Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBP21-109PERMIT # SECTION 4 TYPE OF WORK JOB LOCATION OWNER)L/;c/ CONTRACTORZ rzaT. COST \ CO # TCO # Dl- /o LOT 0 — FEE03 FEEA li o " z> DATE742- L� FEE DATE INSPECTION RECORD D FOOTING FOUNDATION FRAMING RGH FRAMING INSULATION PLUMBING F1 RGH PLUMBING GAS C7 SPRINKLER ELECTRIC C� LOW -VOLT C7 ALARM AS BUILT FINAL CTHER APPROVALS a0�/ BOT P8 / OTHER AS-SUILTIFINAL SURVEY REQUIRED PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION I just learned about your mom, really sorry. Justin Minieri Thank you, Justin. Michael Izzo Mickey, my condolences. Justin Minieri Okay, please start your presentation. Don Moscato Yes, I am. Good evening everyone. Justin Minieri Justin Minieri. Justin, are you on board? terrace, rear masonry walk and replace existing masonry walkway. I believe the architect for this is Beachwood Boulevard to construct a second floor addition, rear two story addition, rear masonry Our first application this evening is application number 21-007 Michael Moore and Kelly Moore 24 Don Moscato masonry walkway. rear masonry terrace, rear masonry walk and replace existing Construct 2nd floor addition, rear two story addition, 24 Beechwood Boulevard Michael Moore & Kelly Moore #21-007 they can chime in after the main presentation is made. you are. Let the main presenter give the application and if there are the actual applicants available, do have to give each one due diligence. If you're making a presentation, please acknowledge who it for our next session. And we have no idea how fast we'll move through the applications. But we technically seven or eight applications. And in the event that we're not able to finish we will adjourn internet connection is unstable. Nothing like having an unstable internet connection. We have Number of people on. I have requested, please mute your audio. You can hear me. It says my Don Moscato We lost him. We're losing you Don. Michael Izzo -2 - https://otter.ai Transcribed by see if I can zoom it in. That's it right here, I did my best by keeping the roofline, you know, angled conforming. And then the third variance is as we see this side the height setback ratio. So, let me 8.8. So, it's a 22%. But that's unavoidable because the left side which we're not touching is non-we're going from 31, so we're increasing our non-conforming by that three inches, but in total, it's the 25 foot because the code requires 40 feet total. And we're presenting you with 31.16 feet and a lot because it's 8.84 feet. And that's only because the left side is non-conforming. It extends over is 1.67% under 2%. So, it's a very small variance. The second variance is for the total. And it seems know, I hate coming before you for three inches, but you know, I'm just unavoidable. The variance addition three, six inches, creates really awkward rooflines, and just creates structural issues. So, you wanders off to the right, and the problem, then it creates that three inches. For us to offset the the house is slightly angled, so by the time it gets in the back, we're at 14.75. So, the house kind of setback, it's actually 15.11 feet. And if they built a parallel, we wouldn't need to request this various, build it parallel with the property line, just slightly off. So, the front, you know, complies with the can't we avoid it? Well, let me just go back. The problem is when they built this house, they didn't smallest variance that ever came before you, an actual variance of three inches. And you say why view. So, what we're asking here is three variances. The first variance is very small, it's probably the this is the second floor addition we're putting on and second floor from the side view in the rear bedroom, master bath and doing some interior alteration. As you can see the existing house, and really going out the confines of this footprint. And that's the second floor adding a master And so, as you can see the additions right here, it lines up with the back of the house, we're not existing garage, we're adding a two story section, this little rectangle and adding a second floor here. then we're adding a terrace. So that's essentially what we're proposing. I'll just briefly so here's the we're adding a two story section in the rear, which squares off the back of the house, that's it, and we're, we're adding a second floor addition on this side, over the garage, same footprint, and then if there's any questions. I'll start with the drawings, just we since we have limited time. Okay. So, is. So, we're just concentrating on this side of the house. I have more photos. I can always go back is where my arrow is, and the second floor additions over the garage, this side is going to remain as reason cannot. All right, I'll have to go. And this is the rear of the house. So, the two story addition Yeah, this is the front of the house, this is the garage where we're adding the second story, for some view of the existing house. And I'll get into this quick description. Can everyone see the house? Yes. you have a long agenda, so I'll try to keep it brief. Okay, start with photos, just to give you a brief and I guess I'd like to start with sharing my screen if you'll allow me. So, we can get right in. I know Okay, my name is Justin Minieri. I'm the architect for Michael and Kelly Moore at 24 Beechwood, Justin Minieri Thank you, Justin. I appreciate that. Michael Izzo -3 - https://otter.ai Transcribed by If I could have avoided the three inches, I'd never be here. Justin Minieri I got it, was just about the three inches. Glenn Brettschneider and footprint so I'm not, you know, coming closer to the property in that respect. two story addition I'm adding is here, but this, I am you know, keeping with the garage envelope good. I know this is not an aesthetics Board. But I mean, I have to weigh that in. So really the only to avoid that variance. But it will just create structural nightmare. And look, it just wouldn't look wall forces the second floor to fall on top of that. I'm not going to offset the second floor six inches addition, I wouldn't even, I would of course, I would avoid it, I would move it in. But the garage me to avoid the three inches. The garage is already set. So, I'm not. If I was adding a two story Well, no, the three inches, I mean, I would have come here anyway. Cause, see this is the line for Justin Minieri curious about that three inches? variance for that? Or is it just because it's part of three anyway, and you're already here? I'm just inches, and I know it's not relevant to this, but would someone come to the board and just ask for a Justin, I have one just because no one spoke up. So just okay. If the only variance was the three Glenn Brettschneider any questions from the Board? can speak a little more in detail about those support, neighbors of support. And I'm done if there's for these properties. The homeowner is in the audience if you wish to ask them about that. But they have expressed, even though I don't have any letters submitted, they have expressed their support I just want to point out Mike, the homeowner has approached the neighbors, and the neighbors that big, but as you can see the neighboring properties to left and right, and I'm done any questions? see it, you may see it differently. I hope we can come to an agreement that these variances aren't variances, I think it really doesn't affect the neighborhood, they're very small. As far as you know, I without bastardizing the house, I really can't avoid that again, unfortunately. So though, it's three translates to 15.38%. Again, you know, it's just this little triangle, as you can see that I'm over. And there again, we're off, we're the code requires 1.3. And we're proposing 1.5. So, it's a .20, which lower it. And we comply with building height, but it's just, I'm getting clipped by this corner. So And, but I'm adding a second floor addition, that's in line with the rest of the house, so I can't really towards the property line, because I knew I had a little trouble here because of the grade dropped. -4 - https://otter.ai Transcribed by Okay. Justin Minieri Because you would have had an issue with the height setback ratio, I'm sure. Don Moscato Okay. Justin Minieri who lived there previously. Right, you're lucky that you happen to have a neighbor to the garage side, who is not the same one Don Moscato situation. You know. you know, for not to, you know, try to reduce it because that would be just such an awkward the garage down in order to comply. And I think you know, that would be a good reason for not, be responsible of me as an architect. It is such a whacked out situation here. I would have to tear for me to avoid the three inches, I would have to push us in three inches. It's just, it just wouldn't because as you can see, let me go to the, so I'm really this is the line, I'm lining up the second floor right, we always try go for small but at three inches there is nowhere to go right. Sort of, like I said, Well, I would hope three inches is pretty small. Less than three would be zero, right? So, you're Justin Minieri variance from the one you're proposing? Okay. You know, the question I'm always asking is, make a case for why you could not get a smaller Don Moscato Sure Don. Justin Minieri Justin, I have a question for you. I lost my computer audio, but I'm on the phone. Don Moscato Yeah, gotcha. Glenn Brettschneider -5 - https://otter.ai Transcribed by to comment on the application at this time? Okay. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you very much. Do any of the other board members want Don Moscato coverage between our two houses. all year round. So, you know, the very, very top thins out a little bit in the winter, but there's lots of at the bottom, were just in pointing out right now. Those are evergreens. There's, they're there full Yeah, Justin, just that's a good view, that if you look on the left side, you know that and those trees Michael Moore trees that we're on that side. the previous owners of that particular property did shave off a substantial amount of those pine Okay, but I was concerned about their side, of their side view. But I remember several years ago, Don Moscato And between us and the Steinberg's. It's like it gives us enough privacy. trees that we have there go up 20-25 feet. I mean, there's plenty of coverage between the two of us. Yep, I'm on. Hi, everyone. no, our plans are not to enhance the shrubbery. I mean, on that side, the Michael Moore that if you don't mind. Mike, are you? Do you hear me? I believe the owner, the homeowners, I would like the homeowners to come in on this and speak to Justin Minieri side? To mitigate the effects of that setback. shrubbery at this particular point. Are you planning on augmenting any of the shrubbery on that Right. So, there is, you are very, very close to that neighbor on that side. And there is adequate Don Moscato Correct. Justin Minieri And that's the, the side, I guess that would be the two side yard setbacks. requested. So, you know, I think in terms of one of the variances is coming in at what is it, 22%? variance. And they indicated to me personally that they had no problem with any of the variances But I did speak to the neighbor to that side and asked them if they were comfortable with the Don Moscato -6 - https://otter.ai Transcribed by And I agree with that as well. Jamie Schutzer That's where I think I was going and I think Jamie was going there. Steve Berger Steve, would you like to see that condition in there anyway? Don Moscato But… Steve Berger there so wouldn't... will most likely put them over the FAR. You know, and, I mean they would need a variance to build Well, if they were, they would have to come back to you because they would violate the FAR that Justin Minieri to building. Yes, we don't want the variance to allow you in the future or the next owner to convert that terrace Steve Berger If we were to build over that. Let's see. When you say build over it you mean with an addition. Justin Minieri That’s Okay. Jamie Schutzer terrace? I know. Sorry, Jamie, I took your thunder away. So, I guess the follow up to Jamie's question, does the variance prevent you from building over that Steve Berger of the garage. That's correct. Without the cover, no roof, we just extending the patio portion to line up with back Justin Minieri You're just kind of extending the terrace that's, that's covered there now? My only questions- So just to be clear behind the garage, you're just building a terrace there now? Jamie Schutzer -7 - https://otter.ai Transcribed by didn't have a problem with it. Can I have a motion to close the public hearing? favorably and so did Justin in his presentation indicated that they spoke to the neighbors and they against the application? Okay, let the record show that. I commented on a person viewing it speak in favor of this application? There being none heard, is there anyone who wants to speak Okay. Is there, Is there anyone in the audience? Listening? Or standing outside who would like to Don Moscato I'm here. I'm good. I have no questions. I have nothing. Joel Simon Okay, Joel, are you there? Don Moscato Nope. I asked my three inch question. I’m good. Glenn Brettschneider Thank you. Okay. Glenn. Glenn, do you want to comment or Joel? Don Moscato Yeah, I'm comfortable with that. We have no plans of doing that. Michael Moore In other words, it has to stay as a terrace not as a building. That you can't use the variance to take the terrace and convert it to a sunroom or another bedroom? Steve Berger that… I'm not, I'm not entirely sure what the condition would be. You're saying what would be the thing Michael Moore Mike, are you comfortable with that? Justin Minieri Okay. Okay. Justin, do you want to ask the applicant if they’re comfortable with that condition? Don Moscato -8 - https://otter.ai Transcribed by from an aesthetic point of view, there's, it is not possible to come in with a smaller variance, since that this is self-created? Yes. Okay. And the other one, Justin spoke to specifically indicating that Yes, I think we have looked at it collectively. And how about the self-creation? Are we comfortable Don Moscato Collectively? Yeah. Steve Berger Collectively. Glenn Brettschneider comfortable with that? Yeah. Okay, do we all agree that the variances collectively are substantial? affect the character or the environmental conditions affecting the neighborhood? Are we went through the factors with the supporting evidence. Do we all agree that this change will not attended another training session, and they remind me to make sure that the record shows that we Aye. Okay, public hearing is closed. Let me run through the factors. Having once again just Don Moscato Aye. Steve Berger Aye. Glenn Brettschneider Aye. Joel Simon Aye. Jamie Schutzer Seconded. okay. All in favor? Don Moscato Second. Steve Berger Motion to close. Glenn Brettschneider -9 - https://otter.ai Transcribed by Environmental Quality Review Act and accordingly, no further environmental review is required; the proposed action is a Type II action pursuant to the New York State WHEREAS, the public hearing was closed on April 6, 2021; and WHEREAS,wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and a duly advertised public hearing was held April 6, 2021, at which time all those WHEREAS, result in a total of two side yards setback of 31.16 feet; andexisting non-conforming total of two side yards setback of 31.37 feet and the proposed addition will 14.96 feet and the proposed addition will result in a single side yard setback of 14.75 feet and (2) an the Property has (1) an existing non-conforming single side yard setback of WHEREAS, Parcel ID# 136.29-1-11; Rye Brook as Beechwood Boulevard. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Beechwood Boulevard, approximately 50 feet from the intersection of Beechwood Circle and in an R-25 zoning district on the south side of ,property located at 24 Beechwood Boulevardaddition, rear masonry terrace, rear masonry walk and replace existing masonry walkway, on Village Code § 250-18.2.J(2), in connection with the proposed second floor addition, rear two story ratio variance of 0.20 where the maximum allowable side height setback ratio is 1.30 pursuant to yards setback is 40 feet pursuant to Village Code § 250-18.2.H(2)(b); and (3) a side height setback a total of two side yards setback variance of 8.84 feet where the minimum required total of two side the minimum required single yard setback is 15 feet pursuant to Village Code § 250-18.2.H(2)(a), (2) for (1) a single side yard setback variance of 0.25 feet (3 inches) where (the “Applicants”) Moore Michael Moore & Kelly , application has been made to the Zoning Board by WHEREAS RESOLUTION comfortable with all those? Yes, I'll go ahead and as expeditiously as possible, read the resolution. be able to achieve the objectives other than the one, the method that is proposed. Okay, are we he's boxing out the, basically boxing out the footprint of the house. So, we'll agree that you will not - - https://otter.ai Transcribed by with the review of this application. paid in full all application and consultant fees incurred by the Village in connection No permit or certificate of occupancy shall be issued until the Applicants have 1)GRANTED on the following conditions: replace existing masonry walkway, on property located at 24 Beechwood Boulevard, is hereby proposed second floor addition, rear two story addition, rear masonry terrace, rear masonry walk and side height setback ratio is 1.30 pursuant to Village Code § 250-18.2.J(2), in connection with the § 250-18.2.H(2)(b); and (3) a side height setback ratio variance of 0.20 where the maximum allowable feet where the minimum required total of two side yards setback is 40 feet pursuant to Village Code feet pursuant to Village Code § 250-18.2.H(2)(a), (2) a total of two side yards setback variance of 8.84 yard setback variance of 0.25 feet (3 inches) where the minimum required single yard setback is 15 that the said application for (1) a single side NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED The need for the variances IS self-created. 5)environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and The variances WILL NOT create any adverse impacts to the physical or 4)The variances ARE substantial; 3)feasible for the Applicants to pursue, that does not require the variances; The benefit the Applicants seek CANNOT be achieved through another method, 2)neighborhood; The variances WILL NOT create an adverse impact to the character of the 1)\[e\] of the Rye Brook Code, finds: concerned, and upon considering each of the factors set forth in Village Code § 250-13(G)(b)\[2\]\[a\]- the Board, from the application, after viewing the premises and neighborhood WHEREAS,- - https://otter.ai Transcribed by Don? Yes. Okay. Application is approved five yeses, no nays. Congratulations. Don Moscato Yes. Joel Simon Joel? Don Moscato Yes. Jamie Schutzer Jamie? Don Moscato Yes. Glenn Brettschneider Glen? Don Moscato Yes. Steve Berger Yes. Okay. Let's go ahead and vote. We have Steve. Okay, are we all comfortable with those conditions? And the resolution? Everyone okay with them? Don Moscato shall remain open and unenclosed. The Applicant shall be prohibited from enclosing the terrace space. The terrace 2) Drew Gamils Secondly, Drew, do you want to read out your condition please? Don Moscato - - https://otter.ai Transcribed by the owners are Yuval and Jana Meron and I like to start sharing my screen and we'll get right into it. Good evening. My name is Justin Minieri. I'm here for the application at 46 Winding Wood Road Justin Minieri Okay, please proceed. Don Moscato Yes, I know thank you. Justin Minieri going to need three out of the four non excused members of the board. Okay, in that regard, Justin, you're aware that in order for the application to be approved, you're Don Moscato Board. over so I will not be participating in any decision making other than as a neighbor, but not with the And before Justin speaks, I would expect that I am recused. This houses across the street and one Glenn Brettschneider be hearing from Justin Minieri, the architect. floor addition, wood deck, rear masonry patio expansion and interior alterations. Once again, we'll is application 21-008. Yuval Meron & Jana Meron, 46 Winding Wood Road, to construct a second Okay, let me go ahead and make the introduction. Okay. Okay, the second application this evening Don Moscato Construct a 2nd floor addition, wood deck, rear masonry patio expansion and interior alterations.46 Winding Wood Road Yuval Meron & Jana Meron #21-008 1.2. I'm going to just stop sharing this screen right now. Justin Minieri Justin. Don't go too far away now. Don Moscato Thank you. Thank Justin Minieri - - https://otter.ai Transcribed by is 3,226. And we're proposing 3,617. So, we're 391 square feet of variance, which comes out to bulk of the second floor. So, we're asking for two variances. One is a FAR variance. Where the code proposed second floor addition. Again, we push back the addition a little further in to reduce the surrounding areas. As you can see here, this is the gable end of the existing house. And here's the here's the second floor and treated as a shed, so we minimize the impact on the neighbors in the side. So, as you can see, I buried the second floor addition to the rear. And so, from the side and, So, it really doesn't impact the front, the streetscape. Here's a side elevation. This is the sunroom appeal. But as you can see, the second story addition doesn't really appear in the front of the house. This is the existing front of the house. So, and we're adding some roof lines to give us some curb bedrooms, a couple bathrooms and a laundry room and it's to the rear of the house. As you can see. tried this smallest possible. Oh, I think I hear background noise now. So, we're adding three which consists of three bedrooms. And as you can see, we're not adding over the entire footprint, I is where we're adding that's triggering the need for a variance, we're adding a second floor addition, sunroom into a family room, we're adding the wood deck. Those areas are over compliance. So, this this is the height setback ratio, let me go, this is the existing first floor. Again, we're rebuilding the setbacks issue. And we're adding a wood deck, and we're rebuilding the one story sunroom. And can see, so we're adding a second floor addition, we're complying with the setback, so there's no space. So, what we're proposing is adding a second floor addition over the one story house, as you we're proposing is the Meron family is growing, so they need some additional bedrooms and living of the house. Alright, so let me go to the drawings and then I'll explain the project. Okay. What move on to the dormer. There are more photos, taken so long looking at photos, and this is the rear We're proposing to add to the side. Let me make it quick, let me get one of the rear and then I'll left open on yours. I apologize. So let me start with the photos. Yeah, this is the front of the house. going to share my screen, share. All right, here we go. I guess some, there was some residual stuff No? Why am I not able to share? Let me start again. Why am I having. Alright, let me try again. I'm Justin Minieri No. Michael Izzo I keep going back to the old screen that's why I'm, let me see. See the photos? No, no. Justin Minieri That's weird Justin I didn't change anything. Drew Gamils reason it keeps going back. Okay. No wait a minute it won’t let me. Will you allow me to share the screen? I'm not on for some - - https://otter.ai Transcribed by bearing on either these variances before the board. Yeah, it's a sunroom down on the opposite side of the home. Right here. And it has it has no Michael Izzo Yeah, it's the sunroom. It's right over here. Justin Minieri want to bring that up. Certainly Don, the previous variance in 2010 was on the opposite side of the house. Justin, if you Michael Izzo are they totally independent? For the benefit of the board? owner? And does that side yard setback have any impact on the need for this particular various or Okay. Mickey can you comment on the previous variance which was granted to the previous Don Moscato Your phone is clear. I just muted your computer. So, there's no feedback. Drew Gamils No, Don. I can hear you. Yes, yes. Michael Izzo Okay, Mickey, am I unmuted here or? Don Moscato and I'm ready for any comments or questions. want to talk to them, but the neighbors were in favor of the project, they didn't have any objections, two variances. So, I know the Meron's reached out to the neighbors they’re in the audience if you what you know, the minimum we can do. And we’re coming before you with the request of these young growing family. So again, we try to be mindful for their needs, and balance it out with the, minimizing the second floor addition, as you can see. So, it's a living space much needed for the side, we're fine. And you can see from a neighborhood appearance, we're not adding. we're that's a variance of 18.7%. So, we're coming jammed up over here. As you can see this the other angles gets dropped. And so, we need a variance of .30 the code requires 1.6 and we're at 1.9. So eight foot ceilings, we're not adding a huge addition on top, but because of the grade elevation, the grade drops quite a bit down. And so, it really hurts us. And that's why we're adding a second story, 12.12%. The second variance is the again, the height setback ratio. And the problem here is the - - https://otter.ai Transcribed by Excuse me, excuse me. Please identify yourself formally for the record. Don Moscato Sorry, those are the two neighbors that we see most regularly. The neighbor, Jana Meron to more if they want to come into the conversation. Yeah, that's the only two I have. I mean, the homeowners in the audience. I'm sure they can speak Justin Minieri chime in here. And I believe those are the only two those are the only two I have. If I'm incorrect, Justin can Michael Izzo Okay. Don Moscato individuals, both of those neighbors are in full support of the application. have, I believe, the Gutierrez family at 47 Winding Wood Road North. Both of those, both of those We have the Klein family at 50 Winding Wood Road in support. We have, let's see now here we Michael Izzo Could you just give the names and the addresses? If they're in support or in disagreement? Don Moscato Tara did distribute them. So, you have them electronically. And I have them before me. that were that were received from the village we received them today. Actually, the sixth. I think I can chime in Don and Justin on that. We have in our possession, copies of email correspondence Michael Izzo There's emails. Justin Minieri owners? and neighbors? I should say. I know Justin alluded to this. Okay, very good. Thank you. And Drew, did we did we receive official letters from any of the Don Moscato - - https://otter.ai Transcribed by Justin regarding the application? Okay, yes. Right. Okay. We have those letters. Are there any board members want to comment to Don Moscato It's only a cigar Don. Michael Izzo Yeah, smoke blares out from your head, over the screen. Okay, thank you, Mickey. Every so often I'm ready to call the Rye Brook Fire Inspector on you. Don Moscato So, Don the Klein’s who we have a letter of support is the most effective neighbor in this instance. Michael Izzo And the Gutierrez family is across the street in front of the house. Yuval Meron Yeah. Jana Meron setback will be. the addition. The Klein’s we have a letter from is on the, to the right of us. I think that's where the They are on the garage side. So, the left side of the house, which is probably the least affected by Yuval Meron discuss this with them in detail. So, the neighbor to the other side of us is very rarely here. So, we didn't have an opportunity to Jana Meron Please continue. Don Moscato Hello. Yuval Meron Oh, I'm sorry. This is Jana Meron. I'm one of the homeowners, my husband Yuval he's here as well. Jana Meron - - https://otter.ai Transcribed by Okay. All in favor of closing public hearing fine. Let me go through the factors we heard with the application? There being none. Can I have a motion to close the public hearing. Seconded. comfortable with things the way they are? Okay, not hearing anyone. Anyone want to speak against letter or commented at this point? Do you want to say something at this at this point? Are you there's anyone else who wants to speak in favor the application, who has not either submitted a Okay. Very good. With respect to Okay, now that we heard those in support, and let me ask if Don Moscato I'm okay too. Joel Simon I don't, I'm good with it. Steve Berger Okay. Thank you, Steve, or and, Joel, you have any questions for Justin? Don Moscato None, no there's no issues there Don that I'm aware of. Michael Izzo Wood? Okay. Mickey, are you aware of any water issues? In that particular area on that side of Winding Don Moscato Okay, thanks. Jamie Schutzer the extent of it. roofline. So, the only window you see is, represents bringing daylight into the foyer below. That's appeal. You can see the front; the three rooms are in the back. And this is buried underneath the entire garage side, nothing is going over, except for dummy roof lines to just add some aesthetic Okay. Let me get to the elevation before I answer. Well, here's the second floor. So, here's the Justin Minieri there's nothing going above there. Right. That's just. My only question Justin, on the left side above the garage and the right side. On that roofline, Jamie Schutzer - - https://otter.ai Transcribed by approximately 450 feet from the intersection of Latonia Road and Winding Wood Road. Said in an R-15 zoning district on the east side of Winding Wood Road, ,46 Winding Wood Roadaddition, wood deck, rear masonry patio expansion and interior alterations, on property located at ratio is 1.60 pursuant to Village Code § 250-20.I(2), in connection with the proposed second floor (2) a side height setback ratio variance of 0.30 where the maximum allowable side height setback maximum allowable gross floor area is 3,226 square feet pursuant to Village Code § 250-20.E, and for (1) a gross floor area variance of 391 square feet where the (the “Applicants”) Meron Yuval Meron & Jana , application has been made to the Zoning Board by WHEREAS RESOLUTION respect to this application. So let me go ahead and read the resolution. character as supported by neighbor, Glenn. And there'll be no physical or environmental issues with coming in at 12 and 18? Something percent? Yeah. Yeah. Okay, and they will not affect the Then we agree that the variances are self-created. Can we agree that the variances are substantial, Don Moscato and the lab. Just say hello. And give them some treats. Thanks. I have the two, I have the two dogs by the way if you see them walking the cream coated retriever Glenn Brettschneider I look forward to meeting you too. Yuval Meron to it. tonight, but I hope to soon, but I look forward to the addition, quietly, I hope, but I look forward positive way. And I'm just a little disappointed that I actually have not met my neighbors until Yes, I am. I actually think it will, will impact the character of the neighborhood. But I would say in a Glenn Brettschneider of the neighborhood? Are you there Glenn? he's still around to comment on whether or not he thinks as a resident this will impact the character the character the neighborhood? If at this particular point, could I ask our recused board member if from architect Minieri? Okay, good. It doesn't look like there's an environmental issue. How about respect to the smallest possible variance. Are we all comfortable with the explanation that we heard - - https://otter.ai Transcribed by connection with the proposed second floor addition, wood deck, rear masonry patio expansion and maximum allowable side height setback ratio is 1.60 pursuant to Village Code § 250-20.I(2), in pursuant to Village Code § 250-20.E, and (2) a side height setback ratio variance of 0.30 where the area variance of 391 square feet where the maximum allowable gross floor area is 3,226 square feet that the said application for (1) a gross floor NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED The need for the variances IS self-created. 5)environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and The variances WILL NOT create any adverse impacts to the physical or 4)The variances ARE substantial; 3)feasible for the Applicants to pursue, that does not require the variances; The benefit the Applicants seek CANNOT be achieved through another method, 2)neighborhood; The variances WILL NOT create an adverse impact to the character of the 1)of the Rye Brook Code, finds: concerned, and upon considering each of the factors set forth Village Code § 250-13(G)(b)\[2\]\[a\]-\[e\] the Board, from the application, after viewing the premises and neighborhood WHEREAS,Environmental Quality Review Act and accordingly, no further environmental review is required; the proposed action is a Type II action pursuant to the New York State WHEREAS, the public hearing was closed on April 6, 2021; and WHEREAS,wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and a duly advertised public hearing was held April 6, 2021, at which time all those WHEREAS,135.34-1-9; Parcel ID# premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as - - https://otter.ai Transcribed by Thank you very much. Good night. Justin Minieri Congratulations, and good luck. Don, yes. application is approved four yeses, zero nays. And one excused. Thank you very much. Don Moscato Yes. Joel Simon Joel? Don Moscato Yes. Jamie Schutzer Glenn is excused, Jamie. Don Moscato Yes. Steve Berger made. So, are we all in agreement? Are we ready to take a vote? Yes. Okay, Steve? And I believe we're not going to condition this further based on the comments that the board has Don Moscato the review of this application. in full all application and consultant fees incurred by the Village in connection with No permit or certificate of occupancy shall be issued until the Applicants have paid 1)following conditions: interior alterations, on property located at 46 Winding Wood Road, is hereby GRANTED on the - - https://otter.ai Transcribed by hired a contractor who's a good builder but he was unfamiliar with Rye Brook. He was under the that there's, this is the previous deck. It was a two level deck, it was in a state of disrepair and they existing two level deck and let me do a screen share here. All right, there was, hopefully we can see 0.1% which is 14 square feet above the max allowable. So, this is just a little backstory. There's an to exceed the maximum allowable coverage which is 4%. And we'd be at 4.1% or it's an increase of year and a half at that address. So, we are requesting a variance to allow a recently constructed deck who live at 42 Lawridge. They've lived there for nine years, and or in Rye Brook for nine years, a Good evening. My name is Brad DeMotte. I'm an architect. I'm representing Matt and Ali Altman Brad DeMotte Okay, we have our familiar Brad DeMotte. Don Moscato I got your back Don. I got your back. Michael Izzo that called? When you see something? Okay, that's because my eyes dropped up to the previous application. Thank you for that. What is Don Moscato I think you said 46. Michael Izzo Didn't I say that? Don Moscato 42 Lawridge, Don, 42. Michael Izzo Drive, legalize a re-constructed rear deck. next application is item number 21-005, Matthew Altman and Alexandra Altman of 46 Lawridge Okay. All right. Let me go back to the main screen here and let me get the next application. Okay, Don Moscato Legalize re-constructed rear deck. 42 Lawridge Drive Matthew Altman & Alexandra Altman #21-005 - - https://otter.ai Transcribed by to any comments, really can't be achieved by any other method, you know, and but it was self-created. So, we open up is not substantial. There's no undesirable change to the neighborhood, there's no adverse effects, neighbors, which I believe were in the file. And as far as the balancing test goes, you know, this, this Again, it's, you know, 4% versus 4.1%. And we have two letters of support from the adjacent this is the total of 670 square feet. So, it is 14 square feet above the maximum allowable limit. other one was somewhat octagonal. This is simply really just two levels and fairly rectangular. And the maximum allowable limit, this deck was constructed. And this is a different size and shape. The approval process. Okay, so coincidentally, the previous deck was 656 square feet, which was right at Well, he's a good builder. But in this case, you know, he dropped the ball when it came to the Brad DeMotte I thought that was ironic. Don Moscato Yes, it is. Brad DeMotte Okay. Is the name of his company Well Dunn? Don Moscato Absolutely. And believe me, he regrets it and won't do it again. Brad DeMotte Would you consider that an official oops, on the part of the contractor? Don Moscato over the maximal allowable of coverage for a deck. So that's why we are here tonight. So again, completing the building permit application to legalize it, we also we found out that we were slightly stop work order a couple months ago, I was brought in to clean up the mess. And as we, as we were could build this without a permit as a repair. And the building inspector saw the activity, he issued a was really, wasn't done intentionally it was really an oversight. He was under the impression he if we can find that. Let's see, well, here's a photo of the deck that was built. And so, and again, this that as a repair, replacement. So, what he did without a permit is to build a new deck. And let's see assumption that he could remove the deck and rebuild the deck in the same place and kind of saw - - https://otter.ai Transcribed by Lawridge Drive and one from the neighbor at 44 Lawridge Drive both in support. Yes, Don we received both letters on March 2, two letters of support. One from the neighbor at 38 Michael Izzo Yes. Okay. Thank you. Brad DeMotte I just want that publicly in the record on the video of Brad that’s all. Don Moscato They were submitted. You should have those in your file. They're there. Brad DeMotte will be not. Now, are you in possession of the letters, Mickey, are you? not affect the character, will not affect the environment. And we heard from the architect why this Okay. Very good. Thank you for that legal opinion. I appreciate that one. It's not substantial, will Don Moscato Without question. It’s definitely self-created. Joel Simon would this count as a self-created since it was done by an agent of the owners? all concur that it will, all of the five factors will not be adversely impacted? My only question is, five factors this would be classified as a de minimis request, according to my interpretation, do you regarding is? Okay, there being total silence on this one. Let me just kind of quickly summarize the Okay, thanks. Thank you very much. Any board members want to ask Brad DeMotte a question Don Moscato chose to ask for the variance. a rather expensive fix to remove 14 square feet from either one of these decks, and therefore we recommend that as an option to avoid the variance. And we discussed it between all of us. And it's, Well, the board would have that right to do that. And we did, we did, and actually, Mr. Izzo did Brad DeMotte be reclaimed. Just for the record, please? Can you just officially state why it would not make sense for the board to demand that that 14 feet Don Moscato - - https://otter.ai Transcribed by I wouldn't call it a legal opinion. It was a personal opinion. Joel Simon Oh, oh. ok. Don Moscato Or Joel. It wasn't me. Steve Berger It was me. Joel Simon It wasn't me who said that it was Glenn. Steve Berger read through it? assessment and Steve indicated that we'll consider this to be self-created. So, can I go ahead and Okay. I guess we're all in agreement to close the public hearing. Okay. You heard my, my particular Don Moscato Second. Joel Simon Seconded. Don Moscato So moved. Jamie Schutzer on that favorably or unfavorably? Not hearing anyone. Can I have a motion to close public hearing? All right, thanks. Thank you very much. Is anyone on the online here who would like to comment Don Moscato - - https://otter.ai Transcribed by feasible for the Applicants to pursue, that does not require the variance; The benefit the Applicants seek CANNOT be achieved through another method, 2)neighborhood; The variance WILL NOT create an adverse impact to the character of the 1)\[e\] of the Rye Brook Code, finds: concerned, and upon considering each of the factors set forth in Village Code § 250-13(G)(b)\[2\]\[a\ ]- the Board, from the application, after viewing the premises and neighborhood WHEREAS,Environmental Quality Review Act and accordingly, no further environmental review is required; the proposed action is a Type II action pursuant to the New York State WHEREAS, the public hearing was closed on April 6, 2021; and WHEREAS,wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and a duly advertised public hearing was held April 6, 2021, at which time all those WHEREAS,Parcel ID# 129.67-1-51; Rye Brook as and Lawridge Drive. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of an R-15 zoning district on the east side of Lawridge Drive, at the intersection of Parkwood Place ,proposed legalization of the re-constructed rear deck, on property located at 42 Lawridge Driveallowable deck coverage is 4% pursuant to Village Code § 250-37.B, in connection with the for a deck coverage variance of 0.1 % where the maximum (the “Applicants”) Alexandra Altman Matthew Altman & , application has been made to the Zoning Board by WHEREAS RESOLUTION resolution. be comfortable with that, but I'm glad you brought forward that Joel. Okay, let me read the Okay, no, but I value your insight in that. I was not sure how the rest of the board members would Don Moscato - - https://otter.ai Transcribed by Jamie? Don Moscato Yes. Glenn Brettschneider Glenn? Don Moscato Yes. Steve Berger Steve? Okay, and we're ready for a vote. As we're all comfortable with that while Mickey is in a cloud. Don Moscato the review of this application. in full all application and consultant fees incurred by the Village in connection with No permit or certificate of occupancy shall be issued until the Applicants have paid 1)located at 42 Lawridge Drive, is hereby GRANTED on the following conditions: 250-37.B, in connection with the proposed legalization of the re-constructed rear deck, on property variance of 0.1 % where the maximum allowable deck coverage is 4% pursuant to Village Code § that the said application for a deck coverage NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED The need for the variance IS self-created. 5)environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and The variance WILL NOT create any adverse impacts to the physical or 4)The variance IS NOT substantial; 3)- - https://otter.ai Transcribed by Yeah. Okay. Michael Izzo everybody see that? Is this visible to everyone? I'm going to go ahead and share my screen just to get the site plan up on there. Okay, can Evan Sakofsky Okay, okay. Now I see fine. Please go ahead. Don Moscato This is Evan Sakofsky. I'm the architect for the project. Evan Sakofsky you Chris? rear patio with fire pits and sitting walls. Okay, who's going to be making the presentations? Is that Joseph Sandarciero III and Stephanie Sandarciero of 112 Country Ridge Drive to construct new Okay, we're going to go back to the sequencing. The next application is I have number 21-009 Don Moscato Thank you. Alexandra Altman Thank you, and goodnight. Brad DeMotte Altmans and thank you, Mr. DeMotte. Don yes. Okay. Application approved five yeses, zero nays. Congratulations. Thank you, The Don Moscato Yes. Joel Simon Joel? Don Moscato Yes. Jamie Schutzer - - https://otter.ai Transcribed by something that's been there for four decades. behind that it just seems somewhat unreasonable, from our perspective to have to suddenly remove I mean I guess, you know, from our perspective, I mean, I'm, you know, I understand the reasoning Evan Sakofsky Possibly Yes. Joel Simon Well, I mean, are you suggesting demolishing some portion of this patio? Evan Sakofsky the concrete that you currently have? reconfigured to gain some, you know, to gain something from some more ground, as opposed to Is there anything that can be done here? I understand what your goal is, but to, in any way Joel Simon Hi. Evan Sakofsky This is Joel. Joel Simon hear anything. Does anybody have any questions about it? that they're looking for. And we hope we will be granted this variance for those reasons. I don't feel that the patio that we're proposing is modest. It's just large enough to give them the functions over 40 feet from the rear of the house. But really, their concern here has to do with safety. And we Obviously, there's a major inconvenience here as well, the access to this current existing patio is they want to use their hardscape, for entertaining that it's right next to an open swimming pool. homeowner, they have younger children. And just it just seems dangerous to them that whenever safer and more accessible entertaining space that can be on this rear yard. You know, right now, the quite some time. And basically, we are requesting to add to that impervious coverage to create a constructed in, according to the building departments records in 1977. So, they've been there for impervious coverage, which is largely being caused by the existing pool and patio. Those were So obviously what that means is that we have non-conforming situation already with respect to the rear of the house. This, we're requesting a variance of 885 square feet for impervious coverage. So yes, we are proposing to add a 399 square foot patio to the rear of the house directly adjacent to Evan Sakofsky - - https://otter.ai Transcribed by footage. Well, yeah, we'll be the, what is the exact dimension of the proposed enhancement? The square Don Moscato were looking to avoid in this case, by keeping it the modest size. additional expense, you know, with respect to the project, you know, so it was something that we obviously adding any sort of stormwater management, you know, comes at in, you know, a large There were not and I mean, that was largely the reason for the modest size of the proposed patio, Evan Sakofsky with this increased impervious coverage? you entertain, or do you have any plans for some type of water management proposal to go along You are covering a lot of land in the back, especially with respect to what is there now. So, would Don Moscato Correct. Evan Sakofsky staying one foot below the trigger number of 400 square feet for some type of water mitigation. I also feel the same way about that. But my comment has to do with the 399 square foot, you're Don Moscato Sure. Evan Sakofsky behind Joel's question. looks extra carefully at requests to enhance an existing nonconformity. I think that was the logic But you are asking for an extension of an existing nonconformity that has, historically, the board Don Moscato didn't create that situation. would prefer not to have to remove anything since it, since it has been there. And certainly, they Right, right. I mean, we, I understand the question. But, you know, obviously, the homeowner Evan Sakofsky It's no more unreasonable than adding at this point, either, but. Joel Simon - - https://otter.ai Transcribed by why what. I guess it seems to me, it's a fairly large yard, I don't understand why it's only a few inches. I mean, Steve Berger I mean, I think we could probably take a few inches out of the longer dimension here. Evan Sakofsky to 399. Can't you bring it in, you know, in on one side, shortening by a foot. So, we're not anywhere close Steve Berger proposing, I mean, you know, I certainly think we would entertain that. else we could do in terms of the application. You know, I mean, if there's a condition that you're emphasizing that we cannot exceed this, these dimensions. I'm not sure, from our perspective, what this drawing, which obviously we're submitting for the permit here are, are bolded. I mean, we are I mean, I just, you know, I think that the dimensions and the square footage that we're showing on Evan Sakofsky It just seems too cute. That's all. Steve Berger I mean, I think I, you know, we are aware of what we're up against. Evan Sakofsky then come back to us and say, sorry, make it less than 399? I think that's what…. 399, very close to 400. Very easy to go over. Is there a way to make sure that you don't go over, and So, my concern, following up on that is sort of like the last application, we just heard the oopsie Steve Berger It is 21 foot three by 18 foot nine. Evan Sakofsky What are those dimensions? What is it 20 by 20? Don Moscato The square footage is 399 square feet. If I jump to the first page…. Evan Sakofsky - - https://otter.ai Transcribed by That's why we make a record. Steve Berger Right. Glenn Brettschneider have over the years, a lot? Don, you and I've been on the board a long time. Joel as well, I mean, how many oopies did we Well, the thing is, you know, that it becomes a big expense. And we look, you know, I can't tell you, Steve Berger require that it be 399? We would not give into an oopsie? know, plan to be 399. That, if it ever came back, that we would know, or we would, we would Steve, let me ask this. A couple of things. So, we ever said if, since this isn't an oopsie, it's, you Glenn Brettschneider too contrived. But it seems to me when you're trying to do something a 399. It's too easy to miss and it just seems why you should do it, you know, if you're going to do this, and I'm not saying that we're there yet. I'm not, I'm not asking, I'm not asking you to do that on the fly in any way, shape, or form. And Steve Berger not functional. amount. But I, you know, I'm hesitant to throw a number out there that would suddenly make this I hear what you're saying. I mean, I guess we can come back, and certainly reduce this by some Evan Sakofsky that kind of risk? sure you're an excellent architect and your builders very good. But, I mean, why do we have to run know, we just had to go through an application, when somebody said, Yeah, a good builder. I'm I'm not in a position to make that judgment. All I'm saying is 399 is awfully close to 400. And, you Steve Berger What would be a comfortable amount from your perspective? Evan Sakofsky - - https://otter.ai Transcribed by you would just have steps here instead. So, I don't know. space, certainly being counted in the 399. But I don't know, even if we took the wall away, I think that usable upper surface. So, in my opinion, adding the wall is not really taking away from the the land here. So, we're anticipating needing steps up on these sides anyway, which would eat into just to kind of address the previous question a little bit in that regard, is that there is a slight slope to Well, it's counted as part of the impervious. I mean, it's reducing our usable area here. But I will say, Evan Sakofsky It's not really affecting the impervious right? Steve Berger wall. It's what's added. It's decorative. there that you could actually sit on. It's sitting height, it's not retaining any earth. So, it's just a low It's a well actually, this photo would show when, pretty accurately here. It's just a wall that's built Evan Sakofsky Can I ask a question? What is a sitting wall? Jamie Schutzer out there, is that even a consideration for us? paver. It looks beautiful. I'm just, I don't know if that's an issue for the board. I'm just throwing it that you just wanted, so it's not near the pool. It kind of seems is overwhelming in terms of a lot of sitting on top, and then I don't know visually, that adds a lot more impervious surface to an area beauty of that house that's what I meant. A sitting wall. Yeah. Which is, which is, you know, I guess No, I'm sorry, I didn't, I'm sorry. I didn't mean a retaining wall. Well, it? Well, it, it retains the Glenn Brettschneider It's not a retaining wall. It's just a sitting wall. Evan Sakofsky that there's a retaining wall does that affect this at all in terms of size or is that. pavers, maybe they're hollow, just as an idea. And the other thing I'm thinking is, is that is the fact okay, you know, I don't know what they're called. But they're kind of pavers, there grass, there want to bring up is the fact that it has to be a paver. I've seen pavers that are not completely solid, aware of our concerns. So, I'm thinking that is an issue. The other question, the two things I just Right. But in this case, the oopsie would be on architect Evan and the homeowner, because they're Glenn Brettschneider - - https://otter.ai Transcribed by impervious surface? I guess what I'm asking the board is, is the wall even an issue for us at all? If it doesn't add to the Glenn Brettschneider edge, it really wouldn't change anything. And So even if we took the wall away, we would probably just run the step continuously around this Right. And like, what I was saying is that you'd still need the step up here on this, on this perimeter. Evan Sakofsky have it, you still have the patio, pavers at that same length anyway. So that wouldn't affect the. Yeah, I don't know where? I mean, I think, I think what he said is that it is part of, so I guess if you Glenn Brettschneider reduce the impervious coverage by the width of the sitting walk around this perimeter? would it reduce the impervious coverage? Or is that sitting on the patio itself that would in fact Well, I guess Glenn, another way to ask that question would be if you took the seating area away, Don Moscato Okay. Evan Sakofsky not come across this before. for the board to accept? Or it's complete? You know, they may say it's completely irrelevant. I have Yeah, no, I appreciate that. Again, I'm not sure whether if there was no wall, would that be easier Glenn Brettschneider I was just trying to address the question. Evan Sakofsky I think. Glenn Brettschneider Right, exactly. Evan Sakofsky The walls, for us the walls a visual thing and doesn't really affect our decision. Glenn Brettschneider - - https://otter.ai Transcribed by Okay, thank you. Don Moscato is what I would see. might seem fair. But you know that would be where we would have to probably take the length out, obviously, I don't want to make this too small, where you know, I'm putting the walk here, which out of this side, and that everything would shift, you know, from bottom to top here. I mean, I mean, what I would anticipate if we were to shorten up this length would be that it would come Evan Sakofsky necessitate moving the pit further along on that, or would it stay the same? Yeah. Okay. I want to make sure that. Okay. Now, if you did shorten the length side, that would Don Moscato It's actually on here. It's three feet. Evan Sakofsky Yes. Don Moscato From here to here? Evan Sakofsky cursor is. What is the distance from the edge of the patio to the fire pit? going? Right there. Yeah, where the Don Moscato Let me go back, Yep. Evan Sakofsky I have a question regarding where you had the cursor on the bottom of a fire pit. Don Moscato that's not a zoning board issue. I don't think it is then Glenn. That's my take on it. If it doesn't affect the impervious that's not, Steve Berger - - https://otter.ai Transcribed by alleviate stress? doesn't have to be the patio, the other patio? Or would you consider anything that would help to Would consideration be done to, I mean, anything that is counting towards impervious here, and it Evan Sakofsky think something needs to be done here. To address these issues. different. And you know what, right, what was right for one isn't necessarily right for another. But I choices, the existing concrete, or the new patio as two options but, and every and every property is Glenn, I'm not, I'm not even going to suggest what it is that should be done. I raised those two Joel Simon Sure. Don Moscato not saying that we should do that. I'm just saying it's consistent with what Joel and Don have said. very similar. So, it's not the years it's been there. So, it wouldn't be a unique request. I'm not, I'm concrete patio, by the pool. That patio on the Klein house was there when they bought the house what you're saying is it will be consistent with a prior decision of the board to consider reducing the asked to have removed as part of the addition to the basketball court. So, I think in follow up to one of us, I guess it became agreed upon by majority ask that they had a patio, which I think they in their backyard. And one of the requirements because they have a big circular driveway was that letter of approval. There're the family across the street from me, and they added a basketball court Yeah, if we want to be consistent. If you remember the Klein’s from earlier today, who gave that Glenn Brettschneider If Yeah, I'm in the same, I'm in the same viewpoint that you are Joel. Don Moscato surface or something up with the new construction making, making it a smaller area. much impervious. very blunt, I'd rather, I'd want to see either a reduction in the existing concrete I just wanted to say that I'm, I'm not happy with this simply because in my mind, there's just too Joel Simon Does anyone else have any additional questions? Don Moscato Sure. Evan Sakofsky - - https://otter.ai Transcribed by Would there be a difference? Joseph Sandarciero III Not the one recommended, it's the one that…. Joel Simon was recommended by your bylaws, more or less. If it was. 399. Because that's the number but that's, we went at that number because that was the number that It'll take away some of the functionality of the patio. I mean, we're talking 399. You guys don't want Joseph Sandarciero III Right. I mean. Evan Sakofsky Or, or reduce the size of the new patio? Joel Simon patio, right? It's a lot less cost efficient. Yeah, I mean whatever. It's I guess, it's easier to take down the shed then do a jackhammer to a Joseph Sandarciero III discussed it, but we can, we can hold on that for sure. want to do, I just, I just wanted to mention that just because it, I thought we had previously No but it is counted towards the impervious in this calculation. If that’s not something that you Evan Sakofsky That's not on. No, because that's not on an impervious, that's on cinder blocks? Joseph Sandarciero III this shed here, which is. in this conversation. But we have talked previously, if this became an issue about possibly removing I mean Joe, are you on? the homeowner was on as well, I just want to make sure he's participating Evan Sakofsky Such as what, what are you thinking? Joel Simon - - https://otter.ai Transcribed by discuss this before closing the public hearing, because if the applicant is going to go back and Joel thank you. I'm sorry, you took the words away from me. I agree. I think the board should Drew Gamils they're possibly going to go back and rework this? Or do we need to keep the public hearing open? Now, before we do that a question, just as a proper procedure, do we close the public hearing if Joel Simon are there any other questions that you want to ask? some of these issues in a deliberative fashion. Once we close, once we close the public hearing. So, do is get a sense of all of the board members, as we close the public hearing, to get to go through Yeah, I think there are several options that can be considered. One of the things that I would like to Don Moscato come up. bringing it up with you if that previous applicant had not been there the same issue would have I did, I did bring it up. I agree with you. But it's not, that's not why would that's not why we're Joel Simon You brought it up. That's why I mentioned it. Joseph Sandarciero III previous applicant. No, that's not fair, sir. We've been, we deal with this issue all the time. Not just based on the Joel Simon And you're using me for the previous applicant before. Joseph Sandarciero III That’s not the same thing as recommended. Joel Simon No, I get that. Joseph Sandarciero III The one that triggers additional work. Joel Simon - - https://otter.ai Transcribed by sympathetic to that. I just think that there's a lot of space here. And rather than pushing up against the backyard, the way, the way he'd like to use it and connect the patio to the house, I'm Sure. I'm, I'm sympathetic to the need or the desire of the homeowner to do this and be able to use Steve Berger want to summarize your concerns or position on this application? Okay, thanks. Thank you very much. Okay. Let me go through, I guess alphabetically. Steve, do you Don Moscato application. application, and the other from 116 Country Ridge Drive. And it is also in support of the regarding the application, one from 111 Country Ridge Drive. It's a letter in support of the Don if I could interrupt your very quickly, just for the record, we did receive on April 1, two letters Michael Izzo then with respect to each, each of us going through our, our positions or concerns. So, if…. Okay, is there anyone who wants to speak against the application? Okay, let us deliberate as a board Okay. Okay, let me ask if there's anyone online, who would like to speak in favor of the application. Don Moscato would satisfy the board. We're open, we're open to various suggestions. Exactly. There are various options. We just named a few. If they can think of other things that will, Joel Simon square feet. That's another option that the board might want to think about. address the added impervious coverage rather than full capture, which is what’s required at 400 build this thing this size and require some sort of modest stormwater management that might Hey Don. The other option, which I want to bring it to the board's attention is to allow them to Michael Izzo Okay, very good. Don Moscato I get it right occasionally. Joel Simon hearing should remain open, because there potentially would be a change. contemplate, you know, changing these plans, removing impervious surface elsewhere, the public - - https://otter.ai Transcribed by Right, but is it a functional shed? Or is it just covering, just covering the pool equipment? Jamie Schutzer One is pool equipment. Don Moscato there, two sheds, they're there. Hi. You know, you’d mentioned about the shed as a possible option. So, I see on the plans that are Jamie Schutzer Okay. Jamie. Don Moscato yard. So. I really actually do like this design. I just don't know if it's, there is a lot of impervious surface in this Right? And, and so I actually would like to see something that is amenable to the board. But I really, Glenn Brettschneider There is not, no, there's a lot of grass right now. Evan Sakofsky itself. Is that correct. the pool. And if I'm correct, I don't think there's really anything in between the house and the pool design. And, and I actually am sympathetic, also, because I think without this, you have an area by Yeah, I actually don't disagree with Steve. But I do think it's a, a very functional and beautiful Glenn Brettschneider Okay, Glenn, how about you? Don Moscato don't think that, I think we need to pay attention to what could happen. So that’s my concern. you know, we've got issues of precedent with other homeowners in the past, going forward. And I I'd like to hear some proposals to go one way or the other. I think there's got to be some level of, usable. But I'm also concerned about bumping up against stormwater management problems. So, So, I'm not convinced that if you cut it back by a foot or two on one side or the other side, it's not the limit, I'd like to see some effort to either change the size. I mean, this is a fairly large addition. - - https://otter.ai Transcribed by make a suggestion as to steps forward that the applicant can take at this particular point in time. this application as it exists now. Okay, having said that, Drew, do you want to chime in now and the bulk standards with respect to impervious coverage. So, so I would have a hard time supporting you are trying to do, technically too much on the land that you have, given the size of the lot, and you're looking at you know, 885 square feet variance, which is significant from the allowable, so, significant reduction elsewhere on the property of the impervious the impervious coverage, because be able to be signed off by the administrator. In this case, it would be Mike Nowak, and or for a so, I would encourage the introduction of some kind of water management proposal, which would think it will, it will definitely impact the aesthetics of it and probably reduced the functionality. So, outflow from the, from the proposal. So, you know, I think by chopping the proposal lengthwise, I have to be a full blown, full blown capture, but something that does impact the water, the water will have to come up with some kind of water management and as Mickey suggested, it does not think that goes far enough. So, if the applicant wants that patio, the way it is designed, I think they you reduce the impervious coverage, not by just removing the shed, that was proposed, I don't everyone else, it's an attractive design, but I think something has to be given up here. And either preferred approach to go. Given, they want to keep that design the way it is, and I agree with was going to propose and that water mitigation or the water management plan I think would be the I just think there's too much impervious coverage being requested. And as a result, I think that I Okay, where I am coming at it that, I think that the lot is 23,000, just slightly over half an acre. And Don Moscato drawing board. And something needs to be figured out. design is gorgeous. There's no, no one disputes that, but I think it needs to go slightly back to the Alright, yeah, as I mentioned earlier, there's a lack of impervious on, on the, on this property. The Joel Simon Okay, thank you. Joel, how about you? Don Moscato Okay. Jamie Schutzer The one on your, on the bottom end of the screen is like a Rubbermaid storage shed. Joseph Sandarciero III I'm actually not sure offhand. I haven't paid close attention to those sheds in the past. I'll admit. Evan Sakofsky - - https://otter.ai Transcribed by either. acceptable? That might not, you know, make the project financially untenable for the homeowner sort of suggested. Not full capture, but what does that exactly mean, in terms of what would be think I would want to get some clarity just on what exactly in terms of the storm water that's being I mean, I'm guessing this is not really a question for tonight, but I'm going to throw out their way. I Evan Sakofsky can have the use of his very attractive addition to them to their property. necessary steps in order for the board to feel comfortable granting a variance so that the applicant I think, Evan, you're well on your way. It's just a matter of deciding where you want to take the Don Moscato this approved. Yeah, I mean, ultimately, we want to try to work with the board, of course, and find a way to get Evan Sakofsky Is the applicant amenable, amenable to that? Joel Simon That's fine with me. Steve Berger I would definitely concur. Joel Simon other board members on my concerns for that. Do you concur? Yeah, I prefer not to go for a vote at this particular point in time, but I'd like to get a sense of the Don Moscato discuss this application again next month. the applicant go back and come up with some proposals that address the board's concerns, and then So, I would therefore recommend that the board adjourn the public hearing to next month, and let sounds like you'd like to see the applicant go back and think creatively about some other options. I can advise as to what steps the board could take, the board could issue a denial tonight, but it Drew Gamils - - https://otter.ai Transcribed by is one of those where we'd like to, we'd like to see it first. or know what it is first. I'd like to see the plan presented to the Board prior to any conditional approval though. I think this Joel Simon Okay, that's that sounds good. Don Moscato May. resolution that the plan will be approved by Michal Nowak, if the plan is not formally prepared by management plan approved by Michal Nowak. So, you know, ultimately, you can condition the the board has in the past also conditioned approval resolutions, subject to a stormwater And the applicant can come forward with, you know, an idea for the plan and some proposals, but Drew Gamils that's the way you want to go. I think it is. You know, Mike's in the office, you can call him tomorrow and get the ball rolling, if Michael Izzo Okay. And is it feasible to do by the May meeting? Don Moscato you know, iron out details. As far as square footage is concerned, I think that would be advisable. He might want to talk to Mr. Nowak about his options with regard to stormwater management and, Michael Izzo Would the applicant or the architect, contact Mike or you for further discussion? Don Moscato Well, they're looking for an 885 foot variance. So, perhaps that's the jumping off point. Michael Izzo would you be willing to make suggestions? Fine, maybe we could make some headway there. Mickey, would this be the purview of Mike or Don Moscato - - https://otter.ai Transcribed by That'll be me, Steve Marchesani, I'm the architect for the Wiener's. Steve Marchesani rear second story additions. Who is going to be making a presentation of this application? Our next application is Matthew Wiener & Erica Wiener, 18 Boxwood Place construct front and Don Moscato Construct front and rear 2nd story additions. 18 Boxwood Place Matthew Wiener & Erica Wiener #21-006 Thank you. Evan Sakofsky presentation. And good luck in terms of coming up with an alternative plan. Thank you very much. Okay, so we'll adjourn the meeting and keep the public hearing open. I thank you very much for the Don Moscato Seconded. Glenn Brettschneider Okay. Don Moscato So moved. Steve Berger Okay, very good. So, I'm going to make that motion. Don Moscato Yes, adjourned to the May meeting. I would also say continue the public hearing. Drew Gamils this Okay, Drew, do we have a motion to adjourn for the main meeting? Is that, is that the way to go on Don Moscato - - https://otter.ai Transcribed by there something underneath that? Stephen, are you cantilevering that on the second floor bump out is that cantilevered out? Or is Don Moscato questions, we'll see if we can answer them. neighborhood in its environment. And we feel that it fits in with the neighborhood. If you have any And we feel like that doing it this way we minimize any effects on the character of the bedroom puts us over at the 324 square feet. And that fits over the existing footprint of the garage. approximately 107 square feet, which that alone would meet the FAR area. So, the addition of the them to have a separate area for themselves. The second floor addition that juts out is have their parents over as they're getting older and need some assistance or looking for a place for the added bedroom and bath. That was, that was, came about because of a need for the Wiener to no closets and the bathrooms very small. So that's why we proposed to add that. And then as far as variance of 324.1 square feet, which is a 9.8% variance. As I said, the master bedroom, there's like a variance for the maximum allowable gross floor area, which is 3,307.9 square feet, we need a and then walk in closet to make the little more livable for the bedroom. The, this proposal requires bedroom with a bath. And then on the second floor for the master, really increase the master bath, of the first floor here, we're going to reconfigure with the laundry and a set of stairs up to a second the first floor with a new set of stairs here. Because I can't see it. So, here's the proposed plans. Off added bedroom bath would be over the existing garage right here, which would be accessed from two little closets in the front here. So that's where we're proposing to go out to increase that. The it stands now. This is on the second floor of the existing bathroom. And there's really no closets, is of screened well from that side. Wait a minute. Go back here. Okay, so this is the existing house as across the street. Kind of similar houses. This is the house to the right. And house to the left kind closet, walk in closet enlarging the bathroom, which are very small right now. These are the homes a second floor addition here of seven feet off of this existing house. For the master bedroom for a here to accommodate a new bedroom and bath. And then in the rear of the house, we're proposing Okay, so this is the existing house. What we're proposing is a second story addition over the garage Steve Marchesani Yes, we can. Don Moscato Thank you. Let me share screen here. Can you see the photo? Steve Marchesani Okay, welcome back to the Rye Brook Zoning Board. Don Moscato - - https://otter.ai Transcribed by Jaime, Glenn? Don Moscato Nothing from me. Joel Simon I have nothing. Steve Berger Good. Thank you for that clarification. Okay, any board members have a question of the architect. Don Moscato On the back. Yes. Steve Marchesani Okay, so it's going to be a seven foot extend, extension on that side. Don Moscato out seven feet this way here from the side. And on the rear, this would be the addition on the rear supported with two columns here and juts footprint. So, it's not, it doesn't line up exactly with the footprints a little less than the footprint. Look at from the side, this is the addition right here. And it's also set back from the existing garage has a 12 foot wall, which we cut down to eight to accommodate the second floor addition. So, this is the proposed addition over the garage. Now if you notice in the picture, the existing Steve Marchesani You have an elevation drawing that Steve, you can bring up, I think it's on page A-2. Michael Izzo Okay. Thank you. Don Moscato But it's open underneath. No, it's open underneath. There's a support column in the existing wall below. It's not cantilevered. Steve Marchesani - - https://otter.ai Transcribed by make sure that any reduction will not take away from the functionality that you're trying to achieve. Because that would be the, obviously the logical place would be that bump out. And I just want to Don Moscato bedroom to include a bath and closet. Well, I don't know that we really could I mean, we're kind of at the smallest we can go for the Steve Marchesani would meet the applicants need? And if it is not? Where would you seek a reduction? If any, at all? know, what was. the is this? Steve, would you say that, is this the smallest possible variance that Now I can imagine that, that happened to me, it's shut my audio off automatically. So, I don't Don Moscato updates about 15 minutes ago, and I've been on my phone. My brand new computer. So, I was never going to get kicked out of a zoom again, decided to do its Jamie Schutzer It was Jamie, that was Jamie beeping in. Joel Simon What is that somebody wants to get in? Don Moscato I do. Joel Simon consider this to be a substantial variance? lot. And the variances 9.8% which sort of is below the 10%. So, my question would be, do you guys Okay. You know, the square footage is slightly over the R-15. And as a result, it is a relatively small Don Moscato Very thorough. Glenn Brettschneider Nope. Jamie Schutzer - - https://otter.ai Transcribed by Yeah, then from the side, you can see it's seven feet out. So, it's not that far. Really. Steve Marchesani The living room? Don Moscato the, I think it was the living room over there. Yeah, that's going to be, that's just open with, yeah, it's open underneath. We have two windows in Steve Marchesani What what's going to be underneath? Is there just does that just empty space? Don, I may miss this before because I was on my phone. The bump out on the second floor. Right? Jamie Schutzer Okay, okay. Gotcha. All right. Don Moscato We had a little leeway of about 100 feet. The existing house was 100 feet under that 3300. Well actually the total request is 324 square feet, which is basically what this bedroom and bath is. Steve Marchesani Is that correct? Okay, so your total square footage is 324. And that would be about 1/3 of the of the total request. Don Moscato 107 square feet is what we're adding. Steve Marchesani And what are the square footage of that particular area? In and of itself? Don Moscato much more closet and a better bathroom to make it work. bathrooms just in this little area here. So, to make it workable for a master bedroom, needs to get the finished one. But these two closets are the only two closets in a room. And the existing are like, on the other side of the window. I can show you that plan again if I can find it. Well, this is Right. Oh, yeah, on the rear one. Because the existing bedroom, right now has two little closets that Steve Marchesani - - https://otter.ai Transcribed by All right. All right. Joel, are you okay with that? Don Moscato Yeah, I'm fine. Glenn Brettschneider Yeah. Okay, me too. Glenn. How about you? Don Moscato I'm fine with that. Jamie Schutzer Okay. Would the board members feel comfortable putting that condition on also? Don Moscato Yeah, as I said, we’d have to come back anyway. But I would say we are okay with that. Steve Marchesani Yes. I mean, it's a redundant condition, but. Don Moscato What as a condition you mean? Steve Marchesani Stephen, would you, would the applicant be amenable to that? That would be subject to a conditioning also if we felt a little uncomfortable with that proposal. Don Moscato Okay. Jamie Schutzer It would require a GFA increase. Don Moscato underneath there? I mean, is there any, guys, is there anything we need to be concerned about, like ever doing Jamie Schutzer - - https://otter.ai Transcribed by in an R-15 zoning district on the east side of Boxwood Place, approximately 100 feet from the with the proposed front and rear second story additions, on property located at 18 Boxwood Place, maximum allowable gross floor area is 3,307.9 pursuant to Village Code § 250-20.E, in connection for a gross floor area variance of 324.1 square feet where the (the “Applicants”) Erica Wiener Matthew Wiener & , application has been made to the Zoning Board by WHEREAS RESOLUTION on, before I go to the resolution, are you comfortable with the five factors? Yes, yeah. Okay. and it's self-created. So, let me go through with the resolution unless somebody wants to comment two factors from the board members, it's self-created, and we'll consider this a substantial variance Okay. All right. So, we're comfortable that there is no environmental or character issues on those Don Moscato No Don, I am not. Michael Izzo here. This is 18. Okay, so as I read this, Mickey, are you aware of any water issues at Boxwood? Okay, public hearing is closed. Okay, we're looking at a 9.8% variance. Let me pull the resolution up Okay. All right. There being none, can I have a motion to close the public hearing? seconded? Don Moscato The building department has not. Michael Izzo Mickey, have we received any information from any of the neighbors based on the notification? anyone who wants to speak in favor the application? Anyone want to speak against the application? the existing board. That would be the logic for one wanting to put that in there. Okay. Is there a signal to a potential future owner, that there is a significant hurdle there. From the board, from bottom, bottom section there, even though it will require going through, but what it does is it sends Okay, very good. So, Stephen regard with, we'll condition any variance with no, no boxing in that Don Moscato I'm fine with that. Joel Simon- - https://otter.ai Transcribed by property located at 18 Boxwood Place, is hereby GRANTED on the following conditions: Village Code § 250-20.E, in connection with the proposed front and rear second story additions, on variance of 324.1 square feet where the maximum allowable gross floor area is 3,307.9 pursuant to that the said application for a gross floor area NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED The need for the variance IS self-created. 5)environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and The variance WILL NOT create any adverse impacts to the physical or 4)The variance IS substantial; 3)feasible for the Applicants to pursue, that does not require the variance; The benefit the Applicants seek CANNOT be achieved through another method, 2)neighborhood; The variance WILL NOT create an adverse impact to the character of the 1)\[e\] of the Rye Brook Code, finds: concerned, and upon considering each of the factors set forth in Village Code § 250-13(G)(b)\[2\]\[a\]- the Board, from the application, after viewing the premises and neighborhood WHEREAS,Environmental Quality Review Act and accordingly, no further environmental review is required; the proposed action is a Type II action pursuant to the New York State WHEREAS, the public hearing was closed on April 6, 2021; and WHEREAS,wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and a duly advertised public hearing was held April 6, 2021, at which time all those WHEREAS,Parcel ID# 129.67-1-20; the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as intersection of Lawridge Drive and Boxwood Place. Said premises being known and designated on - - https://otter.ai Transcribed by Don Moscato Yes. Joel Simon Joel? Don Moscato Yes. Jamie Schutzer Jamie? Don Moscato Yes. Glenn Brettschneider Glenn? Don Moscato Yes. Steve Berger Okay, are we all comfortable with that board? Yes. Okay, good. Let's vote Stephen. Don Moscato rear of shall remain open and unenclosed. The area located under the seven-foot portion of the second-story addition in the 2) Drew Gamils And secondly, Drew you want to give us that condition. Don Moscato the review of this application. in full all application and consultant fees incurred by the Village in connection with No permit or certificate of occupancy shall be issued until the Applicants have paid 1)- - https://otter.ai Transcribed by Jamie? Don Moscato You asked Joel. Jamie Schutzer You asked me already. I'm good. Joel Simon Okay. And, Joel, how about you? Don Moscato Never felt better. Glenn Brettschneider Okay, Glenn? Don Moscato Past my bedtime, but I'll go for a bit. Joel Simon Okay. Joel, how about you? Don Moscato I'm comfortable going for a while. Steve Berger can I Steve, are you comfortable? particular point in time? Let the record note that David had to leave in order, as he indicated earlier, your stamina? And secondly, do you want to continue with the remaining applications at this Let me, let me ask my colleagues now. It is approaching 10 o'clock. Can I get a sense of two things, Don Moscato Thank you very much. Steve Marchesani the presentation. Don, Don Yes. Application approved five years to zero nays. Congratulations. And thank you for - - https://otter.ai Transcribed by you, Don, and I'm happy to hear it. I'm thrilled with the suggestions. I think it's the first time ever heard of an expeditious method from Joel Simon about you? Okay, are you comfortable with the expeditious nature that I propose? Yes, yes, I am. Joel, how Don Moscato to try to plow through it. who have been waiting all night. I hate to see them have to wait another month, so I’d be inclined I'm okay. I mean, I would like to see what you get through it because there are people at the end Steve Berger we feel about that, Steve? entertain an expeditious resolution of these two. These two variances, if the board concurs. How do quite some time. And I don't think we have any concerns from the neighbors. I would be willing to detached garage. I also, and the side yard setback associated with that, given that it is been there for problem with any of the factors, considering it has been there. With respect to the C of O, for the over that whole discussion. Once I go through the factors and indicate that I don't think it's a my opinion, in my opinion, the deck coverage issue is de minimis. And I would be willing to skip concur. What I would recommend, okay, and because the documentation was so thorough, and in normal experience coming from Cuddy & Feder. So, from our past experience, I think we all can prepared by attorney Palmer. And I commend him for the thoroughness of the application, which is Well, we're looking at a deck coverage ratio of 0.14% variance, there is substantial documentation Don Moscato #698 dated 3/22/1954. Legalize the one-story detached garage constructed under Building Permit 82 Tamarack Road Joseph Sullivan & Tracey Sullivan #21-004 1.6. terms of this will be the last one, or were we going to try to plow through it. I just want to be fair. you know, there's going to be some work to do on it. I mean, do we want to have like a cut off in because we have two more items. So, to be fair to the last one. I mean, and this next one looks like I'm fine with it. But when you say go a little bit, I mean, are we talking about just, just to be fair, Jamie Schutzer - - https://otter.ai Transcribed by the resolution just mentioned what the variance is for. Yes, as long as we discussed the factors, that is the most important part, you do not need to read Drew Gamils go to the vote and then go to the second one. Is that, are you comfortable with that? I'd like to do is identify the resolution, number one, and then go directly to the five factors and then prefer not to have to read the entire resolution. I will recognize there are two resolutions. And what expedite this. Now Drew, I am going to need one piece of advice from you. And that is, I would their house. And they're doing it the right way by tidying up things, and I think we should just presentation was so thorough and so clear, that in my mind, I think that the folks are trying to sell the record straight, that I am not skirting those responsibilities. I am just indicating that the You know, I appreciate the section that discusses what our responsibilities are. And I want to set Don Moscato that. I'm all for it. I was hoping Taylor was going to read all his letters. But, you know, we could skip Jamie Schutzer Okay, and the party pooper Jamie, what do you think? Don Moscato I'm fine with that. I'm actually glad I read the, all the documentation. And I think it's a great idea. Glenn Brettschneider Okay, very good, Glenn. Don Moscato I agree with everything you said. Joel Simon He's teasing you, Don. Jamie Schutzer I'm kidding. I Joel Simon No, I mean, I read through all of these. Don Moscato - - https://otter.ai Transcribed by resolution. I'm going to ask if anybody wants to speak in favor of this application. Anyone want to Yeah, it's at 82 Tamarack and it's this one that I'm dealing with here. I'm not going to read the Don Moscato Read it again Don. Drew Gamils which I did. I think I did read it, didn't I? I think, I think I read it. It's been a long time. Right, Glenn? Yeah. Okay. Is there? This is in reference to the application, Don Moscato I remember those. Okay. Glenn Brettschneider Extension of my beard? Taylor Palmer What's the thing around Taylor's neck? Glenn Brettschneider That was going be the next thing Don was going say. Drew Gamils for the record, Taylor Palmer with Cuddy & Feder, thank you. Making sure we open the hearing for any other comments in addition to the letters of support and Taylor Palmer Oh, yes. Drew Gamils would ask that the hearing be open and… If I may, Mr. Chairman, just and I'm sorry to interrupt. I appreciate all that being said. But we Taylor Palmer Okay, that's what I was going to do. Okay. Very good. Don Moscato - - https://otter.ai Transcribed by the neighborhood. So eloquently stated by counsel for the applicant. Would you consider the the five factors. I don't think we're going to affect the character or the environmental conditions of hearing? So, move. Second, second. public hearing is closed. Okay. Let me go through the quickly We had opened the public hearing and I should say, can I have a motion to close the public conforming deck coverage of 3.597%. The proposed deck will result in a deck coverage of 3.64%. mentioned the two particular items and this one is Parcel ID 135.52-3-9. And it has a non-Thank you for that comment. We’d never know would we. Okay, let me go ahead and identify I Don Moscato They really want them to move out. Glenn Brettschneider All in support? Yes. Michael Izzo And no one against is that correct? Steve Berger Tamarack and 84 Tamarack. Yes, we do all neighbors around 75 Tamarack, 78 Tamarack, 79 Tamarack, 80 Tamarack, 81 Michael Izzo Yep. Neighbors in the in the area. Taylor Palmer Six. Michael Izzo Yes. We have six letters of support from Taylor Palmer Taylor am I correct? We do Don, we have a plethora of letters from all the concerned neighbors. I think there's seven. Michael Izzo variance of 1.5 feet. Now, Mickey, do we have any letters in support of this? speak against this application? This is for the deck coverage ratio. And the two side yard setback - - https://otter.ai Transcribed by Joel? Don Moscato Yes. Jamie Schutzer Jamie? Don Moscato Yes. Glenn Brettschneider Glenn? Don Moscato Yes. Steve Berger yes? Okay. Let's have a vote then. Steve? going to condition any of these. With any additional conditions, am I comfortable in assuming that, incurred by the village in connection with the review of this application. I'm assuming we're not occupancy shall be issued until the applicants have paid in full. All application and consultant fees appropriate, and is provisionally granted subject to the later vote, no permit, a certificate of need for the variance is self-created. Now, therefore, be it resolved that what I just said before is adverse impacts to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood. And five, the require the variances, the variances are collectively substantial. The variances will not create any sees cannot be achieved through another method feasible for the applicants to pursue that does not will not create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood. The benefit the applicant resolution? Yes, yes. Okay. All right. Let me then read those five factors. Formally. The variances and the need for the variances are self-created. Are we comfortable with those five factors in this Yeah. Okay. And there's not a way to meet the applicant's needs other than the proposed variances Don Moscato Yeah. Yeah, on a percentage basis. Yes. Glenn Brettschneider guess that one would be considered substantial. variances to be substantial? 0.14%. And the other one is a 1.4 foot variance over a base five. So, I - - https://otter.ai Transcribed by the Rye Brook Code, finds: concerned, and upon considering each of the factors set forth Village Code § 250-13(G)(b)\[2\]\[a\]-\[e\] of the Board, from the application, after viewing the premises and neighborhood WHEREAS,Environmental Quality Review Act and accordingly, no further environmental review is required; and the proposed action is a Type II action pursuant to the New York State WHEREAS, the public hearing was closed on April 6, 2021; and WHEREAS,wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and a duly advertised public hearing was held April 6, 2021, at which time all those WHEREAS, proposed deck repairs will result in a deck coverage of 3.64%; and the property has an existing non-conforming deck coverage of 3.597% and the Whereas, and Parcel ID# 135.52-3-9; being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Road, approximately 150 feet from the intersection of Argyle Road and Tamarack Road. Said premises in an R-7 zoning district on the west side of Tamarack ,porch, on property located at 82 Tamarack Roadlegalization of the rear deck and screen Village Code § 250-23.G(2)(b), in connection with the proposedvariance of 1.5 feet where the minimum required total of two side yards setback is 20 feet pursuant to deck coverage is 3.5% pursuant to Village Code § 250-37.B, and (2) a total of two side yards setback for (1) deck coverage variance of 0.14 % where the maximum allowable (the “Applicants”) Sullivan Joseph Sullivan & Tracey , application has been made to the Zoning Board by WHEREAS RESOLUTION You see what good planning does gentlemen. Good plan works all the time. Don? Yes. Okay, application for the variances approved five years is zero nays. Okay, very good. Don Moscato Yes. Joel Simon - - https://otter.ai Transcribed by application I presume, Mickey those same people are consenting to both of these. Resolution. 1954, property located at 82 Tamarack Road and an R-7 zoning district. And this particular of the one story detached garage, constructed under building permit number 698 dated March 22, variance, same property Parcel ID 135.52-3-9 opening the public hearing. This is for the legalization Okay, now we have another one sitting out there. Let me just okay. This one is for the second Don Moscato Legalize rear deck and screen porch. 82 Tamarack Road Joseph Sullivan & Tracey Sullivan #21-021 review of this application. full all application and consultant fees incurred by the Village in connection with the No permit or certificate of occupancy shall be issued until the Applicants have paid in 1)hereby GRANTED on the following conditions: legalization of the rear deck and screen porch, on property located at 82 Tamarack Road, is proposedtwo side yards setback is 20 feet pursuant to Village Code § 250-23.G(2)(b), in connection with the 37.B, and (2) a total of two side yards setback variance of 1.5 feet where the minimum required total of variance of 0.14 % where the maximum allowable deck coverage is 3.5% pursuant to Village Code § 250- that the said application for (1) deck coverage NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED The need for the variances IS self-created. 5)conditions of the neighborhood; and The variances WILL NOT create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmental 4)The variances ARE substantial; 3)feasible for the Applicants to pursue, that does not require the variances; The benefit the Applicants seek CANNOT be achieved through another method, 2)neighborhood; The variances WILL NOT create an adverse impact to the character of the 1)- - https://otter.ai Transcribed by of this application. Okay, are we comfortable with that? Ready to vote? Yes. Okay, Steve? paid in full. All application and consultant fees incurred by the Village in connection with the review granted subject to no permit or certificate of occupancy shall be issued until the applicants have the variance is self-created. Now, therefore, be it resolved, that the resolution is provisionally adverse impact to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. And the need for pursue that does not require the variance. Variances is substantial. The variance will not create an benefit the applicant seeks cannot be achieved to another method feasible for the applicants to factors, the variance will not create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood to the 2021. Closed, same day is a type two action, no further review is necessary. And following the five resolution. Once again, Parcel ID 135.52-3-9. The public hearing was opened on the sixth of April with that my interpretation of those five factors? Yes. Okay, let me go ahead and read the And it is the smallest possible variance short of chopping the thing down. So, are we comfortable it will not create any adverse environmental concerns. The variance is self-created and is substantial. closed out so that they can sell the property, it will not create an adverse impact to the character and again, it is close to the property line, but you know, it has been there and the C of O wants to be me out of there. Okay, back on. Okay, let me go through the five factors, then. It seems like once Okay, it's connecting again evidently it kicked me out. I guess you must have hit the button to get Don Moscato We can hear you pretty good, though. Drew Gamils Okay, I like that. Thank you for what the heck just happened to my darn screen here. Don Moscato Don't say unprecedented Don, just expedited a little bit. Drew Gamils to take unprecedented action and moving forward on this type of an application at this at this state. closed. Once again, I thank counsel for the very thorough work done on this application allowing us application? Okay, motion to close the public hearing. Moved. Seconded. Okay, public hearing is wants to speak in favor in addition to those received requests? Speak in favor or against the Right. Right. Okay, good. And board members? Well, not board members, anyone online who Don Moscato built underneath the deck. Yes. Don. There. There are two overlapping issues one with a deck and then a sunroom that was Michael Izzo - - https://otter.ai Transcribed by proposed deck repairs will result in a deck coverage of 3.64%; and the property has an existing non-conforming deck coverage of 3.597% and the Whereas, and Parcel ID# 135.52-3-9; being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Road, approximately 150 feet from the intersection of Argyle Road and Tamarack Road. Said premises in an R-7 zoning district on the west side of Tamarack ,porch, on property located at 82 Tamarack Roadlegalization of the rear deck and screen Village Code § 250-23.G(2)(b), in connection with the proposedvariance of 1.5 feet where the minimum required total of two side yards setback is 20 feet pursuant to deck coverage is 3.5% pursuant to Village Code § 250-37.B, and (2) a total of two side yards setback for (1) deck coverage variance of 0.14 % where the maximum allowable (the “Applicants”) Sullivan Joseph Sullivan & Tracey , application has been made to the Zoning Board by WHEREAS RESOLUTION for that. Excellent and complete presentation. Don? Yes. Application approved five yeses, zero nay. Congratulations. And thank you very much Don Moscato Yes. Joel Simon Joel? Don Moscato Yes. Jamie Schutzer Jamie? Don Moscato Yes. Glenn Brettschneider Glenn? Don Moscato Yes. Steve Berger- - https://otter.ai Transcribed by review of this application. full all application and consultant fees incurred by the Village in connection with the No permit or certificate of occupancy shall be issued until the Applicants have paid in 3)hereby GRANTED on the following conditions: legalization of the rear deck and screen porch, on property located at 82 Tamarack Road, is proposedtwo side yards setback is 20 feet pursuant to Village Code § 250-23.G(2)(b), in connection with the 37.B, and (2) a total of two side yards setback variance of 1.5 feet where the minimum required total of variance of 0.14 % where the maximum allowable deck coverage is 3.5% pursuant to Village Code § 250- that the said application for (1) deck coverage NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED The need for the variances IS self-created. 5)conditions of the neighborhood; and The variances WILL NOT create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmental 4)The variances ARE substantial; 3)feasible for the Applicants to pursue, that does not require the variances; The benefit the Applicants seek CANNOT be achieved through another method, 2)neighborhood; The variances WILL NOT create an adverse impact to the character of the 1)the Rye Brook Code, finds: concerned, and upon considering each of the factors set forth Village Code § 250-13(G)(b)\[2\]\ [a\]-\[e\] of the Board, from the application, after viewing the premises and neighborhood WHEREAS,Environmental Quality Review Act and accordingly, no further environmental review is required; and the proposed action is a Type II action pursuant to the New York State WHEREAS, the public hearing was closed on April 6, 2021; and WHEREAS,wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and a duly advertised public hearing was held April 6, 2021, at which time all those WHEREAS,- - https://otter.ai Transcribed by I'm not seeing a survey, but I'm seeing a really nice pool. Glenn Brettschneider over here. So here is the survey. And you'll see why the first and third are. And then I made an exhibit that shows other pools in the neighborhood. Oops, I have to move you property. So, if I can share my screen, I can show you the survey first. Then I have the site plan. from Mike Izzo, dated February 25, citing that we needed three variances for the pool on this Sherman here for Robert and Haley Wilk at 16 Birch Lane. And we received a notice of disapproval Well, thanks for persisting. It's a long evening, but you guys are moving right along. So, Dan Daniel Sherman Okay, Dan Sherman. Okay, fire away. Don Moscato No, Dan Sherman. Daniel Sherman Is this going to be Chris making the presentation? an inground swimming pool, with pool patio, pool equipment, pool fencing and wood deck. Okay. Okay, the next application is item number 21-001. Robert Wilk Haley Wilk 16 Birch Lane, construct Don Moscato pool fence and wood deck. Construct an in-ground swimming pool with pool patio, pool equipment, 16 Birch Lane Robert Wilk & Haley Wilk #21-001 Thank you. Drew Gamils Thank you very much. Don Moscato and your time this evening. Say safe everybody. for their help putting these things together and coordinating that. So, we appreciate all of your time Thank you very much. We like to thank the Village professionals as well, Ms. Gamils and Mr. Izzo Taylor Palmer - - https://otter.ai Transcribed by standard and then go from there. In other words, you just can't say, it's a rear, it's really a rear lot. that is not, you just can't say it's really a rear yard, you have to recognize the statute and the bulk living in Rye Brook is that you have, when you're a corner property, you have two front yards. And application. And that was that when a person purchases their property one of the realizations of No, you have opted, by the way that I take exception to one comment you made in your Don Moscato that's really the main requests for variance we're requesting. So, anything else I can add to explain it? know, it's not going to crowd the lot, it just happens to be technically over on the lot coverage. And really any more than the 11, or the seven or the eight. So, the five, I mean, so we feel that, you the in this neighborhood, the lots with the pools, we have the larger lot of all of these, and we aren't 22 of the lot was smaller, that's under actually. But it sort of shows in our mind precedent that of number five is 6.1 over so and then over on Red Roof, number 20 Red Roof Drive is 5.2 over and 11.6 over number 12 Birch Lane is 7.3 over number 4 Birch Lane is right on, it's exactly right. And allowable. This is the total lot coverage, not the impermeable surface. The one next door is 11% with pools and so I made this little exhibit here, they're number 16. And there it's 7.2% over the loop that have pools. And our lot is the largest of this. The Wilk’s lot is the largest of all the ones made this exhibit looking up the different lots around. We looked at all the properties on that same be treated as a rear yard. I made an exhibit, one last thing to show you and then I'll take questions. I requirement if it was treated as a rear yard and the filter also meets the 15 foot rear yard if it would to put some chairs but we didn't put any other additional deck and this does meet the rear yard drawing. But this is the drawing from the engineer. And I just have a pool, a deck that's 12 feet deep We put a moderate sized pool. I think it's 33 by 16 it’s not labeled on this. I believe it’s on my walk existing house, there’s a deck and a patio, there isn't anything I can really take away from that. me; I turn the drawing blue. Anyway. So, you can see this the drive existing driveway existing front show you the site plan so you can see how it looks. Here is the site plan. This always happens to still when we use the formula, we come out 1000 square feet over the lot coverage. And so, I'll over on the lot coverage. It's a large lot it's 21,850 square feet. And there's a lot of open lawn but it's that's the first and second first and third. The second one is a lot coverage thing and we're a little It's about the 35% coverage in a front yard. And we're asking if this be treated as a rear yard. So addresses on birch lane but treating the Red Roof back as the rear yard. And the third one is similar. pool on this lot in what really is the rear yard. We're not putting it in the front yard where it's equipment shall be located in any front yard. So, we're requesting that we are permitted to put a yards. So, the first variance, first notice of disapproval is that no pool, or associated structures of Birch Lane, and it backs up against the cul de sac of Red Roof Drive. So that's why it has two front That was my cottage, that was the lake. Oh, so this is the property on the end of the cul de sac of Daniel Sherman - - https://otter.ai Transcribed by If I may, I’d like to ask Mickey, what's the water situation in this location? Steve Berger my colleagues feel about that. In terms of the size of the impervious coverage. request. And so that's where I'm coming from. And I just want to get that out of there to see how large at 22% of a variance. And I know that my first blush reaction was, wow, that's awfully large a and the wood deck stairs? The other thing I would raise is that that impervious coverage is quite the pool, and the other changes being made surrounding that pool with respect to the stone patio being a front yard slash rear yard interpretation. My question is, are we comfortable with the size of my fellow board members that that appears to be the issue. I'm not, I don't have a problem with it walkways can be reduced to reduce or eliminate the impervious surface coverage variances. So, to consideration should be given to whether the size and scope of the pool and pool patio and Birch Lane, appears to be vegetatively screened from view from Red Roof. And second classification of front yard. Practically speaking the proposed pool is in the rear of the home at 16 Oh yeah, consideration should be given to the fact that two of the variances result from the difference. They do say though, at the bottom of the of the resolution, let me see if I can refer to it. different responsibility than we do. And we recognize that difference and we applaud that the of the packet. So let me just scroll to it. I want to get the exact wording of it. And they have a don't have it in front of me, but I could scroll down and find it but they indicate, it's on page 389 of Board, they referred this to the zoning board. And in their referral, they indicated that, I want to, I you to some extent of what you can do. Now, the Planning Board, you went before the Planning one of the disadvantages in Rye Brook is that you've got two front yards. And as a result, that limits handcuffed by this bulk standard? And the fact is, there are certain advantages to a corner lot. But lot that's come before this. And oftentimes, the argument is always the same. Why am I so trying to balance the factors against that realization, because you're not the first person in a corner Right, that’s all I'm saying, that's how we're going to look at it, that it's a front yard. And we are Don Moscato it as a rear yard. A variance request would be that we'd be asking to put place a pool in a front yard not that we treat Daniel Sherman a pleasant way, not in an adversarial way. they do have front yards and there are requirements for those two front yards. So, I'm saying that in that bulk standard. They can request relief in terms of a zoning relief, but they must recognize that they deliberately made that the case. So that means anyone who lives in a corner lot must live by It's a two front yard lot. And when the founding fathers and mothers created the bulk standards, - - https://otter.ai Transcribed by good relationship of making sure the solution works out. So, Chris is doing this. comfortable that Mike Izzo was working with Chris on that. But I know that Mike and Chris have a Well, I know Mike Izzo and Chris talked privately about it or in the office and so the board was Daniel Sherman At zoning? How far was that discussion? How far did the Planning Board go in reviewing the drainage issues before they kicked it over to us? Don Moscato engineering. review this with Mike Izzo. And it will go back to the Planning Board still and then through This is a drainage plan that Chris Utschig prepared. It shows three cultic chambers and he has Daniel Sherman of remediation in place to ensure that we're not creating or adding to a problem. the amount of impervious we're talking about the size of the lot, they would need to be some sort areas. I don't know what they've done regarding drainage. I would, I would think that here, given concern is the amount of the impervious and whether or not other neighbors have large impervious an issue, and I'm going with what Don was saying as to the back lot front lot, but concerns. My And that was my understanding that red roof was a problem area regarding drainage. I, I don't have Steve Berger development. not reviewed the tapes from the Planning meetings. But that's the story of the Red Roof impervious issues as far as that goes. I'm not sure to what extent they're able to mitigate this. I have issue. But it is before the Planning Board. The Planning Board is dealing with the drainage and the Westchester. Much of that has been ameliorated. But the Red Roof area is traditionally a drainage over the years. And in the recent drainage upgrade on Ridge Street undertaken by the County of downstream, I suppose you could say, but there has been significant improvement in the drainage knocked his air conditioning units off their mounts, and they wind up in the neighbor's yard down much so that during one rainstorm, it actually flooded the then mayor's house, to the extent that it Village. But I was, I was involved in the results of the lack of planning for this development. So stormwater problems. It was constructed and mostly completed before I started my tenure at the Well, historically speaking, the development at Red Roof caused a myriad of water problems, Michael Izzo - - https://otter.ai Transcribed by Well, it is yes. Daniel Sherman If the drainage issue has been handled by the Planning Board. I'm less concerned than if it wasn't. Steve Berger This is the results of two or three reductions already? Daniel Sherman My main concern is the drainage. Steve Berger there on the, I didn't find anything, I mean we had. No, I mean, I looked at the driveway ends up in this sort of tight Hammerhead, and nothing else Daniel Sherman Nothing else on the property. Steve Berger a, and you have. But there's only just a walking space on the left and right and nothing on the south side. So, it's just stone with grass joints. I didn't really discuss that with the Wilks but that would reduce it a little bit. Well, we've gone over it several times, when I consider the idea of making the patio be squares of Daniel Sherman the impervious? Nothing else in terms of the deck area or other areas that can be reduced or eliminated to decrease Steve Berger drawing, because it's not labeled here. But that's a pretty, relatively small moderate pool of 16 by 32. Oh, that's right. Wrong Mike Sorry about that. And the pool is 16 by 32, I had to open my other Daniel Sherman I'm not part of that discussion. the one, he's the key player here, as far as designing a code compliant and feasible drainage system, I think Chris has been in contact with my colleague, Mike Nowak. Yeah, he's the engineer and he's Michael Izzo - - https://otter.ai Transcribed by bit of vegetation cover, shielding that Red Roof side the pool from the streetscape. that was that was commented on in the in the proposal that I remember reading that there's quite a that's that partially can be mitigated by the vegetation on the Red Roof side, shielding it and I think No, I see. I see where you're coming from and I concur. I concur with the aesthetic part of it. And Don Moscato This is an area where it's an aesthetic issue. things are handled like that. I then don't see. I'm saying I don't know if there really is a concern. being handled by Planning Board, then supposedly that's not going to be an issue. If those two think in this backyard, given the size is really an issue. And the second is drainage, which if that's position that if we're dealing with two issues as to impervious one is the aesthetics, which I don't No, I hear you and I'm going to play devil's advocate just for a second. And I'm going take the Steve Berger visual impact of having, you know, no green space in your backyard, but it's totally covered. the green scape that we have in Rye Brook. So, it's not always just the water, it's sometimes it's the coverage. And, you know, it sort of looks like in New York City, you know, apartments rather than and we've had applications, where their entire backyard was essentially paved over with impervious And no, not necessarily, because in this particular case, maybe less so. But you can have somebody, Don Moscato Or, you know, the conservative on the impervious coverage is drainage, correct? Don, let me ask you question and excuse my ignorance, the purpose of the impervious coverage. Steve Berger me some concern. know, I'm willing to forgive the front yard aspect of things. It's the second variance that is causing that it's the impervious coverage is taken up quite a bit, and the front yard impervious coverage, you 15,000 square feet. So, they do have space. You know, they do have, they do have a space, it's just Steve their lot size is 21,857 square feet. So, it's an R-15 zone, and it's well above the limitation of Don Moscato Yeah, no, I hear you. Steve Berger - - https://otter.ai Transcribed by Oh, okay. All right, fine. So Don Moscato No, I had not known of that. Daniel Sherman Okay, thanks. Thank you. Mr. Sherman. Were you aware of that letter? Don Moscato management concerns. I have no issue with the general application for a pool. adequate and appropriate and appropriately addressing all these concerns, which are all construction my concern is during the meeting, that's the Planning Board meeting, assuming the owners are quote the last sentence from Mr. Haskell, he starts I appreciate you addressing this question. And going to be that of the contractor. So, his issues are around the construction management. And I'll be involved in the construction of the, you know, the actual day to day construction operations, it's obviously, that's nothing that the applicant’s representative can speak on because he's not going to raised concerns about just what you said, the construction management aspect of the job. And, Sure thing, Mr. Chairman, I received a letter today from Mr. Haskell at 22 Red Roof Drive. And he Michael Izzo the record to make sure we touch on all the bases on this? received. But that seems to be a construction management issue. Can you just comment on that for and, you know, I believe there well taken. I do. Mickey, there was a concern and a letter that was that each person would have to would have to wrestle with. So, but I take your, your comments, our purview if we feel uncomfortable about that, but that's an individual board member decision and walkways can be reduced the scope of the pool and the patio being reduced. So that is under wrestled with that. The Planning Board though did issue the issue of did make a point of pool patio but remember a while ago, somebody wanted something that was elevated, and I know the board Yeah, if I'm not mistaken, we had that issue. It may have been on Old Orchard I'm not sure Mickey Don Moscato lawn is six feet higher. So, you can't see up into it. Drive, you can't see up into this yard, not only through all the Evergreen vegetation, but that the And Red Roof, excuse me, is also like six feet down. So, if you drive the loop around Red Roof Daniel Sherman - - https://otter.ai Transcribed by which normally is where you would enter a property from to go to the backyard. And so, you know, from the back yard, which is really a front yard where the pool and not from the front of his house, not in my backyard that the construction would be in the construction equipment would be going beginning of his letter, since we're not reading it on, you know, tonight, it does mention almost like and I don't know really what it meant, and if it has anything to do with us, but I did note in the I'm fine with it. I actually did want to mention for a second the letter that Mickey referenced just Glenn Brettschneider Okay, Glenn? Yeah, Don Moscato problem with the front yard issue, so I'm okay. big one. And I think that we raise concern about the construction management. And I don't have a You know, given that, not really, I think that, you know, the stormwater management issue is the Steve Berger Steve, do you want to express your position on this application? sure that everybody expresses their particular perspective on this. So, let's go down the line. Now. we've moved very well up to this point. But I would like to give it the appropriate review and make let's, this is a big application. And I just want to make sure that even though it's a late hour, I think architect. Okay, there being none. Can I have a motion to close the public hearing? Okay. All right, speak against the application? Okay, anyone have a question? Additional questions of the of the Let me see. Is there anyone online who wants to speak in favor of the application? Anyone want to Don Moscato We could forward the letter to whoever you want. Michael Izzo sensitive to some concerns that were raised. sensitivity of the construction process, I think that would be that would be helpful they'd be Okay, good. So, the more people who expressed those concerns to the applicant regarding the Don Moscato letter. And when I said it was for a pool, he said, Oh, okay. He just wasn't sure why you got a certified certified mail like we have to do in Scarsdale. And he was concerned why he got a certified letter. I got a call from one neighbor. But they just didn't know, we had sent the notices by registered by Daniel Sherman - - https://otter.ai Transcribed by Yes. Daniel Sherman Okay, Mr. Sherman, are you comfortable with that condition? Don Moscato So, it is appropriate. discretion, but we can definitely write something up. And they are currently working on the plan. You know, I'd want to be a little bit broad to give the Planning Board and Mike Nowak some Sorry, I forgot I was on mute. Yes. Because that pertains directly to the impervious surface variance. Drew Gamils to condition it on what Joel just said? Okay, let me just depart for a second Drew. Is that within our is that within our purview to be able Don Moscato by the Planning Board. probably worth it to have as a condition that is based upon an approved drainage management plan as the drainage issues have been being handled by the Planning Board, which I think makes this one Based on what I said earlier, I think that that there is I don't think there's an aesthetic issue, as long Joel Simon Okay, Joel? Don Moscato her being addressed, and I'm okay with it. Yeah, I agree with Steve's comments as well, as long as you know, there's things that we discussed Jamie Schutzer Okay, Jamie? Don Moscato through the front? So, but other than that, I have no problems with the application. just wasn't sure what he was referring to with the, you know, was he complaining that it wasn't really had to do with, he's fine. As long as all his concerned about his young kids were addressed. I I'm not sure that he meant anything by that. But he, as I said, Mickey said, as he did end the letter it - - https://otter.ai Transcribed by Parcel ID# 135.43-1-5.28; the Village of Rye Brook as Old Orchard Road and Birch Lane. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of zoning district on the south east side of Birch Lane, approximately 600 feet from the intersection of in an R-15 ,patio in the front yard of the property at the Red Roof Drive elevation, at 16 Birch Laneconnection with the proposed construction of an in-ground swimming pool and swimming pool allowable Front Yard Impervious Coverage is 35% pursuant to Village Code § 250-37.D, in § 250-37.C; and (3) a Front Yard Impervious Coverage variance of 4.2% where the maximum allowable Total Impervious Coverage for this property is 7,005 square feet pursuant to Village Code Zoning; (2) a Total Impervious Coverage variance of 1,578 square feet where the maximum associated structures or equipment shall be located in any front yard as defined in Chapter 250, for (1) relief from Village Code § 224-7.D which states that no pool or (the “Applicants”) Wilk Robert Wilk & Haley , application has been made to the Zoning Board by WHEREAS RESOLUTION property. So let me go ahead and read this wrote resolution. it will affect the character of the neighborhood, given the screening and the elevation of the of the environmental conditions will be dealt with through the water management issue. And I don't think variances? you think it is? Everyone concurs on that one. Yeah. Okay. And the water, the self-created. How about is this the smallest variance that can be achieved that does not require the ahead and read the resolution with the proviso that the variances are substantial, and that they're that that is another factor that sways me in terms of supporting the application. Okay, let me go impervious coverage, because I think the water management plan is going to deal with that. And sway me to reject the application as presented in terms of I'm not going after a reduction of consider the variance to be substantial for the impervious coverage. But I don't think it's enough to 15 zone. And I don't think it adds to excessive clutter on the part of this particular project. But I do 6,100 square feet over the minimum. So, they do have quite a bit of real estate, considering it's an R-appropriate. And what I think is an important factor for me is that the square footage of this lot, is Okay. Let me chime in my two cents here. I think that Joel's point about the aesthetics, I think is Don Moscato - - https://otter.ai Transcribed by 16 Birch Lane, is hereby GRANTED on the following conditions: pool and swimming pool patio in the front yard of the property at the Red Roof Drive elevation, at to Village Code § 250-37.D, in connection with the proposed construction of an in-ground swimming variance of 4.2% where the maximum allowable Front Yard Impervious Coverage is 35% pursuant 7,005 square feet pursuant to Village Code § 250-37.C; and (3) a Front Yard Impervious Coverage of 1,578 square feet where the maximum allowable Total Impervious Coverage for this property is located in any front yard as defined in Chapter 250, Zoning; (2) a Total Impervious Coverage variance Village Code § 224-7.D which states that no pool or associated structures or equipment shall be that the said application for (1) relief from NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED The need for the variances IS self-created. 5)environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and The variances WILL NOT create any adverse impacts to the physical or 4)The variances ARE substantial; 3)feasible for the Applicants to pursue, that does not require the variances; The benefit the Applicants seek CANNOT be achieved through another method, 2)neighborhood; The variances WILL NOT create an adverse impact to the character of the 1)\[e\] of the Rye Brook Code, finds: concerned, and upon considering each of the factors set forth in Village Code § 250-13(G)(b)\[2\]\[a\]- the Board, from the application, after viewing the premises and neighborhood WHEREAS,Environmental Quality Review Act and accordingly, no further environmental review is required; the proposed action is a Type II action pursuant to the New York State WHEREAS, the public hearing was closed on April 6, 2021; and WHEREAS,wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and a duly advertised public hearing was held April 6, 2021, at which time all those WHEREAS,- - https://otter.ai Transcribed by Yes. Joel Simon Joel? Don Moscato Yes. Jamie Schutzer Jamie? Don Moscato Yes. Glenn Brettschneider Okay. Glenn? Don Moscato Yes. Steve Berger Steve? Okay. And so all right. Okay, where are we okay with that? Yes. Okay. Let's go ahead with the vote Don Moscato to review and approval by the Village Superintendent of Public Works. The Applicant shall prepare a stormwater management plan for the project, subject 2) Drew Gamils Secondly, Drew, can you read that please? Don Moscato with the review of this application. paid in full all application and consultant fees incurred by the Village in connection No permit or certificate of occupancy shall be issued until the Applicants have 1)- - https://otter.ai Transcribed by That's correct. Michael Izzo We have a referral from tonight. Right? Don Moscato May, we have at least one on that I can think of right now. Michael Izzo What's ahead for May? Don Moscato I’m sorry? Michael Izzo Mickey, what’s ahead for May? Don Moscato I appreciate it. Drew Gamils We are patient. Michael Izzo be patient with us. minutes as well. But you know, we're still on the transcripts. And the transcripts are very tricky. So Tara and I are working on them. We will have March’s minutes for next month, maybe April's Drew Gamils There's no minutes. Michael Izzo There being no minutes. thank you very much for the perseverance maintained our attention, which is always appreciated. good luck before the Planning Board. All right. Thank you. Okay. All right, gentlemen. And Drew, Don? Yes. Okay. Application approved five yeses, zero nays. No abstentions. Congratulations, and Don Moscato - - https://otter.ai Transcribed by very much, everyone, everybody. Thank you very much. Second that motion please. Okay, the committee is adjourned. Thank you Don Moscato On that note, I’d like to move to adjourn. Glenn Brettschneider Mine to. Steve Berger It’s past his bedtime. Michael Izzo Okay. Steve Berger He left early though. Michael Izzo Oh Okay. Steve Berger Possibly. Michael Izzo Oh, he was? Steve Berger I think he was working with Sherman on this one. Don Moscato He was here. Michael Izzo Wait, did we have, did Chris Scelfo have something on tonight? Did that. Steve Berger- - https://otter.ai Transcribed by