Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA20-003 BOARD OF TRUSTEE LIAISON: David Heiser Chairman Don Moscato welcomed everyone to the March 3, 2020 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 one of the members of the Board was detained and would arrive around 8:30 p.m. He also noted that members of the Board would be recusing themselves from different items on the agenda. He explained that when there is an application on the agenda where a member of the Board recusesthemselves, andfour members remain, there is quorum. All four (4) of theapplicants on the agenda were offered the opportunity to adjourn their applications to the next monthly meeting, when there may be a full complement of the Board. To move things along the items onthe agenda would be taken out of order. Chairman Moscato stated that the first matter to be heard would be Mr. Cacciola; the second would be the Nurik application; the third would be Mr. Georges and Ms.Itani's application, and the final application would be Mr. Kaminsky'sapplication. The recusals will be for the Georges/Itani (Joel Simon recused) and Kaminsky(Chairman Moscato recused)applications. By rearranging the agenda it was his hope is that Mr. Schutzerwouldarrive in time for those applications to be heard. Chairman Moscatocalled for the first item on the agenda. 1.2 #20-003Anthony Cacciola 9A Barber Place Legalize the Seasonal Parking of a Recreational Vehicle (RV) within the Front Yard Setback Glenn Brettschneider reminded the applicant that he would need three positive votes in order for hisvariance application to be approved.Mr. Cacciola,the applicant,chose to move forward. He explained that the RV will not fit in a garageas required by the Village Code. In addition, there is no other place on his property that would accommodate the RV. From April 1st through November 1st the RV is in use and not parked on his property on Barber. However, from November 1st through April 1st the RV is parked on his property on Barber Place. Parking it in the street would mean the loss of parking spaces and parking is an issue in this area. Mr. Cacciola noted that the RV requires maintenance and they considered it an extension of their home. Parking Zoning Board of Appeals March 3, 2020 Page2 iton their property allows them easy access and the ability to keep up with the maintenance. It has been parked on their property for seven years. Mr. Simon requested a statutory interpretationfrom Village Counsel.Village Code Section 186- 6.C(3) statesthat“in the event that a person is unable to meet the yard and setback requirements of Subsection C(1)(a) and (b), application may be made to the ZBA for a variance from such requirements on the ground of practical difficulty.”Mr. Simon inquired if thisrestricted the right to appeal. Drew Gamils, Esq., Village Counsel, noted that this issue is not aZoning Codeappeal. In order to have the right to appeal a non-zoning code provision, authorization must be explicitly set forth to do so. It was noted thatC(1)(a) is neither a yard or setback requirement. Attorney Gamils clarified that the Village determined that the applicant had a right to seek a variance from C(1)(a) and C(1)(b), because he cannot meet these requirements. The applicant seeks a variance to allow him to park his RV in the front yard. If he could comply with the requirement to put the RV in the garage (C(1)(a)), no applicant would need a variance and Section C(3) would not be necessary. The Village Code provides relief from Village Code Section 186-6(C) for applicants who can demonstrate practical difficulty in complying with the Code’s requirements.The Board discussed the areas of the Village's Code that do apply, what can be appealed, and what the applicant's options were. Mr. Simon noted that this Section should be clarified and rewritten. Chairman Moscato noted that this application couldset a precedenceto allow others to put a boat or RV in the front yard. Chairman Moscato noted that the safety valve for this issue is that each application is unique and different. The applicant must explain why this situation is different from other violations of front yard setbacks and the Board must determine if there is enough reason in this case to say its ok. TheBoardwas asked if there was anywhere else that the RV couldbe parked. The Applicant explained that for six months out of the year it is parked at an RV resort in update New York, however it is not practical to keep it there for the entire year. The RV must be kept charged and there is a concern about rodents eating wires. There was some discussion about whether this was anything unique about this property to support granting the variance. The Applicant explained that his property is at the edge of the residential district, across thestreet is an office building and affordable housing units. The Board reviewedthe nature of the hardshipand whether the hardship is unique. The Board must look at the specific characteristics of this propertywhen deliberating. For example, there is a commercial zone across the street, the property is on a hill, and there is a slope on the property. Based on the topography of the property, there is no way to place the RV anywhere on the property.These characteristics make this property unique. The Board members expressed concern about how the neighbors feel about seeing this large vehicle parked in the applicant's front yard. The Board noted that variances run with the land and apply to future property owners. The Board asked Attorney Gamils if there is any way to condition the variance approval to apply to this RV only. Attorney Gamils explained that you cannot Zoning Board of Appeals March 3, 2020 Page3 condition the variance to apply to this vehicle with this VIN Number, however, she explained that there are other conditions that the Board could consider such as restricting the time of year the vehicle is permitted to be parked in the driveway, restricting vehicle color or size. Attorney Gamils explained that to set this application apart from future applications it is important to focuson the unique characteristics and location of this property. Mickey Izzo explained that you can park any vehicle on the street, including the RV (except during snow emergencies). Chairman Moscato asked that members of the public wishing to address the Board in support of the application come to the podium, state their names, and their relative location to the applicant's house. Mr. Frank Madonnaaddressed the Board in support of the application.He owns the property directly across the street and built the affordable housing units. The RV and the property are kept in impeccable condition. He noted that the vehicle is gone all summer and when it’s there it is covered and well maintained. It is notan eye sore. Mr. Mike Borchetta of501Franklin Street,addressed the Board in support of the application. He noted that this neighborhood is right up next to Ridge Street, the shopping center and a gas station. An RV is not going to hurt the character of this neighborhood. Ms. Ewa Szerejko, a resident of 11Barber Street for 24 years,addressed the Board in support of the application.Her driveway is divided by a small wall from their driveway and the RV. She said they are great neighbors and supports the variance. Mrs. Hope Klein addressed the Board in support of the application. Her husband's dental office is located on the corner of Bowman and Division Street, directly across from Barber Place. She can see their property from her office and there never has been an issue. She explained that Barber Place is not really residential. Those homes face commercial businesses. In Rye Brook there are not many streets that re like Barber Place. Chairman Moscato called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in opposition to the application. There was no one. The Board discussed the meaning of “practical difficulty.” Chairman Moscato called for a motion and a second to close the public hearing. The Board continued deliberating. The consensus of the Board was that a condition must be placed to preserve the uniqueness of this application. Attorney Gamils noted that thepractical difficulty standard allows the applicant to seek a variance, therefore the Board should consider whethera practical difficultly exists and the five variance factors. The Board discussed the five factors and Zoning Board of Appeals March 3, 2020 Page4 considered various conditions such as size, color, maintenance requirements, covering requirements. The Board is concerned that the RV would be replaced with something less attractive. The Board does not want to grant a variance and impact the future conditions of the variance. Attorney Gamils noted that it is important to take into consideration the legalities of any condition placed on an application. Chairman Moscato suggested that the matter be tabled and recalled before the Board before the end of the meeting or adjourned until the next Zoning Board meeting in April. The Board was looking for additional timeto allow Attorney Gamils time to craft the conditions in response to the concerns voiced by the Board members. The consensus of the Board, and agreed to by the applicant, was to adjourn the applicationto the April meeting. The applicant was instructed to change the date on the current sign and make sure that it was posted two weeks prior to the April 7th Zoning Board meeting. Chairman Moscato noted that Mr.Schutzer had arrived and they would return to the original order of the Agenda. Mr. Simon would be recusing himselffor item #19-002,leaving four members. The applicants chose to move forward. 1.2 #19-002 Robert Georges and Linda Itani 35 Winding Wood Road Legalize rear play area/sports court and new wood fence Joel Simon recused himself from this location because he is a neighbor of Mr. Georges and resides at 34 Winding Wood Road. Mr. Georges, the applicant, addressedthe Board. He reviewed his application for the Board, noting that he would be replacing a fence, repositioningand repavinga sports court,installinga rail road tie wall, and installing steps with a railing leading down to the sports court. The property is in an R15 zone and the rear yardabuts the Hutch and county property. The applicants purchased the home in 2017. At that time they were not aware that the existing sports court extended beyond their property line. In order to accomplish the proposed changes to the property a rear yard patio setback variance arerequired. The goal of the application is to legalizethe rear play area/sports court and new wood fence. The applicant was asked if a survey was done at the time he purchased the home. He responded that it was but he was not certain why the sports court was not addressed. Mr. Berger noted that matters such as this have been before the Board. He pointed out that in this application there was a fair amount of property on the other side of the basketball court. Healsonoted that the property slopes downward but he felt that there was a feasible way to change the courtand bring it into compliance. The Board reviewed the dimensions of the sports court and the location, looking for ways to move the court out of the setbackarea. Several options were reviewed. Zoning Board of Appeals March 3, 2020 Page5 Chairman Moscato noted that several years ago the Village discovered residents that had constructed sheds, pools, etc. over the property line on to Village property. They were all required torectify the situation. It was noted that the applicant was going to remove a portion of the sports court in the rear and add to the court in the frontto move it off of county property, but the court would remain within the setbacks. Chairman Moscato called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in support or opposition to the application. Joel Simon, as a resident and property owner of 34Winding Wood North spoke in favor of the application. The purpose of the setback requirements is to mitigate impacts to neighboring property owners, in this case there is no neighbor. The consensus of the Board was that they needed to see the exact measurements of the sports court, and photos of the court and the gravel area. The public hearing was adjourned to allow the applicant time to gather the information. The applicant agreed, and the application will be placed on the April 7th agenda. ChairmanMoscato called for the next tem on the agenda, and noted that he resided within the notificationarea and would, therefore, be recusing himself. 1.4 #20-004 Andrew Kaminsky and Melissa Kaminsky 4 Edgewood Drive Finish thearea above the attached garage Chairman Moscato recused himself from review of this application. Mr. Berger took on the role of Acting Chairman. It wasnoted that approval of aprior application, made in 2005, was conditioned onthe fact that the applicants would not apply for a building permit to finish the space above the garage. It was also noted that Mr. Kaminsky's service to the Village would not have an effect on the outcome of his application. The applicant, Andrew Kaminsky, addressed the Board. He described the circumstances surrounding the application. He noted thattheapplicantswere requesting a buildingpermit to finish the existing storage space above the garage. The proposedconstruction would include framing the window, building a closet, adding flooring and electricity.The building permit would allow them to make the interior renovations to the space abovethe existing garage. It was noted that the applicants requirea modification to the 2005 variance to remove the condition that the applicants could not apply for a building permit to finish the space above the garage. Zoning Board of Appeals March 3, 2020 Page6 Acting Chairman Berger noted that the proposed construction would not expand the houseor add to the gross floor area. In 2005the applicantswereallowed to construct the area above the garage but a requirement was that it beleft as an unfinished area. The condition reads,"The applicant will not request in the future a building permit respecting the area above the garage." The Board members were confused bythis condition since conditions such as this are used to minimize the possible adverseeffectssurroundingconstruction such as an increase to the GFA. In this case the room has already been constructed and the square footage has been added to the gross floor area calculations. It was notedthat any residentin Rye Brook that plans on doing interior renovations needs a building permit. Acting Chairman Berger thanked Mr. Kaminsky for coming back to the Board versus just going aheadand doing the work. The Board wasconcernedaboutremoving a condition, especially without knowing why the condition was added to theresolution. Mr. Moscato, as a resident of Rye Brook, addressed the Board. He noted that he was in the audience at the time of the original application. That was a time whenthe Village was concerned about increasing the gross floor area of homes. Residentswere making applications and then coming back the next year looking to continue expanding. In this case, the area above the garage has already been calculated into the gross floor area and so renovating the interior will not increase the footprint of thehome. There will not be a change in character to the neighborhood, or an effect to the character of the neighborhood. Acting Chairman Berger asked what the standards were for revoking a condition.Attorney Gamils stated that there was noprotocol in place. The Board should list reasons why the condition was being removed, such as it was unclear why it was placed, the fact that the room is already included in the GFI, and there would not be a negative effect on the character of the neighborhood. Everything from the resolution dated 2005 remains the samewith the exception of the ruling that the applicants cannot apply for abuilding permit. The Board reviewed the application using the five factors Zoning Board's use when deliberating. Upon completionof the Board's review, Acting Chairman Berger read the following resolution: Zoning Board of Appeals March 3, 2020 Page7 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Andrew Kaminsky & Melissa Kaminsky (the “Applicants”) to modify Condition #2 set by the Zoning Board on application #04-370 dated April 4, 2005,in connection with the proposed finishing of the area above the attached garage, on property locatedat4 Edgewood Drive,in anR-25 zoning district on theNorth side ofEdgewood Drive, approximately 140 feet from the intersection of Beechwood Circle and Edgewood Drive. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID# 135.28-1-30; and WHEREAS, Condition #2 set by the Zoning Board on application #04-370 dated April 4, 2005, provided as follows: “The Applicants will not request, in the future, a building permit respecting the area above the garage”; and WHEREAS, the Applicants wishes to finish the area above the garage; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held March 3, 2020, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and WHEREAS,the public hearing was closed on March 3, 2020; and WHEREAS, the proposed action is a Type II action pursuant to the New York State EnvironmentalQuality Review Act and accordingly, no further environmental review is required; and WHEREAS, the Board, from the application, after viewing the premises and neighborhood concerned, finds: 1)The Room is already buildingand included in the GFA. 2)No adverse effect on the neighborhood will result. 3)The condition originally imposed by the ZBA served no rational purpose. 4)The Applicant is requesting a building permit only. 5)Approval of the Applicant’s request does not authorize any additional building without coming back to the Board. Zoning Board of Appeals March 3, 2020 Page8 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Zoning Board hereby MODIFIES the Resolution in connection with application #04-370, adopted by the Zoning Board on April 4, 2005 to remove Condition #2 to allow the Applicant to finish the area above the garage. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,that 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. Mr. Moscato called the roll: Steven BergerVoting: Aye Glenn BrettschneiderVoting: Aye Jamie Schutzer Voting: Aye Joel SimonVoting: Aye Don MoscatoVoting:Abstain Approval was received by a vote of four ayes to zero nays. Zoning Board of Appeals March 3, 2020 Page9 Chairman Moscato called for the final application on the agenda: 1.4 #20-005 Adam Nurik and Randi Nurik 47 Rock Ridge Drive Construct a two-story rear addition, a one-story front addition With new portico and new deck. JohnScarlato, architect for the applicants, addressed the Board. He reviewed the application using the plans and photographs of the home for his presentation. This isa raisedranch in an R-10 zone and to accomplish the applicant's goals a maximum allowable gross area variance of 1,244 square feet is required. Also required is a 2.5 foot front yard variance. All space within the home is counted in the GFA. The rear two story addition will add a master bedroom and a family room. The one story front addition includes expanding the entry foyer and one bedroom. A portico will be added, and a new rear deck. The Board members expressed concern over the size of the proposedadditions. The Boarddiscussed thedimensionof the rooms, visibility from the street, the impact on the neighboring properties, as well as the effect on the character of the neighborhood. They were very concerned about the size of the proposed addition. It was also noted that the second story addition moves the home closer to the adjacent property. The applicant was asked if the proposed addition could be scaled down as the Board was concerned about the effect on the property owner behind the applicant. The Board discussed the impact of removing the proposed storage room. Mr. Scarlato explained that the second story addition would be placed on piers –with nothing under the piers. Mr. Scarlato shared sample pictures of what such construction would look like.Mr. Scarlato alsoshared pictures of raised ranches that are similar to the proposed size of 47 Rock Ridge Drive. Mr. Scarlato noted that the renovation in the rear of the home does not require a rear yard setback. Chairman Moscato stated that the Board was concerned about the impact to the neighborhood. Mr. Izzo discussed water issues in the area and the fact that this property is in the flood zone. Chairman Moscato called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in support or opposition to the application. Mr.Alex Solarz of 51 Rock Ridge Drive addressed the Boardin support of the application. He said he had no objections to the project and believes the house is going to look beautiful. Chairman Moscato called for a motion and a second to close the public hearing. The Board began deliberation. The Board discussed the aesthetics of the construction and felt that the house would Zoning Board of Appeals March 3, 2020 Page10 look better if the construction was closed in the back. Uponcompletion of the Board's review of the application, Chairman Moscato read the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Adam Nurik & Randi Nurik(the Applicants) for (1) a gross floor area variance of 1,244 square feet where the maximum allowable gross floor area is 3,317 square feet pursuant to Village Code § 250-22.E, and (2) a front yard setback variance of 2.5 feet at the Bluebird Hollow frontage where the minimum required front yard setback is 30 feet pursuant to Village Code 250-22.G(1), in connection with the proposed construction of a two story addition, a one story front addition with new portico and a new deck, on property located at 47 Rock Ridge Drive, in an R-10 zoning district on the North side of Rock Ridge Drive, at the intersection of Bluebird Hollow and Rock Ridge Drive. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID# 135.27-1- 27; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing on the application was held March 3, 2020, at which time all those wishing to be heard on the application were given such opportunity; and WHEREAS, the Board closed the public hearing on March 3, 2020; 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 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 variances IS self-created. Zoning Board of Appeals March 3, 2020 Page11 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,that said application for(1) a gross floor area variance of 1,244 square feet where the maximum allowable gross floor area is 3,317 square feet pursuant to Village Code § 250-22.E, and (2) a front yard setback variance of 2.5 feet at the Bluebird Hollow frontage where the minimum required front yard setback is 30 feet pursuant to Village Code 250-22.G(1), is hereby GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1.No permit or certificateof 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 front portico shall remain open and unenclosed. Chairman Moscato calledthe roll: Steven BergerVoting: Aye Glen BrettschneiderVoting: Aye Don MoscatoVoting: Aye Jamie SchutzerVoting: Aye Joel SimonVoting: Aye The resolution was adopted on a vote of five ayes to zero nays. 2.SUMMARY APPROVALS 2.1Approval of February 4, 2020 Zoning Board Summary The February 4, 2020 Zoning Board Summary was approved as previously amended. There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned. Zoning Board of Appeals March 3, 2020 Page12