Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBP21-120L� PERMIT # o- vlQ DATE:CiJ1 ExP:S ta SECTION % //BLOC vLOT TYPE OF WORK T" � o?c) /7�100� / Cv7S JOB LOCATION /C3C )) =ARB OWNER G(� )e174er ,tr / C' / ^ J�rO" �OJ.� ``--n'lCONTRACTOR /4;*4lU4*I ,BLJ/I %.xC01 6 n//S 5C eJ74Zt`i(9/y) `%7y-©lJ7 EST. COST /�[ % , OOFEE 4CO # C1 mac; 1i) FEES E tob DATE 0 TCO # FEE DATE INSPECTION REC ,, < FOOTING FOUNDATION FRAMING RGH FRAMING INSULATION PLUMBING 19 RGH PLUMBING GAS o �P�J "�53�1 yc ol�c�ri c SPRINKLER � � ELECTRIC LOW -VOLT IZQ l� a- ALARM Z C AS BUILT +� ''Aex ^ �A'0� C. " G C lc� /t/ /�20c;v FINAL e p IRED PRIOR TO L INSPECTION PRIOR RMANENT CONSTRUCTION1DENMFICATION SIGN; V:R TO THE ISSUANCE OF A C/O, AS REQUIRED BY NY STATE LAW. VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NEW YORK NO: 21-206 (Certif irate of Occupancp This is to certify that i'fo4h1 w M ner- e Er c a YV] encr of, y� � t / V y , having duly filed an application on 20L requesting a Certificate of Occupancy for the premises known as, I F3 F,-C,\/N(3(2d P l a c e, , Rye Brook,NY, located in a R_ [ Zoning District and shown on the most current Tax Map as Section: a(? Block: / Lot: c2 and having fully complied with the requirements of the Building Code and the Zoning Ordinance under Building Permit No. 1- , issued 20 cl� 1, such authority and permission is hereby granted to the property owner to lawfully occupy or use said premises or building or part thereof listed under the New York State Use Classification of: I , for the following purposes: Fr- r r C;� �dd ` n Subject to all the privileges, requirements, limitations and conditions prescribed by law, and subject also to the following: This certificate does not in any way relieve the owners or any person or persons in possession or control of the premises, building,or any part thereof from obtaining such other permits or licenses as may be prescribed by law for the uses or purposes for which the building or premises is designed or intended. Furthermore, it does not relieve such owners or persons from complying with any lawful order issued with the object of maintaining the premises or building in a safe and lawful condition. No changes or rearrangement in the structural parts of the building or in the exit facilities shall be made,and no enlargement, whether by extending on any side or by increasing in height shall be made,nor shall the building be moved from one location to another until a permit to accomplish such change has been o in from Build' ector. DEC 2 s 2021 Assistant Building Inspector,Village of Rye Brook: Date: t�4,°tads v G VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK MAYOR 938 King Street, Rye Brook,N.Y. 10573 ADMINISTRATOR Paul S. Rosenberg (914) 939-0668 Christopher J. Bradbury �.aebrook.org TRUSTEES BUILDING& FIRE Susan R. Epstein INSPECTOR Stephanie J. Fischer Michael J. Izzo David M. Heiser Jason A. Klein CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE December 29,2021 Matthew Wiener& Erica Wiener 18 Boxwood Place Rye Brook,New York 10573 Re: 18 Boxwood Place, Rye Brook,New York 10573 Parcel ID#: 129.67-1-20 This document certifies that the work done under Mechanical Permit #21-190 issued on 12/8/2021 for the installation of a new condenser and a new air handler has been satisfactorily completed. Sincerely, Steven E. Fews Assistant Building&Fire Inspector /tg . R For office use onI D BUILD D _ ENT PERMIT# 0T —/aO g t1 VIL bF R�lg;.; OK ISSUED: s 1 9-Ql DEC — 3 2021 Y2 8 KING STREE r 'E BROOK;, YORK 10573 DATE: lr�—J—&l 914 9 r 6 939-5801 FEE: 38g.oo PAI VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK ,or BUILDING DEPARTMENT APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE, AND CERTIFICATION OF FINAL COSTS TO BE SUBMITTED ONLY UPON COMPLETION OF ALL WORK, AND PRIOR TO THE FINAL INSPECTION i#iiiiiiiiiRRRRRiiikk#iiiRRiRRRRiiik RRRRRRiiiRRRRRktRRiRR♦iiRikR#RRkikikRRiikiRiiikkkiRRRRRRRikRkiikkiiYsiRkfkikiiiii►ikiRiiR Address: j}Cu1(SDe� P Occupancy/Use: Parcel fD#: Z9. 6� — Z.© Zone: Owner: _IKA�ft4JEW4 02WA jkLmei2 Address: 1-3 Rox UJtX5 D I_ P.E./R.A. or Contractor: ( 1J1W f6!& eAR Address: 429 r)(F& S�-�1 ep j) � r 06.%.J Person in responsible charge: � S � Address: " Application is hereby made and submitted to the Building Inspector of the Village of Rye Brook for the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy/Certificate of Compliance for the structure/construction/alteration herein mentioned in accordance with law: f� STATE OF NEW YORK,COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER as: AAMMOi RZIGA UJt-(JjtTili being duly sworn,deposes and says that he/she resides at I' L30XW Dim P t✓, (Print Name of Applicant) (No.and Street) in e f r-L Qp y= ,in the County of in the State of_LA ,that (Cityfrown/Village) he/she has supervised the work at the location indicated above,and that the actual total cost of the work,including all site improvements,labor, materials,scaffolding,fixed equipment,professional fees,and including the monetary value of any materials and labor which may have been donated gratis was: for the construction or alteration of: _rfZA N"r 2 4'� �L 061z ADO 1710 1J S !�lt•4Sfi��� f3�D Q-on iM , �U I�ST f?�'T'�# Deponent further states that he/she has examined the approved plans of the structure/work herein referred to for which a Certificate of Occupancy/Compliance is sought, and that to the best of his/her knowledge and belief,the structure/work has been erected/completed in accordance with the approved plans and any amendments thereto except in so far as variations therefore have been legally authorized,and as erected/completed complies with the laws governing building construction.Deponent further understands that it shall be unlawful foran owner to use or permit the use of any building or premises or part thereof hereafter created,erected,changed,converted or enlarged,wholly or partly, in its use or structure until a Certificate of Occupancy or Certificate of Compliance shall have been duly issued by the Building Inspector as per §250-1 O.A.of the Code of the Village of Rye Brook. Sworn to before me this 7A Sworn to before me this day of &U�/Y11�r , 20Z_ day of , 20 Signature of Property Owner Signature of Applicant w 41 Print me f Pro caner Print Name of Applicant to ublic Diana J.Galan Notary Public Notary Public,State of New York Registration No.01 GA6333308 Qualified in Suffolk County 12l/19 Commission l=xpires November 23,20Z QyE BRCS Off' y� F0� BUILDING DEPARTMENT ®BUILDING INSPECTOR ❑ASSISTANT BUILDING INSPECTOR VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER 938 KING STREET • RYE BROOK,NY 10573 (914) 939-0668 FAX (914) 939-5801 www ryebrook.or - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - INSPECTION REPORT - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ADDRESS : ` �`-� " -, DATE: 4 PERMIT# ISSUED: (T� l V SECT-.I BLOCK: i LOT; l LOCATION: 1 T ` O� ? tip± S ' v{` OCCUPANCY: ❑ VIOLATION NOTED THE WORK IS... lu ACCEPTED ❑ REJECTED/ REINSPECTION ❑ SITE INSPECTION REQUIRED ❑ FOOTING ❑ FOOTING DRAINAGE ❑ FOUNDATION ❑ UNDERGROUND PLUMBING NOTES ON INSPECTION: ❑ ROUGH PLUMBING ❑ ROUGH FRAMING �} ❑ INSULATION tl L.JO ❑ NATURAL GAS -- ❑ L.P. GAS ❑ FUEL TANK d ❑ FIRE SPRINKLER ❑ FINAL PLUMBING ❑ CROSS CONNECTION ❑ FINAL . q ❑ OTHER E flRC�v�. BUILDING DEPARTMENT UILDING INSPECTOR r ASSISTANT BUILDING INSPECTOR VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK ❑CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER 938 KING STREET • RYE BROOK,NY 10573 (914) 939-0668 FAx (914) 939-5801 www.ryebrook.org - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - INSPECTION REPORT - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ADDRESS . (�^- - DATE: PERMIT# U e ISSUED: S JqECT: BLOCK: LOT: LOCATION• "` - OCCUPANCY: 1 f ❑ VIOLATION NOTED THE WORK IS... ❑ ACCEPTED ❑ REJECTED/REINSPECTION ❑ SITE INSPECTION REQUIRED ❑ FOOTING ❑ FOOTING DRAINAGE ❑ FOUNDATION ❑ UNDERGROUND PLUMBING NOTES ON INSPECTION: ❑ ROUGH PLUMBING ❑ ROUGH FRAMING ❑ INSULATION / 4 ❑ NATURAL GAS I�w l_C)�•�_ � 1 1 1 n 1 (Ct L.P. GAS L U ❑ FUEL TANK ❑ FIRE SPRINKLER ❑ FINAL PLUMBING ❑ CROSS CONNECTION FINAL ❑ OTHER QyE BRC�V� '9{32 BUILDING DEPARTMENT ❑BUILDING INSPECTOR J39SSISTANT BUILDING INSPECTOR VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK ' ❑CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER 938 KING STREET . RYE BROOK,NY 10573 (914) 939-0668 FAx (914) 939-5801 www rygbrook.or - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - INSPECTION REPORT -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ADDRESS :_ � `�-�` \` �� DATE' PERMITA�� ` ISSUED: SECT: BLOCK: LOT: LOCATION: 1 t�-1 �Cx 6a,-, CCU NCY: OPA ❑ VIOLATION NOTED THE WORK IS... ❑ACCEPTED ❑ REJECTED/ REINSPECTION ❑ SITE INSPECTION REQUIRED ❑ FOOTING ❑ FOOTING DRAINAGE ❑ FOUNDATION ❑ UNDERGROUND PLUMBING NOTES ON INSPECTION_ : ❑ ROUGH PLUMBING ❑ ROUGH FRAMING ❑ INSULATION ❑ NATURAL GAS ❑ L.P. GAS 6 FUEL TANK ❑ FIRE SPRINKLER ❑ FINAL PLUMBING ❑ CROSS CONNECTION ❑ FINAL ❑ OTHER �E,BRC��, 04 ym BUILDING DEPARTMENT ❑BUILDING INSPECTOR ASSISTANT BUILDING INSPECTOR VILLAGE OF RYE $ROOK ❑CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER 938 KING STREET - RYE BROOK,NY 10573 (914) 939-0668 FAX (914) 939-5801 _ .ryebrook.org - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - INSPECTION REPORT - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - % -A\ --ZA ADDRESS :— r� � �} V-'�- � I DATE• PERMIT# - ��\ ` ISSUED; ECT: BLOCK: LOT: LOCATION: Aj�4 ��1,/ OCCUPANCY: `a ❑ VIOLATION NOTED THE WORK IS... ACCEPTED ❑ REJECTED/REINSPECTION ❑ SITE INSPECTION ,fir REQUIRED ❑ FOOTING ❑ FOOTING DRAINAGE ❑ FOUNDATION ❑ UNDERGROUND PLUMBING NOTES ON INSPECTION: OUGH PLUMBING ROUGH FRAMING l INSULATION ❑ NATURAL GAS Vill ❑ L.P. GAS ❑ FUEL TANK ❑ FIRE SPRINKLER ❑ FINAL PLUMBING ❑ CROSS CONNECTION ❑ FINAL ❑ OTHER '9a2 BUILDING DEPARTMENT ❑BUILDING INSPECTOR ASSISTANT BUILDING INSPECTOR VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK []CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER 938 KING STREET • RYE BROOK,NY 10573 (914) 939-0668 FAx (914) 939-5801 www.ryebrook.org -- - - -- -- - -- - - - - ---- - INSPECTION REPORT - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - ADDRESS:- V�J�J y' �C DATE: J PERMIT# � `^ ISSUED: SECT: BLOCK: LOT: LOCATION: (is-jx OCCUPANCY: = 1 ❑ VIOLATION NOTED THE WORK IS... Q)ACCEPTED ❑ REJECTED/ REINSPECTION ❑ SITE INSPECTION REQUIRED FOOTING FOOTING DRAINAGE ❑ FOUNDATION ❑ UNDERGROUND PLUMBING NOTES ON INSPECTION: ❑ ROUGH PLUMBING ❑ ROUGH FRAMING ❑ INSULATION ❑ NATURAL GAS ❑ L.P. GAS ❑ FUEL TANK ❑ FIRE SPRINKLER ❑ FINAL PLUMBING ❑ CROSS CONNECTION ❑ FINAL ❑ OTHER , in I . N oe u `• rA clq 14 � � s gz u ICI ►� N G � GLl � m aj w �. o �,' Q F v�'i •r O � � C wp0=0rA Qz ac ; C411, r A 00 � w � EA � p c°„ z o zw , 44,4w . W Z e og U w z CI. 0000 z Z A � 4 4 po 6 �E R p C C E N Fc- BUIL MENT ID Vu. # OK JUN 2 4 2021 938 ICON ,NY 10573 }' VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK pria(914j 9 939-5841 BUILDING DEPARTMENT ELECTRICAL PERMIT APPLICATION Westchester County Master Electricians License Required FOR OFFICE USE ONLY BP#: ED EP#: r — 3 Approval Date: �'\� � ` Permit Fee: � 0 A Approval Signature: Other: Disapproved (fees are eao-refundable) Application dated, / is hereby made to the Building inspector of the Village of Rye Brook NY, for the issuance of a Permit to install and/or remove electrical equipment, wiring,fixtures,or to perform other high or low voltage electrical work as per the detailed statement described below. The applicant & property owner, by signing this document agree that all electrical work performed will be in conformance with all applicable Federal,State,County and Local Codes. 1.Address: l 6 C>A"'J©o a� �(,. SBL: M.&7 — ' 20 ZoneR- 2.Property Owner: I I CA -t Md 1"-h OW 614 e Address: / d 0A 912 0040 2C- Phone#: Cell#% 6 W Z email: 3.Master Electrician:�M W?ON R 1 G H Address: Lic.#: �3�Phone#: I 94300M Cell#:91q W O P 9 P email:?M5f Company Name: gLQr—T1k/C Address: S7 Gory S TN. `r�c7Nk�il� 4.Proposed Electrical Work/Fixture Count: 2f IrE A c CQo - Sw td:'ASS �L— Z-:(.l#>i r c-' )'rrSu .1Lr(tA.4 1-1 urpC. S 'S . 02 r rp ti5 - - *,k*ir*******,kwwwwwwwve�r******rttr*itr**tttritiririr*+k*+k,t,kww*,k****,r,k,k*,tt,k,kie******wrt*******fwwwwwwww wwx,tw,twwwww wwww*www STATE OF NEW YOM COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER ) as: /)I ylfOr"J ?4A t C-f-f being duly sworn,deposes and states that he/she is the applicant above named,and does further (print name of individual signing as the applicant) state that(s)he is the legal owner of the property to which this application pertains,or that(s)he is the for the legal owner and is duly authorized to make and file this application. (indicate architect,contractor,agent,attontey,etc.) The undersigned further states that all statements contained herein are true to the best of his/her knowledge and belief,and that any work performed,or use conducted at the above captioned property will be in conformance with the details as set forth and contained in this application and in any accompanying approved plans and specifications,as well as in accordance with the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention&Building Code,the Code of the Village of Rye Brook and all other applicable taws,ordinances and regulations. Sworn to before me this Sworn to before me this y\ day of 20 day of 20 Signature of Property Owner I'pa of Applicant aiK Print Name of property Owner of Applic Notary Public Notary Public SHARI MELILLO Notary Public,State of New York No. 01 ME6160063 Oualifled in Westchester County V/17 Commission Exnire%Janrtan,Pa png..3 Westchester Rockland Electrical Inspection Services, Inc. r T hone�l4 347r3595 DO NOT WRITE HERE-FOR OFFICE USE ONLY 43 North Lawn Avenue Fax: 914-347-3596 Elmsford NY 10523 BUILDING PERMIT NO. TEMP N QATE CITY OR VILLAGE ZIP CODE TOWNSHIP COUNTY 0`" 4 t STREET AND NO.OR RQW .7 POLE NUMBER v BETWEEN WHAT TWO CROSS STREETS IS PREMISES LOCATED? SECTION BLOCK LOT 47 OCCUPANT'S NAME BUILDING OCCUPANCY 4 �. OWNER'S NAME AND ADDRESS HOME TELEPHONE NUMBER CURRENT SUPPLIED BY FROM THEIR OFFICE WORK TELEPHONE NUMBER LIST BELOW ALL EQUIPMENT WHICH YOU INSTALLED NUMBER OF OUTLETS NO.OF FIXTURES& MOTORS HEATERS OFFICE USE LOCATION LAMP RECEPTACLES ONLY SOEWALL SWITCH INCADE FLUORE NO. H.P.EACH NO. WATTS EACH INSPECTION OUTSIDE BASEMENT 1 0 � A le-" ff2! 3"'FL. VILLA E OF RYE BROOK REMARKS:LIST OTHER ELECTRICAL DEVICES NOT SET FORTH ABOVE! v (/ THIS APPLICATION IS INTENDED TO COVER THE ABOVE LISTED ITEMS TO BE INSPECTED.IF AT ANY TIME OF INSPECTION ADDITIONAL ITEMS HAVE BEEN INSTALLED,YOU ARE AUTHORIZED TO MAKE THE INSPECTION AND ADJUST THE FEE FOR THE ADDITIONAL ITEMS INSPECTED AS PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT.THE APPUCANT DECLARES THAT THERE IS NO OPEN APPLICATIONS FOR THE ABOVE WITH ANY OTHER INSPECTION COMPANY WREIS,INC.IS NOT LISTING,LABELING.UNDERWRITING OR CERTIFYING ANY EQUIPMENT, MATERIALS OR DEVICES WHfCH ARE PERFORMED BY OTHER CERTIFIED TESTING AGENCIES OR INSPECTION COMPANIES.THE APPLICANT.OWNER,OR AUTHORIZED AGENT AGREES TO ALL THE ABOVE TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS SET FORTH FOR THE APPLICATION. SIZE OF SERVICE FEEDERS CHARACTER OF WORK NEW❑ ADDITIONAL❑ EXPOSED❑ CONCEALED❑ MUST ENTER APPLICANTS IOENTIFICATION NUMBER SERVICE ENTERS BUILDING OVERHEAD❑ UNDERGROUND❑ 1 O AVOID DELAYS BY GIVING FULL AND ACCURATE INFORMATION.ALL SPACE MUST BE FILLED IN OR APPLICATION MAY BE RETURNED. NAME OF COMPANY DATE OF APPLICATION SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT STREET ADDRESS TELEPHONE NO. CRY OR POST OFFICE �� �j�' 23P CODE ! UCENSE NO.WHEN APPLICABLE � � WESTCHESTER ROCKLAND ELECTRICAL INSPECTION WREISSERVICES,INC. BY THIS CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE THE Westchester Rockland Electrical Inspection Services 43 North Lawn Ave, Elmsford, NY 10523 914-347-3595 (Office) 1 914-347-3596(Fax) CERTIFIES THAT Upon the application of: Upon premises owned by: MYCO ELECTRIC Matthew&Erica wiener 51 GORDON STREET NY,YONKERS 10701 Located at:18 Boxwood Place'Rye Brook,NY 10573 Certificate Number: 1031395 Section:129.67 Block:1 Lot:20 BDC: Permit Number EP:21-153-BP:21-120 A visual inspection of the electrical system at this premise described as a Residential occupancy,wherein the premises electrical system consisting of electrical devices and wiring,described below,located inlon the premises at: 18 Boxwood Place Rye Brook,NY 10573 ❑Basement 1st Floor ©2nd Floor 3rd Floor Garage .Attic ®Outside Other: Inspection was conducted in accordance with the NYS and NFPA 70.2017International Electrical Code and detail of the installation,as set forth below,was found to be in compliance therewith on 12/13121 Name Type quantity Receptacle Convenience ---- 25 Switch Single Pole --- 25 Fixture-Wall Sconce(s)Lights Indoor --- 7 Fixture-Luminaire Ceiling --- 3 Receptacle GFCI ------ 5 Toe Kick Heater --- 1 Exhaust Fan ------ 3 Ceiling Paddle Fan --- 2 Fixture-Luminaire Recessed LED 22 Electric Floor Heat Radiant 1 Clothes Dryer --- 1 Clothes Washer 1 KC Unit Split Unit ------ 1 Condbued on next page... This Certificate has been approved by Westchester Rockland Electrical Inspection Services. This certificate may not be altered in any way. ���� This certificate is valid for work performed before date of inspection only. III IIJ WESTCHESTER ROCKLAND ELECTRICAL INSPECTION WREISR,11`110,INC. BY THIS CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCL I HL Westchester Rockland Electrical Inspection Services 43 North Lawn Ave, Elmsford, NY 10523 914-347-3595 (Office) 1 914-347-3596 (Fax) CERTIFIES THAT Upon the application of: Upon premises owned by: MYCO ELECTRIC Matthew&Erica Wiener 51 GORDON STREET NY,YONKERS 10701 Located at:18 Boxwood Place' Rye Brook,NY 10573 Certificate Number: 1031395 Section:129.67 Black:1 Lot:20 BDC: Permit Number:EP:21-153-BP:21-120 A visual inspection of the electrical system at this premise described as a Residential occupancy,wherein the premises electrical system consisting of electrical devices and wiring,described below,located in/on the premises at: 18 Boxwood Place-Rye Brook,NY 10573 Basement 1st Floor 15 2nd Floor 3rd Floor Garage Attic A Outside Other: Inspection was conducted in accordance with the NYS and NFPA 70-2017 International Electrical Code and detail of the Installation,as set forth below,was found to be in compliance therewith on 12/13/21 Name Type Quantity This Certificate has been approved by Westchester Rockland Electrical Inspection Services. This certificate may not be altered in any way. -1 "���/l_ A ( I � This certificate is valid for work performed before date of inspection only. t 01 s o OC � f J A � � z w o E� z 4 U Oo o� C 3 � 96 00 C� H M O � r 0-4 cc oo W w � v964 M••� � A c � � r, � g a rA CD Gil Z c a w z a a < � EBR R CC EME BUIL E MENT VIL E OF RYE OK JUN 15 2021 938 Knv ET RYE B ,NY 10573 }} VfLLAGE OF RYE BROOK (914}9 �66 Ax: 939-580I i BUILDING DEPARTMENT t .or PLUMBING PERMIT APPLICATION Q FOR OFFICE USE ONLY BP#: Q) I_1 Pp#: �0 Approval Date: JUN 1 5 2021 Permit Fee: $ Approval Signature: Other: Disapproved: (fees are non-refundable) #####+k#k#kkkdkk>kkk#Mk>kk>ke ######## k##kk##akkkk*k#kkkkkkkkk*kkkkkk#kkkkk##kk#ik#k###k#k#kk#k#kk#k### Application dated, WW-ca/ is hereby made to the Building Inspector of the Village of Rye Brook NY,for the issuance of a Permit to install and/or remove Plumbing as per detailed statement described below.The applicant&property owner, by signing this document agree that said plumbing work will be in conformance with all applicable Federal,State,County and Local Codes. 1.Address: t/( A9}(woo Q] AQC SBL: 0`fir 67—)—c-)0 Zone: 2.Proposed Work: &V 61 1) " CJ r; 2 rN ti f-At _y d✓t S 3.Property Owner: M11AVICW W%.eA(r Address: Ptr u Phone#: S(6-`1S6'9�53 Cell#: 69- 456' N 3 email: Mdlhew. wi[atr�qMy;� �oYh 4.Master Plumber: , ,�z _ Address: � r�C h v© / y Z6�t (�.,V Io 7 Lic.#: lZ Q Phone# f CSC#Cell#: Sr,.-1 tc Company Name: e i rl (L e(d Address2a2 t' - r ��y avr (�lr (aI'. INDICATE FIXTURES&LINES TO BE INSTALLED AS PER THE FOLLOWING SCHEDULE: Location Water Urinals Drinking Sinks Showers Bath Laundry Domestic Fire Sanitary Natural/ Other* Total Closets Fountains Tubs Tubs Service Service Sewer LP Gas Basement lst Floor 2nd Floor 3'Floor 4' Floor Floor Exterior 5.*List Other Equipment/Provide Details: (Notarized Signatures Required Next 2 Pages) 3(2P19 STATE OF NEW YORK,COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER ) as: ,being duly sworn,deposes and states that he/she is the applicant above named, (print name of individual signing as the applicant) and further states that(s)he is the legal owner of the property to which this application pertains,or that(s)he is the for the legal owner and is duly authorized to make and file this application. (indicate architect,contractor,agent,attorney,etc.) That all statements contained herein are true to the best of his/her knowledge and belief,and that any work performed,or use conducted at the above captioned property will be in conformance with the details as set forth and contained in this application and in any accompanying approved plans and specifications,as well as in accordance with the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention&Building Code,the Code of the Village of Rye Brook and all other applicable laws,ordinances and regulations. Sworn to before me this 5+t+ Sworn to before me this day of_ Jv,.v� ,20 { day of ,20 A"4/ _ Signature of Property Owner iSigrt'a a of Applicant 44 i,,e'l Wert'-- Print Name of Property Owner Print Name of Applicant URIC D BMAN K NoOYM is No 02816228248 Notary Public Cuellfied in Westchester County My Commission Expires 02-04-2023 This application must be properly completed in its entirety and must include the notarized signature(s)of the legal owner(s) of the subject property, and the applicant of record in the spaces provided. Applications not properly completed in its entirety and/or not properly signed shall be deemed null and void and will be returned to the applicant. -2- 3/21/l9 - D BUILD. N, tIAUMENT VIL� E OF RY OOK JUN 15 2021 Do 938 KING ET RYE BR ,NY 10573 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK (914)93� 39-5801 BUILDING DEPARTMENT AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE VILLAGE CODE §216 • STORM SEWERS AND SANITARY SEWERS THIS AFFIDAVIT MUST BEAR THE NOTARIZED SIGNATURE OF THE LEGAL PROPERTY OWNER AND BE SUBMITTED ALONG WITH ANY BUILDING OR PLUMBING PERMIT APPLICATION. ANY BUILDING OR PLUMBING PERMIT APPLICATION SUBMITTED WITHOUT THIS COMPLETED AND NOTARIZED FORM WILL BE RETURNED TO THE APPLICANT. STATE OF NEW Q YORK, COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER ) as: 11 3, MLkAA6VJ VJA'IQe , residing at, � Q 8°kwd0(� l 14ck (Print Hanle) (Address whore you live) being duly sworn, deposes and states that (s)he is the applicant above named, and further states that (s)he is the legal owner of the property to which this Affidavit of Compliance pertains at; V o:-Xw nk �`U u_ , Rye Brook,NY. (.lob Addros) Further that all statements contained herein are true, and that to the best of his/her knowledge and belief, that there are no known illegal cross-connections concerning either the storm sewer or sanitary sewer, and further that there are no roof drains, sump pumps, or other prohibited stormwater or groundwater connections or sources of inflow or infiltration of any kind into the sanitary sewer from the subject property in accordance with all State, County and Village Codes. ZXZK�7 G/ (Signature of Property Opener(,)) 1 uog4 tw WV,e (Print Name of Property Ownci{s)) Sworn to before me this S t, day of J k A ,u,y , 20 2-1 (Notary PtiViF C ADAM BI1DE9AfAN NOTARY PUBLIC-STATE OF NEW YORK No.02BI6228248 Qualified in Westchester County My Commission Expires02-04-2023 (6) 3/21/19 1664-4 4;taf4ti,444i436 CAAAtit,44 e44 04,4440446- #Ato��i�����r�ii �i� 3 e O ■ 16 Sr- v 6 (� 4 Ono 12 O C y CL rA W P6 R. CL c v a • w ��p r�� A�r Z ,� n W w p 3 U W ,.-aG © Q Un � ? t- o i F� °J U a. E mom OE U W p ale G > = N mi 0* � F M W U Q W V a } > .? ILI ..r 1 x - o r 1 Z cal °J Lv �1 7 O N � .. o o � O Z .. � , y 0 J C4 U .. r o 3 3 i o a. o W � . -auS U U CL, I ; '' E E .. LL C6ro u �' I Co J Oa. Ca = vei D �CCQ�C BUILDING IjkWARTMENT VIL,- +,E OF R i, OK DEC - 7 2021 938 KING$�TTSWE`r RYE Bx�NY 10573 (914)9 -4'W, �;(9 4'039-5801 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK tkorg BUILDING DEPARTMENT APPLICATION FOR PERMIT TO INSTALL AND/OR REMOVE HEATING, VENTILATION AND/OR AIR CONDITIONING EOUIPMENT FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: PERMIT#: /I/ C ?w —� Approval Date: DEC ' 8 ,I i Permit Fee: $ Q0 0 /(J6 Approval Signature: Other: Disapproved: (fees are non-refundable) ,r,r,a,a+.,w***a�*****r**,t**,t,►,t,t**,t**,►**,t**,t,�,k,k*,k**art****,t,t*�*,t,t,t,t,�*�**,t,t,t**�,t,t,►w*****w*******,r,r*t*+r*sr*�***** REQUIREMENTS FOR RELEASE OF PERMrr&CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE: 1. Properly completed&Signed Application. 2. Site/Staging Plan if Required by the Building Inspector. 3. Copy of Licensed Contractor's Liability Insurance.(village of Rye Brook must be listed as certificate holder)&Workers Compensation Insurance on a NYS Board form(Form#C 105.2 or Form#U26.3/or NY State Workers Compensation Waiver) 4. Payment of Fees/Unit:RESIDENTIAL=$100.00/unit•COMMERCIAL=$350.00/unit. 5. Inspection by the Building Department for removal and/or installation.(48 hour notice required 6. Electrical work requires a separate Electrical Permit&Electrical Inspection. 7. Plumbing/Gas work requires a separate Plumbing Permit&Plumbing Inspection. Application dated,/s- -7-a/ is hereby made to the Building Inspector of the Village of Rye Brook for a permit for the installation and or removal of the HVAC equipment as listed below.The applicant and property owner,by signing this document agrees that said equipment will be installed and/or removed in conformance with all applicable Local,County,State&Federal laws,codes,rules and regulations. 1. Address: I.0 136)CUl acp PUy-ct� SBL: (2.9.(o7-l-20 Zone: R-1 S' 2. Property Owner: '"1 ArZ ' W 1 fF N E R Address: I& $nX W 0tD 0 IP(„ Phone#: (Site) 4 mot- -90 Cell#: email: N/k-t^T"NEU►1.wiewim4 �+W IL•com 3. Contractor: Pi?6 -A- Address: '6 QA4C0t>".:H 4�n 09YN e Phone#: q ( 14-74 1- •'S o 5 Cell#: 9 I LI -71a0 4610 emma�ail:Ai VE li'►4 Cc,0?KfL eke C x>1114 C� 4. Applicant: O -L-•{r 610 1).E Address: �y� ,, '! /"�, Phone#:�4 '71E �J6�j5 Cell#: �I�[-�{oti 1!7 email:AlkM CLe Ao �� 1 r7/1 341 C 5, Scope of Work:New Installation(Replacement( )•Removal( )•Other( ): 4 C 11 6. List Equipment: t 19- AA, } '�tY� 7. Location of Equipment: is L ✓1w 4+<G, G oLQ .4=1 Or 44.e, 4�ir q-A-- #Ok9 8. Method of Installation/Removal(list all equipment needed to perform job): rbtlwa , ct>�11(e5 . a,,d, CIO ude.,Ge-r-r I 3r21/19 STATE OF NEW YOM COUNT,('QF WESTCHESTER ) as: ( C���l. A er-,o r U) �1 ,being duly sworn,deposes and states that he/she is the applicant above named, print name of individual signing as the applicant) and fiuther states that(s)he is the legal owner of the property to which this application pertains,or that(s)he is the V. for the legal owner and is duly authorized to make and file this application. (indicate architect,contractor,agent,attorney,etc.) That all statements contained herein are true to the best of his/her knowledge and belief]and that any work performed,or use conducted at the above captioned property will be in conformance with the details as set forth and contained in this application and in any accompanying approved plans and specifications,as well as in accordance with the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention& Building Code,the Code of the Village of Rye Brook and all other applicable laws,ordinances and regulations. Sworn to before me this lib Sworn to before me this day of �� y ,20 Z/� day of �S LA ,20 Signature of Property Owner S,( �Wig�natu�,rle of Applicant Ma ff� wjecrltl a 1v L AA Print Name of Property Owner Print me of Applicant Netpry PLb is Notaay Public ERIC ADAM EIDERMAN LAURAGODINO kOt`APIY PU811C STATE OF NEW YORK Notary public,State of New York No.01 GO6065417 - No.02016228248 Oualifled in Westchester Cou Qualified in Westchester County Commission Exoires Oci.15, M��"jvbwA421#4pzojarly completed in its entirety and must include the notarized signature(s) of the legal 3wner(s) of the subject property, and the applicant of record in the spaces provided. Any application 11ot properly completed in its entirety and/or not properly signed shall be deemed null and void and will be returned to the applicant. 2 3121/19 FUJITSU *- HFI ate_ Ifybrld Flex Inverter Submittal Data:ARU18RLF 18,000 BTU Slim DuctType Inverter Driven Heat Punip Job Name: Date: Location: Approval: Engineer: Construction: Submitted to: Unit#: Submitted by: Drawing #: Reference: General Features -Refrigerant Type R410A. -Removable air filter -Wired and wireless remote controllers -Program timer -Auto changeover •5 years standard parts warranty -Weekly timer *Eligible for W year or 12 year -Removable open panel parts warranty,See warranty -Super quiet operation statement for details. Model Information Temperature Settine Ranee Evaporator.........................................................................ARU18RLF Cooling..........................................................64OF-90OF(I80C-32°C) Condenser compatibility.......,..AOUI8RLFC,AOU24RLXFZ,AOU24RLXFZH Heating..........................................................60°F-88°F(16°C-30°C) AOU36RLXFZ,AOU36RLXFZI,AOU36RLXFZH Enclosure AOU45RLXFZ,AOU48RLXFZ,AOU48RLXFZI Material...............................................,...,...........Galvanized Steel Sheet Electrical .........................................................2081230V AC 1ph-60Hz Sound Pressure Level Available Voltage Range. ................................................208/230+/.10% Cooling Minimum Circuit Ampaeity..............................................................0.59 A High/Medium/Low/Quiet,.,.,........,.32 dB(A)/31 dB(A)/30 dB(A)/29 dB(A) FullLoad Amps........................................................................0.47 A Heating Input Power...............................................................................73 W High/Medium/Low/Quiet..............33 dB(A)/32 dB(A)/31 dB(A)/29 dB(A) RunningCurrent.......................................................................0.44A Dimensions cavacity HxWxD Nominal Cooling.................................................................18,000Btu/h in.(mm)..............................................7-13/16x35-7/16x24-7/16(198x900x620) Nominal Heating...................................................................20,000 Btu/h Connection Pine Fan Motor Liquid..,........ ..... 1/4"in.(6.35 mm) Type:DC ...........................................................................Sirocco 0 Gas........,................................................................ 1/2"in.(12.70 mm) Motor Output.............................................................................81 W Method(Liquid/Gas).....,,...............................................,...........,......Flare Fan Motor Protection.....................................,,off.275 t 2711F(135±15°C) Drain hose Airflow Rate on:239+27'F(115±15°C) Material.............................. ........Hard PVC Cooling(High I Medium/Low I Quiet) Size.............................01 (hD,),01-1/4(O.D.)[025(I,D.),032(O.D,)ram] 554 CFM(940 m3/h)1518 CFM(880 m3/h)1483 CFM(820 m3/h)/442 CFM(750 m3/h) Internal Drain Pump Heating(High/Medium/Low/Quiet) Internal lift............................................................. ...............27-9/16" 554 CFM(940 m3/h)/S18 CFM(880 Wlh)/483 CFM(820 m3/h)/442 CFM(750 m3/h) Weight Heat Exchanger Net..............................................................................491bs.(22 kg) Dimensions (H x W x D)in.(mm) ......11-9/16x 27-9/16 x 1-9/16(294x700x39.9) Grossssor.......................................................................601bs.(27 kg) Acc ies Fin Pitch..................................................................,,,.......,„,..20FPI Wired Remote Controller...................................................UTY-RNNUM Rowsx Stages........................................................................... 3 x 14 Backlit Display................................................................. .UTY-RVNUM Pipe Type(Material)................................................................. 'Copper Simple Remote Controller........................ Type(Material). ..................,,............,....,..................................Polystyrene ......,.....................UTY-Y-XSZ ' Remote Sensor...................................................................UTY-XSZX Receiver Unit.................................................................UTY-LRHUM Slim Duct Connector Kit.....................................................UTD-ECS5A IntertekeE3TL Number ARUl 8RLF..........................................................................3170288 Fgjitw Gcnc l Anunca.h,.c. 353 Rcrule 46 Weal Fak,feld,NJ 07DD4 Nmr:sadeaa——barge.er K6 1 - ar lift 9ft Toll Free:1-838-889-3424 Vwft Ir6+.v lawfrnarc nr eo�F U-.7'cl bBnfi1°F 119.M`Cl wB,rbwldoa Imtp.-mR atMTllScl bs�ist'U3.v°['I wB. Fax:(973)830-0447 He ,ink—ae ra f79-F421.1 IT)➢MrF(M-0WB,a-d•m3arwq�w f47V(93PO➢PWTI&II"WB. tag br4 Pine kwh:248.'an.17 W.M&e0drmc-:BB.(f+m)1/7•dwr a WI-i.6 ud0 N.luitl,ueene�al.cuui 60 a/c ©n HF1 FUJITSU �y Hybrid Flex Inverter Dimensions: ARU18R[,F (Unit:in.(mm)] 30.1/2(774) 2(51) •, Q ^ e e t2 �o Rear view View A C3) 1O (Drai� Drain port M o A a r � � o w ° e tot L 3-15/16(100)x 8-31-1/2(800) I 1.718(47) N 33-7/16(850) 2-3/16(55) 3.1/16(78) 36-3/4(934) 3-1/2(89) Top view 3-7116(87) 4-11116(119) 2-3116(W) 6-9/18(16 ) Side view m 1.11/16(43) N A 13/16 (20) 33-7/16(850) 34(864) 35-7/16(900) Front view Bottom view CO FU J ITSU Fujitsu General America,Inc. The Fujitsu logo is a registered trademark of Fujitsu Limited. 353 Route 46 West The Halcyon logo and name is a trademark of Fujitsu General America,Inc,Copyright 2016 Fairfield,NJ 07004 Fujitsu General America,Inc. Toll Free: 1-888-888-3424 Fujitsu's products are subject to continuous improvements. Fujitsu reserves the right to Fax:(973)936-0447 modify product design,specifications and information in this brochure without notice and of4 aw%�.._i_ulitst n4ral_com without incurring anv obligations. FUJITSU y rryt)rld Ffsx Inverter 18,000 BTU Slim DuctType Inverter Driven licat Pump .lob Name: Date: Location: Approval: Engineer: Construction; Submitted to: Unit#: Submitted by: Drawing#: Reference: General Features Refrigerant Type R410A. -Removable air filter -Wired and wireless remote controllers *Program timer *Auto changeover *5 years standard parts warranty -Weekly timer -Eligible for 10 year or 12 year -Removable open panel parts warranty.See warranty -Super quiet operation statement for details. Model Information Temperature Setting Ranee Evaporator.........................................................................ARU 18RLF Cooling.................,........................................647-90°F(I 8°C—32°C) Condenser compatibility.,........AOUI8RLFC,AOU24RLXFZ,AOU24RLXFZH Heating..........................................................60°F-88°F(l6DC-30DC) AOU36RLXFZ,AOU36RLXFZI,AOU36RLXFZH Enclosure AOU45RLXFZ,AOU48RLXFZ,AOU48RLXFZI Material.................... . .....GalvanizedSteel Sheet Electrical..........................................................208/230V AC Iph-60Hz Sound Pressure Level Available Voltage Range...................................................2081230+/-10% Cooling Minimum Circuit Ampacity..............................................................0.59 A High/Mediums ow/Quiet...............32 dB(A)/31 dB(A)/30 dB(A)/29 dB(A) FullLoad Amps........................................................................0.47 A Heating Input Power...............................................................................73 W High/Medium/Low/Quiet..............33 dB(A)/32 dB(A)/31 dB(A)/29 dB(A) Running Current,......................................................................0.44 A Dimensions calmelty HxWxD Nominal Cooling.................................................................18,000 Btu/h in.(mm)..................... .............7-13/16 x 35-7/16 x 24-7/16(198x900x620) Nominal Heating ...................................................................20,000$tu,'tt Connection Pine Fan Motor Liquid............................................. ...................... 1/4"in.(6.35 mm) Type:DC...........................................................................Sirocco x3 Gas..........................................................................1/2"in.(12.70 mm) Motor Output.............................................................................81 W Method(Liquid/Gas)......................................,..................................Flare Fan Motor Protection.......................................off:275 f 27°F(135 t 150C) Drain hose Airflow Rate on:239 f 27°F(115 t l5°C) Material.................... ........................................................Hard PVC Cooling(High/Medium/Low I Quiet) Size.............................01(1.D.),01-1/4(O.D.)(025(I.D.),032(O.D.)mm] 554 CFM(940 m3/h)/518 CFM(880 m3/h)1483 CFM(820 m3/h)/442 CFM(750 m3/h) Internal Drain PumD Heating(High/Medium/Low/Quiet) Internal lift.............................................................................27-9/16" 554 CFM(940 m3/h)/518 CFM(880 m3/h)/483 CFM(820 m3/h)/442 CFM(750 m3/h) wei¢ht Heat Exchaneer Net..................... ............49 lbs.(22 kg) ............................................. Dimensions Gross..................... ....60 tbs.(27 kg) (H x W x D)in.(mm).....................11-9/16 x 27-9/16 x 1-9/16(29400009.9) Accessories FinPitch...................................................................................20 FPI Rows x Stages.............................................................................3 x 14 Backlit Dis la ........UTY-RVNUM Pipe Type(Material)....................................................................Copper play ................................ Type(Material)..................... ..,................Polystyrene Simple Remote Controller......................................................UTY-RSNUM Remote Sensor...................................................................UTY-XSZX Receiver Unit.................................................................UTY-LRHUM Slim Duct Connector Kit.....................................................UTD-ECS5A IntertekeETL Number ARU 18RLF..........................................................................3170288 Fuji tiv Umceal America.Inc. 353 Route 46 West Fairfield.NJ 07004 14..!swese.de.u*erra m d.klW la roadilm... _,. o&r lUM1?AI Toll Frca 1.988-:89.3424 C.*Ih*hkd tm ..of 107f2n rM DRA7'F(1944T)WB and mid rape+ram of 91-F tl1°C1 DR75-F f23,9T3 WB. Fax(973)836-0447 Hwiiuy lobo.mpmrwn of 70712l.I I'C1 D&54F IIS Y'1 KB oil�x�d ,r.ium a/41'P(a.57'CY D&dJ-F tn.l iY1 W9 1of4 M1v.f i�ueenrral cum FUJITSUHa- lc on HFI y Hybrid Flex Inverter Dimensions: ARU18RLF runit:in.(mm)] 30.1/2(774) 2(51) •• v e c . e N m Rear view View A so (Otai Drain port • � M N 17 O O tat ly 3-15116(100)x 8-31.1/2(800) 1-718(47) 33-7116(850) 2.3116(55) 3-1116(78) 36-314(934) 3-1/2(89) Top view 3-7116(87) 4.11116(119) 2.3116(56) 6-9N6(16 1 Side view m 1-1 111 6(43) /0 (p A 13116 (20 33-7/16(850) 34(864) 35-7116(9w) Front view Bottom view GC) FU J ITSU Fujitsu General America,Inc. The Fujitsu logo is a registered trademark of Fujitsu United. 353 Route 46 West The Halcyon logo and name is a trademark of Fujitsu General America,Inc.Copyright 2016 Fairfield,NJ 07004 Fujitsu General America,Inc. Toll Free: 1-888-888-3424 Fujitsu's products are subject to continuous improvements. Fujitsu reserves the right to Fax:(973)836-0447 modify product design,specifications and information in this brochure without notice and %Nw%v.fu itsubcncril com without incurring anv obligations. 2 cf4 -a- - VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS -RAPR - 8 2021 RESOLUTION VILLAGE CLERK'S OFFICE WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Matthew Wiener& Erica Wiener(the "Applicants") for a gross floor area variance of 324.1 square feet where the maximum allowable gross floor area is 3,307.9 pursuant to Village Code § 250-20.E, in connection with the proposed front and rear second story additions, on property located at 18 Boxwood Place, in an R-15 zoning district on the east side of Boxwood Place, approximately 100 feet from the intersection of Lawridge Drive and Boxwood Place. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID# 129.67-1-20; and WHEREAS,a duly advertised public hearing was held April 6, 2021, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and WHEREAS,the public hearing was closed on April 6, 2021; and WHEREAS,the proposed action is a Type II action pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act and accordingly,no further environmental review is required; and WHEREAS, the Board, from the application, after viewing the premises and neighborhood concerned,and upon considering each of the factors set forth in Village Code §250-13(G)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brook Code, finds: 1) The variance WILL NOT create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood; 2) The benefit the Applicants seek CANNOT be achieved through another method, feasible for the Applicants to pursue,that does not require the variance; 3) The variance IS substantial; 4) The variance WILL NOT create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and 5) The need for the variance IS self-created. NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the said application for a gross floor area variance of 324.1 square feet where the maximum allowable gross floor area is 3,307.9 pursuant to Village Code § 250-20.E, in connection with the proposed front and rear second story additions, on property located at 18 Boxwood Place, is hereby GRANTED on the following conditions: 1) No permit or certificate of occupancy shall be issued until the Applicants have paid in full all application and consultant fees incurred by the Village in connection with the review of this application. 2) The area located under the seven-foot portion of the second-story addition in the rear of shall remain open and unenclosed, Dated: April 6, 2021 Don Moscato Mr. Don Moscato, Chairman Mr. Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting: Aye Glenn Brettschneider Voting: Aye Jamie Schutzer Voting: Aye Joel Simon Voting: Aye Don Moscato Voting: Aye �I�W VVJ'V L�. a VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK MAYOR 938 King Street, Rye Brook,N.Y. 10573 ADMINISTRATOR Paul S. Rosenberg (914)939-0668 Fax(914)939-5801 Christopher J.Bradbury www.rvebrook.ora TRUSTEES BUILDING&FIRE Susan R. Epstein INSPECTOR Stephanie J.Fischer Michael J. Izzo David M. Heiser Jason A. Klein NOTICE OF HEARING ON APPLICATION Aotice is hereby given that the undersigned has filed an application to appear before the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Rye Brook. Application # 21-006 Applicant: Matthew Wiener& Erica Wiener 18 Boxwood Place Rye Brook, New York 10573 Applicant Proposes to: Construct front and rear 2°d story additions. At the premises known as 18 Boxwood Place in the Village of Rye Brook,New York, situated on the East side of Boxwood Place, approximately 100 feet from the intersection of Lawridge Drive and Boxwood Place, designated and shown on the most current tax map as Parcel ID# 129.67-1-20, the applicant does hereby request a variance(s) from the following applicable section(s)of the Zoning Ordinance: 5 250-20.E. The maximum allowable gross floor area is 3,307.9 square fast. The proposed 2'd floor additions will result in a gross floor area of 3,632 square feat. Therefore, a gross floor area variance of 324.1 square feet is requested. 21 public hearing on said application will be held before the Village Zoning Board of Appeals on Tuesday, April 6,2021,at 8 o'clock p.m.at the Village of Rye Brook Offices located at 938 King Street,Rye Brook, NY 10573. Plans and other materials associated with the proposed application may be reviewed and downloaded via the Public Meetings&Video link from the Rye Brook website homepage and are available for review at the Building Department. The April 6,2021 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting will be held via videoconferencing and in-person, if permitted by the Governor's Executive Orders.The public will have an opportunity to see and hear the meeting live and provide comments. Further information on in-person attendance, if permitted, will he available on the Village website. The public can watch the live meeting on Cable TV, online from the Public Meetings link on the Village website (www.ryebrook.org), and through the Zoom App. If any interested members of the public would like to provide comments on an application, comments can be called in during the meeting at+1 (929)205-6099,Meeting ID: 8516097 6834 or provided through the written chat section of the Zoom meeting. Comments can also be provided via email before and during the meeting to Michael Izzo, Village Building Inspector,at mizzo(uryebrook.ore. Please check the meeting Agenda posted on the Village website for further instructions to access the virtual meeting and for updated information. Plans and other materials associated with the proposed application may be reviewed and downloaded via the Public Meetings& Video link from the Rye Brook website. 3- rIZI t/ Dated. Z � 1 Christopher J. Bradbu , Village Clerk O . .;. -� ti L`�,`i VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK MAYOR 938 King Street, Rye Brook, N.Y. 10573 ADMINISTRATOR Paul S. Rosenberg (914)939-0668 Fax(914) 939-5801 Christopher J Bradbury www.ryebrook.m TRUSTEES BUILDING & FIRE Susan R. Epstein INSPECTOR Stephanie J.Fischer Michael J. Izzo David M. Heiser Jason A. Klein NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL ]application * 21-006 February 18, 2021 Matthew Wiener& Erica Wiener 18 Boxwood Place Rye Brook,New York 10573 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that your application for building permit dated. February 12, 2021, for the premises located at 18 Boxwood Place, Parcel ID# 129.67-1-20, has been disapproved because of non- compliance with the following section(s)of the Code of the Village of Rye Brook: 5 250-20.E. The maximum allowable gross floor area is 3,307.9 square feet. The proposed 2Ad floor additions will result in a gross floor area of 3, 632 square feet. Please revise your plans to fully comply with the applicable section(s) of Village Code, or an appeal to this decision may be brought before the Village Zoning Board of Appeals(ZBA)in accordance with §250-13 and §25040 of the Code of the Village of Rye Brook. Applications to appear before the ZBA are available at the Building Department or online at ww-A•.rN,-ebrook.ore. Sincerely, Michael J. Izzo Building& Fire Inspector mizzo�a�ebrook.orr D, E UMV E BUILDI �, TMENT VILL OE R OOK MAR - 3 2021 Lu I XING s Ry' x,Nl' �3 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK PHONE (914) 9 14) 939-5801 BUILDING DEPARTMENT w' org APPLICATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Application Fee: $350.00 ( /paid • Escrow Fee: $1;000.00 ( aid Date: Subject Property: D r�-w _Parcel ID#: }F' Zone: Property Owner: t ��i„ E��fl. Sul Address: Phone#: C1e'll, email:�E,lEj b1J�ENF r'��16.1L Applicant: t 'la 1vW 1 7Gd� Kt I +�i '� Address: 9 W _ � Phone#: Cell#: = .�jrL�S�j email:MA`. E,, 1 ! o C_,MQL 6,P"? Attorney/Agent:��- TI~�, ,r�J ,T`� ,. F_� j Address: :5 Phone#:grt} Cell#: email: The applicant named herein does hereby request an appeal from the decision made by the Building Inspector on an application dated /Z , 20 Z.) ,whereby the Building Inspector did: Grant: ( )/Deny: (p� the applicant a permit for A 5' r l) R4Vg = AQ21 1. Type of Appeal: (P;rVariance to the Zoning Ordinance ( )Interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance ( ) Certification for Continuation of a Nonconforming Use O permit for Occupancy ( ) Permit for Use 2. This application relates to: )Use (Area ( )Height ( )Setback OOther: In connection with: ( )A Proposed Building ( Art Existing Building 3. Previous Appeal(s): ( )Have (vMave Not been made with respect to this particular decision of the Building Inspector, and ( )Have (Have Not been made with respect to any other previous decision(s) made by the Building Inspector regarding the subject property. List All Previous Zonin A eats Either Granted or Denied Concernin2 the Subject Property a. A requested variance was ( )Granted/( )Denied on application# dated , for, b. A requested variance was ( )Granted/( )Denied on application# dated, for, c. A requested variance was( )Granted/( )Denied on application# dated, for, t (Use additional sheets if necessary) 3/21/19 4.. Alteration: If work constitutes an alteration or extension to an existing building, describe briefly: FFOP05'N -7 X. " D EU29Z .ADD iVZ2,t.,j ti 5. Construction Cost: What is the estimated cost of the proposed work? $ 2�1bCn 6. Reasons for Anneal: A. An Area Variance to the Zoning Ordinance is requested because strict application of the ordinance would create the following hardship: -Wf- lorvLOM T, A/Gu>✓-�g T 5,0 fZ ASS E rr✓t7 L.t v I n,.& PO 9= 5 O 1 -15 B. An Interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance is requested because: C. A Use Variance to the Zoning Ordinance is requested because strict application of the ordinance would create the following hardship: z (Use additional sheets if necessary) 3/21/19 7.' Re guested Zonine Appeals: I. Section of Rye Brook Code: § (2--Z42, E Zoning Requirement: ri'1d 1114(2Y "2 U)MLE Proposed Work: �2ti'�dS 7 �uD RwO rZ . ►�1 77 CU ILA S'(�LT I hl �► OP- Requested Variance: 4- 1 ;5�• � F �.Ja4 II. Section of Rye Brook Code: § Zoning Requirement: Proposed Work: Requested Variance: III. Section of Rye Brook Code: § Zoning Requirement: Proposed Work: Requested Variance: IV. Section of Rye Brook Code: § Zoning Requirement: Proposed Work: Requested Variance: V. Section of Rye Brook Code: § Zoning Requirement: Proposed Work: Requested Variance: 3 (Use additional sheets if necessary) 3/21/19 8. Item checklist of information from instruction sheet: ( vf Letter of Disapproval (Properly Completed & Signed Original Zoning Variance Application (Jf Two (2) Sets of Sealed Plans (v,f Non-refundable Application Fee of$350.00 (wrE scrow Account Fee of$1.000.00 O Provisions of any deeds, covenants, easements or restrictions affecting the kind of improvements allowed or prohibited upon the premises. O Notarized Mailer& Sign Affidavits, Area Map &Public Notification List (Please note that the notarized affidavits must be received by the Building Department by no later than the Thursday prior to the scheduled zoning hearing) This application must include the notarized signatures? of the applicant of record as well that of the legal owner(s) of the subject property in the spaces provided below. Any application not properly signed shall be deemed null and void and will be returned to the applicant. STATE OF NEW YORK,COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER ) as: Aaf-f' W �J)Ckz/ , being duly sworn, deposes and states that he/she is the applicant above named, (print name ofindividual signing as the applicant) and f irther states that (s)he is the legal owner of the property to which this application pertains, or that (s)he is the (indicate architect,contractor,agent,attorney,eta) W ->:ke-legal owner and is duly authorized to make and file this application. That all statements contained herein are true to the best of his/her knowledge and belief, and that any work performed or use conducted at the above captioned property will be in conformance with the determination of, and any conditions set by the Rye Brook Zoning Board of Appeals, with the details as set forth and contained in this application and in any accompanying approved plans and specifications, as well as in accordance with the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention & Building Code, the Code of the Village of Rye Brook and all other applicable laws, ordinances and regulations. Sworn to before me this Z< Sworn to before me this day of Fe h 20 V day of rv� , 20 Z I SCOTT MENDELSOHN Not Pu Notary Public,State of New York lic /f Quafrfied inWesMhester o Cammi"on ester County - Expires 01l11/202r} Signature of Property Owner Signature of Applicant Print Name of Property Owner Print Name of Applicant 4 3/21/19 v /\ 2 ! � \, 47 as 22 25 < + 48 eo \ 49 i 50 13. 52 + + m+ !+ 53 14 29 wo ti16 . 8 S S k7 hiq ! !° 5446 r t+ r m 9" F� B v 4 ° 45 i e ° . 35 ! C 42 � 34 R �• n 43 87 7 r• S�F'a /) e + 9v � 9 V s 29 ! 93 '+6 e e 11' 31 70 u 30 1 16 g 'c E"ONTAM,E NEMON T. avEG4 asTlticn LEGEND tROE{ tMM. IA.010 • •uaswr r.. tAB� A.OY w e.. =..— ^ •saw '.• 1R.91. 1RW6 tA.OPo. .. b •weer vs . u SnEE7 p.0Elc Matthew and Erica Wiener D C U V 18 Boxwood Place Rye Brook, NY 10573 MAR - 3 2021 (516) 456-9053 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK inatthew.wiener(cr�gmail.com BUILDING t7EagRTmFNT March 1, 2021 Zoning Board of Appeals Village of Rye Brook 938 Ding Street Rye Brook, NY 10573 To Whom It May Concern: Our family is looking to expand upon our current home to give us the space we'll need to have our retired parents spend more time with us as they grow older and require assistance. Specifically, our proposed plan will allow us to add the additional bedroom, bathroom and closet space over the garage that will be necessary for their extended visits. It would be a strain on our family to accommodate them living with us without the additional space in our house, especially as our children grow older and need privacy and space. We are eager to complete this work to accommodate the changing needs of our family. We are hopeful that our variance will be granted and we will be able to move forward with our plans as proposed. Thank you very much for your consideration. Sincerely, Matthew and Erica Wiener Village of Rye Brook IN S3RC�v� . Agenda O 2 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Tuesday,April 6,2021 at 8:00 PM Q Village Hall, 938 King Street ANNOUNCEMENT:The April 6,2021 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting will be held via videoconferencing and in-person,if permitted by the Governor's Executive Orders.The public will have an opportunity to see and hear the meeting live and provide comments. Further information on in-person attendance,if permitted,will be available on the Village website. The public can watch the live meeting on Cable TV,online from the Public Meetings link on the Village website (www.ryebrook.org),and through the Zoom App. If any interested members of the public would like to provide comments on an application,comments can be called in during the meeting at+1 (929) 205-6099,Meeting ID: 8516097 6834 or provided through the written chat section of the Zoom meeting.Comments can also be emailed before and during the public hearing to Michael Izzo,Village Building Inspector,at mizzo0rvebrT.or . Please check the Village website for updates. INSTRUCTIONS TO ACCESS THE VIRTUAL MEETING: If you have a computer, tablet or smartphone,you can register,log in and see the video and hear the audio of the live session. You can access the Zoom meeting at htips://us02web.zoom.us/j/85160976834 and clicking on 'Join a Meeting"and enter Meeting ID: 8516097 6834(no password required).You can also call in to the ZOOM meeting at+1(929) 205-6099,when prompted,enter 8516097 6834#. On the evening of April 6,2021, 5 minutes before 8:00 p.m.,log in with your computer, smartphone or telephone.You will be placed on hold until the meeting starts.Questions about accessing the Zoom videocon£erence should be emailed to amarshaUgryebr,� ook.org. 1. ITEMS: 1.1. #21-007 Michael Moore&Kelly Moore 24 Beechwood Boulevard Construct 2nd floor addition,rear two story addition,rear masonry terrace,rear masonry walk and replace existing masonry walkway. Mail Affidavit Sign Affidavit Approvals; Adjournment Aye; DM MI Nay; SB SF GB K&B JDS JS 1 DH 1.2. #21-008 Yuval Meron&Jana Meron 46 Winding Wood Road Construct a 2nd floor addition,wood deck,rear masonry patio expansion and interior alterations. Mail Affidavit Sign Affidavit Approvals; Adjournment Aye; Nay; 1.3. #21-005 Matthew Altman&Alexandra Altman 42 Lawridge Drive Legalize re-constructed rear deck. Mail Affidavit Sign Affidavit Approvals; Adjournment Aye; Nay; 1.4. #21-009 Joseph Sandarciero III&Stephanie Sandarciero 112 Country Ridge Drive Construct new rear patio with fire pit and sitting walls. Mail Affidavit Sign Affidavit Approvals; Adjournment Aye; Nay; DM MI SB SF GB K&.B IDS IS DH 2 1.5. #21-006 Matthew Wiener&Erica Wiener 18 Boxwood Place Construct front and rear 2nd story additions. Mail Affidavit V Sign Affidavit V Approvals; Adjoumment Aye, S Nay; 1.6. #21-004 Joseph Sullivan&Tracey Sullivan 82 Tamarack Road Legalize the one-story detached garage constructed under Building Permit#698 dated 3/22/1954. Mail Affidavit Sign Affidavit Approvals; Adjoumment Aye; Nay; 1.7. #21-021 Joseph Sullivan&Tracey Sullivan 82 Tamarack Road Legalize rear deck and screen porch. Mail Affidavit Sign Affidavit Approvals; Adjoumment Aye; DM MI Nay; SB SF GB J^ K&B JDS JS J DH 1.8. #21-001 Robert Wilk&Haley Wilk 16 Birch Lane Construct an in-ground swimming pool with pool patio,pool equipment,pool fence and wood deck. Mail Affidavit Sign Affidavit Approvals; Adjournment Aye; Nay; 2. SUMMARY APPROVALS: 2.1. Approval of March 2,2021 Zoning Board Summary Approvals; Adjournment Aye; Nay; DM MI SB SF GB K&B JDS JS DH 4 APPROVED Village of Rye Brook ends DATE LOV l Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Tuesday,April 6, 2021 at 8:00 PM Village Hall,938 King Street D [E UM V IE DD April 6, 2021 Minutes MAY - 5 2021 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BUILDING DEPARTMENT ANNOUNCEMENT: The April 6, 2021 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting will be held via videoconferencing and in-person, if permitted by the Governor's Executive Orders. The public will have an opportunity to see and hear the meeting live and provide comments. Further information on in-person attendance, if permitted, will be available on the Village website. The public can watch the live meeting on Cable TV, online from the Public Meetings link on the Village website (www.ryebrook.org), and through the Zoom App. If any interested members of the public would like to provide comments on an application, comments can be called in during the meeting at +1 (929) 205-6099, Meeting ID: 8516097 6834 or provided through the written chat section of the Zoom meeting. Comments can also be emailed before and during the public hearing to Michael Izzo,Village Building Inspector, at mizzo(c�r7,ryebrook.org. Please check the Village website for updates. INSTRUCTIONS TO ACCESS THE VIRTUAL MEETING: If you have a computer, tablet or smartphone, you can register, log in and see the video and hear the audio of the live session. You can access the Zoom meeting at https://us02web.zoom.us/-/85160976834 and clicking on "Join a Meeting" and enter Meeting ID: 8516097 6834 (no password requited). You can also call in to the ZOOM meeting at +1 (929) 205-6099,when prompted, enter 8516097 6834#. On the evening of April 6, 2021, 5 minutes before 8:00 p.m., log in with your computer, smartphone or telephone. You will be placed on hold until the meeting starts. Questions about accessing the Zoom videoconference should be emailed to amarshallgryebrook.org. - 1 - https:/lotter.ai Michael Izzo We lost him. We're losing you Don. Don Moscato Number of people on. I have requested, please mute your audio. You can hear me. It says my internet connection is unstable. Nothing like having an unstable internet connection.We have technically seven or eight applications. And in the event that we're not able to finish we will adjourn it for our next session. And we have no idea how fast we'll move through the applications. But we do have to give each one due diligence. If you're making a presentation, please acknowledge who you are. Let the main presenter give the application and if there are the actual applicants available, they can chime in after the main presentation is made. 1.1. #21-007 Michael Moore & Kelly Moore 24 Beechwood Boulevard Construct 2nd floor addition, rear two story addition, rear masonry terrace, rear masonry walk and replace existing masonry walkway. Don Moscato Our first application this evening is application number 21-007 Michael Moore and Kelly Moore 24 Beachwood Boulevard to construct a second floor addition, rear two story addition, rear masonry terrace, rear masonry walk and replace existing masonry walkway. I believe the architect for this is Justin Minieri.Justin, are you on board? Justin Minieri Yes, I am. Good evening everyone. Don Moscato Okay, please start your presentation. Justin Minieri Mickey, my condolences. Michael Izzo Thank you,Justin. Justin Minieri I just learned about your mom, really sorry. - 2- Transcribed by https://otter.ai Michael Izzo Thank you,Justin. I appreciate that. Justin Minieri Okay, my name is Justin Minieri. I'm the architect for Michael and Kelly Moore at 24 Beechwood, 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 you have a long agenda, so I'll try to keep it brief. Okay, start with photos, just to give you a brief view of the existing house. And I'll get into this quick description. Can everyone see the house?Yes. Yeah, this is the front of the house, this is the garage where we're adding the second story, for some reason cannot. All right, I'll have to go. And this is the rear of the house. So, the two story addition is where my arrow is, and the second floor additions over the garage, this side is going to remain as is. So,we're just concentrating on this side of the house. I have more photos. I can always go back if there's any questions. I'll start with the drawings, just we since we have limited time. Okay. So, we're,we're adding a second floor addition on this side, over the garage, same footprint, and then we're adding a two story section in the rear,which squares off the back of the house, that's it, and then we're adding a terrace. So that's essentially what we're proposing. I'll just briefly so here's the existing garage,we're adding a two story section, this little rectangle and adding a second floor here. And so, as you can see the additions right here,it lines up with the back of the house,we're not really going out the confines of this footprint. And that's the second floor adding a master bedroom, master bath and doing some interior alteration.As you can see the existing house, and this is the second floor addition we're putting on and second floor from the side view in the rear view. So,what we're asking here is three variances. The first variance is very small, it's probably the smallest variance that ever came before you, an actual variance of three inches. And you say why cant we avoid it?Well, let me just go back. The problem is when they built this house, they didn't build it parallel with the property line, just slightly off. So, the front, you know, complies with the setback,it's actually 15.11 feet. And if they built a parallel,we wouldn't need to request this various, the house is slightly angled, so by the time it gets in the back,we're at 14.75. So, the house kind of wanders off to the right, and the problem, then it creates that three inches. For us to offset the addition three, six inches, creates really awkward rooflines, and just creates structural issues. So,you know, I hate coming before you for three inches, but you know, I'm just unavoidable. The variance is 1.67% under 2%. So, it's a very small variance. The second variance is for the total. And it seems a lot because it's 8.84 feet. And that's only because the left side is non-conforming. It extends over the 25 foot because the code requires 40 feet total. And we're presenting you with 31.16 feet and we're going from 31, so we're increasing our non-conforming by that three inches, but in total,it's 8.8. So,it's a 22%. But that's unavoidable because the left side which we're not touching is non- conforming. And then the third variance is as we see this side the height setback ratio. So,let me see if I can zoom it in. That's it right here, I did my best by keeping the roofline,you know, angled - 3- Transcribed by https://otter.ai towards the property line, because I knew I had a little trouble here because of the grade dropped. And, but I'm adding a second floor addition, that's in line with the rest of the house, so I can't really lower it. And we comply with building height, but it's just, I'm getting clipped by this corner. So there again,we're off,we're the code requires 1.3. And we're proposing 1.5. So,it's a .20,which translates to 15.38%. Again, you know,it's just this little triangle, as you can see that I'm over. And without bastardizing the house, I really can't avoid that again,unfortunately. So though, it's three variances, I think it really doesn't affect the neighborhood, they're very small. As far as you know, I see it, you may see it differently. I hope we can come to an agreement that these variances aren't that big,but as you can see the neighboring properties to left and right, and I'm done any questions? I just want to point out Mike, the homeowner has approached the neighbors, and the neighbors have expressed, even though I don't have any letters submitted, they have expressed their support for these properties. The homeowner is in the audience if you wish to ask them about that. But they can speak a little more in detail about those support, neighbors of support.And I'm done if there's any questions from the Board? Glenn Brettschneider Justin,I have one just because no one spoke up. So just okay. If the only variance was the three inches, and I know it's not relevant to this, but would someone come to the board and just ask for a variance for that? Or is it just because it's part of three anyway, and you're already here? I'm just curious about that three inches? Justin Minieri Well, no, the three inches, I mean, I would have come here anyway. Cause, see this is the line for me to avoid the three inches. The garage is already set. So,I'm not. If I was adding a two story addition, I wouldn't even, I would of course, I would avoid it, I would move it in. But the garage wall forces the second floor to fall on top of that. I'm not going to offset the second floor six inches to avoid that variance. But it will just create structural nightmare. And look,it just wouldn't look good. I know this is not an aesthetics Board. But I mean,I have to weigh that in. So really the only two story addition I'm adding is here, but this, I am you know,keeping with the garage envelope and footprint so I'm not, you know, coming closer to the property in that respect. Glenn Brettschneider I got it,was just about the three inches. Justin Minieri If I could have avoided the three inches,I'd never be here. - 4- Transcribed by https://otter.ai Glenn Brettschneider Yeah, gotcha. Don Moscato Justin,I have a question for you. I lost my computer audio,but I'm on the phone. Justin Minieri Sure Don. Don Moscato Okay. You know, the question I'm always asking is, make a case for why you could not get a smaller variance from the one you're proposing? Justin Minieri Well, I would hope three inches is pretty small. Less than three would be zero, right? So, you're right,we always try go for small but at three inches there is nowhere to go right. Sort of,like I said, 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 for me to avoid the three inches, I would have to push us in three inches. It's just,it just wouldn't be responsible of me as an architect. It is such a whacked out situation here. I would have to tear the garage down in order to comply. And I think you know, that would be a good reason for not, you know, for not to,you know, try to reduce it because that would be just such an awkward situation.You know. Don Moscato Right,you're lucky that you happen to have a neighbor to the garage side,who is not the same one who lived there previously. Justin Minieri Okay. Don Moscato Because you would have had an issue with the height setback ratio, I'm sure. Justin Minieri Okay. - 5- Transcribed by https://otter.ai Don Moscato But I did speak to the neighbor to that side and asked them if they were comfortable with the variance. And they indicated to me personally that they had no problem with any of the variances requested. So,you know, I think in terms of one of the variances is coming in at what is it, 22%? And that's the, the side, I guess that would be the two side yard setbacks. Justin Minieri Correct. Don Moscato Right. So, there is, you are very, very close to that neighbor on that side. And there is adequate shrubbery at this particular point Are you planning on augmenting any of the shrubbery on that side?To mitigate the effects of that setback. Justin Minieri I believe the owner, the homeowners, I would like the homeowners to come in on this and speak to that if you don't mind. Mike, are you? Do you hear me? Michael Moore Yep, I'm on. Hi, everyone. no, our plans are not to enhance the shrubbery. I mean, on that side, the trees that we have there go up 20-25 feet. I mean, there's plenty of coverage between the two of us. And between us and the Steinberg's. It's like it gives us enough privacy. Don Moscato Okay, but I was concerned about their side, of their side view. But I remember several years ago, the previous owners of that particular property did shave off a substantial amount of those pine trees that we're on that side. Michael Moore Yeah,Justin, just that's a good view, that if you look on the left side,you know that and those trees at the bottom,were just in pointing out right now. Those are evergreens. There's, they're there full all year round. So, you know, the very,very top thins out a little bit in the winter, but there's lots of coverage between our two houses. Don Moscato Okay. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you very much. Do any of the other board members want to comment on the application at this time? - 6- Transcribed by https://otter.ai Jamie Schutzer My only questions- So just to be clear behind the garage, you're just building a terrace there now? You're just kind of extending the terrace that's, that's covered there now? Justin Minieri That's correct. Without the cover,no roof,we just extending the patio portion to line up with back of the garage. Steve Berger So, I guess the follow up to Jamie's question, does the variance prevent you from building over that terrace? I know. Sorry,J amie, I took your thunder away. Jamie Schutzer That's Okay. Justin Minieri If we were to build over that. Let's see. When you say build over it you mean with an addition. Steve Berger Yes,we don't want the variance to allow you in the future or the next owner to convert that terrace to building. Justin Minieri Well, if they were, they would have to come back to you because they would violate the FAR that will most likely put them over the FAR. You know, and, I mean they would need a variance to build there so wouldn't... Steve Berger But... Don Moscato Steve, would you like to see that condition in there anyway? Steve Berger That's where I think I was going and I think Jamie was going there. Jamie Schutzer And I agree with that as well. - 7- Transcribed by https://otter.ai Don Moscato Okay. Okay.Justin, do you want to ask the applicant if they're comfortable with that condition? Justin Minieri Mike, are you comfortable with that? Michael Moore I'm not, I'm not entirely sure what the condition would be. You're saying what would be the thing that... Steve Berger That you can't use the variance to take the terrace and convert it to a sunroom or another bedroom? In other words,it has to stay as a terrace not as a building. Michael Moore Yeah, I'm comfortable with that. We have no plans of doing that. Don Moscato Thank you. Okay. Glenn. Glenn, do you want to comment or Joel? Glenn Brettschneider Nope. I asked my three inch question. I'm good. Don Moscato Okay,Joel, are you there? Joel Simon I'm here. I'm good. I have no questions. I have nothing. Don Moscato Okay. Is there, Is there anyone in the audience?Listening? Or standing outside who would like to speak in favor of this application? There being none heard, is there anyone who wants to speak against the application? Okay, let the record show that. I commented on a person viewing it favorably and so did Justin in his presentation indicated that they spoke to the neighbors and they didn't have a problem with it. Can I have a motion to close the public hearing? - 8- Transcribed by https://otter.ai Glenn Brettschneider Motion to close. Steve Berger Second. Don Moscato Seconded. okay. All in favor? Jamie Schutzer Aire. Joel Simon Aye. Glenn Brettschneider Aye. Steve Berger Aye. Don Moscato Aye. Okay, public hearing is closed. Let me run through the factors. Having once again just attended another training session, and they remind me to make sure that the record shows that we went through the factors with the supporting evidence. Do we all agree that this change will not affect the character or the environmental conditions affecting the neighborhood?Are we comfortable with that? Yeah. Okay, do we all agree that the variances collectively are substantial? Glenn Brettschneider Collectively. Steve Berger Collectively?Yeah. Don Moscato Yes, I think we have looked at it collectively. And how about the self-creation?Are we comfortable that this is self-created? Yes. Okay. And the other one,Justin spoke to specifically indicating that from an aesthetic point of view, there's,it is not possible to come in with a smaller variance, since - 9- Transcribed by https://otter.ai he's boxing out the, basically boxing out the footprint of the house. So,we'll agree that you will not be able to achieve the objectives other than the one, the method that is proposed. Okay, are we comfortable with all those?Yes, I'll go ahead and as expeditiously as possible, read the resolution. RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Michael Moore & Kelly Moore (the "Applicants") for (1) a single side yard setback variance of 0.25 feet (3 inches) where the minimum required single yard setback is 15 feet pursuant to Village Code § 250-18.2.H(2)(a), (2) a total of two side yards setback variance of 8.84 feet where the minimum required total of two side yards setback is 40 feet pursuant to Village Code § 250-18.2.H(2)(b); and (3) a side height setback ratio variance of 0.20 where the maximum allowable side height setback ratio is 1.30 pursuant to Village Code § 250-18.2 J(2), in connection with the proposed second floor addition, rear two story addition, rear masonry terrace, rear masonry walk and replace existing masonry walkway, on property located at 24 Beechwood Boulevard,in an R-25 zoning district on the south side of Beechwood Boulevard, approximately 50 feet from the intersection of Beechwood Circle and Beechwood Boulevard. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID# 136.29-1-11; and WHEREAS, the Property has (1) an existing non-conforming single side yard setback of 14.96 feet and the proposed addition will result in a single side yard setback of 14.75 feet and (2) an existing non-conforming total of two side yards setback of 31.37 feet and the proposed addition will result in a total of two side yards setback of 31.16 feet; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held April 6, 2021, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and WHEREAS, the public hearing was closed on April 6, 2021; and WHEREAS, the proposed action is a Type II action pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act and accordingly, no further environmental review is required; and - 10- Transcribed by https://otter.ai WHEREAS, the Board, from the application, after viewing the premises and neighborhood concerned, and upon considering each of the factors set forth in Village Code § 250-13(G)(b)[2][a]- [e] of the Rye Brook Code, finds: 1) The variances WILL NOT create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood; 2) The benefit the Applicants seek CANNOT be achieved through another method, feasible for the Applicants to pursue, that does not require the variances; 3) The variances ARE substantial; 4) The variances WILL NOT create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and 5) The need for the variances IS self-created. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the said application for (1) a single side yard setback variance of 0.25 feet (3 inches) where the minimum required single yard setback is 15 feet pursuant to Village Code § 250-18.2.H(2)(a), (2) a total of two side yards setback variance of 8.84 feet where the minimum required total of two side yards setback is 40 feet pursuant to Village Code 250-18.2.H(2)(b); and (3) a side height setback ratio variance of 0.20 where the maximum allowable side height setback ratio is 1.30 pursuant to Village Code § 250-18.2 J(2), in connection with the proposed second floor addition,rear two story addition,rear masonry terrace,rear masonry walk and replace existing masonry walkway, on property located at 24 Beechwood Boulevard, is hereby GRANTED on the following conditions: 1) No permit or certificate of occupancy shall be issued until the Applicants have paid in full all application and consultant fees incurred by the Village in connection with the review of this application. - 11 - Transcribed by https://otter.ai Don Moscato Secondly, Drew, do you want to read out your condition please? Drew Gamils 2) The Applicant shall be prohibited from enclosing the terrace space. The terrace shall remain open and unenclosed. Don Moscato Okay, are we all comfortable with those conditions?And the resolution? Everyone okay with them? Yes. Okay. Let's go ahead and vote. We have Steve. Steve Berger Yes. Don Moscato Glen? Glenn Brettschneider Yes. Don Moscato Jamie? Jamie Schutzer Yes. Don Moscato Joel? Joel Simon Yes. Don Moscato Don?Yes. Okay. Application is approved five yeses, no nays. Congratulations. - 12- Transcribed by https:Hotter.ai Justin Minieri Thank you. Thank Don Moscato Justin. Don't go too far away now. Justin Minieri I'm going to just stop sharing this screen right now. #21-008 1.2- Yuval Meron &Jana Meron 46 Winding Wood Road Construct a 2nd floor addition,wood deck, rear masonry patio expansion ai Don Moscato Okay, let me go ahead and make the introduction. Okay. Okay, the second application this evening is application 21-008.Yuval Meron&Jana Meron, 46 Winding Wood Road, to construct a second floor addition,wood deck, rear masonry patio expansion and interior alterations. Once again,we'll be hearing from Justin Minieri, the architect. Glenn Brettschneider And before Justin speaks, I would expect that I am recused. This houses across the street and one over so I will not be participating in any decision making other than as a neighbor, but not with the Board. Don Moscato Okay,in that regard,Justin, you're aware that in order for the application to be approved,you're going to need three out of the four non excused members of the board. Justin Minieri Yes, I know thank you. Don Moscato Okay, please proceed. Justin Minieri Good evening. My name is Justin Minieri. I'm here for the application at 46 Winding Wood Road the owners are Yuval and Jana Meron and I like to start sharing my screen and we'll get right into it. - 13- Transcribed by https://otter.ai Okay. No wait a minute it won't let me. Will you allow me to share the screen? I'm not on for some reason it keeps going back. Drew Gamils That's weird Justin I didn't change anything. Justin Minieri I keep going back to the old screen that's why I'm,let me see. See the photos? No, no. Michael Izzo No. Justin Minieri No?Why am I not able to share?Let me start again. Why am I having. Alright, let me try again. I'm going to share my screen, share. All right, here we go. I guess some, there was some residual stuff left open on yours. I apologize. So let me start with the photos. Yeah, this is the front of the house. We're proposing to add to the side. Let me make it quick,let me get one of the rear and then I'll move on to the dormer. There are more photos, taken so long looking at photos, and this is the rear of the house. Alright, so let me go to the drawings and then I'll explain the project. Okay. What we're proposing is the Meron family is growing, so they need some additional bedrooms and living space. So,what we're proposing is adding a second floor addition over the one story house, as you can see, so we're adding a second floor addition,we're complying with the setback, so there's no setbacks issue. And we're adding a wood deck, and we're rebuilding the one story sunroom. And this is the height setback ratio,let me go, this is the existing first floor. Again, we're rebuilding the sunroom into a family room,we're adding the wood deck. Those areas are over compliance. So, this is where we're adding that's triggering the need for a variance,we're adding a second floor addition, which consists of three bedrooms. And as you can see,we're not adding over the entire footprint, I tried this smallest possible. Oh, I think I hear background noise now. So,we're adding three bedrooms, a couple bathrooms and a laundry room and it's to the rear of the house. As you can see. This is the existing front of the house. So, and we're adding some roof lines to give us some curb appeal. But as you can see, the second story addition doesn't really appear in the front of the house. So,it really doesn't impact the front, the streetscape. Here's a side elevation. This is the sunroom side. So, as you can see, I buried the second floor addition to the rear. And so, from the side and, here's the second floor and treated as a shed, so we minimize the impact on the neighbors in the surrounding areas. As you can see here, this is the gable end of the existing house. And here's the proposed second floor addition. Again,we push back the addition a little further in to reduce the bulk of the second floor. So,we're asking for two variances. One is a FAR variance. Where the code is 3,226. And we're proposing 3,617. So,we're 391 square feet of variance,which comes out to - 14- Transcribed by https://otter.ai 12.12%. The second variance is the again, the height setback ratio. And the problem here is the grade drops quite a bit down. And so,it really hurts us. And that's why we're adding a second story, eight foot ceilings,we're not adding a huge addition on top, but because of the grade elevation, the angles gets dropped. And so,we need a variance of.30 the code requires 1.6 and we're at 1.9. So that's a variance of 18.7%. So,we're coming jammed up over here. As you can see this the other side,we're fine. And you can see from a neighborhood appearance,we're not adding.we're minimizing the second floor addition, as you can see. So, it's a living space much needed for the young growing family. So again,we try to be mindful for their needs, and balance it out with the, what you know, the minimum we can do. And we're coming before you with the request of these two variances. So, I know the Meron's reached out to the neighbors they're in the audience if you want to talk to them,but the neighbors were in favor of the project, they didn't have any objections, and I'm ready for any comments or questions. Don Moscato Okay, Mickey, am I unmuted here or? Michael Izzo No, Don. I can hear you. Yes, yes. Drew Gamils Your phone is clear. I just muted your computer. So, there's no feedback. Don Moscato Okay. Mickey can you comment on the previous variance which was granted to the previous owner?And does that side yard setback have any impact on the need for this particular various or are they totally independent? For the benefit of the board? Michael Izzo Certainly Don, the previous variance in 2010 was on the opposite side of the house.Justin,if you want to bring that up. Justin Minieri Yeah, it's the sunroom. It's right over here. Michael Izzo Yeah, it's a sunroom down on the opposite side of the home. Right here. And it has it has no bearing on either these variances before the board. - 15- Transcribed by https://otter.ai Don Moscato Okay,very good. Thank you. And Drew, did we did we receive official letters from any of the owners? and neighbors? I should say. I know Justin alluded to this. Justin Minieri There's emails. Michael Izzo I can chime in Don and Justin on that. We have in our possession, copies of email correspondence that were that were received from the village we received them today. Actually, the sixth. I think Tara did distribute them. So,you have them electronically. And I have them before me. Don Moscato Could you just give the names and the addresses? If they're in support or in disagreement? Michael Izzo We have the Klein family at 50 Winding Wood Road in support. We have,let's see now here we have, I believe, the Gutierrez family at 47 Winding Wood Road North. Both of those, both of those individuals,both of those neighbors are in full support of the application. Don Moscato Okay. Michael Izzo And I believe those are the only two those are the only two I have. If I'm incorrect,Justin can chime in here. Justin Minieri Yeah, that's the only two I have. I mean, the homeowners in the audience. I'm sure they can speak to more if they want to come into the conversation. Jana Meron Sorry, those are the two neighbors that we see most regularly. The neighbor, Don Moscato Excuse me, excuse me. Please identify yourself formally for the record. - 16- Transcribed by https://otter.ai Jana Meron Oh, I'm sorry. This is Jana Meron. I'm one of the homeowners, my husband Yuval he's here as well. Yuval Meron Hello. Don Moscato Please continue. Jana Meron So, the neighbor to the other side of us is very rarely here. So,we didn't have an opportunity to discuss this with them in detail. Yuval Meron They are on the garage side. So, the left side of the house,which is probably the least affected by the addition. The Klem's we have a letter from is on the, to the right of us. I think that's where the setback will be. Jana Meron Yeah. Yuval Meron And the Gutierrez family is across the street in front of the house. Michael Izzo So, Don the Klein's who we have a letter of support is the most effective neighbor in this instance. Don Moscato Okay, thank you,Mickey. Every so often I'm ready to call the Rye Brook Fire Inspector on you. Yeah, smoke blares out from your head, over the screen. Michael Izzo It's only a cigar Don. Don Moscato Okay, yes. Right. Okay. We have those letters. Are there any board members want to comment to Justin regarding the application? - 17- Transcribed by https://otter.ai Jamie Schutzer My only question Justin, on the left side above the garage and the right side. On that roofline, there's nothing going above there. Right. That's just. Justin Minieri Okay. Let me get to the elevation before I answer. Well, here's the second floor. So, here's the entire garage side, nothing is going over, except for dummy roof lines to just add some aesthetic appeal. You can see the front;the three rooms are in the back. And this is buried underneath the roofline. So,the only window you see is, represents bringing daylight into the foyer below. That's the extent of it. Jamie Schutzer Okay, thanks. Don Moscato Okay. Mickey, are you aware of any water issues? In that particular area on that side of Winding Wood? Michael Izzo None, no there's no issues there Don that I'm aware of. Don Moscato Okay. Thank you, Steve, or and,Joel,you have any questions for Justin? Steve Berger I don't, I'm good with it. Joel Simon I'm okay too. J Don Moscato Okay. Very good. With respect to Okay, now that we heard those in support, and let me ask if there's anyone else who wants to speak in favor the application,who has not either submitted a letter or commented at this point? Do you want to say something at this at this point?Are you comfortable with things the way they are? Okay, not hearing anyone. Anyone want to speak against the application? There being none. Can I have a motion to close the public hearing. Seconded. Okay. All in favor of closing public hearing fine. Let me go through the factors we heard with - 18- Transcribed by https://otter.ai respect to the smallest possible variance. Are we all comfortable with the explanation that we heard from architect Minieri? Okay,good. It doesn't look like there's an environmental issue. How about the character the neighborhood? If at this particular point, could I ask our recused board member if he's still around to comment on whether or not he thinks as a resident this will impact the character of the neighborhood?Are you there Glenn? Glenn Brettschneider Yes, I am. I actually think it will,will impact the character of the neighborhood. But I would say in a positive way. And I'm )ust a little disappointed that I actually have not met my neighbors until tonight, but I hope to soon, but I look forward to the addition, quietly,I hope, but I look forward to it. Yuval Meron I look forward to meeting you too. Glenn Brettschneider I have the two, I have the two dogs by the way if you see them walking the cream coated retriever and the lab.Just say hello. And give them some treats. Thanks. Don Moscato Then we agree that the variances are self-created. Can we agree that the variances are substantial, coming in at 12 and 18? Something percent?Yeah. Yeah. Okay, and they will not affect the character as supported by neighbor, Glenn. And there'll be no physical or environmental issues with respect to this application. So let me go ahead and read the resolution. RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Yuval Meron &Jana Meron (the "Applicants") for (1) a gross floor area variance of 391 square feet where the maximum allowable gross floor area is 3,226 square feet pursuant to Village Code § 250-20.E, and (2) a side height setback ratio variance of 0.30 where the maximum allowable side height setback ratio is 1.60 pursuant to Village Code § 250-20.I(2), in connection with the proposed second floor addition,wood deck, rear masonry patio expansion and interior alterations, on property located at 46 Winding Wood Road, in an R-15 zoning district on the east side of Winding Wood Road, approximately 450 feet from the intersection of Latonia Road and Winding Wood Road. Said - 19- Transcribed by https://otter.ai premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID# 135.34-1-9; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held April 6, 2021, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and WHEREAS, the public hearing was closed on April 6, 2021; and WHEREAS, the proposed action is a Type II action pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act and accordingly, no further environmental review is required; and WHEREAS, the Board, from the application, after viewing the premises and neighborhood concerned, and upon considering each of the factors set forth Village Code § 250-13(G)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brook Code, finds: 1) The variances WILL NOT create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood; 2) The benefit the Applicants seek CANNOT be achieved through another method, feasible for the Applicants to pursue, that does not require the variances; 3) The variances ARE substantial; 4) The variances WILL NOT create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and 5) The need for the variances IS self-created. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the said application for (1) a gross floor area variance of 391 square feet where the maximum allowable gross floor area is 3,226 square feet pursuant to Village Code § 250-20.E, and (2) a side height setback ratio variance of 0.30 where the maximum allowable side height setback ratio is 1.60 pursuant to Village Code § 250-20.I(2), in connection with the proposed second floor addition, wood deck, rear masonry patio expansion and - 20- Transcribed by https://otter.ai interior alterations, on property located at 46 Winding Wood Road, is hereby GRANTED on the following conditions: 1) No permit or certificate of occupancy shall be issued until the Applicants have paid in full all application and consultant fees incurred by the Village in connection with the review of this application. Don Moscato And I believe we're not going to condition this further based on the comments that the board has made. So, are we all in agreement? Are we ready to take a vote?Yes. Okay, Steve? Steve Berger Yes. Don Moscato Glenn is excused,Jamie. Jamie Schutzer Yes. Don Moscato Joel? Joel Simon Yes. Don Moscato Don, yes. application is approved four yeses, zero nays. And one excused. Thank you very much. Congratulations, and good luck. Justin Minieri Thank you very much. Good night. - 21 - Transcribed by https:Hotter.ai #21-005 1.3. Matthew Altman&Alexandra Altman 42 Lawridge Drive Legalize re-constructed rear deck. Don Moscato Okay. All right. Let me go back to the main screen here and let me get the next application. Okay, next application is item number 21-005,Matthew Altman and Alexandra Altman of 46 Lawridge Drive, legalize a re-constructed rear deck. Michael Izzo 42 Lawridge, Don, 42. Don Moscato Didn't I say that? Michael Izzo I think you said 46. Don Moscato Okay, that's because my eyes dropped up to the previous application. Thank you for that. What is that called?When you see something? Michael Izzo I got your back Don. I got your back. Don Moscato Okay,we have our familiar Brad DeMotte. Brad DeMotte Good evening. My name is Brad DeMotte. I'm an architect. I'm representing Matt and Ali Altman who live at 42 Lawridge. They've lived there for nine years, and or in Rye Brook for nine years, a year and a half at that address. So,we are requesting a variance to allow a recently constructed deck to exceed the maximum allowable coverage which is 4%. And we'd be at 4.1% or it's an increase of 0.1%which is 14 square feet above the max allowable. So, this is just a little backstory. There's an existing two level deck and let me do a screen share here. All right, there was, hopefully we can see that there's, this is the previous deck. It was a two level deck,it was in a state of disrepair and they hired a contractor who's a good builder but he was unfamiliar with Rye Brook. He was under the - 22- Transcribed by https://otter.ai assumption that he could remove the deck and rebuild the deck in the same place and kind of saw that as a repair, replacement. So,what he did without a permit is to build a new deck. And let's see if we can find that. Let's see,well, here's a photo of the deck that was built. And so, and again, this was really,wasn't done intentionally it was really an oversight. He was under the impression he could build this without a permit as a repair. And the building inspector saw the activity, he issued a stop work order a couple months ago, I was brought in to clean up the mess. And as we, as we were completing the building permit application to legalize it,we also we found out that we were slightly over the maximal allowable of coverage for a deck. So that's why we are here tonight. So again, Don Moscato Would you consider that an official oops, on the part of the contractor? Brad DeMotte Absolutely. And believe me, he regrets it and won't do it again. Don Moscato Okay. Is the name of his company Well Dunn? Brad DeMotte Yes,it is. Don Moscato I thought that was ironic. Brad DeMotte Well, he's a good builder. But in this case, you know, he dropped the ball when it came to the approval process. Okay, so coincidentally, the previous deck was 656 square feet,which was right at the maximum allowable limit, this deck was constructed. And this is a different size and shape. The other one was somewhat octagonal. This is simply really just two levels and fairly rectangular. And this is the total of 670 square feet. So,it is 14 square feet above the maximum allowable limit. Again,it's,you know, 4%versus 4.1%. And we have two letters of support from the adjacent neighbors,which I believe were in the file. And as far as the balancing test goes,you know, this, this is not substantial. There's no undesirable change to the neighborhood, there's no adverse effects, really can't be achieved by any other method,you know, and but it was self-created. So,we open up to any comments, - 23- Transcribed by https://otter.ai Don Moscato Can you just officially state why it would not make sense for the board to demand that that 14 feet be reclaimed.Just for the record,please? Brad DeMotte Well, the board would have that right to do that. And we did,we did, and actually,Mr. Izzo did recommend that as an option to avoid the variance. And we discussed it between all of us. And it's, a rather expensive fix to remove 14 square feet from either one of these decks, and therefore we chose to ask for the variance. Don Moscato Okay, thanks. Thank you very much. Any board members want to ask Brad DeMotte a question regarding is? Okay, there being total silence on this one. Let me just kind of quickly summarize the five factors this would be classified as a de minimis request, according to my interpretation, do you all concur that it will, all of the five factors will not be adversely impacted?My only question is, would this count as a self-created since it was done by an agent of the owners? Joel Simon Without question. It's definitely self-created. Don Moscato Okay. Very good. Thank you for that legal opinion. I appreciate that one. It's not substantial,will not affect the character,will not affect the environment. And we heard from the architect why this will be not. Now, are you in possession of the letters, Mickey, are you? Brad DeMotte They were submitted. You should have those in your file. They're there. Don Moscato I just want that publicly in the record on the video of Brad that's all. Brad DeMotte Yes. Okay. Thank you. Michael Izzo Yes, Don we received both letters on March 2, two letters of support. One from the neighbor at 38 Lawridge Drive and one from the neighbor at 44 Lawridge Drive both in support. - 24- Transcribed by https://otter.ai Don Moscato All right, thanks. Thank you very much. Is anyone on the online here who would like to comment on that favorably or unfavorably? Not hearing anyone. Can I have a motion to close public hearing? Jamie Schutzer So moved. Don Moscato Seconded. Joel Simon Second. Don Moscato Okay. I guess we're all in agreement to close the public hearing. Okay. You heard my, my particular assessment and Steve indicated that we'll consider this to be self-created. So, can I go ahead and read through it? Steve Berger It wasn't me who said that it was Glenn. Joel Simon It was me. Steve Berger Or Joel. It wasn't me. Don Moscato Oh, oh. ok. Joel Simon I wouldn't call it a legal opinion. It was a personal opinion. - 25- Transcribed by https:Hotter.ai Don Moscato Okay, no, but I value your insight in that. I was not sure how the rest of the board members would be comfortable with that, but I'm glad you brought forward that Joel. Okay,let me read the resolution. RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Matthew Altman & Alexandra Altman (the "Applicants") for a deck coverage variance of 0.1 % where the maximum allowable deck coverage is 4% pursuant to Village Code § 250-37.B, in connection with the proposed legalization of the re-constructed rear deck, on property located at 42 Lawridge Drive,in an R-15 zoning district on the east side of Lawridge Drive, at the intersection of Parkwood Place and Lawridge Drive. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID# 129.67-1-51; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held April 6, 2021, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and WHEREAS, the public hearing was closed on April 6, 2021; and WHEREAS, the proposed action is a Type II action pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act and accordingly, no further environmental review is required; and WHEREAS, the Board, from the application, after viewing the premises and neighborhood concerned, and upon considering each of the factors set forth in Village Code § 250-13(G)(b)[2][a]- [e] of the Rye Brook Code, finds: 1) The variance WILL NOT create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood; 2) The benefit the Applicants seek CANNOT be achieved through another method, feasible for the Applicants to pursue, that does not require the variance; - 26 - Transcribed by https:Hotter.ai 3) The variance IS NOT substantial; 4) The variance WILL NOT create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and 5) The need for the variance IS self-created. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the said application for a deck coverage variance of 0.1 % where the maximum allowable deck coverage is 4% pursuant to Village Code 250-37.13, in connection with the proposed legalization of the re-constructed rear deck, on property located at 42 Lawridge Drive,is hereby GRANTED on the following conditions: 1) No permit or certificate of occupancy shall be issued until the Applicants have paid in full all application and consultant fees incurred by the Village in connection with the review of this application. Don Moscato Okay, and we're ready for a vote. As we're all comfortable with that while Mickey is in a cloud. Steve? Steve Berger Yes. Don Moscato Glenn? Glenn Brettschneider Yes. Don Moscato Jamie? - 27- Transcribed by https://otter.ai Jamie Schutzer Yes. Don Moscato Joel? Joel Simon Yes. Don Moscato Don yes. Okay. Application approved five yeses, zero nays. Congratulations. Thank you, The Altman and thank you, Mr. DeMotte. Brad DeMotte Thank you, and goodnight. Alexandra Altman Thank you. Don Moscato Okay,we're going to go back to the sequencing. The next application is I have number 21-009 Joseph Sandarciero III and Stephanie Sandarciero of 112 Country Ridge Drive to construct new rear patio with fire pits and sitting walls. Okay,who's going to be making the presentations? Is that you Chris? Evan Sakofsky This is Evan Sakofsky. I'm the architect for the project. Don Moscato Okay, okay. Now I see fine. Please go ahead. Evan Sakofsky I'm going to go ahead and share my screen just to get the site plan up on there. Okay, can everybody see that? Is this visible to everyone? Michael Izzo Yeah. Okay. - 28- Transcribed by https://otter.ai Evan Sakofsky So yes,we are proposing to add a 399 square foot patio to the rear of the house directly adjacent to the rear of the house. This,we're requesting a variance of 885 square feet for impervious coverage. So obviously what that means is that we have non-conforming situation already with respect to impervious coverage,which is largely being caused by the existing pool and patio. Those were constructed in, according to the building departments records in 1977. So, they've been there for quite some time. And basically,we are requesting to add to that impervious coverage to create a safer and more accessible entertaining space that can be on this rear yard. You know, right now, the homeowner, they have younger children. And just it just seems dangerous to them that whenever they want to use their hardscape, for entertaining that it's right next to an open swimming pool. Obviously, there's a major inconvenience here as well, the access to this current existing patio is over 40 feet from the rear of the house. But really, their concern here has to do with safety.And we feel that the patio that we're proposing is modest. It's just large enough to give them the functions that they're looking for. And we hope we will be granted this variance for those reasons. I don't hear anything. Does anybody have any questions about it? Joel Simon This is Joel. Evan Sakofsky Hi. Joel Simon Is there anything that can be done here? I understand what your goal is, but to,in any way reconfigured to gain some, you know, to gain something from some more ground, as opposed to the concrete that you currently have? Evan Sakofsky Well, I mean, are you suggesting demolishing some portion of this patio? Joel Simon Possibly Yes. Evan Sakofsky I mean I guess,you know, from our perspective, I mean, I'm,you know, I understand the reasoning behind that it just seems somewhat unreasonable, from our perspective to have to suddenly remove something that's been there for four decades. - 29- Transcribed by https://otter.ai Joel Simon It's no more unreasonable than adding at this point, either, but. Evan Sakofsky Right, right. I mean,we, I understand the question. But,you know, obviously, the homeowner would prefer not to have to remove anything since it, since it has been there. And certainly, they didn't create that situation. Don Moscato But you are asking for an extension of an existing nonconformity that has, historically, the board looks extra carefully at requests to enhance an existing nonconformity. I think that was the logic behind Joel's question. Evan Sakofsky Sure. Don Moscato I also feel the same way about that. But my comment has to do with the 399 square foot, you're staying one foot below the trigger number of 400 square feet for some type of water mitigation. Evan Sakofsky Correct. Don Moscato You are covering a lot of land in the back, especially with respect to what is there now. So,would you entertain, or do you have any plans for some type of water management proposal to go along with this increased impervious coverage? Evan Sakofsky There were not and I mean, that was largely the reason for the modest size of the proposed patio, obviously adding any sort of stormwater management,you know, comes at in,you know, a large additional expense,you know,with respect to the project,you know, so it was something that we were looking to avoid in this case, by keeping it the modest size. Don Moscato Well, yeah,we'll be the,what is the exact dimension of the proposed enhancement?The square footage. - 30- Transcribed by https://otter.ai Evan Sakofsky The square footage is 399 square feet. If I jump to the first page.... Don Moscato What are those dimensions? What is it 20 by 20? Evan Sakofsky It is 21 foot three by 18 foot nine. Steve Berger So, my concern, following up on that is sort of like the last application, we just heard the oopsie 399,very close to 400. Very easy to go over. Is there a way to make sure that you don't go over, and then come back to us and say, sorry, make it less than 399? I think that's what.... Evan Sakofsky I mean, I think I, you know, we are aware of what we're up against. Steve Berger It just seems too cute. That's all. Evan Sakofsky I mean, I just,you know, I think that the dimensions and the square footage that we're showing on this drawing,which obviously we're submitting for the permit here are, are bolded. I mean,we are emphasizing that we cannot exceed this, these dimensions. I'm not sure, from our perspective,what else we could do in terms of the application. You know, I mean, if there's a condition that you're proposing, I mean, you know, I certainly think we would entertain that. Steve Berger Can't you bring it in, you know, in on one side, shortening by a foot. So,we're not anywhere close to 399. Evan Sakofsky I mean, I think we could probably take a few inches out of the longer dimension here. Steve Berger 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, why what. - 31 - Transcribed by https://otter.ai Evan Sakofsky What would be a comfortable amount from your perspective? Steve Berger I'm not in a position to make that judgment. All I'm saying is 399 is awfully close to 400. And,you know,we just had to go through an application,when somebody said,Yeah, a good builder. I'm sure you're an excellent architect and your builders very good. But, I mean,why do we have to run that kind of risk? Evan Sakofsky I hear what you're saying. I mean,I guess we can come back, and certainly reduce this by some amount. But I,you know, I'm hesitant to throw a number out there that would suddenly make this not functional. Steve Berger 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 why you should do it,you know,if you're going to do this, and I'm not saying that we're there yet. But it seems to me when you're trying to do something a 399. It's too easy to miss and it just seems too contrived. Glenn Brettschneider Steve, let me ask this. A couple of things. So,we ever said if, since this isn't an oopsie,it's,you know, plan to be 399. That, if it ever came back, that we would know, or we would,we would require that it be 399?We would not give into an oopsie? Steve Berger Well, the thing is,you know, that it becomes a big expense. And we look,you know, I can't tell you, Don,you and I've been on the board a long time.Joel as well, I mean, how many oopies did we have over the years, a lot? Glenn Brettschneider Right. Steve Berger That's why we make a record. - 32- Transcribed by https://otter.ai Glenn Brettschneider Right. But in this case, the oopsie would be on architect Evan and the homeowner,because they're aware of our concerns. So, I'm thinking that is an issue. The other question,the two things I just want to bring up is the fact that it has to be a paver. I've seen pavers that are not completely solid, okay, you know, I don't know what they're called. But they're kind of pavers, there grass, there pavers,maybe they're hollow, just as an idea. And the other thing I'm thinking is,is that is the fact that there's a retaining wall does that affect this at all in terms of size or is that. Evan Sakofsky It's not a retaining wall. It's just a sitting wall. Glenn Brettschneider No, I'm sorry, I didn't, I'm sorry. I didn't mean a retaining wall. Well,it?Well,it,it retains the beauty of that house that's what I meant. A sitting wall. Yeah. Which is,which is,you know, I guess sitting on top, and then I don't know visually, that adds a lot more impervious surface to an area that you just wanted, so it's not near the pool. It kind of seems is overwhelming in terms of a lot of paver. It looks beautiful. I'm just, I don't know if that's an issue for the board. I'm just throwing it out there,is that even a consideration for us? Jamie Schutzer Can I ask a question?What is a sitting wall? Evan Sakofsky It's a well actually, this photo would show when,pretty accurately here. It's just a wall that's built there that you could actually sit on. It's sitting height,it's not retaining any earth. So,it's just a low wall. It's what's added. It's decorative. Steve Berger It's not really affecting the impervious right? Evan Sakofsky Well, it's counted as part of the impervious. I mean, it's reducing our usable area here. But I will say, just to kind of address the previous question a little bit in that regard,is that there is a slight slope to the land here. So,we're anticipating needing steps up on these sides anyway,which would eat into that usable upper surface. So, in my opinion, adding the wall is not really taking away from the space, certainly being counted in the 399. But I don't know, even if we took the wall away, I think you would just have steps here instead. So, I don't know. - 33- Transcribed by https://otter.ai Glenn Brettschneider The walls, for us the walls a visual thing and doesn't really affect our decision. Evan Sakofsky Right, exactly. Glenn Brettschneider I think. Evan Sakofsky I was just trying to address the question. Glenn Brettschneider Yeah, no, I appreciate that. Again, I'm not sure whether if there was no wall,would that be easier for the board to accept? Or it's complete?You know,they may say it's completely irrelevant. I have not come across this before. Evan Sakofsky Okay. Don Moscato Well, I guess Glenn, another way to ask that question would be if you took the seating area away, would it reduce the impervious coverage? Or is that sitting on the patio itself that would in fact reduce the impervious coverage by the width of the sitting walk around this perimeter? Glenn Brettschneider 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 have it,you still have the patio, pavers at that same length anyway. So that wouldn't affect the. Evan Sakofsky Right. And like,what I was saying is that you'd still need the step up here on this, on this perimeter. So even if we took the wall away,we would probably just run the step continuously around this edge, it really wouldn't change anything.And Glenn Brettschneider 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 impervious surface? - 34- Transcribed by https://otter.ai Steve Berger I don't think it is then Glenn. That's my take on it. If it doesn't affect the impervious that's not, that's not a zoning board issue. Don Moscato I have a question regarding where you had the cursor on the bottom of a fire pit. Evan Sakofsky Let me go back, Yep. Don Moscato What is the distance from the edge of the patio to the fire pit?going?Right there. Yeah,where the cursor is. Evan Sakofsky From here to here? Don Moscato Yes. Evan Sakofsky It's actually on here. It's three feet. Don Moscato Okay. I want to make sure that. Okay. Now, if you did shorten the length side, that would necessitate moving the pit further along on that, or would it stay the same?Yeah. Evan Sakofsky I mean,what I would anticipate if we were to shorten up this length would be that it would come out of this side, and that everything would shift,you know, from bottom to top here. I mean, obviously, I don't want to make this too small,where you know, I'm putting the walk here,which might seem fair. But you know that would be where we would have to probably take the length out, is what I would see. Don Moscato Okay, thank you. - 35- Transcribed by https://otter.ai Evan Sakofsky Sure. Don Moscato Does anyone else have any additional questions? Joel Simon I just wanted to say that I'm, I'm not happy with this simply because in my mind, there's just too much impervious. very blunt, I'd rather, I'd want to see either a reduction in the existing concrete surface or something up with the new construction making, making it a smaller area. Don Moscato If Yeah, I'm in the same, I'm in the same viewpoint that you are Joel. Glenn Brettschneider Yeah, if we want to be consistent. If you remember the Klein's from earlier today,who gave that letter of approval. There're the family across the street from me, and they added a basketball court in their backyard. And one of the requirements because they have a big circular driveway was that one of us, I guess it became agreed upon by majority ask that they had a patio,which I think they asked to have removed as part of the addition to the basketball court. So, I think in follow up to what you're saying is it will be consistent with a prior decision of the board to consider reducing the concrete patio, by the pool. That patio on the Klein house was there when they bought the house 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 not saying that we should do that. I'm just saying it's consistent with what Joel and Don have said. Don Moscato Sure. Joel Simon Glenn, I'm not, I'm not even going to suggest what it is that should be done. I raised those two choices, the existing concrete, or the new patio as two options but, and every and every property is different. And you know what, right,what was right for one isn't necessarily right for another. But I think something needs to be done here. To address these issues. Evan Sakofsky Would consideration be done to, I mean, anything that is counting towards impervious here, and it doesn't have to be the patio, the other patio? Or would you consider anything that would help to alleviate stress? - 36- Transcribed by https://otter.ai Joel Simon Such as what, what are you thinking? Evan Sakofsky I mean Joe, are you on? the homeowner was on as well,I just want to make sure he's participating in this conversation. But we have talked previously, if this became an issue about possibly removing this shed here, which is. Joseph Sandarciero III That's not on. No, because that's not on an impervious, that's on cinder blocks? Evan Sakofsky No but it is counted towards the impervious in this calculation. If that's not something that you want to do,I just, I just wanted to mention that just because it, I thought we had previously discussed it, but we can, we can hold on that for sure. Joseph Sandarciero III Yeah, I mean whatever. It's I guess,it's easier to take down the shed then do a jackhammer to a patio, right? It's a lot less cost efficient. Joel Simon Or, or reduce the size of the new patio? Evan Sakofsky Right. I mean. Joseph Sandarciero III It'll take away some of the functionality of the patio. I mean, we're talking 399. You guys don't want 399. Because that's the number but that's, we went at that number because that was the number that was recommended by your bylaws, more or less. If it was. Joel Simon Not the one recommended,it's the one that.... Joseph Sandarciero III Would there be a difference? - 37 - Transcribed by https:Hotter.ai Joel Simon The one that triggers additional work. Joseph Sandarciero III No, I get that. Joel Simon That's not the same thing as recommended. Joseph Sandarciero III And you're using me for the previous applicant before. Joel Simon No, that's not fair, sir. We've been,we deal with this issue all the time. Not just based on the previous applicant. Joseph Sandarciero III You brought it up. That's why I mentioned it. Joel Simon 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 bringing it up with you if that previous applicant had not been there the same issue would have come up. Don Moscato Yeah, I think there are several options that can be considered. One of the things that I would like to do is get a sense of all of the board members, as we close the public hearing, to get to go through some of these issues in a deliberative fashion. Once we close, once we close the public hearing. So, are there any other questions that you want to ask? Joel Simon Now, before we do that a question, just as a proper procedure, do we close the public hearing if they're possibly going to go back and rework this? Or do we need to keep the public hearing open? Drew Gamils Joel thank you. I'm sorry,you took the words away from me. I agree. I think the board should discuss this before closing the public hearing, because if the applicant is going to go back and - 38- Transcribed by https://otter.ai contemplate,you know, changing these plans, removing impervious surface elsewhere, the public hearing should remain open, because there potentially would be a change. Joel Simon I get it right occasionally. Don Moscato Okay,very good. Michael Izzo Hey Don. The other option,which I want to bring it to the board's attention is to allow them to build this thing this size and require some sort of modest stormwater management that might address the added impervious coverage rather than full capture,which is what's required at 400 square feet. That's another option that the board might want to think about. Joel Simon Exactly. There are various options. We just named a few. If they can think of other things that will, would satisfy the board. We're open,we're open to various suggestions. Don Moscato Okay. Okay, let me ask if there's anyone online, who would like to speak in favor of the application. Okay, is there anyone who wants to speak against the application? Okay,let us deliberate as a board then with respect to each, each of us going through our, our positions or concerns. So,if.... Michael Izzo Don if I could interrupt your very quickly, just for the record,we did receive on April 1, two letters regarding the application, one from 111 Country Ridge Drive. It's a letter in support of the application, and the other from 116 Country Ridge Drive. And it is also in support of the application. Don Moscato Okay, thanks. Thank you very much. Okay. Let me go through, I guess alphabetically. Steve, do you want to summarize your concerns or position on this application? Steve Berger Sure. I'm, I'm sympathetic to the need or the desire of the homeowner to do this and be able to use the backyard, the way, the way he'd like to use it and connect the patio to the house, I'm sympathetic to that. I just think that there's a lot of space here. And rather than pushing up against - 39- Transcribed by https://otter.ai the limit, I'd like to see some effort to either change the size. I mean, this is a fairly large addition. 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 usable. But I'm also concerned about bumping up against stormwater management problems. So, I'd like to hear some proposals to go one way or the other. I think there's got to be some level of, you know,we've got issues of precedent with other homeowners in the past,going forward. And I don't think that, I think we need to pay attention to what could happen. So that's my concern. Don Moscato Okay, Glenn, how about you? Glenn Brettschneider Yeah, I actually don't disagree with Steve. But I do think it's a, a very functional and beautiful design. And, and I actually am sympathetic, also, because I think without this,you have an area by the pool. And if I'm correct, I don't think there's really anything in between the house and the pool itself. Is that correct. Evan Sakofsky There is not, no, there's a lot of grass right now. Glenn Brettschneider Right?And, and so I actually would like to see something that is amenable to the board. But I really, I really actually do like this design. I just don't know if it's, there is a lot of impervious surface in this yard. So. Don Moscato Okay.Jamie. Jamie Schutzer Hi. You know,you'd mentioned about the shed as a possible option. So, I see on the plans that are there, two sheds, they're there. Don Moscato One is pool equipment. Jamie Schutzer Right, but is it a functional shed? Or is it just covering, just covering the pool equipment? -40- Transcribed by https://otter.ai Evan Sakofsky I'm actually not sure offhand. I haven't paid close attention to those sheds in the past. I'll admit. Joseph Sandarciero III The one on your, on the bottom end of the screen is like a Rubbermaid storage shed. Jamie Schutzer Okay. Don Moscato Okay, thank you.Joel, how about you? Joel Simon Alright,yeah, as I mentioned earlier, there's a lack of impervious on, on the, on this property. The design is gorgeous. There's no, no one disputes that, but I think it needs to go slightly back to the drawing board.And something needs to be figured out. Don Moscato Okay,where I am coming at it that, I think that the lot is 23,000, just slightly over half an acre. And I just think there's too much impervious coverage being requested. And as a result, I think that I was going to propose and that water mitigation or the water management plan I think would be the preferred approach to go. Given, they want to keep that design the way it is, and I agree with everyone else,it's an attractive design, but I think something has to be given up here. And either you reduce the impervious coverage, not by just removing the shed, that was proposed, I don't think that goes far enough. So,if the applicant wants that patio, the way it is designed, I think they will have to come up with some kind of water management and as Mickey suggested,it does not have to be a full blown, full blown capture, but something that does impact the water, the water outflow from the, from the proposal. So, you know, I think by chopping the proposal lengthwise, I think it will,it will definitely impact the aesthetics of it and probably reduced the functionality. So, so, I would encourage the introduction of some kind of water management proposal,which would be able to be signed off by the administrator. In this case,it would be Mike Nowak, and or for a significant reduction elsewhere on the property of the impervious the impervious coverage, because you're looking at you know, 885 square feet variance,which is significant from the allowable, so, you are trying to do, technically too much on the land that you have,given the size of the lot, and the bulk standards with respect to impervious coverage. So, so I would have a hard time supporting this application as it exists now. Okay, having said that, Drew, do you want to chime in now and make a suggestion as to steps forward that the applicant can take at this particular point in time. -41 - Transcribed by https://otter.ai Drew Gamils I can advise as to what steps the board could take, the board could issue a denial tonight,but it sounds like you'd like to see the applicant go back and think creatively about some other options. So, I would therefore recommend that the board adjourn the public hearing to next month, and let the applicant go back and come up with some proposals that address the board's concerns, and then discuss this application again next month. Don Moscato 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 other board members on my concerns for that. Do you concur? Joel Simon I would definitely concur. Steve Berger That's fine with me. Joel Simon Is the applicant amenable, amenable to that? Evan Sakofsky Yeah, I mean, ultimately,we want to try to work with the board, of course, and find a way to get this approved. Don Moscato I think, Evan,you're well on your way. It's just a matter of deciding where you want to take the necessary steps in order for the board to feel comfortable granting a variance so that the applicant can have the use of his very attractive addition to them to their property. Evan Sakofsky I mean, I'm guessing this is not really a question for tonight, but I'm going to throw out their way. I think I would want to get some clarity just on what exactly in terms of the storm water that's being sort of suggested. Not full capture, but what does that exactly mean,in terms of what would be acceptable?That might not, you know, make the project financially untenable for the homeowner either. -42- Transcribed by https://otter.ai Don Moscato Fine, maybe we could make some headway there. Mickey,would this be the purview of Mike or would you be willing to make suggestions? Michael Izzo Well, they're looking for an 885 foot variance. So,perhaps that's the jumping off point. Don Moscato Would the applicant or the architect, contact Mike or you for further discussion? Michael Izzo He might want to talk to Mr. Nowak about his options with regard to stormwater management and, you know,iron out details. As far as square footage is concerned, I think that would be advisable. Don Moscato Okay. And is it feasible to do by the May meeting? Michael Izzo I think it is. You know, Mike's in the office,you can call him tomorrow and get the ball rolling, if that's the way you want to go. Drew Gamils And the applicant can come forward with, you know, an idea for the plan and some proposals, but the board has in the past also conditioned approval resolutions, subject to a stormwater management plan approved by Michal Nowak. So,you know, ultimately, you can condition the resolution that the plan will be approved by Michal Nowak,if the plan is not formally prepared by May. Don Moscato Okay, that's that sounds good. Joel Simon I'd like to see the plan presented to the Board prior to any conditional approval though. I think this is one of those where we'd like to,we'd like to see it first. or know what it is first. -43- Transcribed by https://otter.ai Don Moscato Okay, Drew, do we have a motion to adjourn for the main meeting?Is that,is that the way to go on this Drew Gamils Yes, adjourned to the May meeting. I would also say continue the public hearing. Don Moscato Okay,very good. So, I'm going to make that motion. Steve Berger So moved. Don Moscato Okay. Glenn Brettschneider Seconded. Don Moscato Okay, so we'll adjourn the meeting and keep the public hearing open. I thank you very much for the presentation. And good luck in terms of coming up with an alternative plan. Thank you very much. Evan Sakofsky Thank you. #21-006 1.5. Matthew Wiener& Erica Wiener 18 Boxwood Place Construct front and rear 2nd story additions. Don Moscato Our next application is Matthew Wiener& Erica Wiener, 18 Boxwood Place construct front and rear second story additions.Who is going to be making a presentation of this application? Steve Marchesani That'll be me, Steve Marchesani, I'm the architect for the Wiener's. -44- Transcribed by https://otter.ai Don Moscato Okay,welcome back to the Rye Brook Zoning Board. Steve Marchesani Thank you. Let me share screen here. Can you see the photo? Don Moscato Yes,we can. Steve Marchesani Okay, so this is the existing house. What we're proposing is a second story addition over the garage here to accommodate a new bedroom and bath. And then in the rear of the house,we're proposing a second floor addition here of seven feet off of this existing house. For the master bedroom for a closet,walk in closet enlarging the bathroom,which are very small right now. These are the homes across the street. Kind of similar houses. This is the house to the right. And house to the left kind of screened well from that side. Wait a minute. Go back here. Okay, so this is the existing house as it stands now. This is on the second floor of the existing bathroom.And there's really no closets, is two little closets in the front here. So that's where we're proposing to go out to increase that. The added bedroom bath would be over the existing garage right here,which would be accessed from the first floor with a new set of stairs here. Because I can't see it. So, here's the proposed plans. Off of the first floor here,we're going to reconfigure with the laundry and a set of stairs up to a second bedroom with a bath. And then on the second floor for the master, really increase the master bath, and then walk in closet to make the little more livable for the bedroom. The, this proposal requires a variance for the maximum allowable gross floor area, which is 3,307.9 square feet,we need a variance of 324.1 square feet, which is a 9.8%variance. As I said, the master bedroom, there's like no closets and the bathrooms very small. So that's why we proposed to add that. And then as far as the added bedroom and bath. That was, that was, came about because of a need for the Wiener to have their parents over as they're getting older and need some assistance or looking for a place for them to have a separate area for themselves. The second floor addition that juts out is approximately 107 square feet,which that alone would meet the FAR area. So, the addition of the bedroom puts us over at the 324 square feet. And that fits over the existing footprint of the garage. And we feel like that doing it this way we minimize any effects on the character of the neighborhood in its environment. And we feel that it fits in with the neighborhood. If you have any questions,we'll see if we can answer them. Don Moscato Stephen, are you cantilevering that on the second floor bump out is that cantilevered out? Or is there something underneath that? -45- Transcribed by https://otter.ai Steve Marchesani No,it's open underneath. There's a support column in the existing wall below. It's not cantilevered. But it's open underneath. Don Moscato Okay. Thank you. Michael Izzo You have an elevation drawing that Steve,you can bring up,I think it's on page A-2. Steve Marchesani So, this is the proposed addition over the garage. Now if you notice in the picture, the existing garage has a 12 foot wall,which we cut down to eight to accommodate the second floor addition. Look at from the side, this is the addition right here. And it's also set back from the existing footprint. So,it's not, it doesn't line up exactly with the footprints a little less than the footprint. And on the rear, this would be the addition on the rear supported with two columns here and juts out seven feet this way here from the side. Don Moscato Okay, so it's going to be a seven foot extend, extension on that side. Steve Marchesani On the back. Yes. Don Moscato Good. Thank you for that clarification. Okay, any board members have a question of the architect. Steve Berger I have nothing. Joel Simon Nothing from me. Don Moscato Jaime, Glenn? -46- Transcribed by https://otter.ai Jamie Schutzer Nope. Glenn Brettschneider Very thorough. Don Moscato Okay. You know, the square footage is slightly over the R-15.And as a result, it is a relatively small lot. And the variances 9.8% which sort of is below the 10%. So, my question would be, do you guys consider this to be a substantial variance? Joel Simon I do. Don Moscato What is that somebody wants to get in? Joel Simon It was Jamie, that was Jamie beeping in. Jamie Schutzer My brand new computer. So, I was never going to get kicked out of a zoom again, decided to do its updates about 15 minutes ago, and I've been on my phone. Don Moscato Now I can imagine that, that happened to me, it's shut my audio off automatically. So, I don't know,what was. the is this? Steve,would you say that,is this the smallest possible variance that would meet the applicants need?And if it is not?Where would you seek a reduction? If any, at all? Steve Marchesani Well, I don't know that we really could I mean,we're kind of at the smallest we can go for the bedroom to include a bath and closet. Don Moscato Because that would be the, obviously the logical place would be that bump out. And I just want to make sure that any reduction will not take away from the functionality that you're trying to achieve. -47- Transcribed by https://otter.ai Steve Marchesani Right. Oh,yeah, on the rear one. Because the existing bedroom, right now has two little closets that are like, on the other side of the window. I can show you that plan again if I can find it. Well, this is the finished one. But these two closets are the only two closets in a room. And the existing bathrooms just in this little area here. So, to make it workable for a master bedroom, needs to get much more closet and a better bathroom to make it work. Don Moscato And what are the square footage of that particular area? In and of itself? Steve Marchesani 107 square feet is what we're adding. Don Moscato Okay, so your total square footage is 324. And that would be about 1/3 of the of the total request. Is that correct? Steve Marchesani Well actually the total request is 324 square feet,which is basically what this bedroom and bath is. We had a little leeway of about 100 feet. The existing house was 100 feet under that 3300. Don Moscato Okay, okay. Gotcha. All right. Jamie Schutzer Don, I may miss this before because I was on my phone. The bump out on the second floor. Right? What what's going to be underneath? Is there just does that just empty space? Steve Marchesani Yeah, that's going to be, that's just open with, yeah, it's open underneath. We have two windows in the, I think it was the living room over there. Don Moscato The living room? Steve Marchesani Yeah, then from the side,you can see it's seven feet out. So,it's not that far. Really. -48- Transcribed by https://otter.ai Jamie Schutzer I mean,is there any, guys,is there anything we need to be concerned about, like ever doing underneath there? Don Moscato It would require a GFA increase. Jamie Schutzer Okay. Don Moscato That would be subject to a conditioning also if we felt a little uncomfortable with that proposal. Stephen,would you,would the applicant be amenable to that? Steve Marchesani What as a condition you mean? Don Moscato Yes. I mean,it's a redundant condition, but. Steve Marchesani Yeah, as I said,we'd have to come back anyway. But I would say we are okay with that. Don Moscato Okay. Would the board members feel comfortable putting that condition on also? Jamie Schutzer I'm fine with that. Don Moscato Yeah. Okay, me too. Glenn. How about you? Glenn Brettschneider Yeah, I'm fine. Don Moscato All right. All right.Joel, are you okay with that? -49- Transcribed by https:Hotter.ai Joel Simon I'm fine with that. Don Moscato Okay,very good. So, Stephen regard with,we'll condition any variance with no, no boxing in that bottom, bottom section there, even though it will require going through, but what it does is it sends a signal to a potential future owner, that there is a significant hurdle there. From the board, from the existing board. That would be the logic for one wanting to put that in there. Okay. Is there anyone who wants to speak in favor the application?Anyone want to speak against the application? Mickey, have we received any information from any of the neighbors based on the notification? Michael Izzo The building department has not. Don Moscato Okay. All right. There being none, can I have a motion to close the public hearing? seconded? Okay, public hearing is closed. Okay,we're looking at a 9.8%variance. Let me pull the resolution up here. This is 18. Okay, so as I read this, Mickey, are you aware of any water issues at Boxwood? Michael Izzo No Don, I am not. Don Moscato Okay. All right. So,we're comfortable that there is no environmental or character issues on those two factors from the board members, it's self-created, and we'll consider this a substantial variance and it's self-created. So, let me go through with the resolution unless somebody wants to comment on, before I go to the resolution, are you comfortable with the five factors? Yes, yeah. Okay. RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Matthew Wiener & Erica Wiener (the "Applicants") for a gross floor area variance of 324.1 square feet where the maximum allowable gross floor area is 3,307.9 pursuant to Village Code § 250-20.E,in connection with the proposed front and rear second story additions, on property located at 18 Boxwood Place, in an R-15 zoning district on the east side of Boxwood Place, approximately 100 feet from the - 50- Transcribed by https://otter.ai intersection of Lawridge Drive and Boxwood Place. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID# 129.67-1-20; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held April 6, 2021, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and WHEREAS, the public hearing was closed on April 6, 2021; and WHEREAS, the proposed action is a Type II action pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act and accordingly, no further environmental review is required; and WHEREAS, the Board, from the application, after viewing the premises and neighborhood concerned, and upon considering each of the factors set forth in Village Code § 250-13(G)(b)[2][a]- [e] of the Rye Brook Code, finds: 1) The variance WILL NOT create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood; 2) The benefit the Applicants seek CANNOT be achieved through another method, feasible for the Applicants to pursue, that does not require the variance; 3) The variance IS substantial; 4) The variance WILL NOT create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and 5) The need for the variance IS self-created. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the said application for a gross floor area variance of 324.1 square feet where the maximum allowable gross floor area is 3,307.9 pursuant to Village Code § 250-20.E, in connection with the proposed front and rear second story additions, on property located at 18 Boxwood Place, is hereby GRANTED on the following conditions: - 51 - Transcribed by https://otter.ai 1) No permit or certificate of occupancy shall be issued until the Applicants have paid in full all application and consultant fees incurred by the Village in connection with the review of this application. Don Moscato And secondly, Drew you want to give us that condition. Drew Gamils 2) The area located under the seven-foot portion of the second-story addition in the rear of shall remain open and unenclosed. Don Moscato Okay, are we all comfortable with that board?Yes. Okay, good. Let's vote Stephen. Steve Berger Yes. Don Moscato Glenn? Glenn Brettschneider Yes. Don Moscato Jamie? Jamie Schutzer Yes. Don Moscato Joel? Joel Simon Yes. Don Moscato - 52- Transcribed by https:Hotter.ai Don, Don Yes. Application approved five years to zero nays. Congratulations. And thank you for the presentation. Steve Marchesani Thank you very much. Don Moscato Let me, let me ask my colleagues now. It is approaching 10 o'clock. Can I get a sense of two things, your stamina? And secondly, do you want to continue with the remaining applications at this particular point in time? Let the record note that David had to leave in order, as he indicated earlier, can I Steve, are you comfortable? Steve Berger I'm comfortable going for a while. Don Moscato Okay.Joel, how about you? Joel Simon Past my bedtime, but I'll go for a bit. Don Moscato Okay, Glenn? Glenn Brettschneider Never felt better. Don Moscato Okay. And,Joel, how about you? Joel Simon You asked me already. I'm good. Jamie Schutzer You asked Joel. Don Moscato Jamie? - 53- Transcribed by https:Hotter.ai Jamie Schutzer I'm fine with it. But when you say go a little bit,I mean, are we talking about just, just to be fair, because we have two more items. So, to be fair to the last one. I mean, and this next one looks like 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 terms of this will be the last one, or were we going to try to plow through it. I just want to be fair. #21-004 1.6. Joseph Sullivan& Tracey Sullivan 82 Tamarack Road Legalize the one-story detached garage constructed under Building Permit #698 dated 3/22/1954. Don Moscato Well,we're looking at a deck coverage ratio of 0.14%variance, there is substantial documentation prepared by attorney Palmer.And I commend him for the thoroughness of the application,which is normal experience coming from Cuddy&Feder. So, from our past experience, I think we all can concur. What I would recommend, okay, and because the documentation was so thorough, and in my opinion,in my opinion, the deck coverage issue is de minimis. And I would be willing to skip over that whole discussion. Once I go through the factors and indicate that I don't think it's a problem with any of the factors, considering it has been there. With respect to the C of O, for the detached garage. I also, and the side yard setback associated with that, given that it is been there for quite some time. And I don't think we have any concerns from the neighbors. I would be willing to entertain an expeditious resolution of these two. These two variances,if the board concurs. How do we feel about that, Steve? Steve Berger I'm okay. I mean, I would like to see what you get through it because there are people at the end who have been waiting all night. I hate to see them have to wait another month, so I'd be inclined to try to plow through it. Don Moscato Okay, are you comfortable with the expeditious nature that I propose? Yes,yes, I am.Joel, how about you? Joel Simon I'm thrilled with the suggestions. I think it's the first time ever heard of an expeditious method from you, Don, and I'm happy to hear it. - 54- Transcribed by https://otter.ai Don Moscato No, I mean, I read through all of these. Joel Simon I'm kidding. I Jamie Schutzer He's teasing you, Don. Joel Simon I agree with everything you said. Don Moscato Okay,very good, Glenn. Glenn Brettschneider I'm fine with that. I'm actually glad I read the, all the documentation. And I think it's a great idea. Don Moscato Okay, and the party pooper Jamie,what do you think? Jamie Schutzer I'm all for it. I was hoping Taylor was going to read all his letters. But,you know,we could skip that. Don Moscato You know, I appreciate the section that discusses what our responsibilities are. And I want to set the record straight, that I am not skirting those responsibilities. I am just indicating that the presentation was so thorough and so clear, that in my mind,I think that the folks are trying to sell their house. And they're doing it the right way by tidying up things, and I think we should just expedite this. Now Drew, I am going to need one piece of advice from you. And that is, I would prefer not to have to read the entire resolution. I will recognize there are two resolutions. And what I'd like to do is identify the resolution, number one, and then go directly to the five factors and then go to the vote and then go to the second one. Is that, are you comfortable with that? Drew Gamils Yes, as long as we discussed the factors, that is the most important part,you do not need to read the resolution just mentioned what the variance is for. - 55- Transcribed by https://otter.ai Don Moscato Okay, that's what I was going to do. Okay. Very good. Taylor Palmer If I may, Mr. Chairman, just and I'm sorry to interrupt. I appreciate all that being said. But we would ask that the hearing be open and... Drew Gamils Oh, N-es. Taylor Palmer Making sure we open the hearing for any other comments in addition to the letters of support and for the record,Taylor Palmer with Cuddy& Feder, thank you. Drew Gamils That was going be the next thing Don was going say. Glenn Brettschneider What's the thing around Taylor's neck? Taylor Palmer Extension of my beard? Glenn Brettschneider I remember those. Okay. Don Moscato It's been a long time. Right, Glenn?Yeah. Okay. Is there?This is in reference to the application, which I did. I think I did read it, didn't I? I think,I think I read it. Drew Gamils Read it again Don. Don Moscato Yeah, it's at 82 Tamarack and it's this one that I'm dealing with here. I'm not going to read the resolution. I'm going to ask if anybody wants to speak in favor of this application. Anyone want to - 56- Transcribed by https://otter.ai speak against this application? This is for the deck coverage ratio. And the two side yard setback variance of 1.5 feet. Now, Mickey, do we have any letters in support of this? Michael Izzo We do Don,we have a plethora of letters from all the concerned neighbors. I think there's seven. Taylor am I correct? Taylor Palmer Yes. We have six letters of support from Michael Izzo Six. Taylor Palmer Yep. Neighbors in the in the area. Michael Izzo Yes,we do all neighbors around 75 Tamarack, 78 Tamarack, 79 Tamarack, 80 Tamarack, 81 Tamarack and 84 Tamarack. Steve Berger And no one against is that correct? Michael Izzo All in support?Yes. Glenn Brettschneider They really want them to move out. Don Moscato Thank you for that comment. We'd never know would we. Okay,let me go ahead and identify I mentioned the two particular items and this one is Parcel ID 135.52-3-9.And it has a non- conforming deck coverage of 3.597%. The proposed deck will result in a deck coverage of 3.64%. We had opened the public hearing and I should say, can I have a motion to close the public hearing? So, move. Second, second. public hearing is closed. Okay. Let me go through the quickly the five factors. I don't think we're going to affect the character or the environmental conditions of the neighborhood. So eloquently stated by counsel for the applicant. Would you consider the - 57- Transcribed by https://otter.ai variances to be substantial? 0.14%. And the other one is a 1.4 foot variance over a base five. So,I guess that one would be considered substantial. Glenn Brettschneider Yeah. Yeah, on a percentage basis. Yes. Don Moscato Yeah. Okay. And there's not a way to meet the applicant's needs other than the proposed variances and the need for the variances are self-created. Are we comfortable with those five factors in this resolution? Yes,yes. Okay. All right.Let me then read those five factors. Formally. The variances will not create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood. The benefit the applicant sees cannot be achieved through another method feasible for the applicants to pursue that does not require the variances, the variances are collectively substantial. The variances will not create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood.And five, the need for the variance is self-created. Now, therefore, be it resolved that what I just said before is appropriate, and is provisionally granted subject to the later vote, no permit, a certificate of occupancy shall be issued until the applicants have paid in full. All application and consultant fees incurred by the village in connection with the review of this application. I'm assuming we're not going to condition any of these. With any additional conditions, am I comfortable in assuming that, yes? Okay. Let's have a vote then. Steve? Steve Berger Yes. Don Moscato Glenn? Glenn Brettschneider Yes. Don Moscato Jamie? Jamie Schutzer Yes. Don Moscato Joel? - 58- Transcribed by https://otter.ai Joel Simon Yes. Don Moscato Don?Yes. Okay, application for the variances approved five years is zero nays. Okay,very good. You see what good planning does gentlemen. Good plan works all the time. RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Joseph Sullivan &Tracey Sullivan (the "Applicants")for(1) deck coverage variance of 0.14 %where the maximum allowable deck coverage is 3.5%pursuant to Village Code § 250-37.B, and(2)a total of two side yards setback variance of 1.5 feet where the minimum required total of two side yards setback is 20 feet pursuant to Village Code § 250-23.G(2)(b), in connection with the proposed legalization of the rear deck and screen porch, on property located at 82 Tamarack Road,in an R-7 zoning district on the west side of Tamarack Road, approximately 150 feet from the intersection of Argyle Road and Tamarack Road. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID# 135.52-3-9; and Whereas,the property has an existing non-conforming deck coverage of 3.597% and the proposed deck repairs will result in a deck coverage of 3.64%; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held April 6, 2021, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and WHEREAS,the public hearing was closed on April 6, 2021; and WHEREAS,the proposed action is a Type II action pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act and accordingly,no further environmental review is required; and WHEREAS, the Board, from the application, after viewing the premises and neighborhood concerned, and upon considering each of the factors set forth Village Code § 250-13(G)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brook Code, finds: - 59- Transcribed by https://otter.ai 1) The variances WILL NOT create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood; 2) The benefit the Applicants seek CANNOT be achieved through another method, feasible for the Applicants to pursue,that does not require the variances; 3) The variances ARE substantial; 4) The variances WILL NOT create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and 5) The need for the variances IS self-created. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the said application for (1) deck coverage variance of 0.14%where the maximum allowable deck coverage is 3.5%pursuant to Village Code § 250- 37.13, and (2) a total of two side yards setback variance of 1.5 feet where the minimum required total of two side yards setback is 20 feet pursuant to Village Code § 250-23.G(2)(b), in connection with the proposed legalization of the rear deck and screen porch, on property located at 82 Tamarack Road, is hereby GRANTED on the following conditions: 1) No permit or certificate of occupancy shall be issued until the Applicants have paid in full all application and consultant fees incurred by the Village in connection with the review of this application. #21-021 1.7. Joseph Sullivan &Tracey Sullivan 82 Tamarack Road Legalize rear deck and screen porch. Don Moscato Okay, now we have another one sitting out there. Let me just okay. This one is for the second variance, same property Parcel ID 135.52-3-9 opening the public hearing. This is for the legalization of the one story detached garage, constructed under building permit number 698 dated March 22, 1954, property located at 82 Tamarack Road and an R-7 zoning district. And this particular application I presume,Mickey those same people are consenting to both of these. Resolution. - 60- Transcribed by https://otter.ai Michael Izzo Yes. Don. There. There are two overlapping issues one with a deck and then a sunroom that was built underneath the deck. Don Moscato Right. Right. Okay,good. And board members? Well,not board members, anyone online who wants to speak in favor in addition to those received requests? Speak in favor or against the application? Okay, motion to close the public hearing. Moved. Seconded. Okay,public hearing is closed. Once again, I thank counsel for the very thorough work done on this application allowing us to take unprecedented action and moving forward on this type of an application at this at this state. Drew Gamils Don't say unprecedented Don,just expedited a little bit. Don Moscato Okay, I like that. Thank you for what the heck just happened to my darn screen here. Drew Gamils We can hear you pretty good, though. Don Moscato Okay, it's connecting again evidently it kicked me out. I guess you must have hit the button to get me out of there. Okay, back on. Okay, let me go through the five factors, then. It seems like once again, it is close to the property line, but you know,it has been there and the C of O wants to be closed out so that they can sell the property,it will not create an adverse impact to the character and it will not create any adverse environmental concerns. The variance is self-created and is substantial. And it is the smallest possible variance short of chopping the thing down. So, are we comfortable with that my interpretation of those five factors? Yes. Okay,let me go ahead and read the resolution. Once again,Parcel ID 135.52-3-9. The public hearing was opened on the sixth of April 2021. Closed, same day is a type two action, no further review is necessary. And following the five factors, the variance will not create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood to the benefit the applicant seeks cannot be achieved to another method feasible for the applicants to pursue that does not require the variance. Variances is substantial. The variance will not create an adverse impact to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. And the need for the variance is self-created. Now, therefore, be it resolved, that the resolution is provisionally granted subject to no permit or certificate of occupancy shall be issued until the applicants have paid in full. All application and consultant fees incurred by the Village in connection with the review of this application. Okay, are we comfortable with that? Ready to vote?Yes. Okay, Steve? - 61 - Transcribed by https://otter.ai Steve Berger Yes. Don Moscato Glenn? Glenn Brettschneider Yes. Don Moscato Jamie? Jamie Schutzer Yes. Don Moscato Joel? Joel Simon Yes. Don Moscato Don?Yes. Application approved five yeses, zero nay. Congratulations. And thank you very much for that. Excellent and complete presentation. RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Joseph Sullivan &Tracey Sullivan (the "Applicants")for(1) deck coverage variance of 0.14 %where the maximum allowable deck coverage is 3.5%pursuant to Village Code § 250-37.B, and(2)a total of two side yards setback variance of 1.5 feet where the minimum required total of two side yards setback is 20 feet pursuant to Village Code § 250-23.G(2)(b), in connection with the proposed legalization of the rear deck and screen porch, on property located at 82 Tamarack Road,in an R-7 zoning district on the west side of Tamarack Road, approximately 150 feet from the intersection of Argyle Road and Tamarack Road. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID# 135.52-3-9; and Whereas,the property has an existing non-conforming deck coverage of 3.597% and the proposed deck repairs will result in a deck coverage of 3.64%; and - 62- Transcribed by https://otter.ai WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held April 6, 2021, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and WHEREAS,the public hearing was closed on April 6, 2021; and WHEREAS,the proposed action is a Type II action pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act and accordingly,no further environmental review is required; and WHEREAS, the Board, from the application, after viewing the premises and neighborhood concerned, and upon considering each of the factors set forth Village Code § 250-13(G)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brook Code, finds: 1) The variances WILL NOT create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood; 2) The benefit the Applicants seek CANNOT be achieved through another method, feasible for the Applicants to pursue,that does not require the variances; 3) The variances ARE substantial; 4) The variances WILL NOT create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and 5) The need for the variances IS self-created. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the said application for (1) deck coverage variance of 0.14%where the maximum allowable deck coverage is 3.5%pursuant to Village Code § 250- 37.13, and (2) a total of two side yards setback variance of 1.5 feet where the minimum required total of two side yards setback is 20 feet pursuant to Village Code § 250-23.G(2)(b), in connection with the proposed legalization of the rear deck and screen porch, on property located at 82 Tamarack Road, is hereby GRANTED on the following conditions: 3) No permit or certificate of occupancy shall be issued until the Applicants have paid in full all application and consultant fees incurred by the Village in connection with the review of this application. - 63- Transcribed by https://otter.ai Taylor Palmer Thank you very much. We like to thank the Village professionals as well,Ms. Gamils and Mr. Izzo for their help putting these things together and coordinating that. So,we appreciate all of your time and your time this evening. Say safe everybody. Don Moscato Thank you very much. Drew Gamils Thank you. 1.8. #21-001 Robert Wilk& Haley Wilk 16 Birch Lane Construct an in-ground swimming pool with pool patio,pool equipment, pool fence and wood deck. Don Moscato Okay, the next application is item number 21-001. Robert Wilk Haley Wilk 16 Birch Lane, construct an inground swimming pool,with pool patio,pool equipment,pool fencing and wood deck. Okay. Is this going to be Chris making the presentation? Daniel Sherman No, Dan Sherman. Don Moscato Okay, Dan Sherman. Okay, fire away. Daniel Sherman Well, thanks for persisting. It's a long evening, but you guys are moving right along. So, Dan Sherman here for Robert and Haley Wilk at 16 Birch Lane. And we received a notice of disapproval from Mike Izzo, dated February 25, citing that we needed three variances for the pool on this property. So, if I can share my screen, I can show you the survey first. Then I have the site plan. And then I made an exhibit that shows other pools in the neighborhood. Oops, I have to move you over here. So here is the survey. And you'll see why the first and third are. Glenn Brettschneider I'm not seeing a survey, but I'm seeing a really nice pool. - 64- Transcribed by https://otter.ai Daniel Sherman That was my cottage, that was the lake. Oh, so this is the property on the end of the cul de sac of Birch Lane, and it backs up against the cul de sac of Red Roof Drive. So that's why it has two front yards. So, the first variance, first notice of disapproval is that no pool, or associated structures of equipment shall be located in any front yard. So,we're requesting that we are permitted to put a pool on this lot in what really is the rear yard. We're not putting it in the front yard where it's addresses on birch lane but treating the Red Roof back as the rear yard. And the third one is similar. It's about the 35% coverage in a front yard. And we're asking if this be treated as a rear yard. So that's the first and second first and third. The second one is a lot coverage thing and we're a little 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 still when we use the formula,we come out 1000 square feet over the lot coverage. And so, I'll show you the site plan so you can see how it looks. Here is the site plan. This always happens to me; I turn the drawing blue. Anyway. So, you can see this the drive existing driveway existing front walk existing house, there's a deck and a patio, there isn't anything I can really take away from that. 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 drawing. But this is the drawing from the engineer. And I just have a pool, a deck that's 12 feet deep to put some chairs but we didn't put any other additional deck and this does meet the rear yard requirement if it was treated as a rear yard and the filter also meets the 15 foot rear yard if it would be treated as a rear yard. I made an exhibit, one last thing to show you and then I'll take questions. I made this exhibit looking up the different lots around. We looked at all the properties on that same loop that have pools. And our lot is the largest of this. The Wilk's lot is the largest of all the ones with pools and so I made this little exhibit here, they're number 16. And there it's 7.2% over the allowable. This is the total lot coverage, not the impermeable surface. The one next door is 11% 11.6 over number 12 Birch Lane is 7.3 over number 4 Birch Lane is right on, it's exactly right. And number five is 6.1 over so and then over on Red Roof, number 20 Red Roof Drive is 5.2 over and 22 of the lot was smaller, that's under actually. But it sort of shows in our mind precedent that of the in this neighborhood,the lots with the pools,we have the larger lot of all of these, and we aren't really any more than the 11, or the seven or the eight. So, the five, I mean, so we feel that,you know,it's not going to crowd the lot,it just happens to be technically over on the lot coverage. And that's really the main requests for variance we're requesting. So, anything else I can add to explain it? Don Moscato No,you have opted, by the way that I take exception to one comment you made in your application. And that was that when a person purchases their property one of the realizations of living in Rye Brook is that you have, when you're a corner property,you have two front yards. And that is not, you just can't say it's really a rear yard, you have to recognize the statute and the bulk standard and then go from there. In other words,you just can't say,it's a rear, it's really a rear lot. - 65- Transcribed by https://otter.ai It's a two front yard lot. And when the founding fathers and mothers created the bulk standards, they deliberately made that the case. So that means anyone who lives in a corner lot must live by that bulk standard. They can request relief in terms of a zoning relief, but they must recognize that they do have front yards and there are requirements for those two front yards. So, I'm saying that in a pleasant way, not in an adversarial way. Daniel Sherman A variance request would be that we'd be asking to put place a pool in a front yard not that we treat it as a rear yard. Don Moscato 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 trying to balance the factors against that realization, because you're not the first person in a corner lot that's come before this. And oftentimes, the argument is always the same. Why am I so handcuffed by this bulk standard?And the fact is, there are certain advantages to a corner lot. But one of the disadvantages in Rye Brook is that you've got two front yards. And as a result, that limits you to some extent of what you can do. Now, the Planning Board,you went before the Planning Board, they referred this to the zoning board. And in their referral, they indicated that, I want to,I 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 the of the packet. So let me just scroll to it. I want to get the exact wording of it. And they have a different responsibility than we do. And we recognize that difference and we applaud that difference.They do say though, at the bottom of the of the resolution, let me see if I can refer to it. Oh yeah, consideration should be given to the fact that two of the variances result from the classification of front yard. Practically speaking the proposed pool is in the rear of the home at 16 Birch Lane, appears to be vegetatively screened from view from Red Roof. And second consideration should be given to whether the size and scope of the pool and pool patio and walkways can be reduced to reduce or eliminate the impervious surface coverage variances. So, to my fellow board members that that appears to be the issue. I'm not, I don't have a problem with it being a front yard slash rear yard interpretation. My question is, are we comfortable with the size of the pool, and the other changes being made surrounding that pool with respect to the stone patio and the wood deck stairs?The other thing I would raise is that that impervious coverage is quite large at 22% of a variance. And I know that my first blush reaction was,wow,that's awfully large a request.And so that's where I'm coming from. And I just want to get that out of there to see how my colleagues feel about that. In terms of the size of the impervious coverage. Steve Berger If I may, I'd like to ask Mickey,what's the water situation in this location? - 66- Transcribed by https://otter.ai Michael Izzo Well, historically speaking, the development at Red Roof caused a myriad of water problems, stormwater problems. It was constructed and mostly completed before I started my tenure at the Village.But I was, I was involved in the results of the lack of planning for this development. So much so that during one rainstorm,it actually flooded the then mayor's house, to the extent that it knocked his air conditioning units off their mounts, and they wind up in the neighbor's yard down downstream, I suppose you could say, but there has been significant improvement in the drainage over the years. And in the recent drainage upgrade on Ridge Street undertaken by the County of Westchester. Much of that has been ameliorated. But the Red Roof area is traditionally a drainage issue. But it is before the Planning Board. The Planning Board is dealing with the drainage and the impervious issues as far as that goes. I'm not sure to what extent they're able to mitigate this. I have not reviewed the tapes from the Planning meetings. But that's the story of the Red Roof development. Steve Berger And that was my understanding that red roof was a problem area regarding drainage. I, I don't have an issue, and I'm going with what Don was saying as to the back lot front lot, but concerns. My concern is the amount of the impervious and whether or not other neighbors have large impervious areas. I don't know what they've done regarding drainage. I would, I would think that here, given the amount of impervious we're talking about the size of the lot, they would need to be some sort of remediation in place to ensure that we're not creating or adding to a problem. Daniel Sherman This is a drainage plan that Chris Utschig prepared. It shows three cultic chambers and he has review this with Mike Izzo. And it will go back to the Planning Board still and then through engineering. Don Moscato How far did the Planning Board go in reviewing the drainage issues before they kicked it over to us? At zoning? How far was that discussion? Daniel Sherman Well, I know Mike Izzo and Chris talked privately about it or in the office and so the board was comfortable that Mike Izzo was working with Chris on that. But I know that Mike and Chris have a good relationship of making sure the solution works out. So, Chris is doing this. - 67- Transcribed by https://otter.ai Michael Izzo I think Chris has been in contact with my colleague, Mike Nowak. Yeah, he's the engineer and he's the one, he's the key player here, as far as designing a code compliant and feasible drainage system, I'm not part of that discussion. Daniel Sherman Oh, that's right. Wrong Mike Sorry about that.And the pool is 16 by 32, I had to open my other drawing, because it's not labeled here. But that's a pretty, relatively small moderate pool of 16 by 32. Steve Berger Nothing else in terms of the deck area or other areas that can be reduced or eliminated to decrease the impervious? Daniel Sherman Well,we've gone over it several times,when I consider the idea of making the patio be squares of stone with grass joints. I didn't really discuss that with the Wilks but that would reduce it a little bit. But there's only just a walking space on the left and right and nothing on the south side. So, it's just a, and you have. Steve Berger Nothing else on the property. Daniel Sherman No, I mean, I looked at the driveway ends up in this sort of tight Hammerhead, and nothing else there on the, I didn't find anything,I mean we had. Steve Berger My main concern is the drainage. Daniel Sherman This is the results of two or three reductions already? Steve Berger If the drainage issue has been handled by the Planning Board. I'm less concerned than if it wasn't. Daniel Sherman Well,it is yes. - 68- Transcribed by https://otter.ai Steve Berger Yeah, no, I hear you. Don Moscato Steve their lot size is 21,857 square feet. So, it's an R-15 zone, and it's well above the limitation of 15,000 square feet. So, they do have space. You know, they do have, they do have a space,it's just that it's the impervious coverage is taken up quite a bit, and the front yard impervious coverage, you know, I'm willing to forgive the front yard aspect of things. It's the second variance that is causing me some concern. Steve Berger Don,let me ask you question and excuse my ignorance, the purpose of the impervious coverage. Or,you know, the conservative on the impervious coverage is drainage, correct? Don Moscato And no, not necessarily, because in this particular case, maybe less so. But you can have somebody, and we've had applications, where their entire backyard was essentially paved over with impervious coverage. And, you know,it sort of looks like in New York City, you know, apartments rather than the green scape that we have in Rye Brook. So,it's not always just the water,it's sometimes it's the visual impact of having,you know, no green space in your backyard, but it's totally covered. Steve Berger No, I hear you and I'm going to play devil's advocate just for a second. And I'm going take the position that if we're dealing with two issues as to impervious one is the aesthetics,which I don't think in this backyard,given the size is really an issue. And the second is drainage,which if that's being handled by Planning Board, then supposedly that's not going to be an issue. If those two things are handled like that. I then don't see. I'm saying I don't know if there really is a concern. This is an area where it's an aesthetic issue. Don Moscato No, I see. I see where you're coming from and I concur. I concur with the aesthetic part of it. And that's that partially can be mitigated by the vegetation on the Red Roof side, shielding it and I think that was that was commented on in the in the proposal that I remember reading that there's quite a bit of vegetation cover, shielding that Red Roof side the pool from the streetscape. - 69- Transcribed by https://otter.ai Daniel Sherman And Red Roof, excuse me,is also like six feet down. So,if you drive the loop around Red Roof Drive, you can't see up into this yard, not only through all the Evergreen vegetation, but that the lawn is six feet higher. So, you can't see up into it. Don Moscato Yeah,if I'm not mistaken,we had that issue. It may have been on Old Orchard I'm not sure Mickey but remember a while ago, somebody wanted something that was elevated, and I know the board wrestled with that. The Planning Board though did issue the issue of did make a point of pool patio and walkways can be reduced the scope of the pool and the patio being reduced. So that is under our purview if we feel uncomfortable about that, but that's an individual board member decision that each person would have to would have to wrestle with. So, but I take your,your comments, and,you know, I believe there well taken. I do. Mickey, there was a concern and a letter that was received. But that seems to be a construction management issue. Can you just comment on that for the record to make sure we touch on all the bases on this? Michael Izzo Sure thing,Mr. Chairman, I received a letter today from Mr. Haskell at 22 Red Roof Drive. And he raised concerns about just what you said, the construction management aspect of the job. And, obviously, that's nothing that the applicant's representative can speak on because he's not going to be involved in the construction of the, you know, the actual day to day construction operations, it's going to be that of the contractor. So, his issues are around the construction management. And I'll quote the last sentence from Mr. Haskell, he starts I appreciate you addressing this question. And my concern is during the meeting, that's the Planning Board meeting, assuming the owners are adequate and appropriate and appropriately addressing all these concerns,which are all construction management concerns. I have no issue with the general application for a pool. Don Moscato Okay, thanks. Thank you. Mr. Sherman. Were you aware of that letter? Daniel Sherman No, I had not known of that. Don Moscato Oh, okay. All right, fine. So - 70- Transcribed by https://otter.ai Daniel Sherman I got a call from one neighbor. But they just didn't know,we had sent the notices by registered by certified mail like we have to do in Scarsdale. And he was concerned why he got a certified letter. And when I said it was for a pool, he said, Oh, okay. He just wasn't sure why you got a certified letter. Don Moscato Okay, good. So, the more people who expressed those concerns to the applicant regarding the sensitivity of the construction process, I think that would be that would be helpful they'd be sensitive to some concerns that were raised. Michael Izzo We could forward the letter to whoever you want. Don Moscato Let me see. Is there anyone online who wants to speak in favor of the application?Anyone want to speak against the application? Okay, anyone have a question? Additional questions of the of the architect. Okay, there being none. Can I have a motion to close the public hearing? Okay. All right, let's, this is a big application. And I just want to make sure that even though it's a late hour, I think we've moved very well up to this point. But I would like to give it the appropriate review and make sure that everybody expresses their particular perspective on this. So,let's go down the line. Now. Steve, do you want to express your position on this application? Steve Berger You know,given that, not really, I think that,you know, the stormwater management issue is the big one. And I think that we raise concern about the construction management. And I don't have a problem with the front yard issue, so I'm okay. Don Moscato Okay, Glenn?Yeah, Glenn Brettschneider I'm fine with it. I actually did want to mention for a second the letter that Mickey referenced just and I don't know really what it meant, and if it has anything to do with us,but I did note in the beginning of his letter, since we're not reading it on,you know, tonight,it does mention almost like not in my backyard that the construction would be in the construction equipment would be going from the back yard,which is really a front yard where the pool and not from the front of his house, which normally is where you would enter a property from to go to the backyard.And so,you know, - 71 - Transcribed by https://otter.ai I'm not sure that he meant anything by that. But he, as I said, Mickey said, as he did end the letter it really had to do with, he's fine. As long as all his concerned about his young kids were addressed. I just wasn't sure what he was referring to with the, you know,was he complaining that it wasn't through the front? So, but other than that, I have no problems with the application. Don Moscato Okay,Jamie? Jamie Schutzer Yeah, I agree with Steve's comments as well, as long as you know, there's things that we discussed her being addressed, and I'm okay with it. Don Moscato Okay,Joel? Joel Simon Based on what I said earlier, I think that that there is I don't think there's an aesthetic issue, as long as the drainage issues have been being handled by the Planning Board,which I think makes this one probably worth it to have as a condition that is based upon an approved drainage management plan by the Planning Board. Don Moscato Okay, let me just depart for a second Drew. Is that within our is that within our purview to be able to condition it on what Joel just said? Drew Gamils Sorry, I forgot I was on mute. Yes. Because that pertains directly to the impervious surface variance. You know, I'd want to be a little bit broad to give the Planning Board and Mike Nowak some discretion, but we can definitely write something up. And they are currently working on the plan. So,it is appropriate. Don Moscato Okay, Mr. Sherman, are you comfortable with that condition? Daniel Sherman Yes. - 72- Transcribed by https://otter.ai Don Moscato Okay. Let me chime in my two cents here. I think that Joel's point about the aesthetics, I think is appropriate. And what I think is an important factor for me is that the square footage of this lot,is 6,100 square feet over the minimum. So, they do have quite a bit of real estate, considering it's an R- 15 zone. And I don't think it adds to excessive clutter on the part of this particular project. But I do consider the variance to be substantial for the impervious coverage. But I don't think it's enough to sway me to reject the application as presented in terms of I'm not going after a reduction of impervious coverage, because I think the water management plan is going to deal with that And that that is another factor that sways me in terms of supporting the application. Okay, let me go ahead and read the resolution with the proviso that the variances are substantial, and that they're self-created. How about is this the smallest variance that can be achieved that does not require the variances? you think it is?Everyone concurs on that one. Yeah. Okay. And the water, the environmental conditions will be dealt with through the water management issue. And I don't think it will affect the character of the neighborhood,given the screening and the elevation of the of the property. So let me go ahead and read this wrote resolution. RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Robert Wilk & Haley Wilk (the "Applicants") for (1) relief from Village Code § 224-7.13 which states that no pool or associated structures or equipment shall be located in any front yard as defined in Chapter 250, Zoning; (2) a Total Impervious Coverage variance of 1,578 square feet where the maximum allowable Total Impervious Coverage for this property is 7,005 square feet pursuant to Village Code § 250-37.C; and (3) a Front Yard Impervious Coverage variance of 4.2%where the maximum allowable Front Yard Impervious Coverage is 35% pursuant to Village Code 5 250-37.13, in connection with the proposed construction of an in-ground swimming pool and swimming pool patio in the front yard of the property at the Red Roof Drive elevation, at 16 Birch Lane, in an R-15 zoning district on the south east side of Birch Lane, approximately 600 feet from the intersection of Old Orchard Road and Birch Lane. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID# 135.43-1-5.28; and - 73 - Transcribed by https://otter.ai WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held April 6, 2021, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and WHEREAS, the public hearing was closed on April 6, 2021; and WHEREAS, the proposed action is a Type II action pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act and accordingly, no further environmental review is required; and WHEREAS, the Board, from the application, after viewing the premises and neighborhood concerned, and upon considering each of the factors set forth in Village Code § 250-13(G)(b)[2][a]- [e] of the Rye Brook Code, finds: 1) The variances WILL NOT create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood; 2) The benefit the Applicants seek CANNOT be achieved through another method, feasible for the Applicants to pursue, that does not require the variances; 3) The variances ARE substantial; 4) The variances WILL NOT create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and 5) The need for the variances IS self-created. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the said application for (1) relief from Village Code 5 224-7.D which states that no pool or associated structures or equipment shall be located in any front yard as defined in Chapter 250,Zoning; (2) a Total Impervious Coverage variance of 1,578 square feet where the maximum allowable Total Impervious Coverage for this property is 7,005 square feet pursuant to Village Code § 250-37.C; and (3) a Front Yard Impervious Coverage variance of 4.2% where the maximum allowable Front Yard Impervious Coverage is 35% pursuant to Village Code 5 250-37.D,in connection with the proposed construction of an in-ground swimming pool and swimming pool patio in the front yard of the property at the Red Roof Drive elevation, at 16 Birch Lane, is hereby GRANTED on the following conditions: - 74 - Transcribed by https:Hotter.ai 1) No permit or certificate of occupancy shall be issued until the Applicants have paid in full all application and consultant fees incurred by the Village in connection with the review of this application. Don Moscato Secondly, Drew, can you read that please? Drew Gamils 2) The Applicant shall prepare a stormwater management plan for the project,subject to review and approval by the Village Superintendent of Public Works. Don Moscato Okay. And so all right. Okay,where are we okay with that?Yes. Okay. Let's go ahead with the vote Steve? Steve Berger Yes. Don Moscato Okay. Glenn? Glenn Brettschneider Yes. Don Moscato Jamie? Jamie Schutzer Yes. Don Moscato Joel? Joel Simon Yes. - 75- Transcribed by https:Hotter.ai Don Moscato Don?Yes. Okay. Application approved five yeses, zero nays. No abstentions. Congratulations, and good luck before the Planning Board. All right. Thank you. Okay. All right, gentlemen. And Drew, thank you very much for the perseverance maintained our attention,which is always appreciated. There being no minutes. Michael Izzo There's no minutes. Drew Gamils Tara and I are working on them. We will have March's minutes for next month, maybe April's minutes as well. But you know,we're still on the transcripts. And the transcripts are very tricky. So be patient with us. Michael Izzo We are patient Drew Gamils I appreciate it. Don Moscato Mickey,what's ahead for May? Michael Izzo I'm sorry? Don Moscato What's ahead for May? Michael Izzo May,we have at least one on that I can think of right now. Don Moscato We have a referral from tonight. Right? Michael Izzo That's correct. - 76- Transcribed by https:Hotter.ai Steve Berger Wait, did we have, did Chris Scelfo have something on tonight? Did that. Michael Izzo He was here. Don Moscato I think he was working with Sherman on this one. Steve Berger Oh, he was? Michael Izzo Possibly. Steve Berger Oh Okay. Michael Izzo He left early though. Steve Berger Okay. Michael Izzo It's past his bedtime. Steve Berger Mine to. Glenn Brettschneider On that note,I'd like to move to adjourn. Don Moscato Thank you very much. Second that motion please. Okay, the committee is adjourned. Thank you very much, everyone, everybody. - 77 - Transcribed by https:Hotter.ai Mr. and Mrs. Matthew Wiener Vim' E WE[ .D MAR 3 0 2021 18 Boxwood Place Rye Brook,NY 10573 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BUILDING DEPARTMENT March 29, 2021 Village of Rye Brook Zoning Board of Appeals 938 King Street Rye Brook,NY 10573 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING Dear Mr. Michael lzzo, Matthew Wiener, property owner of 18 Boxwood Place attests to sending the Notice of Public Hearing mailings to the property owners within a 250 foot radius of his property on March 20`h, 2021, in accordance with the Village of Rye Brook zoning rules and regulations. Sworn to before me this 30 Day of .4/y� , 2021 SCOTT MENDELSOHN Notary Pub4c.State of New York Notary �c Rey.No.02ME6335400 4umwW in Westohestef County %<*kw4k GWmigsion E)OfeS 0111112024 Signature of Property Owner ha�+- ew Mcorer Print Name of Property Owner EB Mr. and Mrs. Matthew Wiener E C I M 18 Boxwood Place R i Rye Brook,NY 10573 MAR 3 O 2021 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK March 29, 2021 BUILDING DEPARTMENT" Village of Rye Brook Zoning Board of Appeals 938 King Street Rye Brook,NY 10573 AFFIDAVIT OF SIGN POSTING Dear Mr. Michael Izzo, Matthew Wiener, property owner of 18 Boxwood Place attests to posting the Public Notice sign on March 26", 2021, in accordance with the Village of Rye Brook zoning rules and regulations. Sworn to before me this 3 U Day of 2021 SCOTT MENDELSOHN Notary Public,State of New York Not Reg. No.02ME6335400 Qualified in Westchester County Commission Expires 0111112024 Signature of of Property Owner Print Name of Property Owner Melling Labels for Prwerry Addresses.Created from Municipal Tax parcel Viewer httD,//viswww westchesreroov com Minick Michele-Michael Minick Deutsch,Herbert-Judith Deutsch 19 Parkwood PI Lorys Thomas F-Lorraine Lorys 19 Boxwood PI 14 Parkwood PI PORT CHESTER, NY 10573 PORT CHESTER, NY 10573 PORT CHESTER, NY 10573 Biderman Eric A-Stephanie A Marino John-Katherine J Marino Biderman Keller,Jeanne 6 Boxwood PI 15 Parkwood PI 5 Boxwood PI PORT CHESTER, NY 10573 PORT CHESTER, NY 10573 PORT CHESTER, NY 10573 Toiler Luclana-Rodrigo Areas Toiler Paul,Robert-Janet Paul Joel Silverman RevocableTrust-Joel 68 Country Ridge Dr 1 Parkwood Pf Silverman PORT CHESTER, NY 10573 PORT CHESTER, NY 10573 52 Lawridge or PORT CHESTER, NY 10573 Levine,Mark-Alysa Levine Brown,Alison-Dan Brown De Marco,Carl-Lori De Marco 76 Country Ridge Dr 14 Boxwood PI 27 Boxwood PI PORT CHESTER, NY 10573 PORT CHESTER, NY 10573 PORT CHESTER, NY 10573 Paterno,Frank P-Mary Elizabeth Winston,John-Lisa Winston Paterno Steinberg,Julie-Mark Steinberg 23 Boxwood PI 10 Parkwood PI N PORT CHESTER,NY 10573 72 Country Ridge PORT CHESTER, NY 10573 PORT CHESTER, NY 10573 Schiller,Philip-Nancy Schiller Taub Daniel-Jessica Taub Goldstein Lee Matthew-Julie Elizabeth 84 Country Ridge Dr 9 Boxwood Pi Goldstein PORT CHESTER, NY 10573 PORT CHESTER, NY 10573 27 Lawridge Dr PORT CHESTER, NY 10573 Cohen,Jeremy-Jana Cohen Hecker,Joel L.-Loraine T Hecker Garber,Michael-Tracy Garber 6 Parkwood PI 80 Country Ridge Dr 15 Boxwood PI PORT CHESTER, NY 10573 PORT CHESTER, NY 10573 PORT CHESTER, NY 10573 Me Shubin-Wen He Wiener Matthew-Erica Wiener 10 Boxwood PI Sindell Matthew B-Deborah Miller 18 Boxwood PI Sindell PORT CHESTER, NY 10573 PORT CHESTER, NY 10573 2 Parkwood PI PORT CHESTER, NY 10573 Rietti,Giorgio-Susan Rietti Montvelisky Michel-Yvette Kohn Jeffrey-Jennifer Kohn 48 Lawridge Dr Montvelisky 5 Parkwood Pf PORT CHESTER,NY 10573 9 Parkwood PI PORT CHESTER, NY 10573 PORT CHESTER, NY 10573 Annis,Eileen-Howard Annis Bauer,Geoffrey J-Elana J Bernstein 31 Boxwood PI 44 Lawridge Dr PORT CHESTER,NY 10573 PORT CHESTER, NY 10573 Created on: 2/22/2021 Page 1 of 1 a N _ N � m -0 o � 0 Q Z •i /. �r 3 C d W W 3 10 ab O y �y ^ O O O C a U �v �a D v w - 7 c a' n in N m a, p a N m aE � m ctEC C W N r m3 Cl Sr- 2 as N� N U O a N C t m O N E'E0~� m amp X ° C mo ma'b O N M m m � o W v N ° n E coa��- c m °1mi,or HYA � 8 E� ymyC °� n aLNE � E .. -...._.. -. O mmN qm0.S O O � aE b �EZv CL a c N m 4L m o45 Q 2 a€'moc PC V More Data I Export Map I Print I Feedback I Start Over Rye Brook Tax Parcel Viewer (Data: 2019) Aerial Photos Hybrid Search by owner's name �"' + Tax Maps Printkey/TaXID: l 18 Boxwood Pi Search Parcel SBL: 12905900010010 Owner Name: Mariam Thomas - Appleman Mariam Owner ..................... Prop Address Printkey Section Map: 129,059 (pdf,42x3 Minick Michele- 19 Parkwood PI 129.67-1-45 Other Maps: Michael Minick Deutsch, Herbert- 19 Boxwood PI 129.59-1-24 Judith Deutsch r_ Mailing Labels Using: Property Add Lorys Thomas F- 14 Parkwood PI 129.67-1-41 For Buffer Distance 250 Ft (Max.10 Lorraine Lorys Biderman Eric A- ❑For adjacent parcels only Create Stephanie A 5 Boxwood PI 129.67-1-16 Biderman r Print Labels Marino John - Katherine J Marino 6 Boxwood PI 129.67-1-23 .=; Keller, Jeanne 15 Parkwood PI 129.67-1-46 _ Toiler re a- 68 Country Ridge Dr 129.59-1-20 Rodrigoo Areas Toller -x Paul, Robert-Janet Paul 1 Parkwood PI 129.67-1-49 Joel Silverman RevocableTrust-Joel 52 Lawridge Dr 129.59-1-48 r � Silverman , Levine, Mark-Alysa Levine 76 Country Ridge Dr 129.59-1-22 X a Brown,Alison- Dan �` U 14 Boxwood PI 129.67-1-21 Brown x _ De Marco, Carl- Lori r� V" De Marco 27 Boxwood PI 129.59-1-26 Paterno, Frank P- Mary Elizabeth 72 Country Ridge Dr 129.59-1-21 Paterno Winston, John-Lisa 23 B Winston Boxwood PI 129,59-1-25 1 Dorchester Dr ;. Steinberg, Julie- =' ,F- -.6 Mark Steinberg 10 Parkwood PI 129.67-1-40 !` ' Schiller, Philip- Nancy ` Schiller 84 Country Ridge Dr 129.67-1-12 Taub Daniel-Jessica 9 Boxwood PI 129.67-1-17 Taub , 5 Dorchester Dr i Tax parcel data provided by rnunicipaJlty More Data Export Ma R R I Print I Feedback Start Over Rye Brook Tax Parcel Viewer (Data: 2019) Aerial Photos Hybrid CD Search by owner's name ' Tax Maps 18 Boxwood PI Search Owner. Prop Address Printkey De Marco, Carl- Lori De Marco 27 Boxwood PI 129.59-1-26 6,,; Paterno, Frank P- Mary Elizabeth 72 Country Ridge Or 129.59-1-21r ;, Paterno Winston, John- Lisa " I,X Winston 23 Boxwood PI 129.59-1-25 r Steinberg, Julie- o Mark Steinberg 10 Parkwood PI 129.67-1-40 Schiller, Philip- Nancy 84 Country Ridge Dr 129.67-1-12 Schiller � t Taub Daniel -Jessica 9 Boxwood PI 129.67-1-17 Taub f� Y . Goldstein Lee fi Matthew-Julie 27 Lawridge Or 129.67-1-19 F �� fr; Elizabeth Goldstein Cohen, Jeremy-Jana 6 Parkwood PI 129.67-1-39 Cohen ' . y r Hecker, Joel L- G /+ Garber, Michael- Boxwood PI 129.67-1-18 _Tracy Garber 15 B ti � 4� Ma Shubin-Wen He 10 Boxwood PI 129.67-1-22 W� Wiener Matthew- " p Erica Wiener 18 Boxwood PI 129.67-1-20 r�`'�,4 ' "' ` N Sindell Matthew B - r '�» ti 2 Parkwood PI 129.67-1-38 r. i Deborah Miller Sindell Rietti, Giorgio-Susan , 48 Lawridge Dr 129.59-1-49 - °ti �• f' Rietti .�- Montvelisky Michel - 9 Parkwood PI 129.67-1-47 3 Dorchester Dr Yvette Montvelisky ° ,t Kohn Jeffrey- ` ( Jennifer Kohn 5 Parkwood PI 129.67-1-48 Annis, Eileen - 1 Howard Annis 31 Boxwood PI 129.59-1-27 Bauer, Geoffrey J - Elana J Bernstein 44 Lawridge Or 129.67-1-50 5 Dofche,,ter Cyr Tax parcel data prc��rioed by murricipaNty Building Permit Check List&Zoning Analysis a • Address•' 22 x--uJ s» C_- SBL: �-�l G 7 — l — Z D , Zone:,U t Use I rJ Const.Type: Other: Submittal Date: 7, l IL I Z ( Revisions Submittal Dates:. Applicant: Nature of Work ,L-®D A'Z57b tr7 01-0 S Reviews:ZBA: 8 1 7 2021 PB: BOT: Other. ( ( ) FEES:Filing. 7.S• BP:4 5� �b� C/O: Legalization: O ( ,).-,'APP: Dated: Notarized: SBL: Truss I.D. —`Cross Connection H.Q.A.: ( } ( } Scenic Roads: Steep Slopes: Wetlands: Storm Water Review: Street Opening. ( } ( } ENVIRO:Long Short: Fees: N/A.- SITE PLAN:Topo: Site Protection S/W Mgmt.: Tree Plan: Other. { } ( } SURVEY:Dated: Current: Archival: Sealed: Unacceptable: { ( } PLANS:Date Stamped:y.-'/ Sealed: ✓ Copy: Electronic Other. { (t� License: ✓ Workers Comp: -/ Liability: Comp.Waiver. Other. ( } ( } CODE 753#: Dated: N/A: {v)f ( } HIGH-VOLTAGE ELECTRICAL:Plans: Permit: N/A: Other. { } ( } LOW-VOLTAGE ELECTRICAL:Plans: Permit: N/A: Other. FIRE ALARM/SMOKE DETECTORS:Plans: Permit: H.W.I.C.:_Battery:_Other. (� ( } PLUMBING:Plans: Permit: Nat. Gas: LP Gas: N/A/: Other. { } ( } FIRE SUPPRESSION:Plans: Permit: N/A: Other. { ( ) H.V.A.C.: Plans: Permit N/A: Other. { } ( ) FUEL TANK:Plans: Permit: Fuel Type: Other. ( ) ( j 2020 NY State ECCC: N/A: Other. (4 ( j Final Survey: Final Top RA/PE Sign-off Letter. As-Built Plans: Other. (. (�/BP DENIAL LETTER: C/O DENIAL LETTER: Other. ( ) ( ) Other. VAARB mtg.date: Z q- approval notes: (,�''LBA mtg. date: approval 14 ( notes: 7, ` ( )PB mtg.date: approval• notes: REQUIRED EXISTING PROPOSED NOTES APR 2 6 2021 Area: l Circle: FromU Front: Fro w Sides: >l Main Cov Accs.Cow Ft,H Sb: G S .H Sb: [ to 0 f•Z'L ( /a eh1 3307 ,9 3zco 3 6 3 Z -Z--go — 20 . 374 r t Tot,Imp: 5'L94',7 Z D Z 1 Ft,Imp: P Height/Stories: notes: Y M BUILDIN� �jfR MENT D l 4 -�..., VIL ' E OF Ry OOK FEB 12 2021 938 KING ET RYE BR v ,NY 10573 (914)9 � 9 _39-5801 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK w o r BUILDING DEPARTMENT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD CHECK LIST FOR APPLICANTS This form must be completed and signed by the applicant of record and a copy shall be submitted to the Building Department prior to attending the ARB meeting. Applicants failing to submit a copy of this check list will be removed from the ARB agenda. Job Address: 18 F70}Cl/4WD �(N{, Date of Submission: Parcel ID#: Zone: 1s Proposed Improvement(Describe in detail): APPLICANT CHECK LIST: k MUST BE COMPLETED BY THE APPLICANT �i iD -f.7?TZ !-ADD 1Trog The following items must be submitted to the Building Department by the applicant-no exceptions. 1. (-�rCompleted Application 2. (,,I-Two(2)sets of sealed plans. (one full size Imaximum Property Owner: a��6,,j "x 17") Address: is D akw OOo [ lrr W;wr allowable plan swe—3b"x 42"1 and one I I a Et 3. ( )Two(2)copies of the property survey. 4. `Two(2)copies of the proposed site plan. Phone# S� - L- S 6- 163 5. S,,)One electronic/disc copy of the complete Applicant appearing before the Board: application materials, 6. (,-)-Filing Fee. 7. ( )Any supporting documentation. Address: 8. ( )HOA approval letter. (f applicable) 9. ( )Photographs. Phone# 10.( )Samples of finishes/color chart. (a sample board or y�Architect/Engineer: model may be presented the night of the meeting) �-�� 1 -lb,�,C�.1.���J/ Phone# e0 L5� -a9 1 By signature below, the owner/applicant acknowledges that he/she has read the complete Building Permit Instructions&Procedures,and that their application is complete in all respects.The Board of Review reserves the right to refuse to hear any application not meeting the requirements contained herein. Sworn to before me this sh Sworn to before me this day of ,TQn va r r , 20 7-1 _ day of 120 — A"I - '" — Signature of Property Owner Signature of Applicant K444t(A/ Wiener Print Name of Property Owner Print Name of Applicant NotaryftftRY PUBLIC-STATE OF NEW YORK Notary Public No.02819228248 Qualified in Westchester County My Commission Expires02-04=2023 3/21/19 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BUILDING DEPARTMENT 938 KING STREET, RYE BROOK,NY 10573 (T) 939-0668 (F) 939-5801 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD Wednesday, April 21, 2021 Due to public health and safety concerns from COVID-19, the Architectural Review Board meeting on March 17, 2021 will be closed to members of the public. The public can still watch the live meeting online through Zoom through the app or through the following https://us02web.zoom.us/0/88906948425 If any interested members of the public would like to provide comments during the meeting, comments can be emailed to stevefews@ryebrook.org or called in during the meeting at +1 (929) 205-6099, meeting ID: 889 0694 8425 NAME &LOCATION I TYPE OF APPLICATION MOTION SECOND APPROVED REJECTED APPL._# 2 Lincoln Ave Roof Top Solar Array Consent 5160 (Nunez) Agenda 63 Rock Ridge Drive Roof Top Solar Array Consent 5161 (Mundo) Agenda 17 Loch Lane Expand Rear Patio Add New Consent 5162 (Ashby Taurel) Hot Tub Agenda 29 Winding Wood 4'0" High Black Fence In Consent 5163 Road(Demarco) Rear Yard Agenda 85 Valley Terrace New Retaining Walls & Consent 5164 (Krebs) Modify Driveway Agenda 95 Grant Street 4' High Fence In Front Yard Consent 5165 (Tavarez) 6' High Fence. Whit PVC Agenda Vinyl 15 Legendary Circle Roof Top Solar Array Consent 5166 (Tian) Agenda 34 Meadowlark Rd Rear Windows & Door Consent 5167 (Cullagh) Modification to Facilitate Agenda Kitchen Renovation 11 Carlton Road New 6' High PVC Pool Consent 5168 (De'Arudda) Fence Agenda ML NM MR SE JM SF AC MI KC 37 Winding Wood Partial 6'High Vinyl Privacy Consent 5169 Road(Cui/Sun) Fence at Side Yards Agenda 66 Tamarack Road New Front Entry Stairs & Consent 5170 (Sibley) Portico Agenda 6 Edgewood Dr Hot Tub On Existing Patio Consent 5171 1 (Shalem) Agenda 17 Ridge Blvd New 6' High Gray Vinyl Consent 5172 (Kucera) Fence Rear Yard& 4' High Agenda W/gate at Side 6 Deer Run (Stahl) Partial 4' High Wood Febce Consent 5173 w/Mesh @ Rear Yard Agenda 432 N. Ridge St Amendment To Prior Fence Consent 5174 (Gabriel) Approval Fence Color Agenda Change 42 Lawridge Dr Legalize Rear Deck 5175 (Altman) 6 Deer Run(Stahl) Exterior Door& Window 5176 Changes, Finished Basement 44 Bonwit Road Two Tiered retaining Wall 5177 (Rosenfeld) w/ Post& Rail Fence& Landscaping 24 Beechwood Blvd 2nd Story Additions, Rear 5178 (Moore) Masonry Terrace, Rear Walk, & Replace Existing Walk 46 Winding Wood 2nd Fl Addition, Wood 5179 Road(Meron) Deck, Rear Patio Expansion 18 Boxwoods Place Front& Rear Second Floor 5178 (Wiener) Additions M ` �- i 82 Tamarack Road Legalize& Rebuild Rear 5180 (Sullivan) Deck & Screened Porch 59 Hillandale Road New Gazebo & Outdoor 5182 (Espinal) Kitchen 2 Lee Lane (Kirsch) New Front Entry Over 5183 Existing Porch J ML NM t1- MR SE JM �/ SF AC MI KC Y ' I Berkley Drive Rear Deck Expansion 5184 (Topkis) ML NM MR SE JM SF AC MI KC Laura Petersen From: Chris Scelfo <scelf@icloud.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2021 9:42 AM To: Laura Petersen Subject: Re:COI workers comp Cost is 190,000.Thanks a D' 8 !l ; '6 Sent from my iPhone On May 19, 2021, at 9:15 AM, Laura Petersen<LPetersen@ryebrook.org>wrote: Thank you Chris! We just need the estimated cost of construction to determine the building permit fee for 18 Boxwood Place. Laura Petersen Office Assistant Village of Rye Brook 938 King Street Rye Brook, New York 10573 Phone(914)939-0668 1 Fax(914)939-5801 1 Ipetersen(CD.[yebrook.org From: Chris Scelfo<scelf@icloud.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 18, 2021 10:46 PM To:Tara Gerardi <tgerardi@ryebrook.org>; Laura Petersen <LPetersen@ryebrook.org> Subject: COI workers comp Sent from my iPhone Laura Petersen From: Laura Petersen Sent: Tuesday, May 4, 2021 11:36 AM To: CHRIS SCELFO Subject: Building Permit Application - 18 Boxwood Place The building permit application has been approved by the Building Inspector, before I can issue the building permit the following items must be submitted to our office, 'i/ 1. General contractor's valid liability insurance (the Village Of Rye Brook must be the certificate holder) General contractor's valid workers compensation on a NY State Board form (C105-2 or U26.3) /3. Estimated cost of construction to determine the building permit fee ($15.00 per $1,000.00) (due once permit is issued and ready for pick-up) 419vi o0Q At your earliest convenience, can you email me this information? The forms that I have are expired. Thank you Chris! Laura(Petersen Office Assistant Village of Rye Brook 938 King Street Rye Brook, New York 10573 Phone(914)939-0668 1 Fax(914)939-5801 1 Ipetersen(a)rvebrook.or4 1 9 it d'✓//.0' r"'� /y Any �-""3Y �ryg.'>� ,'N�" Fri � . .ram+ -y *^. ;���A'C", .'� ,.., ♦ .�� /y,. ♦ilr .., y,U� ♦ R!N/i'" �., y.�. r._ �//��. %'(n:.' ��}�� N.� ai,��y/•"`y L � e� �__. �i't,�,;', �q�= It� ...hR �(4.-d J� .•. �� � t�. ,,.��t�� [,, 'i,�t;'�'4.�. `'y���t�.!'J�n ,s- t�1 M's1i.. ;Q v,- /tip � ,�f�� `f )�:.lN' 4,1,P;t ..+zs?y:'itl;i''/°,+tF .� 140�PJ�n l,lk 1 a'li,�i'PJ'tie '' ' ✓ .�.s,:-^.... ' ---- ,� %h NN• C'.:�tC..11�'.tit('1' .lames Maisano ->: I George Latimer �rtj�corn Director,Consumer Protection �° s,, i Westchester County Executive t7 �. Department of Consumer Protection <- > COMO Home Improvement License ' OPTIMUM BUILDING CORP. 70 PROSPECT STREET — ' PORT CHESTER,NY-10573 s � � •' � tom \ This license is issued in accordance with Article XVl of the Westchester County Consumer Protection Code and is valid only upon presence of the official department seal.Proof of citizenship or immigration status is not required for issuance of this license. .. NOT FOR FEDERAL PURPOSESato)i '. 0orsConiVj�e�A , Date of Expiration License Number 05/1712022 WC 07584-H96 J I ,,... � CIE." s�=_ ..,-.,,J�t„�y _.7��,1��, •..,__ J� �y 's.-�i��N� .-`� ,;��,hy,°. � -:=;p,lu, ��, „�4�tt�tH�i'.."'�"v,J��,tt'�4 - 1Jit�j E�^ � t�!•,' A .lti'.'' J�^� fit.!•'% A 't00' dt.�^ t 4,N�a $ k�,t,,.� a��D.'J ��$.�A��! A� Q 0 GOES 3461 ACC)" CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE DA,E(MMIDDrYYYY) a5117/21 THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER,AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(ies) must have ADDITIONAL INSURED provisions or be endorsed. If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED,subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsements. PRODUCER CONTACT NAME.;._ _TONY CIRINOFAX Anthony Cirino Prat off: (860)329-0103__ I �Na)_L8t30 62� Q-0504 426 North Main Street ADDRESS_Ansguy ol.com Southington, CT 06489 WSURER(S)AFFORDING COVERAGE _ _ NAIC.A INSURERA: FARM FAMILY CASUALTY INSURANCE 040&13aO INSURED LL"--- --- --- - INSURERS: OPTIMUM BUILDING CORP —` - INSURER C• 70 PROSPECT STREET INSURERD: INSURER E: PORT CHESTER NY 10573 NY 10573 1 INSURER F: COVERAGES CERTIFICATE NUMBER: REVISION NUMBER: THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES.LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. ILSR TYPE OF INSURANCE DL SUB _ POLICYNUMBER �DY YY POD i) IXP LEM - - X COMMERCIAL GENER�ALL LIABILITY EACH OCCURRENCE f 1,000,O VIACLAIMS-MADE 1X]OCCUR PREM S1€s Ea os 100 000 _— ----- -_ MED EXP_mane Person) f 000 A Y Y 3101LB417 02/01/21 02/01/22 PERsoNALaADvINJURY s 1110010OQ GENL AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER: GENERAL AGGREGATE $ __ 2000000 X POLICY❑JPECaT I J LOC PRODUCTS-COMPIOPAGO S 2�000 OOO OTHER: $ AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY COMBINED SINGLE UM ; accident _ ANY AUTO BODILY INJURY(Per person) i OWNED SCHEDULED BODILY INJURY Iacoderlt) S AUTOS ONLY _ AUTOS HIRES HNON-OWNED PPERT'YDAMAGE : AUTOS ONLY ROAUTOS ONLY UMBRELLA LIAB OCCUR FJACROCC(JIGRENCE $ EXCESS LIAB ANTE $ -- --- .. DED RETENTION f WORKERS COMPENSATION r IF AND EMPLOYERS'LIABILITY YIN 57A - ANY PRCPRIETORIPARTNER(EXECUTIVE E_L EACH ACCIDENT S OFFICER/MEMBER EXCLUDED? � NIA - -- -- (Mandatory lnNH) E-L DISEASE-EA EMPLOYEE S If Yyes,dasrnbe under _ DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS below E.L.DISEASE-POLICY LIMIT $ DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS I LOCATIONS 1 VEHICLES(ACORD 101.Additional Remarm Schedule,may be attached If nwre space Is requlred) VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK IS INCLUDED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED ON GENERAL LIABILITY CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANCELLATION SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN 938 KING STREET ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS. RYE BROOK NY 10573 AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE 0 1988-2015 ACORD CORPORATION. All lights reserved. ACORD 25(2016t03) The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD NYSIF New York State insurance Fund WESTCHESTER ONE,44 SOUTH BROADWAY,1DTH FLOOR,WHITE PLAINS,NY 10601- 411 I nyslf.com CERTIFICATE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION INSURANCE a a A A A A A A 133887956 OPTIMUM BUILDING CORP C/O CHRISTOPHER SCELFO !llo 429 DEN ROAD STAMFORD CT 069033811 SCAN TO VALIDATE AND SUBSCRIBE POLICYHOLDER CERTIFICATE HOLDER OPTIMUM BUILDING CORP VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK CIO CHRISTOPHER SCELFO 938 KING ST 429 DEN ROAD RYE BROOK NY 10573 STAMFORD CT 069033811 POLICY NUMBER CERTIFICATE NUMBER POLICY PERIOD DATE W1478 260-1 549875 04109/2021 TO 04/09f2022 5118/2021 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POUCYHOLDER NAMED ABOVE IS INSURED WITH THE NEW YORK STATE INSURANCE FUND UNDER POLICY N0_ 1478260-1. COVERING THE ENTIRE OBUGATiON OF THIS POUCYHOLDER FOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION UNDER THE NEW YORK WORKERS' COMPENSATION LAW WITH RESPECT TO ALL OPERATIONS IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK, EXCEPT AS INDICATED BELOW, AND, WITH RESPECT TO OPERATIONS OUTSIDE OF NEW YORK, TO THE POLICYHOLDER'S REGULAR NEW YORK STATE EMPLOYEES ONLY. IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE NOTIFICATIONS REGARDING SAID POLICY,INCLUDING ANY NOTIFICATION OF CANCELLATIONS, OR TO VALIDATE THIS CERTIFICATE,VISIT OUR WEBSITE AT HTTPS:IIWWW.NYSIF.COMICERTICERTVALJISP.THE NEW YORK STATE INSURANCE FUND IS NOT LIABLE IN THE EVENT OF FAILURE TO GIVE SUCH NOTIFICATIONS. THIS POLICY DOES NOT COVER CLAIMS OR SUITS THAT ARISE FROM BODILY INJURY SUFFERED BY THE OFFICERS OF THE INSURED CORPORATION. CHRISTOPHER SCELFO-PRESIDENT OPTIMUM BUILDING CORP ONE PERSON CORPORATION THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS NOR INSURANCE COVERAGE UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICY. NEW YORK STATE INSURANCE FUND DIRECTOR,INSURANCE FUND UNDERWRITING VALIDATION NUMBER:309976624 U-28.3 KEEPITC-01 MLOPEZ ACC7R/►an FDATE(MMIDDlYM) CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE3125/2021 THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER.THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S),AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER,AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED,the policy(ies)must have ADDITIONAL INSURED provisions or be endorsed. If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy,certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement an this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s). PRODUCER CONTACT NAME: World Insurance Associates,LLC PHONE FAX 3 Starr Ridge Road,Suite 100 (AIC,No,Ext): 914)747-1181 (A/C,No): Brewster,NY 10509 EMAIL ADDRESS: INSURER(S)AFFORDING COVERAGE NAIC N INSURER A:Merchants Insurance Group INSURED INSURER B:Merchants Preferred Insurance Company 12901 Keep It Coot Inc. INSURER C: 363 Elwood Ave INSURER D: Hawthorne,NY 1 0 532-1 2 57 INSURER E INSURER F: COVERAGES CERTIFICATE NUMBER: REVISION NUMBER: THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES.LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. INSR TYPE OF INSURANCE ADDL SUBR POLICY NUMBER POLICY EFF POLICY EXPLTR LIMITS A X COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY 1,000,000 EACH OCCURRENCE � CLAIMS-MADE X OCCUR BOP1084760 411712021 4/1712022 DAMAGE TO RENTED 500,000 X PREMISES(Ea_oc. MED EXP(Any one arson) 15,000 PERSONAL BADVINJURY $ 1,000,000 GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER: GENERAL AGGREGATE $ 2,000,000 POLICY PpCOT- LOC PRODUCTS-COMPIOP AGG $ 2,000,000 OTHER: B COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY {Ea accident). _ $ 1,000,000 X ANY AUTO CAP1064945 6/5/2020 6/512021 OWNED SCHEDULED BODILY INJURY(Per person) $ AUTOS ONLY AUTOS BODILY INJURY(Per accident).$ HIRED NON-OWNED PROPERTY DAMAGE AUTOS ONLY AUTOS ONLY (Per accident) $ A _ X UMBRELLA LIAB X OCCUR EACH OCCURRENCE $ 1,000,000 EXCESS LIAR CLAIMS-MADE CUP9147494 4117/2021 4/17/2022 AGGREGATE $ DED X I RETENTION$ 10,000 1,000,000 WORKERS COMPENSATION PER OTH- AND EMPLOYERS'LIABILITY Y 1 N STATUTE _ER ANY PROPRIIETgOERJPARTNERIEXECUTIVE E.L.EACH ACCIDENT $ Mandatory in NHS EXCLUDED? N I A E.L.DISEASE-EA EMPLOYEE $ If Yes,describe under DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS below E.L.DISEASE-POLICY LIMIT DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS I LOCATIONS I VEHICLES (ACORD 101,Additional Remarks Schedule,may be attached if more space is required) Certificate holder is Additional insured on a primary and non-contributory basis with respect to General Liability for the purpose of issuing licenses or permits. CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANCELLATION SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE Village of Rye Brook THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN 9 Y ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS. 938 King Street Rye Brook,NY 10573 AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ACORD 25(2016/03) C 1988-2015 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved. The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD NYSIF New York State Insurance Fund PO Box 66699,Albany,NY 12206 1 nysif.com CERTIFICATE OF WORKERS` COMPENSATION INSURANCE r2mu ^ "^ ^"^ 133905398 !m KEEVILY.SPERO-WHITELAW INC. 500 MAMARONECK AVENUEHARRISON NY 10528 SCAN TO VALIDATE AND SUBSCRIBE POLICYHOLDER CERTIFICATE HOLDER KEEP IT COOL INC VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK 363 ELWOOD AVENUE-SUITE B 938 KING ST. HAWTHORNE NY 10532 RYE BROOK NY 10573 POLICY NUMBER CERTIFICATE NUMBER POLICY PERIOD DATE G1302 944-2 225731 05/01/2021 TO 05/01/2022 12/7/2021 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICYHOLDER NAMED ABOVE IS INSURED WITH THE NEW YORK STATE INSURANCE FUND UNDER POLICY NO, 1302 944-2, COVERING THE ENTIRE OBLIGATION OF THIS POLICYHOLDER FOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION UNDER THE NEW YORK WORKERS' COMPENSATION LAW WITH RESPECT TO ALL OPERATIONS IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK, EXCEPT AS INDICATED BELOW. IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE NOTIFICATIONS REGARDING SAID POLICY, INCLUDING ANY NOTIFICATION OF CANCELLATIONS, OR TO VALIDATE THIS CERTIFICATE,VISIT OUR WEBSITE AT HTTPS://WWW.NYSIF.COM/CERT/CERTVAL.ASP.THE NEW YORK STATE INSURANCE FUND IS NOT LIABLE IN THE EVENT OF FAILURE TO GIVE SUCH NOTIFICATIONS. THIS POLICY DOES NOT COVER CLAIMS OR SUITS THAT ARISE FROM BODILY INJURY SUFFERED BY THE OFFICERS OF THE INSURED CORPORATION. MICHAEL MCCARVIL-PRES KEEP IT COOL INC 1 OF 1 THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS NOR INSURANCE COVERAGE UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICY. NEW YORK STAT SUR 1NCE FUND DIRECTOR,INSURANCE FUND UNDERWRITING VALIDATION NUMBER 518387782 U-26.3 JOB NUMBER: RO. 14304-B-4 Possession NOT indicated S490 04'00"W 105.00' CHAIN LINK FENCE STONE This is to certify that this map and the survey on which it is based were made in Wi CATCH BASIN RETAINING 9 accordance with the"Minimum Standard"Detail Requirements for New York State WALL M El DRAIN INLET Association of Land Surveyors. This Survey is a representation of the property as G0 0 surveyed on Jul 2.6,2021,the date that the field work was performed. Subsequent �p� � � Y Y p q `UTILITY POLE n PP�� -9L W> revision dates do not constitute an updated survey. 0 SIGN POST D• 'A •z LOT 4 � z �� n Y�� HYDRANT 0 com Wv Eliot Senor,L.S. New York State.Lic.No.049822 WATER VALVE 10.91 v Qo0�o G Copies of the survey map not bearing the land surveyor's original blue signature and MGAS VALVE r POOL �� '� ��'�, Z embossed seal shall not be considered to be a true and valid copy. Copyright Gabriel V� •o pY LIGHT POLE C? �� 07i E.Senor,P.C.,2021. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. O ,o TRAFFIC POLE � ��Q' A Title report lists easements and restrictions if the report was not provided these Q' ONC. easements and or restrictions may not be shown.A copy of the title report was not OT TELE. MANHOLE FENCE PAD ��s M o _n M provided. A copy of the deed was provided.Survey may be subject to easements not _n PAVER �ON� � Z Z shown. ELECTRIC BOX M FRAME DECK rn m n i OVERHANG 15.91 S QS SEWER MANHOLE m• DECK AT 2nd. l• Surface elevations and underground appurtenances,if any,whether or not shown are 29.5 STORY o not guaranteed.Fences or possession lines generally do not follow a straight line.The ® WATER MANHOLE o survey shows straight lines between located points.Any dimensions shown are to the SHED TLK& � surveyed point only. Labeled dimensions cannot be used for any other point along Q ELECTRIC MANHOLE r 1.01N FRAME S EPS T r the line. SHED CONC.PLAT TWO STORY W DO DRAIN MANHOLE O SHED FOR POOL FRAME&STONE o O 1.1 N EQUIPT O Unauthorized alteration or additions to the survey map is a violation of Section 7209 ® MANHOLE _. OM FENCE DWELLING D m W sub-section 2 of the New York State Education Law c ❑ No.18 m0 Z Wm 10 0M 0 29.3 GATE -+m 0 NOT FOR TITLE TRANSFER FENCE CHAIN LINK FENCE L----------- ----- ------- 1.0'N OVERHANG OVERHANG FLAGSTONE M (n r PORCH& -n 0 O Z STEPS y Z 1P• SURVEY OF � �� D LOT No.4 S40 56 00 E 150.00 � z ,6*6z m AS SHOWN ON SUDDIVISION MAP D [16.2 SECTION NO.FOURTEEN FENCE � .o'N STONE RETAINING WALLff CnCOUNTRY RIDGE ESTATES FLAGSTONE E;4,1 WALK m n LOCATED IN THE WALK, TOWN OF RYE I COLUMN LUM & O � � STEPS a? z ao WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NE +---- z m � 0 / rE2 0 oIR m � C � m �. m 0 0li7 DEC - 3 C C ,� 2021 l D)7 .N C °°0 N :0 ai � � .� 7D 430.8-V '� �/ILLAGE OF RYA BROOK k co O R� BUILDING ,F I O�'Q --. �RTMEI�T CHAIN LINK S490 04' 00"W 105.00' Q SCALE: 1" = 20' DATE: JULY 26, 2021 FENCE STONE APRON MACADAM CURB MACADAM CURB AS-BUILT BOOXWOOD PLACE nocuMFNT BRIEL E. SENOR, P. Co Said "Map" is filed in the Westchester County Clerk's CONSULTING ENGINEER • LAND SURVEYORS office, Division of Land Records, on April 28, 1965 90 NORTH CENTRAL AVE., HARTSDALE, NEW YORK, 10530 as R.O. Map number 14304. (914) 422-0070 FAX 422-3009 P:\DWG Drawings\RO#\RO14304.dwg,11/2/2021 2:34:46 PM