Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBP21-121PERMIT # 1-�y� a DATE:(01 at EXP:,� aQ' SECTION O� �! . ()(0 BLOCK LOT, 1f� TYPE OF WORK eW kreQ K 7 / lrq 1NQ I g JOB LOCATION I U/ v`e OWNERS �� ie coxhrCl'VO37 CONTRACTOR LLCj ' I ��%- 567�/ EST. COST EE JrCO # - GFEUW D% P4j GATE a TCO # FEE DATE_ _ ....___-_._ _.__� INSPECTION RECORD DATE INSP FOOTING FOUNDATION FRAMING RGH FRAMING INSULATION PLUMBING RGH PLUMBING GAS 0 SPRINKLER E -- LOW•-VOLT L� ALARM AS BUILT FINAL / j I F/ow rI(,LfI I rLl �JTHER APPROVALS ARB 1 q / L?, gLo I PB ZBA � QT_ana OTHER AS-SUILTIFINAL SURVEY REQUIRED PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NEW YORK No: 22-071 (Certificate of ®ccup ucp This is to certify that s'ph;S 1'1dC1zY'lPrn M- ? V�PD`'1Q1)Je alt7dayyl* of, Srw k—, N Y having duly filed an application on APLI f �`j� 20 02 requesting a Certificate of Occupancy for the premises known as, Rye Brook,NY, located in a K'15 Zoning District and shown on the most current Tax Map as Section: 1,2q. (p& Block: __L Lot: IO and having fully complied with the requirements of the Building Code and the Zoning Ordinance under Building Permit No.o;))- I a I , issued 5 L,=2 tO 20 J I , 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 following New York State Classifications, Use: /G-*0�ge-Fo,,/ /V , Construction: , for the following purposes: 1 V-e w V-ea r pa:- c W I -/Ye P /,4 f Sl i*77tl q Wa l is 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 obtai from the Build' Inspector. MAY 1 6 2022 Assistant Building Inspector,Village of Rye Brook: Date: !�R BUILD ENT For once •e niv: PERMIT APR 2 5 2022 VIL tIF 1 K ISSUFD:S ab-�/ 0 9 8 KING STREE YE$R(tiK, YORK 10573 DATE: VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK (914)9 r 939-5801 FEE: //L -- PAIIJK BUILDING DEPARTMENT o or APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY.,CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE, AND CERTIFICATION OF FINAL COSTS TO BE SUBMITTED ONLY UPON COMPLETION OF ALL WORK, AND PRIOR TO THE FINAL INSPECTION f\trt#+\f+###fII\#+kk\f+ktt+Ftkt+##fkII##+#Bart+t#t++\it+#0##ftftkltkfilkilt!+!lfkkftf+kk+M+kilttflklkkltkkklgfkktif}+kft}v}vt}Y#W# Address: �— Occupancy/Use. /.icWsow_Parcel ID# Zone: - �s Owner: 5 GQ�I 5 Prrt�k trt.���N Address: ( 2 Coy114:1 Ik t ds/-P D If P.E.YR.A.or Contractor: AD d I !-LC Address: H� Wl�kf15 Ayefi� Poi+4,54r,F1l/ ion, Person in responsible charge:Dail it(-i Address: 141 1''�i l r y15 A� 1 Application is hereby made and submitted to the Building Inspector of the Village of Rye Brook for the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy/Certificate of Compliance for the structure/construction/alteration herein mentioned in accordance with law: STATE OF NEW YORK,COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER as: / -1'0 O4 a,�l u�/D being duly sworn,deposes and says that heishe resides at 112, �4l It y R irq e- L 1e— ( rint.Name of Applicant) l_ (No.an 1 treet) in f\y e- 8(W� ,in the County of WAS"xS 1 / in the State of ,that (City/Tmviv Village) he/she has supervised the work at the location indicated above,and that the actual total cost of the work,including all site improvements,labor, materials,scaffolding,fixed equipment,professional fees,and including the monetary value ofany materials and labor which may have been donated gratis was:$ 101000,� for the construction or alteration of paw Rw Pxb-* w/ F,! 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 for an owner to use or permit the use ofany building or premises or part thereof hereafter created,erected,changed,converted or enlarged,wholly or partly, in its use or structure until a Certificate ofOccupaney or Certificate of Compliance shall have been duly issued by the Building Inspector as per §250-10.A.of the Code of the Village of Rye Brook. Sworn to before me this—Zr Sworn to before me this Z dayof �C 2022-^ day of 20 �-- t o cr Si ire of A scant t� Print Name Owner Print Name of Applicant tart'Public Lary Public LNOTARY amon E Carras uil Ramon E Carrasquillo q to NOTARY PUBLIC,STATE OF NEW YORK UBLIC,STATE OF NEWYORK Registration No.01CA6184261stration No.01CA6184261 Qualified in V1 ter County fied in County Commission Expires d April28,2024 on Expires April 28,2024 QyE f3RC��. c 19812 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: ' cz-r ���-� V" 1 DATE: "s PERMIT# _ ISSUED: SECT: BLOCK: LOT: LOCATION: �/ /r f Q ' OCCUPANCY: ❑ VIOLATION NOTED THE WORK IS... 0 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 QyE BRC��, • 1982 BUILDING DEPARTMENT ❑BUILDING 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 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - �pl ADDRESS :— DATE: PERMIT# �1`\ ^ ISSUED: ECT: BLOCK: LOT: LOCATION: L -/� OCCUPANCY: c ❑ VIOLATION NOTED T E WORK IS... ACCEPTED ❑ REJECTED/ REINSPECTION ❑ SITE INSPECTION W� WORK is REQUIRED ❑ FOOTING ❑ FOOTING DRAINAGE ❑ FOUNDATION ❑ UNDERGROUND PLUMBING NOTES ON INSPECTION: ❑ ROUGH PLUMBING ❑ ROUGH FRAMING ❑ INSULATION '1 ❑ NATURAL GAS � � O.JC 5�, (-�- � LU�`�I(- ` xyjTV ❑ L.P. GAS ❑ FUEL TANK ❑ FIRE SPRINKLER ❑ FINAL PLUMBING ❑ CROSS CONNECTION ❑ FINAL ❑ OTHER r eq O O N m GL N N kn ,� c .. ' G, k rr o0 tf, Q\ .-. tn i O ■' O � O F� � � � .-. O S F v, Q z w C4 F- M x v: f ' waoFw � zz o 3 x = s • �, A oo O w a a. U 10 it .: .� 00 A z w w z 'r- r '.r 6. 16 r • � � z w o � � F 7 Q � C r U a a � ' c o �- ' z r 00 il�999 sCats6 949444L r p BUILDING DEPARTMENT �CEOdE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK MAY 2 4 2021 938 KING STREET RYE BROOK,NY 10573 (914)939-0668 FAX(914)939-5801 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK wV4ltfy ook.org BUILDING DEPARTMENT PLUMBING PERMIT APPLICATION FOR OFFICE USE'ONLY BP#: / PP#: C2 /— 000 t MAY 2 6 2021 Approval Date: Permit Fee: $ Approval Signature: Other: Disapproved: (fees are non-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 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: /0?e 'n � 1/ SBL: IO!C • (Y ll/"� U Zone: 2.Proposed Work: L 3.Property Owner: �/pr c, t-v Address: Phone#: Cell#: �'j D 37e2 email:�S{ 4.Master Plumber: V,t r 44- Address: *714.e •G�� t�i Lic.#:,/6%,"'f Phone#: Cell#: emai • Company Name: 17lv.►.S>t.. Address: .vs, . 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 1st Floor 2nd Floor 3 Floor 4 Floor 5 Floor Exterior 5.*List Other EquipmenVProvide Details: (Notarized Signatures Required Next 2 Pages) -1- 3/21/19 BUILDING DEPARTMENT IE C [E �W IE VILL'ACE OF RYE;$ROOK 938 KING STREET RYE BR OK NY 10573 MAY 2 4 2021 (914)934-6"$_UX,Q14039-5801 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK wwvv.rvj& Ok: 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 YOM COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER ) as: 311 - Je J4�.'14 residing at, 40 ad� (Print name) (Address whercffou 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; l�� ��/^ �/ Z4 D, i�o sl7f� 7� , Rye Brook, NY. (Job Address) 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. (Signature o ro Own s)) z (Print Name of Property Ow (s)) Sworn to bef a me this (.�,C2� day of , 20� (Notary Public) -3- 3/21/19 STATE OF NEW YOM COUNTY OF WESMIESTER ) as: Al Va K I—e e. ,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 P/U'rnI r 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 Sworn to before this day of 20� day of 20 tore f ProRer Sign�i o Applicant cl-C IX-e',r* el.,- Print Name of Property Owner Print Name of Applicant Notary Public Notary Public 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- 3/21/19 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK D ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY - 5 2021 DD) RESOLUTION VILLAGE CLERK'S OFFICE WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Joseph Sandarciero III & Stephanie Sandarciero (the "Applicants") for a total impervious coverage variance of 766 square feet where the maximum allowable total impervious coverage is 7,296 square feet pursuant to Village Code § 250-37.C, in connection with the proposed new rear patio with fire pit and sitting walls, on property located at 112 Country Ridge Drive, in an R-15 zoning district on the west side of Country Ridge Drive, approximately 300 feet from the intersection of Dorchester Drive and Country Ridge Drive. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID# 129.66-1-10; and WHEREAS,the property has an existing non-conforming total impervious coverage of 7,782 square feet; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held April 6, 2021 and May 4, 2021, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and WHEREAS,the public hearing was closed on May 4, 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 for a total impervious coverage variance of 766 square feet where the maximum allowable total impervious coverage is 7,296 square feet pursuant to Village Code § 250-37.C, in connection with the proposed new rear patio with fire pit and sitting walls, on property located at 112 Country Ridge Drive, is hereby GRANTED on the following conditions: 1) No permit or certificate of occupancy shall be issued until the Applicants have paid in full all application and consultant fees incurred by the Village in connection with the review of this application. Dated: May 4, 2021 Donald 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: NAY Ayes Nays Abstain 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.ore TRUSTEES BUILDING&FIRE Susan R. Epstein INSPECTOR Stephanie J. Fischer Michael J. Izzo David M. Heiser Jason A. Klein NOTICE OF HEARING ON APPLICATION .notice 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 # 21-009 Applicant: Joseph Sandarciero III & Stephanie Sandarciero 112 Country Ridge Drive Rye Brook, New York 10573 Applicant Proposes to: Construct new rear patio with fire pit and sitting walls. At the premises known as 112 Country Ridge Drive in the Village of Rye Brook, New York, situated on the West side of Country Ridge Drive, approximately 300 feet from the intersection of Dorchester Drive and Country Ridge Drive, designated and shown on the most current tax map as Parcel ID# 129.66-1-10, the applicant does hereby request a variance(s) from the following applicable section(s) of the Zoning Ordinance: 80(0-z- f250-37.C. The maximum allowable Total Impervious Coverage is 7,296 square feet. The existing non-conforming Total Impervious Coverage is 7,782 square feet. The proposed rear patio with fire pit and seating galls will result in a Total Impervious Coverage of JIr2MI square feet. Therefore, a Total Impervious Coverage variance of .J8 square feet is requested variance. -7G6, 2 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 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.ore), 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 mizzo6i ryebrook.orQ. 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. Dated: 3-3'2 1 Christopher . Bradb illage Clerk 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.ore TRUSTEES BUILDING&FIRE Susan R. Epstein INSPECTOR Stephanie J. Fischer Michael J. Izzo David M. Heiser Jason A. Klein NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL Application # 21-009 March 1, 2021 Joseph Sandarciero III & Stephanie Sandarciero 112 Country Ridge Drive Rye Brook, New York 10573 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that your application for building permit dated, February 25, 2021, for the premises located at 112 Country Ridge Drive, Parcel ID# 129.66-1-10, has been disapproved because of non-compliance with the following section(s) of the Code of the Village of Rye Brook: #250-37.C. The maximum allowable Total Impervious Coverage is 7,296 sq. ft. The existing non-conforming Total Impervious Coverage is 7,782 sq. ft. The proposed rear patio with fire pit and sitting walls will result in a Total Impervious Coverage of 8,181 sq. ft. 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 §250-40 of the Code of the Village of Rye Brook. Applications to appear before the ZBA are available at the Building Department or online at www.ryebrook.org. Sincerely, Michael J. Izzo Building & Fire Inspector mizzogryebrook.org BUILDI TMENT REVISED VILL ' OF R OOK MAR -2 2021 KING ST APPLICATION RY OOK,NY 3 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK DATED: APR 2 7 2021 P oNE(914)9 14) 939-5801 BUILDING DEPARTMENT w org APPLICATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS �1 Application Fee: $350.00(/aid . Escrow Fee: $1,000.00 (v)paid Date: ,;2 IL a? it*�c 9c 4c is is 3c*9e is is icx iczxtz xzzz zir�c�F is 9c is�c is 9c is 9c ie icxi:r.i:r.is iexxicxxxicxxxicxx9c is isx�c is is is is is ie is is is cxxxic icx Subject Property: F49y� Da- Parcel ID#: - 1-0 Zone: Property Owner: TOC d- STL'Tft4 y,6 ress: 111 6%,L Dn- Phone#: Cell#: email: Applicant: [,:VaJ SAV—oFSIG`'1 Address: I( Phone#: 51(Q. 2 1 q 13$S Cell#: email: r✓yw. S,-tcof-("q e,&MAii .Go v\ Attorney/Agent: Address: Phone#: Cell#: email: The applicant named herein does hereby request an appeal from the decision made by the Building Inspector on an application dated February 25 , 20 21 , whereby the Building Inspector did: Grant: ( )/Deny: (X) the applicant a permit for 112 Country Ridge Drive, Parcel ID# 129.66-1-10 1. Type of Appeal: (X)Variance to the Zoning Ordinance ( )Interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance ( )Certification for Continuation of a Nonconforming Use ( ) Permit for Occupancy ( ) Permit for Use 2. This application relates to: ( )Use (X)Area ( )Height ( )Setback ( )Other: In connection with: (X)A Proposed Building ( )An Existing Building 3. Previous Apoeal(s); ( )Have (X)Have Not been made with respect to this particular decision of the Building Inspector, and ( )Have (X)Have Not been made with respect to any other previous decision(s) made by the Building Inspector regarding the subject property. List All Previous Zonina Appeals Either Granted or Denied Concernine the Subiect 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, 1 (Use additional sheets if necessary) 3/21/19 4. Alteration: If work constitutes an alteration or extension to an existing building, describe briefly: 5. Construction Cost: What is the estimated cost of the proposed work? $ 10,000 6. Reasons for Appeal: A. An Area Variance to the Zoning Ordinance is requested because strict application of the ordinance would create the following hardship: The inability to add a patio that is immediately accessible from the house and safe to use. The existing patio that surrounds the swimming pool was likely constructed around the same time that the pool was initially constructed,which was in 1977. The pool patio is the only patio currently on the subject property. Due to its large separation from the house, using this patio for general outdoor functions and entertaining is inconvenient. Being that it surrounds an open swimming pool, it also means that using the existing patio for anything other than swimming related functions is dangerous, making it a liability for the homeowner. As this is a long-standing existing condition the hardship is not self-created The proposed new patio is very modest in size and would not create a negative impact on the surrounding homes or neighborhood in general. 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. Requested Zonin¢Appeals: 1. Section of Rye Brook Code: § 250-37-C Zoning Requirement: Total maximum permitted impervious coverage for lot area between 20,001 and 30,000 sf = 6,560 sf+ (23,067-20,001 sf x 24% = 7,296 sf maximum allowable impervious coverage. Proposed Work: Add new 370 sf patio in rear yard. Remove existing shed and flagstone walk. Requested Variance: 766 sf over maximum permitted impervious coverage H. Section of Rye Brook Code: § Zoning Requirement: Proposed Work: Requested Variance: M. 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: BUILDING DEPARTMENT 3 (Use additional sheets if necessary) 3/21/19 8. Item checklist of information from instruction sheet: Letter of Disapproval ( Properly Completed & Signed Original Zoning Variance Application (�C} Two (2) Sets of Sealed Plans (20 Non-refundable Application Fee of$350.00 ()I Escrow Account Fee of$1,000.00 ( ) Provisions of any deeds, covenants, easements or restrictions affecting the kind of improvements allowed or prohibited upon the premises. 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 signature(s) 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: Evan Sakofsky , 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 ARCHITECT 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 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_ (2,f-514Sworn to before me this day of 206Z/ day of 211�pl I_ Notary Pfiblic Notar Public SigoAwe of Prope Owner ignature of pplicant Print Name of Property Owner Print Name of Applicant WALQUIRIA REED 7Notary B.VESPIA Notary Public-State of New York ,State of New York NO.01RE6407444 VE5084028 Qualified in Westchester County Westchester County My Commission Expires Jun 8, 2024 oires August 25,2 4 3/21/19 N 80I-vip 803 !N P/O 129.52 -1 P/0 12959 '23 LnK I� °j ��v 12 a, N W W��`2 s 11 `• � r a o�` d g8gd is 1 13 • r 7 w-I , N • �8 `b00 9 14 i 16 nn dd , 8 • Q� 7 aLp OO'Y 7 tJ /J a 24 6 N ra 8 5 _g 10 i pool r 4 0 � Pout Il ;d P. 68 i g o"ts •2 � 8g s 2 13 d .69 6. 4• I �� dd Ag Pool I-f � to"- a• Z` 70 � ( r POOL O•, 8 Y q 16 8 g o l5 8 m `� •71 4C' 3. P/O 12974-1- 1 N 6ozoo W P/O 129.75-1-11 N 244450(M) �• 3129.59 19.6E 129.67 4129.75 EVAN SAKOFSKY I ARCHITECT D [E C IE N E 11 BERKLEY LANE • RYE BROOK • NY 10573 516• 314• 1385 • EVAN.SAKOFSKY@GMAIL.COM MAR 31 2021 11 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK TRANSMITTAL BUILDING DEPARTMENT March 31, 2021 To: Village of Rye Brook, Building Department RE: ZBA Public Notification Documents Sandarciero Residence 112 Country Ridge Drive Enclosed please find the notification documents required to be submitted ahead of next week's ZBA hearing. Sincerely, Evan Sakofsky PAGE 1 OF 1 EVAN SAKOFSKY I ARCHITECT A EMAR 0 v F 11 BERKLEY LANE RYE BROOK NY 10573 31 2021 516-314. 1385 ` EVAN.SAKOFSKY@GMAIL.COM 0 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals BUILDING DEPARTMENT Village of Rye Brook — - 938 King Street Rye Brook, NY 10573 March 30, 2021 RE: Sandarciero Residence 112 Country Ridge Drive Rye Brook, NY To whom it may concern, I, Evan Sakofsky, the architect for the subject property noted above, hereby state that a "Public Notice" sign has been posted on said property as of March 25, 2021. 1 further state that letters containing the "Notice of Hearing" have been sent to all adjoining properties within a 250 foot radius of the subject property as required. These letters were mailed on March 25, 2021. Sincerely, Evan Sakofsky, . Sworn to before me this day of G' r l , 2021 Notary Public E IAN SIERRA -State of New York OIS16280398 Westchester County n Expires Apr 29,2021 o� N E (9 8 J 0 d � g 3 0 s� T z U � Y O O m did NQ lO V it v c J O; E" J � N N C4 r C Q O N N W J O m 4) N C y N L O J m n c N L�r �/ ydZ l0 C y d N mga o L c c O dt° U da yE E N m �3 U N p C 0 n� oE m `o a U N N F Q L O w c Eo N E m x wJ Mono Z rmW� 2'o c a9i w N j N N p EmNa nO w o c c E T n J C M aoo v � $ Ru Q I"ul It O _ a m? o Q D�. oN m o c a CO N �N O C N u a O N A A C a ` n O U A r R CO 6 0�N Mailing Labels for Property Addresses. Created from Municipal Tax Parcel Viewer http Ilgiswww.westchestergov comBlind Brook Brook Club Inc. Jacobs,Gary-Cynthia Jacobs Marcoccia,Marcello-Janet Marcoccia 980 Anderson Hill Rd 116 Country Ridge Dr 109 Country Ridge Dr PORT CHESTER, NY 10573 PORT CHESTER, NY 10573 PORT CHESTER, NY 10573 Landes,John-Laurie Landes Savitt Daniel C-Shari Markowitz-Savitt Esposito Marie-Fernanda Esposito 9 Dorchester Dr 104 Country Ridge Dr 1 Dorchester Dr PORT CHESTER, NY 10573 PORT CHESTER, NY 10573 PORT CHESTER, NY 10573 Waldman,Mark-Resa Waldman Dogus,Robyn-Sitki M Dogus Rein,Angela-Jason Rein 117 Country Ridge Dr 108 Country Ridge Dr 19 Dorchester Dr PORT CHESTER, NY 10573 PORT CHESTER, NY 10573 PORT CHESTER, NY 10573 Bitton Dana Vanefsky Lisa J Novick,Stephen-Stephan Novick 105 Country Ridge Dr 100 Country Ridge Dr 121 Country Ridge Dr PORT CHESTER, NY 10573 PORT CHESTER, NY 10573 PORT CHESTER, NY 10573 Halpern,Edith Tannenbaum Scott-Melissa Brookman Jill-Peter Brookman 23 Dorchester Dr Tannenbaum 124 Country Ridge Dr PORT CHESTER, NY 10573 15 Dorchester Dr PORT CHESTER, NY 10573 PORT CHESTER, NY 10573 Shapiro,Rhoda Alter,Peter-Lauren Alter Levitan,Zinovi-Lori Levitan 120 Country Ridge Dr 101 Country Ridge Dr 5 Dorchester Dr PORT CHESTER, NY 10573 PORT CHESTER, NY 10573 PORT CHESTER, NY 10573 Cassuto Wendi A-David Cassuto Rosson,Andrew-Susan Rosson Sandarciero Joseph III-Stephanie 111 Country Ridge Dr 27 Dorchester Dr Sandarciero PORT CHESTER, NY 10573 PORT CHESTER, NY 10573 112 Country Ridge Dr PORT CHESTER, NY 10573 Created on: 3/22/2021 Page 1 of 1 ZBA Additional Mailinp,Addresses Krawchick,Frederick-W Krawchick 24 Dorchester Dr PORT CHESTER, NY 10573 Kaplow Trust Agreement,Pamela D- Pamela D Kaplow 20 Dorchester Dr PORT CHESTER, NY 10573 Mittleman Scott-Leah Mittleman 16 Dorchester Dr PORT CHESTER, NY 10573 Willen Gerald H-David C Willen 10 Dorchester Dr PORT CHESTER, NY 10573 3/31/2021 IMG_9227.jp9 i t7 � PUBLIC - NOTICE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR A ZONING VARIANCE APPLICATION WILL BE HELD BY THE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ON APRIL 6TH 2O21 AT 8:00 PM. AT THE RYE BROOK VILLAGE HALL, 938 KING STREET ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE AT THE RYE BROOK BUILDING DEPARTMENT (939-0668) https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/#advanced-search/from=j.sandarciero%40gmail.com&query=j.sandarciero%40g mail.com&isrefinement=true&fromdis... 1/1 EVAN SAKOFSKY I ARCHITECT 11 BERKLEY LANE • RYE BROOK • NY 10573 516•314- 1385 • EVAN.SAKOFSKY@GMAIL.COM TRANSMITTAL April 18, 2021 To: Village of Rye Brook, Building Department RE: ZBA Public Notification Documents Sandarciero Residence 112 Country Ridge Drive Enclosed please revised drawings and a new notarized affidavit for the property noted above. Sincerely, Evan Sakofsky REVISE PLANS DATED: APR 2 0 2021 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BUILDING DEPARTMENT PAGE 1 OF 1 EVAN SAKOFSKY I ARCHITECT 11 BERKLEY LANE • RYE BROOK • NY 10573 516•314• 1385 • EVAN.SAKOFSKY@a GMAIL.COM Zoning Board of Appeals Village of Rye Brook 938 King Street Rye Brook, NY 10573 April 18, 2021 RE: Sandarciero Residence 112 Country Ridge Drive Rye Brook, NY To whom it may concern, I, Evan Sakofsky, the architect for the subject property noted above, hereby state that the "Public Notice" sign previously posted on said property will be updated to indicate the next public hearing date not later than Tuesday, April 20, 2021. Sincerely, Evan Sakofsky, R.A. Sworn to before me this I day of APO 2021 (a]"J-A Notary Public DRITA GANBALAJ Nowy Pabk Conn�aaa — My 1SWU bow"May.31,2021 REVIS PLANS DATED APR 2 0 2021 VILLAGE_ OF RYE BROOK BUILDING DEPARTMENT D CC� � O�C APR 2 9 2021 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BUILDING DEPARTMENT Mr. Don Moscato, Chairman and 4121121 Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals Village of Rye Brook 938 King Street Rye Brook, NY 10573 Dear Chairman Moscato and Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals, We are neighbors to the Sandarciero family residing at 112 Country Ridge Drive, Rye Brook, New York. We have carefully reviewed the application of Joseph and Stephanie Sandarciero in regards to constructing a rear patio with fire pit and sitting walls. We have no objection to the project and also feel that this project will have no adverse impact on the neighborhood.This project proposed is an enhancement to the community and is keeping with the character of the neighborhood. We recommend the Zoning Board of Appeals approve the application described above. Kind Regards, Name i �l k- Addr ss D EC EME APR 29 2021 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BUILDING DEPARTMENT Mr. Don Moscato,Chairman and 4/21/21 Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals Village of Rye Brook 938 King Street Rye Brook, NY 10573 Dear Chairman Moscato and Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals, We are neighbors to the Sandarciero family residing at 112 Country Ridge Drive, Rye Brook, New York. We have carefully reviewed the application of Joseph and Stephanie Sandarciero in regards to constructing a rear patio with fire pit and sitting walls. We have no objection to the project and also feel that this project will have no adverse impact on the neighborhood.This project proposed is an enhancement to the community and is keeping with the character of the neighborhood. We recommend the Zoning Board of Appeals approve the application described above. Kind Regards, Name b}( 1 I d Address p ECENE APR 2 9 2021 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BUILDING DEPARTMENT Mr. Don Moscato,Chairman and 7172172-1 Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals Village of Rye Brook 938 King Street Rye Brook, NY 10573 Dear Chairman Moscato and Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals, We are neighbors to the Sandarciero family residing at 112 Country Ridge Drive, Rye Brook, New York. We have carefully reviewed the application of Joseph and Stephanie Sandarciero in regards to constructing a rear patio with fire pit and sitting walls.We have no objection to the project and also feel that this project will have no adverse impact on the neighborhood.This project proposed is an enhancement to the community and is keeping with the character of the neighborhood. We recommend the Zoning Board of Appeals approve the application described above. Kind Regards, Name Address / KY lC S-7 D EC EME APR 2 9 2021 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BUILDING DEPARTMENT Mr. Don Moscato, Chairman and 4/21/21 Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals Village of Rye Brook 938 King Street Rye Brook, NY 10573 Dear Chairman Moscato and Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals, We are neighbors to the Sandarciero family residing at 112 Country Ridge Drive, Rye Brook, New York. We have carefully reviewed the application of Joseph and Stephanie Sandarciero in regards to constructing a rear patio with fire pit and sitting walls. We have no objection to the project and also feel that this project will have no adverse impact on the neighborhood.This project proposed is an enhancement to the community and is keeping with the character of the neighborhood. We recommend the Zoning Board of Appeals approve the application described above. Kind Regards, k � o Y) Name Address q, A60v- ECEHE APR - 1 2021 3/26/2021 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BUILDING DEPARTMENT David Cassuto ill Country Ridge Drive Rye Brook, NY 10573 Village of Rye Brook-Zoning Board of Appeals 938 King Street Rye Brook, NY 10573 To Whom It May Concern: I have received a notice of hearing on zoning variance for Joseph and Stephanie Sandarciero at 112 Country Ridge Drive. I have reviewed the proposed plans and we are in full support for our neighbors Joe and Stephanie for their request for a zoning variance. Regards David Cassuto RE-CEWE APR - 1 2021 3/26/2021 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK Cindy Jacobs BUILDING DEPARTMENT 116 Country Ridge Drive Rye Brook, NY 10573 Village of Rye Brook-Zoning Board of Appeals 938 King Street Rye Brook, NY 10573 To Whom It May Concern: I have reviewed the plans submitted by the Sandarciero family for work in their backyard at 112 Country Ridge Drive,as direct next-door neighbors, my family and I have no objection and are in support for their request for a zoning variance. Reg rds, i Cindy Jacobs t Mr. Don Moscato, Chairman and APR 3 0 2021 4/21/21 Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK Village of Rye Brook BUILDING DEPARTMENT 939 King Street Rye Brook,NY 10573 Dear Chairman Moscato and Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals, We are neighbors to the Sandarciero family residing at 112 Country Ridge Drive, Rye Brook, New York. We have carefully reviewed the application of Joseph and Stephanie Sandarciero in regards to constructing a rear patio with fire pit and sitting walls. We have no objection to the project and also feel that this project will have no adverse impact on the neighborhood.This project proposed is an enhancement to the community and is keeping with the character of the neighborhood. We recommend the Zoning Board of Appeals approve the application described above. Kind Regards, Name ioormdy b- Rye- Address Mr. Don Moscato,Chairman and 4/21/21 Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals Village of Rye Brook D IE C IE �M 938 King Street v Rye Brook, NY 10573 APR 3 0 2021 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK Dear Chairman Moscato and Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals, BUILDING DEPARTMENT We are neighbors to the Sandarciero family residing at 112 Country Ridge Drive, Rye Brook, New York. We have carefully reviewed the application of Joseph and Stephanie Sandarciero in regards to constructing a rear patio with fire pit and sitting walls. We have no objection to the project and also feel that this project will have no adverse impact on the neighborhood.This project proposed is an enhancement to the community and is keeping with the character of the neighborhood. We recommend the Zoning Board of Appeals approve the application described above. Kind Regards, till I Let �fmhila)q Name �'- col'frt �My- Addreis yE BR Village of Rye Brook Agenda wy Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting w Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 8:00 PM Village Hall, 938 King Street ANNOUNCEMENT:The May 4,2021 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: 847 9706 4653 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@4ebrook.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 his://usO2web.zoom.us/j/84797064653 and clicking on"Join a Meeting"and enter Meeting ID: 847 9706 4653 (no password required).You can also call in to the ZOOM meeting at +1 (929) 205-6099,when prompted, enter 847 9706 4653#. On the evening of May 4,2021, 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 amarshaU@Iyeb�g. 1. ITEMS: 1.1. #21-009 (Adjourned fmm 41612021) Joseph Sandarciero III&Stephanie Sandarciero 112 Country Ridge Drive Construct new rear patio with fire pit and sitting walls. Approvals; (� Adjournment Aye; l DM MI Nay; - '�'� SB ✓ SF GB K&B JDS JS DH 1 Village of Rye Brook �c�y��R,IU� Agend O � �41 y Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 0- Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 8:00 PM Village Hall, 938 King Street 1.2. #21-010 Joshua Shaw&Melissa Shaw 12 Birch Lane Construct roof deck and install spiral staircase. Mail Affidavit Sign Affidavit Approvals; Adjournment Aye; Nay; 1.3. #21-013 (Application Withdrawn) Michael Medd&Theresa Medd 75 Winding Wood Road Legalize screened in porch constructed under Building Permit#765 dated 3/27/1961. DM MI SB SF GB K&B JDS JS DH 2 Village of Rye Brook E DRn k. Agenda O y Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 8:00 PM Village Hall, 938 King Street 1.4. #20-012 David Morrisey& Carin Morrisey 21 Woodland Drive Request extension of approval of Zoning variance,Village Code 250-13.H. Approvals; Adjournment Aye; Nay; 2. SUMMARY APPROVALS: 2.1. Approval of March 2, 2021 Zoning Board Summary Approvals; Adjournment Aye; Nay; 2.2. Approval of April 6, 2021 Zoning Board Summary Approvals; Adjournment Aye; Nay; DM MI SB SF GB K&B JDS JS DH 3 APPROVED '�ATIr ut,e l o� Village of Rye Brook Agenda �[�,7 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting V Tuesday, May 4,2021 at 8:00 PM Village Hall, 938 King Street JUN ` 2 2021 May 4,2021 Minutes VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BUILDING DEPARTMENT ANNOUNCEMENT: The May 4,2021 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: 847 9706 4653 or provided through the written chat section of the Zoom meeting. Comments can also be ernailed before and during the public hearing to Michael Izzo,Village Building Inspector, at mizzo@xyebrook.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 heat the audio of the live session.You can access the Zoom meeting at h s: us02web.zoom.us 47970 4653 and clicking on"Join a Meeting" and enter Meeting ID: 847 9706 4653 (no password required). You can also call in to the ZOOM meeting at +1 (929) 205-6099,when prompted, enter 847 9706 4653#. On the evening of May 4, 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 amarshallgrryebrook.org. Don Moscato Very good. Okay,welcome to the May 4r'meeting of the Rye Brook Zoning Board of Appeals.We have a full board this evening. We also have Village Council Drew Gamils,Board of Trustees liaison David Heiser. And video up in the stars is being brought to you by Fred Seifert. Drew Gamils will be controlling the meeting.And as an initial start,please,if you are not on this particular application,please silence or mute your microphones so that we have minimal,minimal static.The first application this evening is application number 21-009 adjourned from the April 6 meeting,Joseph Sandarciero III and Stephanie Sandarciero 112 Country Ridge Drive, construct a new rear patio with fire pit and sitting walls. Okay, I believe the architect, Mr. Sakofsky is ready to go. So please start your presentation and concentrate on the difference between the last week last month and this month application? - 1 - httPs:llotter.ai 1. ITEMS: 1.1. #21-009 (Ad ourned from 4/6/2021) Joseph Sandarciero III& Stephanie Sandarciero 112 Country Ridge Drive Construct new rear patio with fire pit and sitting walls. Evan Sakofsky Absolutely. Sure. And I'm going to share my screen. One second. Okay, so those are the project drawings, the current ones. So yeah,so we,you know,we took stock of all the comments that we received last time and, you know, certainly wanted to heed them as much as possible. We did start out actually by reaching out to Mike Nowak, just to see what his thoughts would be on this project. And his opinion really was,you know,if we're going to do drainage,he just wanted to see engineering on that. So, the homeowner did,in fact,reach out to an engineer,got pricing for their services,got pricing for what we thought might be the cost to do drainage from his contractor. And it was just very cost prohibitive for him. So,we,you know, we're really sort of hoping that instead of going that route,if we made some concessions on the coverage, which is what we have done that perhaps that would you know,appease the board and appease your concerns. So,what we've done that's different from what we presented the first time is first,we've eliminated a few things that were existing on the site, the homeowner is going to remove this shed,which is worthy of 74 square feet of coverage. He is also going to remove this flagstone walk here it's small, but it's worth 16 square feet of coverage.And then lastly,we shrunk the patio itself that we're proposing It was originally 399 square feet,we've taken it down to 370. So,you know,yes, all told,we are,you know,we had an existing condition that was over coverage. And we're still over coverage. But we're only proposing a net gain of 280 square feet. So,you know,we feel like it's a modest project.We feel that in terms of the layout of the new work here,that we've made this as small as we possibly can,while still retaining the function that the homeowner hopes to attain from it.And we hope you will agree that this is now modest and reasonable. The homeowner has many letters of support from his neighbors who all agree that they feel also that it's modest and reasonable. And yeah, I would love to hear your feedback now on this. Don Moscato Okay, thank you. Evan Sakofsky Sure. Michael Izzo Mr. Chairman, can I ask a quick question? Don Moscato Sure. - 2- Transcribed by https://otter.ai Michael Izzo With regards to the extent that the applicant and his design professional met with the engineers,what was, what was discussed in terms of, of stormwater management?Was it full capture?Did you look at a partial capture?What,you know,what were the parameters that you went over with the Village Engineer? Evan Sakofsky With the village engineer?Well,he wanted to have test pits you know,done. I mean,it basically sounded Eke he wanted full engineering for the property. Michael Izzo Yeah,because the code requires full capture,but did you explore partial capture? Evan Sakofsky I think he was. I think he was amenable to partial capture. But the,you know,the issue was, once we started reaching out to engineers, the way that they work,it didn't seem like they were going to work any other way than a full study of the site.And so you know, that in combination with the drainage that would be would be required there. It just felt very prohibited from a cost perspective. Michael Izzo So, a partial system was not priced out? Evan Sakofsky I don't know what in terms of the system. I couldn't speak for what the contract or price there,but you know,I think the anticipation was that we were going to need at least a few storage tanks, a few cultecs. Michael Izzo Thank you. Don Moscato Okay. I would like to apologize. I did not introduce the last speaker,Mickey Izzo the Building Inspector for the Village of Rye Brook,so I apologize for that. Okay. Do any of the board members want to make a comment on the revised plan submitted by the architect? Evan Sakofsky Sure. Steve Berger I have a couple of questions. You're going to remove the shed that contains the pool equipment. - 3- Transcribed by https://otter.ai Evan Sakofsky No, the pool equipment is behind the shed. That's just a storage shed. Steve Berger Okay, fine.That answers that question. Evan Sakofsky Sure. Steve Berger And then I'm looking at the pics,the photographs. So, the flagstone patio,there's a door that looks like it comes up a bunch of steps. Is that where the flagstone is going? Or is it going near the chimney? Evan Sakofsky I'm sorry, are we talking about what's being removed? Steve Berger Yes. Evan Sakofsky It's a walk that extends off of the back of the house. Steve Berger So, there's a door there that looks like it comes from the lower level. Right? Evan Sakofsky It's not that no,that's,that's access to?Well,I guess maybe the homeowner could speak better to that because I'm not sure exactly where it goes.But I assume it goes to the basement. Steve Berger But that's not where the patio is going? Evan Sakofsky No,that is not. Steve Berger Okay, so the steps are staying obviously, because they have them coming out that door. Evan Sakofsky Correct. - 4- Transcribed by https://otter.ai Steve Berger And where is the flagstone walk that's being removed? Evan Sakofsky It's right over here. So,it just comes off of the steps that lead out from the main level of the house. So, these steps have to stay because the floor level is higher than grade. Steve Berger That's what I'm trying to understand. Evan Sakofsky Correct. Steve Berger Okay, because I don't even see the flagstone walk in the pictures. Evan Sakofsky Let's see if I have one. Jamie Schutzer Seems you got to go to page 17. Steve Berger 17. Jamie Schutzer Yeah,it looks like there's two pictures, because what I'm seeing is there's the chimney. Steve Berger Right. Jamie Schutzer So,if you go to the top picture. Steve Berger Yeah, Jamie Schutzer It's like there's a sliding glass door.A couple of steps. - 5- Transcribed by https://otter.ai Steve Berger Okay, thank you,Jamie. Jamie Schutzer And then you see to the right is where you were talking about. Steve Berger Yeah,right. Okay. So,the steps,those steps will stay. Evan Sakofsky They have right,they have to stay. Steve Berger Right. So,they're going to come out of that and walk on grass to the flagstone patio? Evan Sakofsky Correct.There would be lawn there. That is correct. Steve Berger Okay. Joel Simon Is that a pathway,is the flagstone pathway, or what is that exactly?It's a little hard to tell from the picture. Evan Sakofsky Well,it's a path. Yeah,it's a pathway that currently just leads onto the lawn right now. But it's not necessary. I mean,look, obviously this portion that's being removed is a modest,you know,piece of coverage,but it's still coverage nonetheless. Don Moscato Glenn, do you have any comments for the architect? Glenn Brettschneider No,no,I mean,I appreciate the,you know, the attempt to kind of balance what the homeowner wants and what we want. I don't,I actually think to do what they want to do there's not much more they could take away. Really,I think,I think they kind of you know, I think they've kind of done almost the best they could to make the walkway,you know to make the patio usable. Right. And so,I appreciate the effort. - 6- Transcribed by https://otter.ai Evan Sakofsky Thank you.And as a reminder,you know, because we didn't,I didn't mention it yet today but in terms of the reason for this patio again is just,you know,yes, obviously there's a patio around this pool,but anytime you want to entertain he has young children. I mean this is a major safety hazard here. And it's very inaccessible to the house. And that's the whole reason why this,this project is being proposed in the first place. It really is just about safety for his family,guests that he might be for entertaining. Joel Simon Question, and this was probably asked last month I just don't recall,is there any issue or any concerns currently in that location as for drain as to drainage?Are there any problems? Evan Sakofsky I mean, the homeowner certainly hasn't reported to me that he has any issues and I would assume that the support that he has from his neighbors would indicate that they don't feel that there's any runoff issues on their property due to his property currently. Don Moscato You okay Joel,with that? Joel Simon Yeah,it is what it is. Don Moscato Okay,yeah. I'm coming at it from, from a different perspective I guess, from my colleagues, and I would prefer the original design,as proposed last month with modified water capture.And I think it would be unrealistic to demand because I don't think we can demand a total capture because it is under the 400 square feet. However,I think that by chopping off a little bit of the walkway and taking away the storage shed and reducing the size it's actually taking away from the overall aesthetics of the site.And I personally would prefer that, and as much as they are impinging on the impervious coverage, that they make some effort at water capture,not a complete water capture,but some effort at water capture.And that's sort of the approach that that I'm taking, I recognize that it would involve a cost, but that cost is going to be a trade off with getting the site as they originally requested it,versus expending those funds to capture the water that is going to be created,run off by the new impervious coverage. Glenn Brettschneider I actually shouldn't ask this, at the risk of maybe embarrassing myself a little bit. But when they talk about water capture,you know,we've talked about that over the years and what it's been involving what does that encompass? I actually don't know the physical requirements of what has to be done. Michael Izzo Who are you directing that question to Glenn? - 7- Transcribed by https://otter.ai Glenn Brettschneider Anybody who can answer that. Don Moscato I would ask you to answer that. Michael Izzo Okay,well, stormwater capture involves dry wells, or cultecs that are buried in the ground,and pipes such that they catch runoff from impervious surfaces and reintroduce the water slowly back into the ground. And oftentimes,with larger systems, they'll have to be supplemented with something that's called a pop up emitter,which is when the tank gets full, a little valve pops up and lets the water run out over the surface. So,you get sort of a, it's a combination,letting the water into the ground below grade, and also letting some water run out, sort of gently at grade. So there's,you know, and there are, there are unlimited size capacities that you can have,because you can daisy chain these things together to capture large amounts of water, or on properties that are restricted, because they don't have a lot of clear area, either there,you know, not unlike this one that has a lot of coverage or driveway issues,you know, smaller systems that would capture less water. And obviously,the smaller the system,the less expensive the system, and the larger the system, the more expensive the system,but in order to install any kind of system that's going to work, soil samples need to be taken,you need to be able to know what type of dirt or material is in the ground. Will the stormwater system work,given the results of whatever the you know, the test of the soils are and then the system gets designed accordingly based on how much capture you know you're looking to achieve. Glenn Brettschneider Okay, thanks,Mickey. That was very helpful. So,I guess my next question would be would they know what needs to be done if a partial recapture is even necessary?I mean,is it possible that it wouldn't be needed? Or is it something that you know,Don you'd like because they're over the amount of square footage for the impervious surface or is it possible wouldn't even matter. Joel Simon Glenn,if I can jump in on that? Glenn Brettschneider Yeah, Joel Simon If I'm understanding correctly what Sakofsky said before,this ties in to what Don was requesting,is that whether it's partial or full, their point was that to bring in the engineer to make the evaluations,to make the determinations was just from their perspective,completely cost prohibitive. So, and I agree with Don, that's the preferable way to go. But I don't think from the, from the resident's perspective,it's feasible for them. So, the options become, either it doesn't get approved, or it gets approved with these modifications. - 8- Transcribed by https://otter.ai Glenn Brettschneider So theoretically,you can bring in an engineer, and they would say,and you could spend the money and the resources,and they could come in and say, by the way, you don't need anything for this. Joel Simon That I guess that's one possibility or that, or you can spend a lot of money on engineer.And then he says, Okay, now the next step is x,y, z,which is even more money. Glenn Brettschneider Right? Okay. Joel Simon It's yeah. So that's why I'm saying that. I don't think what Don was suggesting makes the most sense. I don't think it's feasible, at least from what from what the architect was saying before,in terms of economics. Joseph Sandarciero III If I can jump in,I did reach out to an engineer, and the prices were close to$7,000.Just to tell me what I may or may not have needed. Glenn Brettschneider And that was my next question. Joseph Sandarciero III That was a burden on our end. Glenn Brettschneider Right. Joseph Sandarciero III Just can't do it. It doesn't Glenn Brettschneider Right. Joel Simon No,no,that's understandable. - 9- Transcribed by https://otter.ai Joseph Sandarciero III We did try. I just,you know, just so you guys know that. Glenn Brettschneider Right,that was really my question. Joel Simon That would make sense in terms of cost,if you know, for something like that, or that just to maybe try a different engineer. Joseph Sandarciero III I called three people, one called us back. And I went with the one because we were kind of on a time crunch.And they were reputable,Ahneman Kirby,I think is the name was and that was the number that they came at us with. Glenn Brettschneider Yeah,they're like architects these days,there's so busy they don't can you back. Joseph Sandarciero III And their timeframe to do everything,I guess,because everyone's doing projects was,you know, a month and a half,two months out just to get your answer. Joel Simon In my point of view, and this is just my take on this is,I'll take,you know, the applicant's word that economically, the water capture is not feasible. I think they've made a pretty strong effort in,you know, modifying the plan. And if we're not looking at an area where there apparently is any type of current water issue, and I think they've made a good effort Jamie Schutzer I'm in agreement with Joel. Don Moscato Okay, then. Are there any other questions of the architect? Okay,I'd like to recognize the letters of support that have come in. Drew,do we have to officially announce that or is it just enough to say that several additional letters have come in in support of the application? Drew Gamils I would state the names and addresses if you can Don,I don't have the letters in front of me. Do you? - 10- Transcribed by https://otter.ai Don Moscato Nor do L I just had a reference that letters came in,but I don't think I ever got the actual letters other than those in the original application. But I believe Tara said that there were several at least six or seven additional letters that came in. Glenn Brettschneider Yep.All in support. Don Moscato Yes. Okay. Is there anyone on the connection who wants to speak in favor of the application? Or anyone who wants to speak against the application?Please unmute your mic and introduce yourself. Okay,there apparently being none. Could I have a motion to close the public hearing? Steven Berger So, moved. Don Moscato Second, Glenn Brettschneider Second. Don Moscato Okay. public hearing is closed. Okay.Judging from the comments that we heard,apparently,we're comfortable or members of the board are comfortable with the modifications that have been that have been put in.What I'd like to do is go through,go through the five factors and just try and do. Okay. There it is, I'm looking for the actual resolution. Let me go through the five factors. Do you feel that this application will have an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood? I don t think it's a character issue. Glenn Brettschneider No. Don Moscato No, okay. The benefit the applicant seeks cannot be achieved through another method feasible for the applicants to pursue that does not require the variance. Glenn Brettschneider Correct. Jamie Schutzer Correct. - 11 - Transcribed by https://otter.ai Don Moscato Okay. The variance is substantial. Joel Simon Yes. Steve Berger Yes. Don Moscato The variance will not create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood. Jamie Schutzer Correct. Steve Berger Will not. Don Moscato Okay. All right. I'm still shaky on that one,you know, in terms of not capturing the water and the need for the variance is self-created. Glenn Brettschneider Yes. Don Moscato Is everybody comfortable with that. Glenn Brettschneider Yes. Don Moscato Okay,let me go ahead and read the resolution. - 12- Transcribed by https:Hotter.ai RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Joseph Sandarciero III & Stephanie Sandarciero (the "Applicants") for a total impervious coverage variance of 766 square feet where the maximum allowable total impervious coverage is 7,296 square feet pursuant to Village Code 250-37.C,in connection with the proposed new rear patio with fire pit and sitting walls, on property located at 112 Country Ridge Drive,in an R-15 zoning district on the west side of Country Ridge Drive, approximately 300 feet from the intersection of Dorchester Drive and Country Ridge Drive. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID# 129.66-1-10; and WHEREAS, the property has an existing non-conforming total impervious coverage of 7,782 square feet; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held April 6, 2021 and May 4,2021, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and WHEREAS, the public hearing was closed on May 4,2021; 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; - 13 - Transcribed by https:Hotter.ai 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 for a total impervious coverage variance of 766 square feet where the maximum allowable total impervious coverage is 7,296 square feet pursuant to Village Code � 250-37.C, in connection with the proposed new rear patio with fire pit and sitting walls, on property located at 112 Country Ridge Drive, is hereby GRANTED on the following conditions: 1) No permit or certificate of occupancy shall be issued until the Applicants have paid in full all application and consultant fees incurred by the Village in connection with the review of this application. Don Moscato Okay, are we comfortable with that? Steve Berger Yes. Glenn Brettschneider Yes. Don Moscato Let's vote then, Steve? Steve Berger Yes. Don Moscato Glenn? Glenn Brettschneider Yes. Don Moscato J amie? - 14- Transcribed by https://otter.ai Jamie Schutzer Yes. Don Moscato Joel? Joel Simon Yes. Don Moscato Don is going to say no on this one. So,the application is approved, four yeses, one no. Congratulations and good luck with the modified plan. Thank you very much for making that effort. Evan Sakofsky Thank you,we appreciate it. Joseph Sandarciero III Thank you. Don Moscato Good. Okay. Next application is application number 21-010 Joshua Shaw and Melissa Shaw 12 Birch Lane, construct roof deck and installing new spiral staircase. Okay,who's going to be making the presentation? 1.2. #21-010 Joshua Shaw&Melissa Shaw 12 Birch Lane Construct roof deck and install spiral staircase. John Scarlato I guess I will,John, I will be doing it. Don Moscato Okay. Okay, fine John. John Scarlato Just share the screen.Are you seeing my screen, or did I do something wrong? - 15- Transcribed by https://otter.ai Don Moscato No,I see your screen. John Scarlato Okay, so we were here a few months ago for the covering over the deck, over the patio,which we got approval for.And then the homeowner was thinking about it,because from the second floor of their house, they can see the Long Island Sound, I kind of have a clear view to that. They started thinking that part of this maybe should really be an upper level deck. So,we, so they decided that we ask the building department and they directed us back to get approval for the change, since we had gotten a zoning variance,because this roof sits in the rear yard setback. So that's why we're back. So,this is the master bedroom,the concept here is to do a roof deck just off this end of it,lining up with the two columns here. And the idea was to put a spiral stair way up from the deck. Now some of the neighbor's kind of didn't like the idea of the stairs and having such access to it. So,the new concept is to not do the stairway and just have the doors off the master bedroom. So it's a deck off the master and there's no stairway going up to it.The owner can correct me if I'm wrong. Joshua Shaw Yeah,no,no, that was perfect. Hey,hi,everybody.Thanks for seeing us tonight. So,John has it right I think one of the best features is the Long Island Sound,I grew up in Rye Brook,I've been here my whole life 45 years. Don Moscato Excuse me,please introduce yourself so that our archives can record it properly. Joshua Shaw Sorry,Josh Shaw,and my wife,Melissa Shaw. Don Moscato Thank you. Joshua Shaw Good to see everybody.As I was saying,I grew up in Rye Brook. This was a farm when I grew up here. I think by far one of the best features of our house is that we get to see the Long Island Sound from the top floor. And when we got the first approval and started building, as John said,it dawned on me,we're in my in the master suite now that it's too good of an opportunity to have a little sitting area off the top where we see the Long Island Sound,why not go back and see if we can get a small area for sitting and enjoying the sunrise. So,we amended, submitted it two of the three,we have three neighbors that surround the house who said no,no problem at all go for full support. One of our neighbors,who's on the line with us tonight came over to review it,we had a very productive conversation, their concern was, hey,if it's easy access,it could be a lot of noise. You could have big parties up there. We said that was not our intent at all. No worries,we'll just take away the staircase and submit it with just access from the top floor,if that's going to - 16- Transcribed by https://otter.ai make, make it better.And so we're fine doing that if the if the board will approve it. And we just want to keep the space so that we could access it and see the Long Island Sound. Joel Simon Do you have a door there? Joshua Shaw Yeah,we'd have to open up. Where am I,in the suite. Now we just have to take the windows and make it a door to access it. John Scarlato Which my note actually says it's a new French door in place of window. Don Moscato John can you just share with us the size of that new deck? John Scarlato Sure. Okay, so it's about 12 feet deep. It's a little shorter than what the roof is.And it's about 16 feet wide, because I'm lining up with the column. Don Moscato Okay, now,if I'm not mistaken, one of the comments, one of the neighbors was concerned about the possibility of more than a couple of Adirondack chairs sitting out there with a little table for lattes. Joshua Shaw Yeah. Don Moscato Has that concern been discussed in conversations with your neighbors? Joshua Shaw Yeah,we have no problem putting two Adirondacks in a table there. It's literally meant for me and Melissa to enjoy. So,if that's going to make it easier for everybody and, and set up for approval,we're totally fine taking away the staircase and keeping it to those pieces of furniture. Don Moscato One of the problems stems from once an approval is given the Zoning Board loses all control over use of the property, and then it becomes an enforced,administrative enforcement issue. And you can't expect the Village running around there saying hey,look,it's not being used in the way it was originally presented. That's, that's really the only concern I have. - 17- Transcribed by https://otter.ai Joshua Shaw I can understand that. Don Moscato And I'm not quite sure how,how that can be addressed? John Scarlato Well, I would have to pull the railing. I mean,we did it because we kind of put the railing to the edge like or Eke slightly in from the edge just for the look. So,I mean,I would have to,we would have to pull the railing in for that. Joshua Shaw But just real quick,doesn't the fact that we'd be removing the staircase,you'd have to walk into the house up a flight through the master bedroom into the master suite closet to get out doesn't that give some sense of confidence that if there's no staircase to get there,and you have to walk through our master bedroom into our master closet? Joel Simon I tend to agree with that,when you first mentioned the staircase, my initial thought was not a good thing. And I think because then it becomes a party deck. Joshua Shaw Like for your kids. Joel Simon Right. Joshua Shaw And they were like your kids are good now. But you know... Joel Simon Once the staircase is removed it,it really just becomes something for the master bedroom to utilize. And I think that really limits its use. And Don, I would,you know,put our usual condition that it has to remain as a deck,it can't be built. Don Moscato Yeah,I would ask Drew to comment on the nature of the wording of any condition of that nature. Because yes,that's the obvious,the obvious concern that we always have with these applications.Also,you know, once you know, once the variance is granted,in the event that a house is sold,whoever comes in can do whatever they want,you know,in terms of rearranging the deck chairs,so to speak.And but I think Joel, Joel's point is valid once that staircase is removed,it certainly makes the application more attractive. - 18- Transcribed by https://otter.ai Glenn Brettschneider Did you have conditions on the prior variance granted? John Scarlato That's a good question. Glenn Brettschneider We ask good questions. John Scarlato I believe that it had to stay open. Glenn Brettschneider Okay,yeah, I just wanted to make sure that we do because usually we will put a condition on something. And normally it's you can't build on top of it. But John Scarlato Or enclose it. Glenn Brettschneider So that we know what that condition was. And if we're looking it up,I do want to say that Josh and Melissa lived across the street for me for a while. And I actually trust they will be quiet because not once with young kids,were they ever, ever loud or too loud.And they had a pool too. So,I never heard them so. So,I could tell Roberta and Peter, at least from what I knew,when they were younger.They were pretty quiet. Joshua Shaw Thanks, Glen. Don Moscato Well,you never know who's going to be in there next.Judging by the number of new people who have moved into this area within the last year,you know,the amount of turnover is actually shocking,you know, in terms of new people coming in, and all of a sudden doing a couple of$100,000 of renovations after they come in. Jamie Schutzer Don,I have a question. So,if we approve it like this without the stairs... Don Moscato Yeah. - 19- Transcribed by https://otter.ai Jamie Schutzer I assume then that would eliminate any future owner to be able to say, oh,let me put in a staircase without needing to come back to the Zoning Board. Is that correct? Joel Simon Or do we need a condition for that? Jamie Schutzer Yeah. Joel Simon That's a good point. Drew Gamils Yep. I had that exact same thought. Steve Berger I think that's a good point too. Drew Gamils Yep. I had that same thought.And I anticipated that's where you guys were going so Don when you review the resolution,I would not read the part that says spiral staircase.We'll take that out of the final resolution, and we will add in a condition about the deck remaining open and unenclosed and about no staircase being constructed from that top deck to the ground patio. Glenn Brettschneider What about any prior condition?Did we look into that from last time? Drew Gamils I'm trying to locate that resolution right now. Unfortunately,it wasn't uploaded on the agenda page. I'll find it while you guys keep talking. Don Moscato Worst case scenario it would just be redundant then,right Glenn? Glenn Brettschneider Yeah,I just want to see what it says. So that we know. John Scarlato I believe you condition that it had to stay open. I have my memory serves. - 20- Transcribed by https://otter.ai Glenn Brettschneider That would make sense. John Scarlato Because that's what you normally do on porches that go into backyard setback. Glenn Brettschneider Right. Don Moscato Okay. All right. John Scarlato But I think if anybody wanted to do anything here anyway,the FAR of the house is probably too big too. So, I think, but you usually put that in any way. But I think if anybody wanted to do anything like enclose anyway,I think they'd have to be back for you for an FAR variance anyway. Don Moscato Well, this one is just the rear yard setback issue. John Scarlato But if somebody tried to enclose it, that would become an FAR issue. Joshua Shaw I have a question. Sorry to interrupt, just so I understand. We're not selling anytime soon. We've got young kids. But the condition means that when we sell the house 10, 20 years from now,the sale will state,it will be very clear to the new owner,they cannot build without approval, correct? John Scarlato No. Glenn Brettschneider No,you'd have to look it up. Glenn Brettschneider Right. Steve Berger That would be in the title search. - 21 - Transcribed by https://otter.ai Glenn Brettschneider Yeah,you could tell them,you could put in your contract of sale if you wanted. But they don't. Joshua Shaw They'll do a tide search. John Scarlato They would have to research it and figure it out. So,if they hired somebody to do work to the house. They should go back and look at past variances and see what the conditions were. Joshua Shaw Or we'll just put it in the contract. John Scarlato Nobody is going to pick it up that quickly. Joshua Shaw We have no problem putting it in the contract then. Don Moscato Okay,very good. Okay, does anyone have any further questions of John? Oh. Peter Gottlieb Do we have a comment about the size? Roberta Gottlieb Not at this point. Peter Gottlieb Oh, ok. Glenn Brettschneider Is that Peter and Roberta? Don Moscato Yeah.Do you want us to hear what you're saying? Glenn Brettschneider You keep talking amongst yourselves.We can hear you. - 22- Transcribed by https:Hotter.ai Roberta Gottlieb Yeah. Peter Gottlieb I mean, the only real issue we had,I mean,look, the staircase was an issue. Steve Berger Peter, I'm going to save you time before Don says this,introduce yourself. Peter Gottlieb Sure, I'm Peter Gottlieb and Roberta Gottlieb.Thank you. Glenn Brettschneider Thanks Peter. Peter Gottlieb So look,we're fine without the staircase.The fact is,that egress is going to be through the master bedroom, which makes it even more complicated.The only issue we have is just the size.And as we,as I said,in my email our master bedroom is parallel with that deck.And if you've ever been in Red Roof, the houses on top of each other,it's all house, no land.And we're just very,very close. So that's going to extend now,if it comes full 12 feet out,it's basically 12 feet less 40 is 28 feet from our property line.And as we met,when we met with Melissa and Josh,last week, or two weeks ago,whatever,we told him,basically,we hear everything that goes on in their backyard, even the previous neighbors, and what have you. And not that we're listening. But our only concern is noise. And here's the scenario,Josh and Melissa are away for the weekend, and their kids are home.And they have kids over and they know that mom and dad can't catch them running into the master bedroom.And they go on this, this 12 by 16 deck to hang out and their friends are in the pool and they yell down. I mean,that's our only, only issue. Glenn Brettschneider Peter, are you concerned about?Are you concerned about length versus width?You know,you say size I'm not sure what you mean, by that. If I could ask you to be more specific. If you have a specific concern about the size. Peter Gottlieb My specific concern is size means more people. You know, to add,you know that's all I mean.More people can gather and look, I emphatically understand what Melissa and Joshua saying and it's not going to be them. But,you know,we have kids and I mean, our kids are out but I'm just saying kids do what kids do. Joel Simon Peter, I just want to jump in. The concerns you're raising, aren't they existent regardless of the size? They have a small upper deck. It's,you know,it's the same thing of a kid going up there yelling down or even if - 23- Transcribed by https://otter.ai there's no deck and they're having a party in the backyard because mom and dad are away for the weekend. And they're yelling around to each other around the pool. Joel Simon Is it really the deck that's going to create the noise? Peter Gottlieb If there are less people you know,if three or four can congregate versus 10 or 12. That's what that's all I'm saying. Joel Simon Yeah. I'm just not sure that I see that the deck creates the more people though. Joshua Shaw Yeah,Joel's point is that we could have the same number of people on the on the existing patio,we have now and at the pool,versus some would be higher up. I understand what Peter's saying. I think we've eliminated that concern by removing the staircase and making them go through a maze to get there. But I,I think Joel's right,I mean,if the kids are going to have a party,party, and they're not, but if they did. Joel Simon Now if your concern was that you don't want to be seeing them,you know, from the,you know, the eye level view onto the deck, that I could understand. That's going to have, regardless of the size, and that's any deck. I think the noise issue exists,regardless. Peter Gottlieb No,no. I mean,the noise,but the fact is of the novelty of the deck. I'm just saying the decks up here,pools down here, that's all. I mean,you know,it's not like,right now it's a flat patio.That anyway, but I'm just saying, the concern is the decks up here,the pools down here,and the kids go up there to say,you know, hey,let's go look at the fire. Let's go look at the fireworks,whatever. I mean, that's I'm just sort of speaking out what the scenarios are,that's all. Glenn Brettschneider Here's my thinking just out loud. See, 12 by 16 deck,if it even if they reduced it to eight by 10. Right. You know,theoretically,Josh and Melissa's kids could come up five, eight of them and stand in that area. I don't think the size really is the issue here. In my opinion. I think the spiral staircase did eliminate something. I'd see if you don't want the deck at all. I see that. I could understand that as being something that makes sense. It seems to me it's the deck is really the issue,in my opinion, not necessarily the size. And I understand if you don't like the deck at all, I'm not sure that making it even smaller. - 24- Transcribed by https://otter.ai Roberta Gottlieb I think that eliminating the staircase was the compromise that we came to because,um,you're right. I mean, we would rather than not have any deck, but our compromise was to eliminate the staircase.Yeah. Peter Gottlieb I mean, I guess Roberta's right,it's. Glenn Brettschneider Yeah,as I said,I could see, you know, I think the chances of having everyone up there anyway, on a smaller deck still, to me looking down at the pool is still as good with the size of that deck. So again, I don't see it as a size issue. I'm more comfortable if you said,I don't like it at all.And that. But I keep asking them,right. I know,I makes no sense I think asking them to make it even smaller.And I guess it's lined up with it with the columns and everything. So, again,it's to me,it's not a size issue it's a deck issue at all. And I'm sure that I would want that if I was a neighbor. But you know what,maybe I'd be fine with it too,if they invite me to the pool. So again,I don't think it's the size issue at all. Joshua Shaw When are you going to the Gottlieb's for wine,people? Glenn Brettschneider Right.Yeah,yeah. Peter Gottlieb Eliminating the staircase,I think is fine. Glenn Brettschneider Yeah. I mean,when you get Yeah. Don Moscato So, Glenn,it's in your case,it's a binary and not a continuous issue, right?The size doesn't matter whether it's this or that,but it's either yes or no, Glenn Brettschneider That that's kind of how I feel. I don't think the size is it,like if they reduced it, and they wanted to,that doesn't sway me. What you know,if they said,we're going to keep it as that size. You're right,it, to me,it's either you allow them to have it with that size with the compromise that they made, or you choose not to let them do it. It's,you know,again,you're right. I don't think size is the issue here for me. Don Moscato John,can I ask you two questions. One, Glenn just touched on earlier, from an aesthetic issue, and I know you're always concerned about this from your perspective. How would you shrink the size? If you had to? - 25- Transcribed by https://otter.ai And secondly,if you construct the existing deck as proposed,what load bearing issues are you considering in terms of the number of people because I've been on decks that have wobbled when a certain number of people got on them.They were not designed for that number. So what load bearing issues are you talking about if 10 people were on that deck,would it hold?And the first question was, aesthetically,how would you reduce it, so it does not look asymmetrical, or ugly. John Scarlato So,if we were going to shrink it, I'm thinking we're shrinking the depth of it. So, I'm probably going out halfway, maybe like eight making it like 8 feet deep or something. So,you can put chairs and look out. So, I'm thinking somewhere around like seven, eight feet, kind of like a front porch, I would bring the back railing in and then we have to work with like the roof pitch in front of it, I'm assuming to try to make it look Eke the railings just not in the wrong place. So,it was easier to put the railing around the edge, if we had to not put the railing around the edge,I would have to pull it in and probably put somewhat of a sloped roof in front of it a little bit So that it you know,I guess bring the roof pitch up and then stop it and then we'd have to put some kind of drainage through to get to get out, as opposed to having the drainage on the edge of it. That would be my thought I leave at the same length because I really kind of wanted the railing on the part of the deck to be the length of the columns. So,if we pulled it in,you'd see a little bit of roof running kind of in here. And then the railing would be a little shorter is what I'm thinking,and then on the side,you know,this railing would be gone.And you know,your railing would be kind of in here where your post might be kind of setback. Glenn Brettschneider Almost like a city balcony. Right. So,it seems you could do that. And again,I'm not for or against. I'm just saying you could make it smaller, as like a city balcony and still give them seating.But with the deck,the roof itself,it just seems that the way it's been designed seems to be the preferable design,aesthetically. John Scarlato Yeah,it's a clean,it's a clean look,water getting out of the roof is much easier. It's just it's just its Yes. It's a better Yeah,it's a better design for function. Joel Simon And I don't see a reason to reduce the size. I don't see that it solves any issues. Don Moscato I'm just, I'm just introducing the discussion for the record.You know,and in the event because John,as you know,is a resident expert on functionality of decks and porticos. And he has argued historically that certain widths are functionally useful. And anything below that,but the is it 12 feet or 14 feet wide. That's way beyond John's normal. His parameters for usability. What about the load bearing nature of this deck as proposed? If 10 people were on there,will it handle 10 people? - 26- Transcribed by https://otter.ai John Scarlato It would hold and hold the snow load. Yeah,as well. Structurally,it's well designed. Plus,I realize also the roof had to hold the snow load. So,the roof itself is decently designed. Joshua Shaw So, I have put on 20 pounds since COVID.Just for the record.Just letting you know for the record. Peter Gottlieb I think Glenn made a very,very good point. And seriously,we would really withdraw any objection to the size. I think the good compromise is any staircase. And you know,we're fine. We're fine with it,because whether it's going to be fine. I mean, this. Joshua Shaw Thank you,Peter. Glenn Brettschneider Yeah.Again,just you know,I'm not pushing one way or the other. Peter Gottlieb I know you made a very logical analysis of the deck that I didn t really see but I think you're right. Don Moscato Okay. Now,I would take then the Gottlieb's comments as later on when I say anyone want to speak in favor of the application,I will take your comments now to be registered in that in that genre later on.Any other questions for John at this point?Jamie,do you want to weigh in at all?Are you comfortable with everything? Jamie Schutzer Yeah,yeah,I think,you know,with the conditions. And I agree that that Glenn did make a good point. You know,if you cut back a couple of feet, a few feet,I mean, so instead of getting 10 people,you can get eight people. I mean,that you object to the project altogether, or you dont so, so it sounds like the Gottlieb's are happy that with the removing of the stairs, so,you know, I'm in favor of it Okay. Don Moscato Okay. Any other comments?Before we make a motion to? John Scarlato I'm going to make one other comment. Don Moscato Okay-. - 27- Transcribed by https://otter.ai John Scarlato My own house has a deck off the master bedroom. I lived in the house 16 years,we've used it. We've sat on that deck,I'm going to say once, maybe twice. Like you very rarely use a deck off your bedroom. Because you're going to get a New York Times and a cup of coffee.You're going off the one off the kitchen. Jamie Schutzer But John do you see the Long Island Sound from your deck? John Scarlato No,but I have a very nice view from my deck. But no. Glenn Brettschneider I just want to say I make a recommendation to Josh and Melissa. Because I watched a lot of these home shows. I've actually seen a lot of houses now have espresso makers in the bedroom and the bathroom. And I'm thinking at first it seemed kind of odd. But now that I think about it,it's actually a brilliant idea. Joshua Shaw Who wants to go downstairs to get the espresso when you could have it right here. Glenn Brettschneider That's what I'm saying. So maybe you would get more use out of it. Don Moscato Glenn you're giving John ideas for future projects. We're going to have espresso. Glenn Brettschneider I gotta be honest. John Scarlato The kitchen is a location for,don't want to change my philosophy of refrigerator drawers and refrigerators and everything else everything should be a one room. Glenn Brettschneider I'm just telling you an espresso maker in the bedroom is a great thing. Joshua Shaw I agree with Glenn. It doesn't take up much space. Glenn Brettschneider Yep. - 28- Transcribed by https://otter.ai Don Moscato To change the world. Glenn Brettschneider If you're going to be up for that sunrise, you want you don't want to go down to the kitchen. Joshua Shaw Right,who wants to shlep downstairs? Glenn Brettschneider Right. John Scarlato There you go. Don Moscato Okay. Anyone else want to speak in favor of the application?Anyone want to speak against the application? Can I have a motion to close the public hearing? Steve Berger So moved. Glenn Brettschneider Motion to close. Don Moscato Second. Okay,good public hearing is closed. Okay, I think we've looked at and asked a lot of relevant questions with respect to the application. So let me go through the five factors quickly. I don't think it will have an impact on the character of the neighborhood unless too many characters populate the deck. Secondly, the applicant,the benefit the applicant seeks cannot be achieved to another method feasible for the applicant that does not require the variance. Do you consider the variance substantial?What do you think? Glenn Brettschneider I actually I kind of think it is. Joel Simon I could probably lean that way too. - 29- Transcribed by https://otter.ai Glenn Brettschneider Yeah,I mean,I think. Don Moscato Okay. Glenn Brettschneider We thought the lower part was substantial See,going out the same amount of length,right? Don Moscato Okay, all right,very good. The variances will not create any adverse impact to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood. And five, the need for the variance is self-created,are we comfortable with that. Okay,I'm going to read the modified resolution.And if I mentioned spiral staircase,it's not supposed to be there,and then at the appropriate time Drew will add her condition. - 30- Transcribed by https:Hotter.ai RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Joshua Shaw&Melissa Shaw (the "Applicants") for a rear yard setback variance of 12 feet where the minimum required rear yard setback is 40 feet pursuant to Village Code � 250-20.G(3) in connection with the proposed construction of a new roof deck,on property located at 12 Birch Lane,in an R-15 zoning district on the South side of Birch Lane, approximately 290 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#135.43-1-5.40;and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on May 4, 2021, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and WHEREAS, the public hearing was closed on May 4,2021; 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 - 31 - Transcribed by https://otter.ai 5) The need for the variance IS self-created. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the said application for a rear yard setback variance of 12 feet where the minimum required rear yard setback is 40 feet pursuant to Village Code § 250- 20.G(3) in connection with the proposed construction of a roof deck, on property located at 12 Birch Lane, 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 secondly, Drew, Drew Gamils 1) The roof deck shall remain open and unenclosed. 2) No staircase shall be constructed from the roof deck to the ground floor. Don Moscato Okay. Are we comfortable with that everyone? Joel Simon Yes. Don Moscato Okay,good. Okay,let's vote then, Steve? Steve Berger Yes. Don Moscato Glenn? Glenn Brettschneider Yes. Don Moscato Jamie? - 32- Transcribed by https:Hotter.ai Jamie Schutzer Yes. Don Moscato Joel? Joel Simon Yes. Don Moscato Don?Yes. Okay.Application approved five. yeses,no,nos. I'll just make a comment that I hope no real estate brokers and salespeople heard the comment that there is no land on Red Roof. Because they're trying to make the most attractive appearance of for every lot in Rye Brook. We wouldn't want somebody to see the zoning hearing and say oh, they have no land. Okay, congratulations and enjoy. Enjoy the new deck. Joshua Shaw Thank you.We just want to thank everyone.Thank you,John.And thank you The Gottlieb's as well thank you all for the help. Okay. Don Moscato Okay. Thank you. John Scarlato Thank you. Joshua Shaw Have a good night everybody. Glenn Brettschneider Take care. Joshua Shaw Take care. - 33- Transcribed by https:Hotter.ai 1.3. #21-013 (Application Withdrawn) Michael Medd& Theresa Medd 75 Winding Wood Road Legalize screened in porch constructed under Building Permit#765 dated 3/27/1961. Don Moscato Okay. The next application is 21-013 application and is withdrawn. 1.4. #20-012 David Morrisey&Carin Morrisey 21 Woodland Drive Request extension of approval of Zoning variance, Village Code § 250- 13.1-1. Don Moscato Okay. Then,last one is application number 20-012.David and Carin Morrissey 21 Woodland Drive requesting an extension of approval of a zoning variance village code. This is the first time in my history of the tenure that we've ever had an extension based on a broken leg. Mark Mustacato How are you. Don Moscato So, I hope you're feeling better? Mark Mustacato Oh,yeah. Thanks. So,Mark Mustacato, the architect for Mr. and Mrs. Morrissey. So again,we are requesting a six month extension. as I outlined in the letter,you know, the current variance was granted back in November of last year.And with COVID, and the holidays coming up and everything we collectively decided we would sort of reconvene in January,which we did, and get the package together and submit everything.And then unfortunately, I broke my leg on February 13,which has derailed a lot of things, including this project. So,we're back on track again and working on it. But we're,again requesting the extension based on that they were just unable to get everything together because of that. Don Moscato Okay, thank you. Joel Simon Doctors note? - 34- Transcribed by https://otter.ai Don Moscato Doctors note. Don Moscato Do we have a doctor's note for the record? Mark Mustacato I could send you the X rays if you want Don Moscato Actually,no you could just put your foot on the zoom camera and then that'll resolve the whole issue. Do we have any problem with this request for an extension from any members of the board? Steve Berger No. Jamie Schutzer No. Don Moscato Okay. All right.Let me go ahead and read the resolution. RESOLUTION WHEREAS, on November 4, 2020 the Village of Rye Brook Zoning Board of Appeals granted David Morrisey& Carin Morrisey (the "Applicants") (1) a contextual front yard setback variance of 16.5 feet where the minimum required contextual front yard setback is 67.3 feet pursuant to Village Code 5 250- 18.2.H,and(2) a front height setback ratio variance of 0.06 where the maximum allowable front height setback ratio is 0.48 pursuant to Village Code § 250-18.2 j(1),in connection with the proposed second floor addition, on property located at 21 Woodland Drive,in an R-25 zoning district on the North side of Woodland Drive, approximately 1,200 feet from the intersection of Beechwood Boulevard and Woodland Drive. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID# 135.36-1-36 (the "Property"); and WHEREAS, the variances will expire on May 4,2021 pursuant to Village Code � 250-13.H; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board is in receipt of a letter from Mark Mustacato,ALA,, dated April 12, 2021 requesting an extension of the variances;and - 35- Transcribed by https://otter.ai WHEREAS, the Applicant requires an extension of the variances due to unforeseen delays; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board has the authority pursuant to Village Code § 250-13.H to grant an extension of the original variance approval for an additional six (6) months if the applicant demonstrates that there is a good cause for an extension. NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,that the Village of Rye Brook Zoning Board hereby grants a six(6) month extension of the variance referenced herein for property located at 21 Woodland Drive to expire on November 4,2021 unless a building permit is issued prior to November 4, 2021. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, except as specifically modified by the amendment contained herein,the Zoning Board of Appeals Resolution dated November 4,2020,and the conditions set forth therein, is otherwise to remain in full force and effect. Don Moscato Okay, are we comfortable with that? Ready for a vote? Glenn Brettschneider Yes. Don Moscato Okay, Steve? Steve Berger Yes. Don Moscato Glenn? Glenn Brettschneider Yes, Don Moscato Jamie? Jamie Schutzer Yes. Don Moscato - 36- Transcribed by https://otter.ai Don?Joel? Joel Simon Yes. Don Moscato Yes, Don?Yes. Okay.Application approved. Five yeses,zero nos. Okay. Thank you very much.And take care. No running marathons for a while. Mark Mustacato Yeah.That's for sure. Thank you. Don Moscato Okay. Okay. Stay away from runaway cars on Woodland Drive also.We had an incident here this week. Mark Mustacato All right,take care. Don Moscato Okay. The final item on our agenda is the approval of the March and April Zoning board summaries.Do I have a motion to approve both? Glenn Brettschneider So moved. Don Moscato Second? Jamie Schutzer Seconded. Don Moscato Seconded. Okay. Okay. Board summaries are approved.Thank you very much Drew. And that's a good sign off for today. Have a great rest of the week. And hopefully everything goes well for all of us. Take care everyone. Motion to adjourn? Joel Simon So moved. Don Moscato Okay, okay. The meeting is adjourned. Okay. Good night. Good night, everyone. - 37- Transcribed by https:Hotter.ai y� URnv Village of Rye Brook X , Agenda Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting to, _eZ t` Tuesday,April 6, 2021 at 8:00 PM Village Hall, 938 King Street i9a2.' 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 e 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 htq2s://usO2web.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 videoconference should be emailed to amarshangryebrook.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; D\1 MI Nay; S B 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 7 SF GB K&B JDS JS DH 1.5. #21-006 Matthew Wiener&Erica Wiener 18 Boxwood Place Construct front and rear 2nd story additions. Mail Affidavit Sign Affidavit Approvals; Adjournment Aye; 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; Adjournment Aye; Nay; 1.7. #21-021 Joseph Sullivan&Tracey Sullivan 82 Tamarack Road Legalize rear deck and screen porch. Mail Affidavit Sign Affidavit Approvals; Adjournment Aye; DM MI Nay; SB SF GB K&B JDS JS DI-1 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 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 Building Permit Check List&Zoning Analysis Address: SBL: ��c' • 6 — t ' 1 Zone: - I S Use: Z I <:> Cont.Type: Other. Submittal Date: Z 'Z-I Revision Submittal Dates: 12� I Z Applicant: Nature of Work F t,) 'j `f' S tTZZ N k1 AL L.C Reviews:zBA:M A R - 1 2 021 PB: BOT: Other. OK ( ( ) FEES:Filing:�.ST BP: I ��' � C/O: Legalization: ( ) (,),-APP: Dated ✓ Notarized: ✓SBL: --Truss I.D. Cross Connection: H.O.A.: ( ) ( ) Scenic Roads: Steep Slopes: Wetlands: Storm Water Review: Street Opening. ( ) ( ) ENVIRO:Long. Shore Fees: N/A: ( ) ( ) SITE PLAN:Topo: Si j Protection S/W Mgmt.: Tree Plan: Other. ( ) (✓)' SURVEY:Dated 2 l Z- Current: ✓ Archival: Sealed. Unacceptable: ( ) ( PLANS:D.�te�tamped- Sealed: ✓ Copies:�Electronic: ✓ Other.� Wor C mp: '� Lia ilit y. ✓ Comp.Waiver. Other. ODE 753#: (0�c)1 '��j �&! ���0 Dated Sol/—,;�/ N/A: (•� ( ) HIGH-VOLTAGE ELECTRICAL:Plan: Permit: N/A: Other. ( ) ( ) LOW-VOLTAGE ELECTRICAL:Plan: Permit: N/A Other. (J/ ( ) FIRE ALARM/SMOKE DETECTORPlans: Permit H.W.I.C.:_Battery:_Other. ( V PLUMBING Plan: ✓ Permit: Nat.Gas: ✓ LP Gas: N/A/: Other. ( ) ( ) FIRE SUPPRESSION:Plan: Permit N/A: Other. ( ) ( ) H.V.A.C.: Plan: Pemut: N/A Other. ( ) ( ) FUEL TANK:Plans: Permit: Fuel Type: Other. O O 2020 NY State ECCC: N/A: Other. (� ( ) Final Survey: Final Topo: RA/PE Sign-off Letter. As-Built Plan: Other. ( (� BP DENIAL LETTER: ✓ C/O DENIAL LETTER: Other. ( ) ( ) Other. (�ARB mtg.date: 7-1 approvaL• ` notes: (a'ZBA mtg.date: Z l approval• S `t Z notes: Z 1 ' O OCR ( )PB mtg.date: approval• notes:RE APPROVED OLMED EXISTING: PROPOSED NOTES Ate. .• c<-k Z3T - o� Dom Y 2 5 7071 Circle: Fr n gg: Fron: Front: Sides: 1 Main Cov Accs.Cov FL H Sb• Sd.H Sb: Z (, Tot,imp: 7 Z'Z 6 -7 o t ZS'D - — V XIL- . Ft.ImD PP Height/Stories: note,-i _+k C-Z� I f BUILDING DEPARTMENT VILLAGE OF RYEIROOK 938 KING STREET RYE BROOK,NY 10573 FEB 2 5 2021 (914)93 . 9 J39-5801 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK 0"/m L 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: 112 Country Ridge Dr Date of Submission: Parcel ID#: 129.066-01-10 Zone: R-15 Proposed Improvement(Describe in detail): APPLICANT CHECK LIST: MUST BE COMPLETED BY THE APPLICANT New patio in rear yard with sitting walls and The following items must be submitted to the Building gas firepit. Department by the applicant-no exceptions. 1. (g Completed Application 2. (X)Two(2)sets of sealed plans. lone full size {maximum Property Owner: Joe and Stephanie Sandarciero allowable plan size-36"x 42") and one 1 I-xl7") Address: 112 Country Ridge Dr 3. CX)Two(2)copies of the property survey. 4. (),o Two(2)copies of the proposed site plan. Phone# 914-879-0372 5. ()<I One electronic/disc copy of the complete Applicant appearing before the Board: application materials.6. (N Filing Fee. Evan Sakofsky 7. (>0 Any supporting documentation. Address: 11 Berkley Ln 8. ( ) HOA approval letter. (ifapplicable) 9. ( Photographs. Phone# 516-314-1385 10.()e) Samples of finishes/color chart. (a sample board or Architect/Engineer: Evan Sakofsky Architect model may be presented the night of the meeting) Phone# 516-314-1385 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 QL Sworn to before me this CPGI-� day of , 20 day of �> , 20"9- 1 Sign re of Pr erty r Signature of App t ;�5-&A S� ��,��, �VAJ�J Print Name o Property Owner \Print Name ol'Applicant 1 Notary PutblV Notary Pt lic III HOPE 8.VESPIA WALQUIRIA REED Notary Public-state of New York Notary Public,State of New York No.oiRE6407444 No.OlVE5084028 Qualified in Westchester County Qualified In Westchester County_ My Commission Expires Jun 8,2024 Commission Expires August 25, VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BUILDING DEPARTMENT 938 KING STREET, RYE BROOK,NY 10573 (T) 939-0668 (F) 939-5801 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD Wednesday, May 19, 2021 PAGE 1 Due to public health and safety concerns from COVID-19, the Architectural Review Board meeting on May 19, 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 hftps://us02web.zoom.us/o/89843106184 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: 898 4310 6184 NAME & LOCATION TYPE OF APPLICATION MOTION SECOND ' APPROVED REJECTED APPLX 66 Tamarack Rd New 6ft White PVC Picket Consent 5185 (Sibley) Fencing Side Yards Agenda 78 Woodland Ave Legalize Replacement of 5186 (Freeman) Wood Deck Railing & Boards w/Trex, &New Paver Walkway. 112 Country Ridge New Rear Patio w/ Fire Pit Consent _ _n 5187 Dr(Sandarciero) & Sitting Wall Agenda (Y`�(_ 1 14 Berkley Drive Replace & Enlarge Terrace Consent 5188 (Nachman) Patio, Add Built in BBQ Agenda 6 Birch Lane New 4Ft High Black Consent 5189 (Gitkind) Aluminum Fence In Rear Agenda Yard 49 Rock Ridge Dr. New Rear Patio on Grade Consent 5190 (Firestone) (Blue Stone) Agenda 105 N. Ridge St New 4Ft High black Chain Consent 5191 (Sepkowski) Link Fence & 4Ft High Agenda Black Aluminum Fence. 34 Garibaldi Place 6Ft High White PVC Fence Consent 5192 (Crute) Side Yards Agenda ML NM MR SE JM c/ SF AC MI KC 1 1 > +% - ,� r�'��fl v� •� '���� ��5' PPPP+,,,,��i{ ,�` :1--�''�it� �,,ccggcc��yy�'1 `i 141 1 11j111111g� �•� _ d oG�au.�,.::��b � �111111n - :0e� EVAN SAKOFSKY I ARCHITECT 11 BERKLEY LANE • RYE BROOK• NY 10573 516•314• 1385 • EVAN.SAKOFSKY@a GMAIL.COM Main Patio Pavers: Unilock "Beacon Hill"; color=Steel Mountain ' �,•. .ac. Patio Border: Unilock "Copthorne"; color= Steel Blue SANDARCIERD RESIDENCE 112 COUNTRY RIDGE DRIVE RYE BROOK• NY EvAN SAKOFSKY I ARCHITECT 11 BERKLEY LANE • RYE BROOK• NY 10573 516•314• 1385 • FVAN.SAKOFSKY a@GMAIL.COM Wall System: Unilock "U-Cara"; color= French Grey Wall Cap: Unilock "Ledgestone"; color= Grey SANDARCIERD RESIDENCE 112 COUNTRY RIDGE DRIVE RYE BROOK• NY SIT. :.nn9Bn` N C0 LLJ a to to - - •��- : `� C Z ke W ZQuo �G a > W a Lu CL 6 _ 40 = ,- u u CC) 1 ® (MM/DD/YYYY) ACORO CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE r�E4/24/2021 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 on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsements. PRODUCER CONTACT NAME: Progressive Advantage Business Program Progressive Advantage Business Program PHONE FAX PO Box 5316 (A/c,No,Ext): 844-306-4926 (A/C,No): Binghamton,NY 13902 EMAIL ADDRESS: commercialservice@homesite.com INSURER(S)AFFORDING COVERAGE NAIC# INSURER A: Midvale Indemnity Company 27138 INSURED INSURER B: ADAM LANDSCAPING LLC INSURER C: 141 WILKINS AVE INSURER D: PORT CHESTER NY 10573 INSURER E: INSURER F: COVERAGES CERTIFICATE NUMBER:213619736082451712890424 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. INSIR TYPE OF INSURANCE ADDL SUBR POLICY NUMBER POLICY EFF POLICY EXP LIMITS LTR INSR WVD MM/DD MM/DD COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY EACH OCCURRENCE $1,000,000 A CLAIMS-MADE —1 OCCUR DAMAGE TO RENTED N N GLP1016442 01/25/2021 01/25/2022 PREMISES Ea occu rence $100,000 MED EXP(Any one person) $5,000 PERSONAL&ADV INJURY $1,000,000 GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER: GENERAL AGGREGATE $2,000,000 X POLICY❑ JECT PRO ❑ LOC PRODUCTS-COMP/OP AGG $2,000,000 OTHER: AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT Ea accident ANY AUTO BODILY INJURY(Per person) OWNED SCHEDULED BODILY INJURY AUTOS ONLY AUTOS Per accident HIRED NON-OWNED PROPERTY DAMAGE AUTOS ONLY AUTOS ONLY (Per accident) UMBRELLALIHB CCUR EACH OCCURRENCE EXCESS LIAB LAIMS-MADE AGGREGATE DED I I RETENTION$ WORKERS COMPENSATION PER OTH- AND EMPLOYERS'LIABILI Y Y/N STATUTE ER ANY PROPRIETOR/PARTNER/EXECU -TIVE OFFICERIMEMBER EXCLUDED? N/A E.L.EACH ACCIDENT (Mandatory In NH) E.L.DISEASE-EA EMPLOYEE If yes,describe under DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS below I I I E.L.DISEASE-POLICY LIMIT PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY OCCURRENCE AGGREGATE DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS/LOCATIONS/VEHICLES (ACORD 101,Additional Remarks Schedule,may be attached If more space Is required) Landscape and Gardening Services CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANCELLATION VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF,NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE G ©1988-2015 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved. ACORD 25(2016/03) The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD NYSIF New York State Insurance Fund WESTCHESTER ONE,44 SOUTH BROADWAY,10TH FLOOR,WHITE PLAINS,NY 106014411 1 IlyEif.Com CERTIFICATE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION INSURANCE (RENEWED) O N A A h A A A 611729762 ROBERT F MANAVOLA 400 RELLA BLVD SUITE 162 SUFFERN NY 10901i0l D. SCAN TO VALIDATE AND SUBSCRIBE POLICYHOLDER CERTIFICATE HOLDER ADAM LANDSCAPING LLC VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK 141 WILKINS AVE 938 KING STREET PORT CHESTER NY 10573 RYE BROOK NY 10573 POLICY NUMBER CERTIFICATE NUMBER POLICY PERIOD DATE W2374 209-1 706561 10/23/2020 TO 10/23/2021 10/28/2020 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICYHOLDER NAMED ABOVE IS INSURED WITH THE NEW YORK STATE INSURANCE FUND UNDER POLICY NO. 2374 209-1, 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, AND, WITH RESPECT TO OPERATIONS OUTSIDE OF NEW YORK, TO THE POLICYHOLDER'S REGULAR NEW YORK STATE EMPLOYEES ONLY. IF YOU WASH TO RECEIVE NOTIFICATIONS REGARDING SAID POLICY,INCLUDING ANY NOTIFICATION OF CANCELLATIONS, OR TO VALIDATE THIS CERTIFICATE,VISIT OUR WESSITE AT FITTPSJ/WWW.NYSIF.COWCERTICERTVAL.ASP.THE NEW YORK STATE INSURANCE FUND IS NOT LIABLE IN THE EVENT OF FAILURE TO GIVE SUCH NOTIFICATIONS. THIS POLICY DOES NOT COVER THE SOLE PROPRIETOR,PARTNERS AND/OR MEMBERS OF A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 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:894037503 U-26.3 Laura Petersen From: Mike Izzo Sent: Friday, May 21, 2021 3:12 PM To: Tara Gerardi; Laura Petersen Subject: FW: Message from Dig Safely New York, Inc. (DSNY) Michael J. Izzo Building & Fire Inspector Village of Rye Brook, NY (914) 939-0668 -----Original Message----- From: Dig Safely New York Exactix <tickets@exactix.digsafelynewyork.com> Sent: Friday, May 21, 2021 2:18 PM To: Mike Izzo <MI zzo@ryeb rook.org> Subject: Message from Dig Safely New York, Inc. (DSNY) ****REGULAR**** DIG REQUEST from DSNY for: VIL RYE BROOK Taken: 05/21/2021 14:15 To: VIL RYE BROOK PRIMARY Transmitted: 05/21/2021 14:17 00002 Ticket: 05211-001-605-00 Type: Regular Previous Ticket: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ State: NY County: WESTCHESTER Place: RYE BROOK Addr: From: 112 To: Name: COUNTRY RIDGE DR Cross: From: To: Name: Offset: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Locate: BACKYARD BEHIND HOUSE NearSt: ROCKINGHORSE TRL & DORCHESTER DR Means of Excavation: MINI EXCAVATOR Blasting: N Site marked with white: Y Boring/Directional Drilling: N Within 25ft of Edge of Road: N Work Type: EXCAVATION FOR PATIO Estimated Work Complete Date: 05/26/2021 Depth of excavation: 8 INCHES Site dimensions: Length 20 FEET Width 20 FEET Start Date and Time: 05/26/2021 07:00 Must Start By: 06/10/2021 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Contact Name: DENNIS NARDONE Company: ADAM LANDSCAPING Addrl: 141 WILKENS Addr2: City: PORTCHESTER State: NY Zip: 10573 1 Phone: 914-497-3074 Fax: Email: adamlandscapingllc@gmail.com Field Contact: DENNIS NARDONE Alt Phone: 914-497-3074 Email: adamlandscapingllc@gmail.com Working for: JOE SANDACIERO ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Comments: Lookup Type: PARCEL ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Members: CONED SUEZ WTR WESTCHESTER VIL RYE BROOK WESTCHESTER CTY SWR 2 ODOz co Q O O v O �wLL O � cq �� qo M w z ti� oho �o cz E ,Zt r�s Ln o ti h OO y 0 N I 0 ° c U] M.h 0 Qp a �cl) 0 u m O O XLC N J_ Q) 0 of o c p U _ I 0 0) �� ono O �LL: u� o 0 O N� IT -O cl) —a o aouaj%lull UIO43 — aouaj b ,OL•£ •1 p � M a o C7 cs a 0 0 ^ a SO'9! LL �O c ip a o 0� "o U O U o Ln o , O o ci,o cry ad N ,9L'L£ o a h v c 0 � 0 U m a c 0 0OL ' o aouaj!blaw aouaj 104aw Q a U O �� o�.�� oar o ��a LO �c" ZN JLL� O O N O V W • aouaj s' �u o o ��1 Ol y �/IU4/7 ua4J (3 a ❑¢ aouaj apo�oo�S a�� � �N Q 3 o UE1 q o 0 0 > Q O a J ck� Q N O O To O U m cl- C N Q TO 3 (� >c a O a t O o a rW/� • h u q u/) • M 6Z'i'Z Q O 00 I DV w aooj roue N oQL W Q _ o U as N OC N Y O ° lzt O ,, o c U �II'ZII=� l 1 _ N JP gan Ilodsy OL x0m J 441M aP!M OS�? ILN-f ODI9AI2Q IOQI2D00'OS o5 3W"�Qaa N e 0. Ox a U aw �w Evan Sakofsky S N R 1ER0 P TIO ARCHITECT NEVI k. 11 Berkley Lane 1 12 COUNTRY RIDGE DRIVE • RYE BROOK , NEW YORK Rye Brook-New York PLA MAY 14 2021 10573 DATR, 516-314-1385 PLOT PLAN GENERAL NOTES VILLAGE OF RYE BROO ]-K PROJECT ADDRESS. 112 COUNTRY RIDGE DRIVE,RYE BROOK,NY 10573 1.ALL WORK SHALL CONFORM TO THE NEW YORK STATE UNIFORM FIRE 6 INSPECT THE PREMISES AND VIEW THE EXISTING CONDITIONS TO VERIFY BUILDING DEPARTMENT 6==MEMMM,6 PREVENTION AND BUILDING CODE INCLUDING THE 2020 RESIDENTIAL ALL CONDITIONS,SIZES AND QUANTITIES.PLANS ARE FURNISHED TO SECTION/BLOCK/LOT: 129.066 01-10 CODE OF NEW YORK STATE(2020 RCNYS),THE 2020 ENERGY INDICATE THE SCOPE OF THE INTENDED CONTRACT WORK EXISTING CONSERVATION CODE OF NEW YORK STATE(ECCNYS),THE 2020 CONDITIONS WHICH MIGHT PRECLUDE OR INTERFERE WITH THE PROPOSED / PLUMBING CODE OF NEW YORK STATE(2020 PCNYS),THE 2017 NATIONAL WORK AS DRAWN OR SPECIFIED SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF ELECTRIC CODE(NFPA 70-2017),LOCAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT THE ARCHITECT AND OWNER FOR RESOLVING.RELOCATIONS MUST BE r REGULATIONS AND ALL OTHER APPLICABLE REGULATIONS BY CHECKED TO VERIFY THEIR FEASIBILITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NEW �/ l\ AUTHORITIES HAVING JURISDICTION. REQUIREMENTS. W A.SHOULD THERE BE ANY INFORMATION SUPPLIED ON OR OMITTED FROM 7.WRITTEN DIMENSIONS ON THE DRAWINGS SHALL HAVE PRECEDENCE OVER THE DRAWINGS OR IN THE SPECIFICATIONS THAT INADVERTENTLY DOES SCALED DIMENSIONS.VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS > NOT COMPLY WITH CODE,THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BRING THE MATTER INDICATED ON THESE DRAWINGS. TO THE IMMEDIATE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT AND RESOLVE IT 8.ADEQUATELY BRACE AND PROTECT ALL WORK DURING CONSTRUCTION BEFORE ANY CONSTRUCTION AFFECTING THIS MATTER BEGINS. AGAINST DAMAGE,BREAKAGE,COLLAPSE,DISTORTIONS AND B.SHOULD THE CONTRACTOR KNOWINGLY CONSTRUCT ANYTHING IN MIS-ALIGNMENT ACCORDING TO APPLICABLE CODES,STANDARDS AND / NON-COMPLIANCE WITH ANY CODE WITHOUT CONSULTING BEFORE GOOD PRACTICE. Y HAND,THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BEAR FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR 9.MANDATORY INSPECTIONS:MANDATORY INSPECTIONS SHALL COMPLY O Q CORRECTING THE CONSTRUCTION TO COMPLY WITH ALL LOCAL AND WITH THE REQUIREMENTS 0c THE AUTHORITIES HAVING JURISDICTION. PERMIT STATE CODES AND AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE OWNER,EVEN IF VISIT THE PROJECT SITE TO INSPECT THE SCOPE OF THE WORK IN THE DRAWINGS OR SPECIFICATIONS CAN BE SHOWN TO CALL OUT RELATION TO THE EXISTING CONDITIONS. L NON-COMPLYING SITUATIONS. 10.ALL PLUMBING WORK SHALL CONFORM TO THE STATE PLUMBING CODE / O r! S��#i 2.SHOULD UNFORESEEN CONDITIONS OR OTHER CAUSES NECESSITATE AND ALL ELECTRICAL WORK SHALL CONFORM TO NATIONAL ELECTRICAL �� • (A �` L C ✓ Lu 1 CONSTRUCTION DETAILS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THESE PLANS.THE CODE. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT AND SUBMIT HIS DETAILS 11.THE TERM"PROVIDE'MEANS TO-FURNISH AND'INSTALL'. MAY Z 6 r SHOWING THE PROPOSED METHODS TO ACCOMPLISH THE REQUIRED 12.THE TERM'FURNISH'MEANS TO SUPPY REQUIRED COMPONENTS AND RESULTS.PATCH,REPAIR AND FINISH OF ALL DISTURBED AREAS. DELIVER TO PROJECT SITE. DATE APPROVE,;-. . Q 3.ALL ELECTRICAL AND PLUMBING WORK SHALL BE DONE OR DIRECTLY 13.THE TERM'INSTALL°MEANS TO INSTALL ALL REQUIRED ITEMS. SUPERVISED BY SUBCONTRACTORS LICENSED TO WORK IN THE STATE. Z 7 4.DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE FROM FINISHED FACE TO FINISHED FACE,UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.�/ // •• 5.VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS IN THE FIELD.DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN ACTUAL OSUILDONG A�R, of � W CONDITIONS AND DRAWINGS AND/OR SPECIFICATIONS SHALL BE REPORTED VillageR y W�E IN TO THE ARCHITECT IN WRITING FOR CLARIFICATION.WORK SHALL NOT PROCEED UNTIL SUCH CLARIFICATION HAS BEEN RECEIVED. z LU `•\ \\ ,/. // CLIMATIC AND GEOGRAPHIC DESIGN CRITERIA 20151RC TABLE R901.2(1) ^ ~•```\ GROUND WIND DESIGN SEISMIC SUBJECT TO DAMAGE FROM WINTER ICE BARRIER FLOOD AIR MEAN • SPEED DESIGN FROST LINE DESIGN UNDERLAYMENT FREEZING ANNUAL A S B U t LTIFI N A L SURVEY z 0 '•.� �^ '.�\ j // SNOW LOAD (MPH) CATEGORY WEATHERING DEPTH TERMITE TEMP REQUIRED HAZARDS INDEX TEMP REQUIRED PRIOR TO p 20 PSF 115 MPH C SEVERE 42' MOD TO HVY T F YES LOCAL <1500 50•F *NOT TO SCALE FINAL INSPECTION a O Q U m WALL CAP AND STAIR TREAD:UNILOCK"LEDGESTONE',COLOR=GREY Z .., s:o+•.u:r.,h,Y•'r:.i=,i:A'`?F T;;;,h'1cn)t:-9%' W .�2ri, 'E'!i'�;.. �'d�+ay n1!, -s-u-�.''` Fi -•'-. ...:_• �... .....' ski..�3� �gYr,%;if, WALL UNILOCK-U-CARA',COLOR=FRENCH GREY ' ,,. SEAL• Dh �? ED MAX FINISHED AREA=370 SF •:1'::.T:.1....L..L.L.1 L.T T. -1 x•:1--T::.C__1 I:.T-.:1':-L.".1. STEPS WITH MAX.8Ya'RISE; 2 WALL MATERIALS VERIFY NUMBER OF STEPS REQUIRED IN FIELD Nj •>c m N.T.S. O OF NE`N� 6 n la ZO BORDER:UNILOCK COPTHORNE.COLOR-STEEL BLUE UN as 7EDR: INSTA T BE ACTU P R PERMIT o T-0' 3-0' ' S _ ' 2`K"r�"ys.��Y •,a,.... ISSUED DATE: ——— LL �.�.. IQ-:x:: ;. 02.22.21 <u,.. CL . Iu a REVISION DATE: REVISION NO.: Illy UNILOCK CAP ON UNILOCK U-CARA —— WALL SYSTEM; , c INSTALLATION TO BE PER MANUFACTURER INSTRUCTIONS W ---_ _ ___ � .. .. CONSTRUCTION SITTING WALL SITTING WALL "" M;•••., ^M ��N PATIO PAVERS:UNILOCK BEACON HILL',COLOR=STEEL MOUNTAIN BLUESTONE CAP 4 G.C.AND OWNER SHALL COORDINATE LIGHTING AND t�'-•' ��a a �:�~��� &GENERAL NOTES • ELECTRICAL IN FIELD;ELECTRICIAN SHALL FILE FOR y,'_ g T- s ��. 18-9 MAX.FINISHED DIMENSION ,. ASSOCIATED PERMITS AS REQUIRED BY CODE � �ei C,t j A �� A/C A/C STEPS WITH MAX.8 Ya°RISE; VERIFY NUMBER OF STEPS REQUIRED IN FIELD f ate, 00_000• ,,, �� yr. �"`'--- ..,yy��Y r•-�r s CONSTRUCTION PLAN PATIO MATERIALS N.T.S. , — �--=—t O z OD �h l Ow Obi vj �_ Ix N 4°� rye UQ ° 2 N `�'CN a O yto 'O 3 'et o.o= � M 0 � L�1 cv �p 41 Py 00 y O o� v o� '� C� a Q O M rya 2 � w Z O N h w -�a 'T2 CHOW cl! a tlo cooj �" h .C'y�.� �.° � V �� •� v� � ., t �y�� w ��D ^I h Q W h ��� � � � �•••� N e-1 ne o ° c 7Z Q1,61 o O � o � tZIU��-1 Ln 0 N 0 0 0 2 6 O co N O N ozs �i UT — c o a0i r a) =c s y 0 NO -i d N� Y N UH n N ry Z �tO '1�,, aouaj wr!uia`_x z- �L aouaj)1u!l UP10 _x x--------•--x----x o Z9'f'1 EZ oLO RLI N J N N cn U M 2 c c c O•N oO N �O o0 oM a� o0 00 �o 90'Zz Ln a NO 9L'L£ °o c m z��_ c� o m c U NO 0 acix UY� 3r1JV�, � C x x x x aauaj 104aW C Ux ri C C C a o U U o t o u o U o a%uaj I01aW x ao aouaj I04aW i O co Q o O Z7 C a C U h V O ti B O O H O 0f40d 01 •bti 1£ U W O p ^ V aoUaj ❑ C^ O 1 a �U!7xU!0q ❑ ti O Q) 3 o o o a Q aF%uaj app%ao4S 6 U x 0 ❑ U� q +� o p a ❑ Q p ^ Q)LL- cv q p tl Z U ,� O Z N U N N � t �Q O O `a � �l �-•� C/� •y U O N a h U Q) q N 11 QI 0�- q a CT/1 0 0 ul 6Z•1'Z Q rn w aoaj�1ou9 O tTs1 0) W O c` Q)i p A O V N N 'co": y y M O t a a v O Q Z > O ¢ O O a Q O a N h a U v � Q J U l 1 _ C° o0 qanj 4lpgdsd OL Aom Jo 4LIBM ap!M,OS p� L S R1�.I2I N�°a� .0 ©�N�U ��zoo O wyo h�� U W W W