Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout510PERM17 # `��� DATE: EXP'- SECTION _, BLOCK,_,..- �_-_-_._._- . LOY. !�5 _- _.�. TYPE OF WORK JOB LOCATI/O�N T i OWNER VCZl'� - ��IIS �--G�i�--���5 CONTRACTOR _ _ E�. COST .` FEE !. � / vC0 # �I' � FEE _DATE_ -� v 0���r TCO # FEE.,,,_ � GATE - - - - INSPECTION RECORD DATE FOOTING FOUNDATION FRAMING RGH FRAMING INSULATION PLUMfiING L RGH PLUMBINC�G GAS SPRINKLER ELECTRIC LOW -VOLT ALARM AS BUILT FINAL INSP i Pal -/ �� f ,�Db y�-%,��5 1_L. �-- OTHER APPROVALS ARB :• I PB zBA .111E - f 202i z 1-O z OTHER .r ECE V E SEP - 9 202, DR �'�. VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BUILDING DEPARTMENT y MINUTES W Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Village Hall, 938 King Street j, Tuesday,July 6, 2022 APPROVED BOARD PRESENT: Donald Moscato, Chair DATE�}�tt�lP hP, Steven Berger James Schutzer Trustee David M. Heiser,Village Board Liaison BOARD ABSENT: Glenn Brettschneider Joel Simon STAFF PRESENT: Drew Gamils,Village Counsel Michael Izzo,Building Inspector Fred Seifert, Public Access Coordinator Chairman Don Moscato welcomed everyone to the July 6, 2021, meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. He introduced the members of the Board, Village staff, and the liaison from the Board of Trustees,Trustee David Heiser. He instructed anyone addressing the Board to come to the podium, use the microphone, state their name, address, and the nature of the application. Chairman Moscato noted that only three(3) of the five (5)members of the Board were in attendance. He explained that each applicant has the opportunity to adjourn to the next meeting.Chairman Moscato stated that the applicants were contacted and agreed to be heard with the three (3) members of the Board present. He advised the applicants that a successful application must have a unanimous decision of all three (3) Board members. Chairman Moscato explained there are some applications from last month and would like to focus on new information or changes from the previous application. Steven Berger stated he was not at the previous meeting but watched the entire video and feels he can participate in the discussion. Chairman Moscato called for the first item on the agenda. 1. ITEMS: 1.1. #21-012 (Adjourned from 6/112021) Jorge Robles 16 Maywood Avenue Construct a rear deck expansion. Zoning Board of Appeals July 6,2021 Oscar Ovalle,associate of NY Architect Designers for the applicants addressed the Board. He refreshed the Board regarding the previous proposal. The previous plans requested a 155 square foot deck expansion. The deck would result in a deck coverage of 5%whereas the allowable deck coverage is 3.5%. Mr. Ovalle explained how they are now proposing a substantial reduction. The applicant has reduced the deck expansion to 80.5 square feet, almost half of the initial proposal. This deck expansion would now result in a deck coverage of 3.88%.The deck coverage variance would now be reduced to 0.38%. Chairman Moscato stated that letters were received from the neighbors and the Board has reviewed them. Chairman Moscato called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in support or opposition to the application. There being no one, Chairman Moscato called for a motion and a second to close the public hearing. The public portion of the hearing was closed,and the Board began deliberation. The Board discussed the reduction. Chairman Moscato pointed out how one of the letters commented on an annoying spotlight. He noted that is not relevant to the size of the deck.The nature of the complaint was the ensuing noise. Chairman Moscato explained that theoretically,you can make as much noise on a smaller deck as you can on a larger deck. The Board agreed. Chairman Moscato did not consider those to be significant objections to the nature of the application. Steven Berger advised the applicant to make sure they follow the approved plans and not the previous plans. Michael Izzo,Building Inspector explained that there is an interim inspection which is called a framing inspection. It's at that juncture that we examine the plans,the deck for overall size and structure. The Building Department will assure that the project gets built as per the approved plans. After reviewing the five factors used by Zoning Board when reviewing the application, Chairman Moscato read the following resolution: Page 2of31 Zoning Board of Appeals July 6,2021 RESOLUTION WHEREAS,application has been made to the Zoning Board by Jorge Robles (the "Applicant") for a deck coverage variance of 0.38%where the maximum allowable deck coverage is 3.5%pursuant to Village Code 250-37.B in connection with a proposed rear deck expansion, on property located at 16 Maywood Avenue, in an R- 5 zoning district on the south side of Maywood Avenue, approximately 320 feet from the intersection of North Ridge Street and Maywood Avenue. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID# 135.75-1-30;and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on June 1, 2021 and July 6, 2021, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and WHEREAS, the public hearing was closed on July 6,2021;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 in Village Code § 250-13(G)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brook Code,finds: 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 the said application for a deck coverage variance of 0.38%where the maximum allowable deck coverage is 3.5%pursuant to Village Code § 250-37.B in connection with a proposed rear deck expansion, on property located at 16 Maywood Avenue is hereby GRANTED on the following conditions: Page 3 of 31 Zoning Board of Appeals July 6,2021 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. Chairman Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting:Aye Glenn Brettschneider Voting: Excused Jamie Schutzer Voting:Aye Joel Simon Voting: Excused Don Moscato Voting:Aye The resolution was adopted by a vote of three ayes and zero nays. Page 4of31 Zoning Board of Appeals July 6,2021 Chairman Moscato called for the second item on the agenda. 1.2. #21-015 (Adjournedfmm61112021) Fabrice Hugon&Merle Hugon 167 Country Ridge Drive Construct a one story side in-fill addition and interior alterations. Tom Haynes, Haynes Architecture for the applicants addressed the Board. He began his presentation by noting the existing dwelling is a single family detached dwelling. It currently exists as four bedrooms three and a half bathrooms. The house is approximately 4,200 square feet. Chairman Moscato noted that the reason this application was adjourned from last month's agenda is because when a lot contains storm water issues there is a formula the Village requires a portion of the lot be considered. Chairman Moscato asked for Michael Izzo, the Building Inspector to formalize his statement. Michael Izzo,Building Inspector explained that the Village Code requires that you discount portions of the property that are either under water or are affected by a steep slope by 25%. He stated you can't use the entire square footage of the lot when calculating bulk standards if a portion of the property is under water or a steep slope.A portion of this property has a stream running through the rear yard. The architect had to recalculate and reduce the usable size of the lot based on that portion that is under water to reflect the 25%reduction. Tom Haynes continued his presentation by going over the interior changes that are proposed. One of the first floor bedrooms will be converted to a master closet. The new basement space will provide a new laundry room, mudroom and two additional bedrooms with en-suites for their growing children. Mr. Haynes clarified that the new garage will be constructed below the existing open car port He explained that this is the least environmentally impacted way to achieve additional living space for the family. It will also be more aesthetically pleasing and increase the value of the property. The homeowners spoke to the adjacent neighbors, and they have no objections to the application. Mr. Haynes believes this is a unique scenario because of the stream running through the lot causes a large reduction in the allowable square footage. He is not sure if any other house is Rye Brook have this scenario. Chairman Moscato expressed that they do have a common theme. Houses in the R-15 zoning district are moving more and more towards significantly increasing the square footage and making a house that was thought to be in a R-20 or R-25 zoning district. This is a recurring issue. The topography of every lot is different. On paper,this lot is a substantially large lot for an R-15 zoning district. Michael Izzo,Building Inspector clarified that if they were able to count the whole lot,the allowable gross floor area would be 4,204 square feet. Due to the reduction, they can only have a gross floor area of 3,674.9. If the property didn't have the stream running through it,it would be code compliant,and the variance number sought would be greatly reduced. Chairman Moscato explained that because of the reduction in lot size,it substantially increased the square footage requested. He stated that the mitigating factors here, the large lot size and no increase in the footprint,influences his decision in this particular case. Page 5 of 31 Zoning Board of Appeals July 6,2021 Chairman Moscato called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in support or opposition to the application. There being no one, Chairman Moscato called for a motion and a second to close the public hearing. The public portion of the hearing was closed,and the Board began deliberation. The Board discussed the increase in the GFA. Chairman Moscato pointed out that each application is looked at uniquely.After looking at the plans,there doesn't seem to be a way to reduce the square footage. The applicant is not increasing the footprint,which is a very important factor. After reviewing the five factors used by Zoning Board when reviewing the application, Chairman Moscato read the following resolution: Page 6 of 31 Zoning Board of Appeals July 6,2021 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Fabrice Hugon &Merle Hugon (the "Applicants") for a gross floor area variance of 916.11 square feet where the maximum allowable gross floor area is 3,674.89 square feet pursuant to Village Code § 250-20.E, in connection with the proposed one story side in-fill addition and interior alterations, on property located at 167 Country Ridge Drive,in an R-15 zoning district on the west side of Country Ridge Drive, approximately 850 feet from the intersection of Rocking Horse Trail and Country Ridge Drive. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID# 129.74-1-2; and WHEREAS, the existing non-conforming gross floor area is 4,202 square feet and the proposed in-fill addition will result in a gross floor area of 4,591 square feet; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on July 6, 2021,at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and WHEREAS, the public hearing was closed on July 6,2021; 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 in Village Code § 250-13(G)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brook Code,finds: 1) The variance WILL NOT create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood; 2) The benefit the Applicants seek 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 the said application for a gross floor area variance of 916.11 square feet where the maximum allowable gross floor area is 3,674.89 square feet pursuant to Village Code § Page 7 of 31 Zoning Board of Appeals July 6,2021 250-20.E,in connection with the proposed one story side in-fill addition and interior alterations, on property located at 167 Country Ridge Drive, is hereby GRANTED on 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. Chairman Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting:Aye Glenn Brettschneider Voting: Excused Jamie Schutzer Voting:Aye Joel Simon Voting: Excused Don Moscato Voting: Aye The resolution was adopted by a vote of three ayes and zero nays. Page 8 of 31 Zoning Board of Appeals July 6,2021 Chairman Moscato called for the third item on the agenda. 1.3. #21-017 (A,§ournedfmm 61112021) Abhinav Gautam&Pool Singh 11 Berkley Drive Construct a rear two story addition,new front portico,rear patio,deck and interior renovations. John G. Scarlato,Architect for the applicants addressed the Board. He refreshed the Board regarding the previous variances requested.They have reduced the front yard setback variance by 2 feet, eliminated the height setback ratio variance and reduced the gross floor area variance by 128 square feet. The revised plans now propose an 841.5 square foot gross floor area variance and a 5.5 foot front yard setback variance. Michael Izzo,Building Inspector clarified the square footage reduction is 127.5. John G. Scarlato presented 2 properties with similar lot size and square footage. 24 Latonia Road has a gross floor area of 4,250 square feet which is 950 square feet over the allowable. 15 Berkley Drive has a gross floor area of 4,575 square feet which is 1,000 square feet over the allowable. Chairman Moscato asked how these changes have impacted the applicant. John G. Scarlato explained that the reduction has made the rooms smaller. Chairman Moscato asked the architect to explain the contribution to the increase in gross floor area to increasing the footprint. John G. Scarlato stated they have kept the increase to a minimum. The rear addition is over an existing patio which doesn't increase the impervious. The front portico is to enlarge the entry foyer and has been reduced. Chairman Moscato called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in support or opposition to the application. There being no one, Chairman Moscato called for a motion and a second to close the public hearing. The public portion of the hearing was closed,and the Board began deliberation. The Board discussed that the bulk standards are driven by the size of the lot not by the zoning district that they are in. Raised ranches have a unique characteristics to it. There is very little you can do to a raised ranch because everything is considered in the square footage. This causes a lot of houses to greatly exceed the allowable GFA. Chairman Moscato asked Michael Izzo,Building Inspector if he and the Building Department can look back at the last 2 years for how many applications in an R-15 zone came before the Board. Once that has been completed, he would consider going before the Board of Trustees requesting their review of the bulk standards in the R-15 zone to see if it's in keeping with the maintenance of greenspace and either maintain the existing standards or modify those standards. Page 9of31 Zoning Board of Appeals July 6,2021 Chairman Moscato commended the architect and the applicants on their effort to reduce the size and still maintain the quality of life they were pursuing. After reviewing the five factors used by Zoning Board when reviewing the application, Chairman Moscato read the following resolution: Page 10 of 31 Zoning Board of Appeals July 6,2021 RESOLUTION WHEREAS,application has been made to the Zoning Board by Abhinav Gautam & Pooja Singh (the "Applicants") for a (1) a front yard setback variance of 5.5 feet,where the minimum required setback is 40 feet pursuant to Village Code § 250-20.G(1) in connection with the proposed new front portico, and (2) a gross floor area variance of 840.5 square feet where the maximum allowable gross floor area is 3,295 square feet pursuant to Village Code � 250-20.E in connection with the proposed rear two story addition, on property located at 11 Berkley Drive,in an R-15 zoning district on the south side of Berkley Drive,approximately 80 feet from the intersection of Winthrop Drive and Berkley Drive. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID# 135.34-1-54; and WHEREAS,the property has an existing non-conforming front yard setback of 38.5 feet;and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on June 1,2021 and July 6,2021,at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and WHEREAS, the public hearing was closed on July 6,2021; 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 in Village Code � 250-13(G)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brook Code, finds with respect to the requested variances that: 1) The variances WILL NOT create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood; 2) The benefit the Applicants seek 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 variance IS self-created; and Page 11 of 31 Zoning Board of Appeals July 6,2021 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the said application for (1) a front yard setback variance of 5.5 feet, where the minimum required setback is 40 feet pursuant to Village Code § 250-20.G(1) in connection with the proposed new front portico, and (2) a gross floor area variance of 840.5 square feet where the maximum allowable gross floor area is 3,295 square feet pursuant to Village Code § 250-20.E in connection with the proposed rear two story addition, on property located at 11 Berkley Drive, is hereby GRANTED on 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. Chairman Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting:Aye Glenn Brettschneider Voting: Excused Jamie Schutzer Voting:Aye Joel Simon Voting: Excused Don Moscato Voting: Aye The resolution was adopted by a vote of three ayes and zero nays. Page 12 of 31 Zoning Board of Appeals July 6,2021 Chairman Moscato called for the fourth item on the agenda. 1.4. #21-018 (Adjourned from 6/1/2021) Stuart Sindell &Marcia Sindell Joseph Abbe 980 Anderson Hill Road Applicant seeks to reverse the Building Inspector's determination to grant Building Permit#21-054 issued on 3/22/2021 authorizing the construction of a new teaching building,reconfiguration of the front entrance roadway, and construction of a new chip and putting green for the property owned by The Blind Brook Club Inc. Steven Berger stated he was not at the previous meeting but watched the entire video and read the draft minutes and feels that if no one objects,he can participate in the discussion. Chairman Moscato explained how the application last month was discussed over Zoom. There were a few contributors on the call. The applicant reiterated a statement that was submitted indicating the two major points. One, the road being a County road. That was determined to not being an issue since it is a Village road. Two, the presence or the absence of a formal Construction Management Plan. The Blind Brook Club proposed various alterations and had attended two Planning Board meetings.A formal Construction Management Plan was submitted at that time.An amendment was presented for the training facility and putting greens. The issue before the Board is,do the two approved site plans,SP-6&SP-7 contain sufficient information that the Building Inspector can make a decision to issue a building permit with the existence of the original plan submitted for the Club. Drew Gamils,Village Counsel stated for the record that a draft decision has been prepared based on the discussion last month. This was circulated to everyone and uploaded to the agenda packet. Chairman Moscato noted that he listened to the meetings and read the meeting minutes. He visited the Blind Brook Club and the Enclave. Chairman Moscato explained how a substantial amount of information was provided in the original permit application for the Club. The training facility was an amendment application. The Building Inspector had the discretion to say there was enough information provided based on the original application. The need for a traffic study and other items in the Construction Management Plan were not necessary based on the location of the training building on the Blind Brook property. When the applicant read their response to the Board, they did not focus on the CMP but exclusively on the topic that they don't want to look at the building. They did not address the issues of the CMP, only the attorney for the applicant spoke of the CMP. David Gelfarb, Attorney for the applicants expressed how not every application that goes before the Planning Board requires a CMP, only when there is a site plan approval or amendment. The BOT enacted this code. If someone feels they don't need a traffic control/ Construction Management plan when they go before the Board, the Board can say they don't require it. Michael Izzo, Building Inspector noted that there was information in the initial plans that constituted a Construction Management Plan. The amendment applications had no effect on the site. Page 13 of 31 Zoning Board of Appeals July 6,2021 Drew Gamils, Village Counsel explained how that the Village did not have "Construction Management Plan" defined in the Village Code. This law was adopted in October 2020 and officially filed on December 2, 2020. The law did not take effect until the Department of State filed it.The Blind Brook Club amendment decision was made on December 10, 2020. The original site plan approvals predate this law. The Board discussed the information provided on the approved plans and concluded that it contained enough information for the Building Inspector to issue the amended permit therefore,the Board upholds the Building Inspectors decision. Drew Gamils,Village Counsel read the following resolution: Page 14 of 31 Zoning Board of Appeals July 6,2021 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made by Stuart Sindell and Marcia Sindell, 27 Carol Court and Joseph Abbe, 29 Carol Court, (collectively referred to as the"Appellants"),by their attorney David B. Gelfarb,Esq.,to the Village of Rye Brook Zoning Board of Appeals on May 5,2021,appealing the Village of Rye Brook Building Inspector's determination to grant Building Permit#21-054 issued on March 22,2021 authorizing the construction of a new golf teaching building,reconfiguration of the front entrance roadway,and construction of a new chip and putting green for property owned by The Blind Brook Club Inc,located at 980 Anderson Hill Road in the R-35 Zoning District and Scenic Roads Overlay District, and designated as Section 129.58,Block 1,Lot 1 as shown on the Town of Rye Tax Assessor's Map;and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on June 1, 2021,at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity, and the public hearing was closed on June 1,2021; and WHEREAS, due to public health and safety concerns related to the current COVID-19 pandemic, the June 1,2021 meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals at which this application was heard,was duly noticed and held via videoconference in accordance with the requirements of the Zoning Code of the Village of Rye Brook and the Governor's Executive Orders which suspend the "in-person" requirements of the NYS Open Meetings Law and provide alternative means by which to conduct public meetings and hearings; 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 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 A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE BLIND BROOK CLUB INC., 980 ANDERSON HILL ROAD, RYE BROOK, NEW YORK,"as amended on July 6,2021,the Zoning Board of Appeals hereby upholds the decision of the Village of Rye Brook Building Inspector to issue a Building Permit for the construction of a new golf teaching building, Page 15 of 31 Zoning Board of Appeals July 6,2021 reconfiguration of the front entrance roadway and new chip and putt greens at the Blind Brook Club Inc., at 980 Anderson Hill Road. Chairman Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting:Aye Glenn Brettschneider Voting: Excused Jamie Schutzer Voting:Aye Joel Simon Voting: Excused Don Moscato Voting: Aye The resolution was adopted as amended by a vote of three ayes and zero nays. Page 16 of 31 Zoning Board of Appeals July 6,2021 DECISION ON APPEAL OF BUILDING INSPECTOR'S DETERMINATION TO GRANTE A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE BLIND BROOK CLUB INC., 980 ANDERSON HILL ROAD, RYE BROOK,NEW YORK This is an appeal pursuant to the Village of Rye Brook Code("Village Code") 5�250-13(G)(1)and (4),brought by Stuart Sindell and Marcia Sindell, 27 Carol Court and Joseph Abbe, 29 Carol Court(collectively referred to as the "Appellants"), by their attorney David B. Gelfarb,Esq. On or about May 4,2021,Mr. Gelfarb filed,on behalf of the Appellants,an application appealing the issuance of Building Permit No. 21-054 for the construction of a new golf teaching building, reconfiguration of the front entrance roadway, and new chip & putt greens (the `Building Permit), issued by Michael Izzo, the Village of Rye Brook Building Inspector (the `Building Inspector"), on March 22, 2021 to The Blind Brook Club, Inc., located at 980 Anderson Hill Road, Rye Brook, New York. The Appellants allege two grounds on which they believe the Building Permit should be revoked: (1) failure to obtain a permit from the Westchester County Department of Public Works to modify the driveway entrance on Anderson Hill Road,and(2) failure to provide a Construction Management Plan ("CMP"). I. BACKGROUND —BLIND BROOK CLUB, INC. SITE PLAN APPLICATION On March 24,2020,the Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees granted Amended Site Plan Approval to The Blind Brook Club, Inc. (the "Blind Brook Club") for the reworking of the fairways and greens, upgrades to the irrigation and drainage systems, the development of groundwater sources for irrigation to reduce reliance on public water and additions to the clubhouse's patio and terrace for property located at 980 Anderson Hill Road,designated as Parcel ID 129.58-1-1 on the Town of Rye Tax Map and located in the R-35 Zoning District and Scenic Roads Overlay District (the "Property"). The Property consists of 163.2 acres and is developed with a golf course, club house, maintenance building,parking areas, and minor accessory structures. Thereafter, the Blind Brook Club sought further amendments to the Amended Site Plan. The Building Inspector determined such amendments to be minor modifications to the approved Amended Site Plan.The Planning Page 17 of 31 Zoning Board of Appeals July 6,2021 Board was determined to be the approval authority for such minor amendments pursuant to Village Code � 209- 1.A(2)(c). On December 10, 2020, the Village Planning Board issued Amended Site Plan and Wetland Permit Approvals to the Blind Brook Club to allow the conversion of an existing disturbed portion of the site to practice and putting greens,a shift in the location of the existing driveway,and the construction of an approximately 1,700 square foot teaching facility building on the Property (collectively referred to herein with the original Amended Site Plan approved by the Board of Trustees as the "Project"). The Planning Board's December 10, 2020 Resolution included several conditions, including Condition #3, which provides as follows: Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit,the Applicant shall secure a permit from the Westchester County Department of Public Works to widen the driveway since Anderson Hill Road is a County Roadl. As part of the application to the Westchester County Department of Public Works, the Applicant shall provide to the Village and to the County the required intersection sight distance (ISD) for the modified driveway. Trimming or removal of vegetation may be necessary along the edge of Anderson Hill Road to achieve ISD to the south of the access drive and along the Property. On March 22, 2021, the Building Inspector issued Building Permit #21-054 for the construction of the new golf teaching building, reconfiguration of the front entrance roadway and construction of the new chip and putting greens at 780 Anderson Hill Road. On May 4, 2021, the Appellants filed the appeal at issue in this proceeding. II. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN REQUIREMENTS On October 27, 2020, the Board of Trustees adopted Local Law 9 of 2020 which, in part, created Village Code § 209-2.B entitled "Construction Management Plan." Pursuant to Village Code 5 209-2.B, any residential or commercial construction project that is subject to the site plan review and approval of the Planning Board or the 'It was later determined that the portion of Anderson Hill Road at issue is not a County Road and instead is a Village Road. Page 18 of 31 Zoning Board of Appeals July 6,2021 Village Board of Trustees shall prepare a Construction Management Plan ("CMP"), unless the Planning Board or Village Board of Trustees, as applicable,waives the CMP requirement. The Village Code requires a CMP include the following information: (a) Schedule:The applicant shall provide a project schedule. (b) Job site, facilities and storage:The CMP shall include the location on the project site of all loading/unloading areas, job box and material storage areas, portable toilet(s), dumpsters and on-site temporary power, any protective fencing around the job site,any trees and vegetation to be preserved and any trees and vegetation to be removed.These and any other construction-related facilities shall not be located in the public right-of-way without the prior approval of the Building Inspector. (c) Traffic control plan.The traffic control plan shall identify the path of travel for delivery trucks and emergency vehicles to and from the project site.In addition,all on-and off-site worker parking locations shall be identified, including any carpool pickup and dropoff locations. (d) Staging areas. The CMP shall specify construction staging area locations.The CMP shall also address delivery and construction vehicle staging for the duration of the project.The staging plan shall estimate the number of truckloads,number of heavy equipment deliveries, etc., expected and their timing and duration for each stage of the project. III. APPEAL OF BUILDING INSPECTOR'S DETERMINATION Pursuant to Village Code � 250-13(G)(1) and (4), on May 4, 2021,Appellants submitted an appeal to reverse the Building Inspector's determination to grant Building Permit#21-054,issued on March 22, 2021, authorizing the construction of a new teaching building, reconfiguration of the front entrance roadway, and construction of a new chip and putting green for the Property. On appeal,Appellants argue that the Building Permit was improperly issued because the Blind Brook Club (1) failed to obtain a permit from the Westchester County Department of Public Works to widen the Club's driveway with access to Anderson Hill Road,and (2) failed to file a CMP for review and approval by the Building Inspector and the Superintendent of Public Works/Village Engineer. A public hearing on the appeal was opened and closed on June 1, 2021, at which time the Appellants, a representative from the Blind Brook Club and all members of the public were permitted to provide public comment before the Zoning Board of Appeals ("ZBX). Due to public health and safety concerns related to the COVID-19 Page 19 of 31 Zoning Board of Appeals July 6,2021 pandemic, the June 1, 2021 meeting of the ZBA at which this application was heard,was duly noticed and held via videoconference in accordance with the requirements of the Village Code and the New York State Governor's Executive Orders which suspended the "in-person" requirements of the NYS Open Meetings Law and provided alternative means by which to conduct public meetings and hearings. The following written submissions were considered by the ZBA in this appeal: 1. ZBA Application re:Appeal of Building Permit#21-054 prepared by David Gelfarb,Esq. of Moss & Kalish,PLLC., on behalf of Appellants,with letter in support,application form and enclosures, dated May 4,2021; 2. Email to ZBA from Lee Paton,dated June 1, 2021; and 3. Email to ZBA from Karen Coombs,dated May 28, 2021. IV. DECISION A. Standard of Review The ZBA 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). If the ZBA finds that the language in the Village Code or other applicable statute is ambiguous in its meaning,the ZBA should refer to any legislative history and Village policies concerning the subject language which may include the Building Department's past practices with respect to the review and issuance of Building Permits, in general, and CMPs in particular. Legislative history can include minutes from any Board of Trustee meeting(s) at which the code provision at issue may have been discussed, studies or reports commissioned by the Board of Trustees,memoranda,etc. The ZBA is also aware of general statutory construction principles which are applicable when interpreting Page 20 of 31 Zoning Board of Appeals July 6,2021 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 �5142, 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). To the extent the ZBA must interpret provisions of the Zoning Code, the ZBA shall first determine whether the words of the provision are clear and unambiguous in their meaning. If there is no ambiguity in the language,there is no need to resort to extrinsic evidence of the meaning of the words—such as legislative intent and Village policy. B. The Basis For The Building Inspector's Determination 1. Approval from the Westchester County Department of Public Works As stated above, the Planning Board's December 10, 2020 Resolution included the following condition (Condition#3): Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit,the Applicant shall secure a permit from the Westchester County Department of Public Works to widen the driveway since Anderson Hill Road is a County Road. As part of the application to the Westchester County Department of Public Works, the Applicant shall provide to the Village and to the County the required intersection sight distance (ISD) for the modified driveway. Trimming or removal of vegetation may be necessary along the edge of Anderson Hill Road to achieve ISD to the south of the access drive and along the Property. The Village of Rye Brook,however,later determined that the portion of Anderson Hill Road at issue is not a County Road and instead is a Village Road. The portion of Anderson Hill Road in the Village of Rye Brook was categorized as a Village Road in 2005. The Blind Brook Club obtained the required permit from the Village Department of Public Works to widen the road and satisfy the above referenced condition. Furthermore, since the portion of Anderson Hill Road at issue is not a County Road,the County would not have jurisdiction of the road or the ability to issue the permit as set forth in Condition#3 in the Planning Board's December 10, 2020 Resolution. Page 21 of 31 Zoning Board of Appeals July 6,2021 2. The Construction Management Plan During the public hearing held on June 1, 2021, the Building Inspector explained that the Blind Brook Club had submitted an acceptable CMP. The Building Inspector made a determination that Sheet SP-6 (Blind Brook Site Plan Amendment) and Sheet SP-7 (Proposed Site Notes & Detail), prepared by Ahneman Kirby, LLC, last revised on December 18, 2020, submitted to the Building Department in connection with the building permit application, satisfied the requirements of Village Code 5 209-2.B, based on the scope of the Project. The Blind Brook Club submitted its building permit application for the reworking of the fairways and greens,upgrades to the irrigation and drainage systems, the development of groundwater sources for irrigation to reduce reliance on public water, and additions to the clubhouse's patio and terrace for Property,as approved by the Board of Trustees on March 24,2020. The Building Inspector determined that Sheets SP-6 and SP-7 constituted the construction management plan required for the scope of this work.During the hearing,the Building Inspector discussed the construction management setup for the previous project. The Building Inspector considered the existing conditions of the Property, the existing conditions of the construction staging areas that were set up by Clark Construction Group for the construction of the new golf instruction building,and continued use of the existing staging areas by Clark Construction Group set up for the previous project. The Building Inspector determined that Sheets SP-6 and SP-7 contained the information necessary to satisfy the requirements of Village Code � 209-2.B for the Project. The location on the Property of all loading/unloading areas, job box and material storage areas, portable toilets, dumpsters, on-site temporary power, protective fencing around the job site, staging area, materials, storage area, dumpster area,was established and approved for the previous work on the site. The facilities and storage areas were already located on the Property and would be used in the same manner. In addition, Sheet SP-6 shows a dedicated storage stockpile area and trees and vegetation to be preserved and removed. With respect to traffic,the Building Inspector stated during the June 1,2021 hearing that a traffic control plan was not necessary for the Project because all the work would occur solely on the Property. At no point would any Page 22 of 31 Zoning Board of Appeals July 6,2021 truck be parked on a public roadway.The Property is accessible via Anderson Hill Road.Anderson Hill Road and the asphalt driveway to the site are capable of accommodating any kind of vehicle that would need to access the Property, whether it be a semi-trail, concrete truck or contractor vehicle. The Building Inspector determined that the Project would not impact traffic on Anderson Hill Road and to require a traffic control plan for a project of this scope, that does not generate any traffic,was not necessary. It was also not necessary to show all on- and off-site worker parking locations as all workers would be parking on the Property and the Property includes very large existing parking areas. Furthermore, Sheet SP-7 satisfied the requirement of Village Code 5 209-2.B(1)(c) as such plan sheet noted the path of travel for delivery trucks and emergency vehicles to and from the Project site via the existing driveway and Anderson Hill Road. The Building Inspector also determined that a separate work schedule was not necessary for the Project considering its size and scope.The Village Code expressly limits the hours of operation of construction.The Building Inspector concluded that no further scheduling details were necessary for the Project due to its limited scope. Construction of the slab and the on-grade building requires minimal excavation and minimal disturbance of the Property. The Project also involved the physical disturbance of less than one (1) acre. The Building Inspector determined that additional scheduling information was not required for the Project because it involved minor site work. The Building Inspector issued Building Permit #21-054 after finding that the information required in a CMP was submitted to the satisfaction of the Building Inspector and Superintendent of Public Works/Village Engineer. C. The Building Inspector's Determination Should Be Affirmed The ZBA 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. The Village of Rye Brook previously determined that the portion of Anderson Hill Road at issue was not a County Road and instead was owned by the Village of Rye Brook. The portion of Anderson Hill Road in the Village Page 23 of 31 Zoning Board of Appeals July 6,2021 of Rye Brook was categorized as a Village road in 2005.The Blind Brook Club obtained the required permit from the Village Department of Public Works to satisfy Condition#3 of the December 10,2020 Planning Board Resolution. As a result, the Appellants' argument that the Blind Brook Club's asserted failure to obtain a permit from the Westchester County Department of Public Works' to allow the widening of the Blind Brook Club's driveway with access to Anderson Hill Road is without merit and does not require the revocation of the Building Permit. The ZBA further finds that the purpose of the CMP is to provide information for the Building Inspector to evaluate the proposed construction and ensure that it is done in an appropriate and organized manner. It is the Building Inspector's responsibility to determine what is needed in the CMP based on each individual project scope and size and not every project requires the same degree of detail in the CMP as another project. The requirements of the CMP set forth set forth in Village Code § 209-23 represent a checklist.As long as the information is provided to the satisfaction of the Building Inspector and Superintendent of Public Works, such information constitutes a valid CMP.The Building Inspector and Superintendent of Public Works had the discretion to conclude that the information provided in Sheets SP-6 and SP-7 and otherwise available to the Building Inspector and Superintendent of Public Works/Village Engineer were sufficient to satisfy the CMP requirements for this Project. Accordingly,the determination of the Building Inspector to issue the Building Permit is affirmed. Page 24 of 31 Zoning Board of Appeals July 6,2021 Chairman Moscato called for the fifth item on the agenda. 1.5. #21-020 Gary Ellis&Mary Ellis 22 Old Orchard Road Legalize the attached one car garage constructed under Building Permit#510 dated 5/8/1952. Phillip Grimaldi,Attorney for the applicants addressed the Board. He explained how the house is for sale and the title search revealed and open permit from 68 years ago. The property has sold 3 or 4 times prior to the current property owners purchasing in 2014 and this open permit has never come up. The garage is in character with the neighborhood. There are two other properties,23 Old Orchard Road and 25 Old Orchard Road that have similar setbacks to this property. The Board discussed including a condition in the variance that the garage remain a one-story structure. If any future owners wanted to construct a second story above the garage,they would have to come back to the Zoning Board. The attorney for the property owners agreed to the condition. Chairman Moscato called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in support or opposition to the application. There being no one, Chairman Moscato called for a motion and a second to close the public hearing. The public portion of the hearing was closed,and the Board began deliberation. After reviewing the five factors used by Zoning Board when reviewing the application, Chairman Moscato read the following resolution: Page 25 of 31 Zoning Board of Appeals July 6,2021 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Gary Ellis & Mary Ellis for (1) a single side yard setback variance of 4.1 feet where the minimum required single side yard setback is 15 feet pursuant to Village Code � 250-20.G(2)(a) and (2) a total of two side yards setback variance of 18.8 feet where the minimum required total of two side yards is 40 feet pursuant to Village Code � 250-20.G(2)(b),in connection with the proposed legalization of the attached two car garage constructed under Building Permit#510 dated 5/8/1952, on property located at 22 Old Orchard Road,in an R-15 zoning district on the west side of Old Orchard Road, approximately 220 feet from the intersection of Winding Wood Road North and Old Orchard Road. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID# 135.26-1-65; and WHEREAS,a duly advertised public hearing was held on July 6, 2021,at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and WHEREAS, the public hearing was closed on July 6,2021; 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)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brook Code, finds that: 1) The variances WILL NOT create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood; 2) The benefit the Applicants seek 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 variance IS NOT self-created; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the said application for (1) a single side yard setback variance of 4.1 feet where the minimum required single side yard setback is 15 feet pursuant to Village Code § 250- Page 26 of 31 Zoning Board of Appeals July 6,2021 20.G(2)(a) and (2) a total of two side yards setback variance of 18.8 feet where the minimum required total of two side yards is 40 feet pursuant to Village Code� 250-20.G(2)(b),is hereby GRANTED on 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) The one-story two car garage shall remain a one-story structure. A second story shall not be permitted. Chairman Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting:Aye Glenn Brettschneider Voting: Excused Jamie Schutzer Voting:Aye Joel Simon Voting: Excused Don Moscato Voting:Aye The resolution was adopted by a vote of three ayes and zero nays. Page 27 of 31 Zoning Board of Appeals July 6,2021 Chairman Moscato called for the sixth item on the agenda. 1.6. #20-020 Julie Santorelli Casino 6 Latonia Road Request extension of approval of Zoning variance,Village Code � 250-13.H. John Scarlato,Architect for the applicants addressed the Board. He refreshed the Board of the scope of the project. He noted that due to COVID the owners are having trouble securing a contractor and request an extension. The consensus of the Board was that it was reasonable and should be granted. Chairman Moscato read the following resolution: Page 28 of 31 Zoning Board of Appeals July 6,2021 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, on December 1, 2020 the Village of Rye Brook Zoning Board of Appeals granted Julie Santorelli Casino (the "Applicant") (1) a front yard setback variance of 6 feet where the minimum required front yard setback is 40 feet pursuant to Village Code § 250-20.G(1); (2) a single side yard setback variance of 5.4 feet where the minimum required single side yard setback is 15 feet pursuant to Village Code§ 250-20.G(2)(a);(3) a main building coverage variance of 2.3%where the maximum allowable main building coverage is 16% pursuant to Village Code 250-37.B; (4) a side height setback ratio variance of 0.98 where the maximum allowable side height setback ratio is 1.60 pursuant to Village Code 250-20.I(2); and (5) a gross floor area variance of 45 square feet where the maximum allowable gross floor area is 3,221 square feet pursuant to Village Code § 250-20.E,in connection with the proposed rear two story addition, rear second story addition, rear one story addition, front portico, interior and exterior alterations, on property located at 6 Latonia Road, in an R-15 zoning district on the East side of Latonia Road, approximately 300 feet from the intersection of Winding Wood Road an Latonia Road. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID# 135.26-1-30; and WHEREAS, the variances expired on June 1,2021 pursuant to Village Code § 250-13.H; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board is in receipt of a letter from John Scarlato dated June 10,2021 requesting an extension of the variances; and WHEREAS, the Applicant requires an extension of the variances due to unforeseen delays; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board has the authority pursuant to Village Code § 250-13.H to grant an extension of the original variance approval for an additional six (6) months if the applicant demonstrates that there is a good cause for an extension. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Village of Rye Brook Zoning Board hereby grants a six (6) month extension of the variance referenced herein for property located at 6 Latonia Road to expire on December 1,2021 unless a building permit is issued prior to December 1, 2021. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, except as specifically modified by the amendment contained herein, the Zoning Board of Appeals Resolution dated December 1, 2021, and the conditions set forth therein,is otherwise to remain in full force and effect. Page 29 of 31 Zoning Board of Appeals July 6,2021 Chairman Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting:Aye Glenn Brettschneider Voting: Excused Jamie Schutzer Voting:Aye Joel Simon Voting: Excused Don Moscato Voting:Aye The resolution was adopted by a vote of three ayes and zero nays. Page 30 of 31 Zoning Board of Appeals July 6,2021 Chairman Moscato called for the final item on the agenda. 2. SUMMARY APPROVALS: 2.1. Approval of June 1,2021 Zoning Board Summary Chairman Moscato adjourned the minutes until the full Board is available. There being no further business before the Board, Chairman Moscato called for a motion to adjourn. On a motion and a second,the meeting was adjourned at 10:20 PM. Page 31 of 31 O Z H1 8o ©w (lVoa M ONICINIM C � O °°�-' -� .� o OC i a W u� �� O N o N � W E uJ w 00 X+i;F L. O O Z O N U- ° Q /� w • V N 4-j ° ° r D 9 30 �Or- U •� � z � � QQ O " U ° >m �n m w v N � N ° Of Cl) U) 3 «00jC9,62 N °) Q °� `� a 600'05l -� � ° LO -Pb JO 4-1 a) O y- J O 3 � r- N O , >,F— 3: II w O ::..'.. .. . . 0 9£..."..".....'. . ....': :.'... . :' ran wSSL M a U ..... O ...... ..... ..... .. .. .. •. O ;:...'... ..........'. '.'.'.'.'.''.'.'...'..'..'. ::0.':..'. ................................. ..... 00 ow v .':.:.:eAtia }Icydsy ...................... ;:: : ............... ...... ....... 00 00 : :. :.':............... O .01 a _ ,s 5£ Of00 00 4, o N00 Z .• o c � °fib v� �� a s OOP W o w A ' VI Q O w o N o 0 O co 0 0 0 I o J -� ���L •—cn o N ��6£ti Z o O �� Q� +� .w>:- r 4-Z V O % O r� O ITIT- Z .00 O :'i` Nrn r 00 O LL coop '��`��b �•� °�o m ;�, * Ll ° co o o ° m p 0 0 Q ,..� ar N > O+� � a4° D L U c �'cn a) >- (n c o Q 0 o t00 o5 L M «00cC9.62 S •— Z Un � -o D n C p °•� w w w � o V) UNJ o CIO . 0 LLI (1) 4) o o :OIV) N O Q � � •U •`*�_j U O O p J N O c Q Oo T— • w • L Of (0 zZ I 0-0 w c rn n U O