nda NOV -3 2016 1. #16-016 Kenneth Bainton VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK 12 Lincoln Avenue BUILDING DEPARTMENT Legalize the conversion of a carport to an open sided storage structure, legalize the elevated wood deck constructed without a permit over the converted carport,and legalize the non-compliant unenclosed off-street parking created by the non-permitted carport conversion. 2. #16-017 Pak Yuri Chan&Jaclyn Chan 745 King Street Legalize driveway expansion in Scenic Road Overlay District 3. #16-022 (Adjourned from 9/6/2016) Christopher Broderick&Patricia Broderick Kenneth Flornes&Nicole Parise-Flornes Louis Augone,Vanessa Augone&Josephine Barber Robert Delaney&Joanna Topping 699 Westchester Avenue Consideration of Resolution with respect to application filed pursuant to Village Code§250-13.G.(4)to reverse the Building Inspector's determination to grant Temporary Tent Permits 4TP16-002 and #TP16-003, for the property located at The Hilton Westchester,699 Westchester Avenue,Rye Brook,New York,designated and shown on the current Tax Map as Parcel ID#135.74-1-8. 4. Approval of September 6,2016 Zoning Board Summary BOARD: Steven Berger Glenn Brettschneider Joel Simon Jamie Schutzer Donald Moscato,Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals October 4,2016 Page 1 STAFF: Michael Izzo,Building&Fire Inspector Eric Gordon,Esq.,Village Counsel Fred Seifert,Public Access Coordinator/IT Paula Patafio,Meeting Secretary Donald Moscato, Chairman, welcomed everyone to the Zoning Board meeting of Tuesday, October 4,2016. He introduced Village counsel,and staff. 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. Chairman Moscato called for the fust matter on the agenda: 1. #16-016 Kenneth Bainton 12 Lincoln Avenue Legalize the conversion of a carport to an open sided storage structure, legalize the elevated wood deck constructed without a permit over the converted carport,and legalize the non-compliant unenclosed off-street parking created by the non-permitted carport conversion. Chairman Moscato noted that the Board received a letter from the applicant's counsel requesting an adjournment. The consensus of the Board was to grant the adjournment. Village Counsel noted that the public hearing should be opened, and then the matter should be adjourned to the next meeting. On a motion,and second,the public hearing was declared open. Chairman Moscato called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in support or opposition to the application. Megan Walton of 16 Lincoln Avenue addressed the Board. She noted that she is owner of the adjacent property and an architect. This home has been abandoned for over three years. The construction is very shoddy. There are animals living under the deck and in the backyard of this property. She felt that the construction was in violation of the Village Code,especially since the work was done without a Permit,and asked the Board to deny the variance request. There being no additional comments or questions, Chairman Moscato called for a motion to adjourn the application to the November 1,2016 meeting. On a motion made by Mr.Joel Simon,and seconded by Mr.Glen Brettschneider,the application was adjourned. Zoning Board of Appeals October 4,2016 Page 2 Chairman Moscato noted that the Board may be one board member short for the November meeting. If this happens, the applicants will be offered the option of adjourning to the next meeting, or having their matter heard, noting that in order to obtain a variance the applicants would require four yes votes. Chairman Moscato called for item#2: 2. 416-017 Pak Yun Chan&Jaclyn Chan 745 King Street Legalize driveway expansion in Scenic Road Overlay District Leo Napior,Esq.,legal counsel for the applicants,addressed the Board. He noted that the Chans moved into this home in 2014. This is a one family home, situated on .321 of an acre. The owner did some renovations on the driveway and was unaware that a building permit was needed. They were issued a stop work order on September 3,2015 for work on the driveway by the Village's Building Department. This property is located within the Scenic Roads Overlay District,which requires a 35 foot front yard vegetative buffer. In addition the Village's Code prohibits unenclosed parking within 25'of the front yard property line. The applicants are requesting two variances;an 18'variance for the Scenic Road Overlay District,and an 8'variance for the unenclosed off-street parking. Mr. Napior stated that the Chans met with the Planning Board in September to legalize the driveway expansion. It was noted that it is very difficult backing out onto King Street. The goal in expanding the driveway was to allow the Chans the ability to pull out of the driveway versus backing out onto King Street. Aerial photos of nearby properties were included as part of the application, showing that several properties on King Street have circular or hammer head driveways. It was discussed that an adjacent neighbor submitted a letter expressing concern over granting the variance because it would change the character of the neighborhood.Attorney Napior noted that the Planning Board recommended additional landscaping to screen the proposed off-street parking. The Village's Planning Consultant,Marilyn Timpone Mohamed of Frederick P.Clark, has also reviewed the application and made recommendations. The applicants agree with the landscaping plan,and will plant a row of evergreen screening alongside of the property line. A Cherry Tree will also be planted,and will be 12'tall at installation. Chairman Moscato stated that he felt that bringing the hammerhead portion of the driveway closer to the house would reduce the need for one of the variances. He expressed concern that it appeared that two cars can park in that area of the driveway. He further stated that while the Board understands that this is a safety issue, they look to grant the smallest possible variance Zoning Board of Appeals October 4,2016 Page 3 that would accomplish the applicants'goals.Chairman Moscato stated that he believed reducing or eliminating the second variance would be a fair compromise that would still address the safety concerns. Joel Simon noted that the driveway should not have been built without a Building Permit. Attorney Napior stated that when the house is fully occupied there will be four cars at the house. Chairman Moscato stated that this meant that two cars would be parked in the driveway. Attorney Napior stated that he did not believe the intent was to use the hammerhead as a parking space because there is a two car garage.He stated that he could discuss cutting back the hammer head with the applicants. Chairman Moscato again stated elimination of the variance to allow parking within the front yard would be appropriate even though there was a cost to moving or reducing the size of the paved area. Attorney Napior stated that he could not get an answer now because the applicant was on his way to the airport and could not be reached at this time. Chairman Moscato noted that the landscaping portion of the application has been reviewed by the Planning Board and Village Consultant. However, the applicant wanted to come before the Board and request a variance rather than eliminating the need for the variances. The Board was in consensus with Chairman Moscato's request that the variance for unenclosed parking in the front yard be reduced, and suggested that the application be adjourned to the November 1, 2016 meeting. It was noted agains that there would be one less member of the Board present at the November meeting, and the applicant would need three out of four affirmative votes. Chairman Moscato called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in favor or opposition to the application. He read a letter from the resident at 750 King Street in opposition to the application in to the record.The letter stated that the applicant's property is the first home people see when entering into the Village. It was the neighbor's opinion that the site of a car parked in the front yard is not in keeping with the Scenic Roads Overlay District.The expansion is a convenience versus a necessity,and as such the neighbor asked that the variances be denied. Joel Simon and Glen Brettschnieder, motioned and seconded to adjourn this matter to the November 1,2016 meeting. The motion passed with five(5)ayes. Chairman Moscato called for the third item on the agenda: 3. #16-022 Christopher Broderick&Patricia Broderick Kenneth Flornes&Nicole Parise-Flornes Louis Augone,Vanessa Augone&Josephine Barber Robert Delaney&Joanna Topping Zoning Board of Appeals October 4,2016 Page 4 (Adjourned from 9/6/2016) 699 Westchester Avenue Consideration of Resolution with respect to application filed pursuant to Village Code§250-13.G.(4)to reverse the Building Inspector's determination to grant Temporary Tent Permits #TP 16-002 and #TP 16-003, for the property located at The Hilton Westchester,699 Westchester Avenue,Rye Brook,New York,designated and shown on the current Tax Map as Parcel ID#135.74-1-8. Chairman Moscato stated that the public hearing had been held during the prior meeting and Village Counsel has prepared a resolution for a vote at this meeting,and the Board is now ready to make its determination. It was discussed that the public hearing on this matter was closed at the prior meeting. Chairman Moscato noted that he has read through the findings and is in agreement with the Building Inspector's determination. The entire Board agreed that they were satisfied with the Resolution and were prepared to vote. Chairman Moscato then read the following: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made by Christopher and Patricia Broderick, 14 Beacon Lane, Nicole Parise-Flomes and Kenneth Flornes, 3 Maple Court, Louis and Vanessa Augone and Josephine Barber, 16 Beacon Lane, and Joanna Topping and Robert Delaney, 19 Beacon Lane, (collectively referred to as the "Appellants"), by their attorney Joanna Topping, Esq., to the Village of Rye Brook Zoning Board of Appeals on June 17, 2016, appealing the Village of Rye Brook Building Inspector's determination to issue two temporary tent permits (Permit#TP 16-002 issued on April 18,2016 with the tent to be installed on July 26,2016 and removed September 18, 2016 and Permit#TP 16-003 issued on April 18,2016 with the tent to be installed on May 20, 2016 and to be removed July 18, 2016) to the Hilton Westchester, located at 699 Westchester Avenue, including his underlying determination that the temporary tents are not"Buildings"and therefore are not subject to the setback and parking requirements applicable to Buildings located in the H-I Hotel District;and WHEREAS,a duly advertised public hearing on the appeal was opened on September 6, 2016,at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity;and Zoning Board of Appeals October 4,2016 Page 5 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 considered comments from Village staff, consultants and the public and has reviewed all written materials submitted in connection with the application. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,that upon consideration of all written and oral arguments and submissions in the Record before the Zoning Board of Appeals, for the reasons set forth in the attached "DECISION ON APPEAL OF BUILDING INSPECTOR'S DETERMINATION TO GRANT TEMPORARY TENT PERMITS FOR THE HILTON WESTCHESTER,699 WESTCHESTER AVENUE,RYE BROOK,NEW YORK",the Zoning Board of Appeals hereby upholds the decision of the Village of Rye Brook Building Inspector to issue two temporary tent permits to the Hilton Westchester,located at 699 Westchester Avenue, including his underlying determination that the temporary tents are not "Buildings" and therefore are not subject to the setback and parking requirements applicable to Buildings located in the H-1 Hotel District. Dated: October 4,2016 The resolution passed by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. ATTACHMENT TO RESOLUTION DECISION ON APPEAL OF BUILDING INSPECTOR'S DETERMINATION TO GRANT TEMPORARY TENT PERMITS FOR THE HILTON WESTCHESTER,699 WESTCHESTER AVENUE,RYE BROOK,NEW YORK This is an appeal pursuant to Sections 250-13(G)(1)and(4)of the Village of Rye Brook Zoning Code (the"Zoning Code") brought by Christopher and Patricia Broderick, 14 Beacon Lane,Rye Brook, New York,Nicole Parise-Flornes and Kenneth Flornes, 3 Maple Court,Rye Brook, New York, Louis and Vanessa Augon, 16 Beacon Lane, Rye Brook, New York, Josephine Barber, 16 Beacon Lane, Rye Brook, New York and Joanna Topping and Robert Delaney, 19 Beacon Lane,Rye Brook,New York,(collectively referred to as the"Appellants"). On or about June 17, 2016,the Appellants filed an application appealing the issuance of two temporary tent permits (Permit #TP 16-002 issued on April 18, 2016 with the tent to be installed on July 25, 2016 and removed by September 18,2016 and Permit#TP 16-003 issued Zoning Board of Appeals October 4,2016 Page 6 on April 18,2016 with the tent to be installed on May 20,2016 and to be removed by July 18, 2016)by Michael Izzo,the Village of Rye Brook Building Inspector(the"Building Inspector") to the Hilton Westchester, located at 699 Westchester Avenue, Rye Brook(the"Hilton"), and the Building Inspector's underlying determination that the temporary tents to be constructed pursuant to these permits are not"Buildings"under the Village of Rye Brook Zoning Code(the "Zoning Code"). Appellants assert the Building Inspector's issuance of the temporary tent permits and underlying determination is irrational and has no factual or legal basis and should be overturned by the Village of Rye Brook Zoning Board of Appeals(the"Board"). In this Appeal, this Board must review the language of Zoning Code §250-2, which defines the term"Building"as"[a]ny structure having a roof supported by columns or by walls and intended for the shelter, housing or enclosure of persons, animals or chattel". The Board must then determine whether the Building Inspector correctly interpreted this provision by issuing permits allowing the Hilton to construct temporary tents on the grounds that the temporary tents were not"Buildings", and therefore,are not subject to the setback and parking requirements applicable to Buildings located in the H-1 Hotel District. The Board's jurisdiction in this appeal is not to decide the merits of the Hilton's application for Site Plan approval presently pending with the Village of Rye Brook Planning Board with respect to the temporary tents and/or any opposition thereto,whether the temporary tents will create traffic, noise or other impacts, whether the proposed tent is otherwise appropriate for its proposed location,or other issues. I. BACKGROUND-THE HILTON TENT PERMIT APPLICATIONS By way of background,the portion of the Hilton property where tent was to be located is identified as Section 135.74, Block 1 and Lot 4, located in the H-1 Hotel District (the "Property"). The Hilton has been operating as a hotel on the Property for many years and has also had temporary tent permits issued for other tents on the Property in the past. On April 13, 2016, Hilton filed an application for a temporary tent permit. On April 18, 2016,the Building Inspector issued Permit#TP 16-003 for a temporary 82'X98'tent structure for occupancy by not more than 540 persons.Permit#TP 16-003 was valid from May 20,2016 through July 18,2016. On April 13,2016, Hilton filed a second application for a temporary tent permit. On April 18, 2016 the Building Inspector issued Permit#TP 16-002 for a temporary 82'X90' tent structure for occupancy by not more than 490 persons.Permit#TP 16-002 was valid from July 25,2016 through September 18,2016. The Hilton began constructing the tent in the parking lot of the existing Hilton parking lot on or about May 20, 2016,the same date Permit#TP 16-003 went into effect.Prior to May 20, 2016,the Applicants assert they did not have notice that the Hilton had filed any applications for a temporary tent permit or that any such permits had been issued. After learning that the temporary tent permits had been issued, the Applicants made several informal requests to the Zoning Board of Appeals October 4,2016 Page 7 Building Inspector to revoke the temporary tent permits.On June 17,2016 the Appellants filed the appeal at issue in this proceeding. Il. APPEAL OF BUILDING INSPECTOR'S DETERMINATION Pursuant to Village Code§250-13(G)(1)and(4),on June 17,2016,Appellants submitted an appeal of the Building Inspector's issuance of temporary tent Permit#TP 16-002 and Permit #TP 16-003. By the appeal, Appellants sought an interpretation from to this Board regarding whether the temporary tents constructed by the Hilton are `Buildings" which is defined in Zoning Code § 250-2 as "[ajny structure having a roof supported by columns or by walls and intended for the shelter, housing or enclosure of persons, animals or chattel". Implicit in the Building Inspector's issuance of the temporary tent permits was the determination that the temporary tents, although considered "Structures" under Zoning Code § 250-2, are not "Buildings" and are therefore not subject to the zoning restrictions applicable to Buildings located in the H-1 Hotel District, including but not limited to the 175 foot set back requirement set forth in Zoning Code §250-34(F) and the parking requirements set forth in Zoning Code §250-34(H). Review of the Building Inspector's determination and the above-referenced language is the matter which is before this Board. The appeal was originally scheduled for a public hearing on August 2, 2016. However, due to only three Board members being present at the meeting and a defect in the public notice mailing performed by the Appellants, the Appellants requested that the public hearing be adjourned to the September 6, 2016 meeting. A public hearing on the appeal was opened and closed on September 6,2016,at which time the Appellants,a representative from the Hilton and all members of the public were permitted to address the Board. The following written submissions were considered by the ZBA in this appeal: 1. ZBA Application re: 699 Westchester Avenue prepared by Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman&Dicker,L.P.,on behalf of Appellants,with letter in support,application form and enclosures,dated June 17,2016; 2. Letter to ZBA prepared by McCullough,Goldberger&Staudt,LLP,on behalf of Hilton Westchester,dated July 27,2016;and 3. Letter to the ZBA prepared by Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman &Dicker,L.P.,with enclosures,dated September 6,2016. III. Decision A. The Application Was Timely The Hilton initially argues that the appeal is untimely because it was not filed within 60 days of the Building Inspector's issuance of Permit#TP 16-002 and Permit#TP 16-003 on April 18,2016. Village Law§7-712-a(5)(b)requires appeals of an administrative official to be filed within 60 days of the determination of a Village official.In this case,the Board finds that appeal Zoning Board of Appeals October 4,2016 Page 8 was timely because the time to appeal either Permit#TP 16-002 and Permit#TP 16-003 did not begin to run until the Appellants had notice, or should have had notice, that the permits in question were issued.lacone v. Building Department of Oyster Bay, 32 A.D.3d 1026, 1028(2d Dep't 2006),citing Matter ofPansa v.Damian, 14 N.Y.2d 356(1964). Appellants assert they did not have notice of the issuance of Permit #TP 16-002 and Permit#TP 16-003 until Hilton actually began construction of the temporary tent on May 20, 2016.The Appellants therefore acted in a timely manner by filing the appeal at issue within the 60 day period set forth in Village Law§7-712-a(5)(b). The Hilton also argues that since they obtained temporary tent permits and constructed similar tents on the Hilton property in past years, that the failure to appeal the prior permits precludes a challenge to the temporary tent permits in this proceeding. The Board finds this argument to be without merit.First,a temporary tent permit must be issued each time a tent is to be constructed,regardless of whether the tent is being erected on the same property. Second,the record confirms that the temporary tents at issue were not for the exact same tents or for the same purpose as the temporary tent permits issued previously.Therefore,the failure to challenge the issuance of temporary tent permits to Hilton in past years does not bar the appeal. Furthermore,the Hilton has filed an application with the Village of Rye Brook Planning Board seeking site plan approval for the temporary tent so that they can construct similar tents in future years. Determination of the instant appeal is necessary to avoid future disputes and resolve any issues of interpretation with respect to the construction of similar tents on the Hilton property in the future. As a result, the Board finds that the appeal should not be dismissed as untimely. B. Standard of Review The Board is required to review the appeal based on the legal principle that "zoning restrictions, being in derogation of common-law property rights, should be strictly construed, and any ambiguities are to be resolved in favor of the property owner." Robert E. Havell Revocable Trust v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Vill. of Monroe, 127 A.D.3d 1095, 1097, 8 N.Y.S.3d 353 (2d Dep't. 2015), citing Matter of BBJ Assoc., LLC v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Kent, 65 A.D.3d 154, 159, 881 N.Y.S.2d 496 (2d Dep't 2009). In this proceeding, because the Zoning Code does not define the term "tent", an ambiguity exists with respect to whether a tent should or should not be considered a"Building"and subject to applicable zoning requirements. Ambiguities also exist with respect to the definition of the term`Building"as that term is used in the Zoning Code.As stated above,the term "Building"is defined in Zoning Code§250- 2 as "[a]ny structure having a roof supported by columns or by walls and intended for the shelter, housing or enclosure of persons, animals or chattel". The Zoning Code, however, does not contain a definition of the terms "roof', "columns" or "walls". Thus, an ambiguity also Zoning Board of Appeals October 4,2016 Page 9 exists in this case with respect to whether the temporary frame covered with fabric, as constructed by the Hilton,constitutes"columns"or"walls"that support a roof.As a result,any ambiguities with respect to the terms"columns"or"walls"must be strictly construed in favor of the Hilton which is the owner of the property to which the Zoning Code is being applied. This Board is also aware of general statutory construction principles which are applicable when interpreting local code provisions. When interpreting statutes, each word must be given effect and words may not be construed to render the statute ineffective or create an inconvenient, unreasonable or absurd result. N.Y. Statutes §§142, 143, 144, 145, 213 (McKinney's 1971). Also,words in a statute are to be given their usual and commonly understood meaning,unless it is clear from the statute that a different meaning is intended. N.Y. Statutes §232 (McKinney's 1971). C. The Basis For The Building Inspector's Determination During the public hearing held on September 6, 2016, the Building Inspector explained that his determination that the temporary tents in question were not"Buildings"was based upon several grounds: 1. Since the Zoning Code did not contain a definition of the term"tent"he looked to other authorities to determine how they defined this term. The New York State Fire Code contains a definition of the term "tent"and the structure on the Hilton property clearly met the definition of the term "tent" in the New York State Fire Code. Thus, the Building Inspector relied on the definition of the term"tent"in the New York State Fire Code. 2. The Building Inspector also stated that if the tent at issue is considered a "Building", then he would need to look at all other applications for temporary tents in the Village of Rye Brook in the future to determine if those temporary tents were also"Buildings" that would need to comply with the provisions of all the requirements in the Zoning Code. He stated that this does not make sense and would likely result in all other persons applying to construct a temporary tent having to comply with the zoning regulations for the Zoning District in which they were being constructed,which would make erecting temporary tents in the Village of Rye Brook virtually impossible. 3. The Building Inspector also found that the construction of the temporary tent at issue, including the type of framing used, was not unique, but was typical of the construction used in other tents.Other temporary tents also use similar types of aluminum frames draped with canvas and often have doors, floors, electricity light figures and other amenities. Therefore, it would not be possible to differentiate the Hilton temporary tent from other temporary tents that may be constructed. Zoning Board of Appeals October 4,2016 Page 10 Based on all these factors, the Building Inspector determined that it was appropriate to issue Permit#TP 16-002 and Permit#TP 16-003 because the temporary tent to be constructed on the Hilton property pursuant to these permits was not a Building and did not need to comply with the zoning regulations applicable to Buildings located in the H-1 Zoning District. D. The Building Inspector's Determination Should Be Affirmed The Board finds that the Building Inspector's determination should be affirmed because it was rational and supported by the evidence in the record of this proceeding. Although Appellants argue that the size and duration of the tent in question makes this structure different from other temporary tents that are typically erected for a particular event, there is nothing in definition of the term"Building"in Zoning Code§250-2,or anywhere else in the Zoning Code,which states that the size and duration of a structure should be considered in determining whether a"Structure"should be considered to be a"Building". Likewise,the fact that the Hilton tent at issue has many amenities including multiple sets of double hung interior doors and wooden steps, wall-to-wall carpeting, an ADA compliant ramp, light fixtures, air conditioning and is powered by generators, also has no bearing on whether the tent is a "Building". Other temporary tents have similar types of amenities, including other temporary tents that have been constructed in the Village of Rye Brook. Moreover,the Zoning Code does not allow for consideration of these types of amenities when determining if a particular"Structure"should be considered a"Building." Importantly, the testimony provided by the Building Inspector confirmed that the aluminum framing used to support the temporary tent is similar to that of other tents that are frequently constructed in the Village of Rye Brook,just on a larger scale.The Zoning Code does not contain a definition of the term"column" as used in the definition of the term"Building". However,it is the opinion of the Board that the framing in question for this temporary tent is not a "column" as that term is typically used. It is also the Board's determination that the fabric draping the support structure is not a wall that is being used to support a roof. Resolving ambiguities in favor of the Hilton as required by New York State law compels the Board to find that the temporary tent constructed by the Hilton does not meet the definition of a`Building" under Section 250-2 of the Zoning Code. The case Matter of B.J.L. v. Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Clarkstown, 15 A.D.3d 650 (2d Dep't 2005), cited by Appellants for the proposition that a tent can be considered a "Building", is not controlling. In that case, the Town of Clarkstown Building Inspector determined that a"tent-like structure"was considered a`Building"under the Town of Clarkstown Zoning Code, which contained the same definition of"Building" as used in the Village Zoning Code.However,there is very little description of the"tent-like structure"in that case and it is unknown on what basis the Town of Clarkstown Building Inspector based his Zoning Board of Appeals October 4,2016 Page 11 determination or whether there were other provisions in the Town of Clarkstown Zoning Code that were relied upon by the Town of Clarkstown Building Inspector that are not included in the Village of Rye Brook's Zoning Code. Furthermore, the petitioner in Matter of B.J.L. never appealed the Town of Clarkstown Building Inspector's determination that the "tent-like structure"was a"Building",which is the issue in this case.Thus,the Court in Matter of B.J.L., never reached the issue of whether the"tent-like structure"was a"Building"and that case is not dispositive here. The Board also finds that the Building Inspector properly relied on the definition of a tent included in the New York State Fire Code.New York State Fire Code§2402.1 defines a tent as "[a] structure, enclosure or shelter constructed of fabric or pliable material supported in any manner except by air or the contents it protects."The temporary tent constructed by the Hilton falls squarely within the definition of a "tent" in the New York State Fire Code. In addition, New York State Fire Code§2403.3 also states that tents cannot be used for more than 180 days within a twelve month period. In this case, the temporary tents proposed under Permit#TP 16- 002 and Permit#TP 16-003 also comply with this requirement.As a result,the temporary tents constructed by the Hilton comply with the definition of a tent under the New York State Fire Code and this also supports the Building Inspector's determination. The Building Inspector's determination is also supported because a finding to the contrary—that the temporary tent constructed by Hilton is a`Building"under Zoning Code § 250-2 —would impact all applications for temporary tents in the Village of Rye Brook going forward. Although the temporary tent constructed by the Hilton is larger, has more amenities and remains in place for a longer duration than certain other temporary tents,if it is determined by this Board that the Hilton's temporary tent is a "Building", it would be arbitrary and irrational for the Building Inspector to find that other temporary tents are not "Buildings", without being provided a specific set of parameters that are not present in the Zoning Code.If all temporary tents are considered"Buildings", it would also require that all zoning requirements applicable in a particular Zoning District,including setbacks,floor area ratio,building coverage, etc., would be applicable, making the construction of a temporary tent in the Village of Rye Brook virtually impossible. Such a result would be illogical and inconsistent with the purpose of allowing persons to apply for permits for temporary tents in the Village of Rye Brook. Pursuant to rules of statutory construction the provisions of the Zoning Code cannot be interpreted to create an unreasonable or absurd result. N.Y. Statutes §§142, 143, 144, 145,213 (McKinney's 1971). Therefore,this illogical conclusion also supports the Building Inspector's issuance of the permits and determination that the temporary tent constructed by the Hilton is not a"Building". Accordingly,the determination of the Building Inspector is affirmed. 4. Approval of September 6,2016 Zoning Board Summary Zoning Board of Appeals October 4,2016 Page 12 Chairman Moscato called for discussion of the September 6, 2016 summary. One minor correction was made and on a motion made by Jamie Schutzer,and seconded by Joel Simon,the Summary was approved as amended. There being no further business before the Board,the meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Zoning Board of Appeals October 4,2016 Page 13 I