Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
BP21-196
PERMIT # DATE:7%1�..1 �cp:3o,0a SECTION L; 175 BLOCK / LOT 30 TYPE OF WORK _ fZ e O ,r d P C V (fir; n.0 I /) JOB LOCATION �F CONTRACTO EST. COST J, U U U FEE ,/CO !t c i - % ;� 2 FEES' //OfP TCO # FEE DATE INSPECTION RECORD ATE FOOTING FOUNDATION FRAMING RGH FRAMING INSULATION PLUMBING 71 RGH PLUMBING GAS SPRINKLER ELECTRIC O LOW -VOLT C7 ALARM AS BUILT FINAL NSP • ass we , r • AS-BUILTIFINAL SURVEY REQUIRED PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION V P,P,G�� ved VILLAGE OF ROE BROOK WrSTGHESTP COU , NEW YORK NO: 21-198 Certtficate of Occupoucp his is to certify that �J)ra if, of, having duly filed an application on DLeM b(!L 20 L requesting a Certificate of Occupancy for the premises known as, LLo-Vty Uo d Avenue , Rye Brook,NY,located in a �-Zoning District and shown on the most current Tax Map as Section: 135 .--77 Block: Lot: 3 C) , and having fully complied with the requirements of the Building Code and the Zoning Ordinance under Building Permit No. , issued 713 L 20 5 /, such authority and permission is hereby granted to the property owner to lawfully occupy or use said premises or building or part thereof listed under the New York State Use Classification of: Fa M / ,for the following purposes: Ren r olea L ex mn s <f-.� n Subject to all the privileges, requirements, limitations and conditions prescribed by law, and subject also to the following: This certificate does not in any way relieve the owners or any person or persons in possession or control of the premises, building,or any part thereof from obtaining such other permits or licenses as may be prescribed by law for the uses or purposes for which the building or premises is designed or intended. Furthermore, it does not relieve such owners or persons from complying with any lawful order issued with the object of maintaining the premises or building in a safe and lawful condition. No changes or rearrangement in the structural parts of the building or in the exit facilities shall be made,and no enlargement, whether by extending on any side or by increasing in height shalAlbe made,nor shall the building be moved from one location to another until a permit to accomplish such change has be nob lding Inspector. Building Inspector,Village of Rye Brook: Date: DEC - 3 2021 . BUILDING DEPARTMENT Faro(fic5 i;R T zl3Pal-,J41v VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK 1I 1.,(:E OF RYE BROOK ISSLT.D:?-31D BUILDING DEPARTMENT 93sKL,%Gstttt f i.RviKBRtx)IK,NiE,^ YtmK I0573 DATI la-3—a.1 — 010939-06611 I)0— 1`1%113. APPLICATION FUR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY.CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE, AND CERTII'ILv A1rlON OF FINAL Cons TO 1!8 Sti1MITTRD ONLY UPON COMPLETION OF kLL WORK, AnD PRItlR TO THE rnLkL imspa TIO111 ..............................................................................................................»............. Address: l 6 t A r -�1w a h .► .__ �'2- r� [3 R.t�M N �� • r o s'/,-3 _ (kcupancy:Usc:1`_C'Cl/�'�.m Parcel11) � �, — 1-30 :. (honer 00. a C:_._C1•Y0 Addre.• A/L P.h.,R.A.or(ontractor. Address: �— Pcraon in responsible charge: Address: ��—_-- APplication is hereby made and submitted v the Building Inspector of the Village of Rye Brook for the issuance of a ('ertificate of()Lcupancv:('crtif3catcuf t'aatphancc forthestructure.construcuonralteration herein mentioned inaccordan.c with Law: STATE:01 \1:W YORK_COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER as: ��,�p(� � P��S+ '�•,� I>itngdul�sHoin.de•Ixwccatsil+ayslluth.•sl3cie�iidesst � G � �.� (.tl Q� Y rJ V 1_�@ b t- .iii ll4c(vunty ut W t'_°5 G1 Ir L°,S Few in die sut:of W 11 I:aal he she ha>>upety nest the%oils at the lueattun snJxated aLwi.,miJ that dsc acturl total cost of the uwk.including all,de imiamcuisLLs. lab%,itutenals,xalfukfing,fiacd eyuipnunt.pruftuimal fee,aad itichxlit►e file ttwnetary vrltrc of any to iteti sls atwl IAl+oi which rimy have been donated gratis was:S 3 0 0 0 co futtheuuttslrim•Irvnvrullchatitifscsl- �1�� AQ t7��' C � � � l �G�� 1 Q/!-! DeTw al furiliel ►fates thole lie,h.Firs.�uriined the appiw e%plans of Ilse sttucture work herein tef'erred to for which a Certificate of Mctipamy Compliance is sought,and that to the best of hnLtwi knu%kdge And Kiwi,the Ametwr%oik li i;been erLeWd'contlileted in securJaae•e w ids die Approve%plans And any:inxndrne111.;thereau encept us so Lu�v.usrtwns theyrtutc li.i4r hcen legally aulfxirizCA aiul At,ei.iud waipleted complies with the laws gowt ping huikling e<stio-tructiurt.MT^mient fotdiLi undetutmads that a ihag be nalawfuf fix an owner to use ur 1wrimit the use of any building or premises im part thereuf hcicafter created—imted.change%.cunveitcd oc enlarged,wholly or partly,in its use of su actwe Until a C eltifiemc of OicLiMancy or Certif"k:oft untpli:mce shall has a beers duly m ueJ h5 ilw Baddms lnsgicriw:u per a25i1-14.A.ofthe Cud.of dse Village of Rye Btuu►- Swore►tor(hetu th re e the_ Sworn to befure me till, day of )-o e-e+A=,� . _'0L�L\ day of C-O c 5i Nose ai P Sitm e e of Appt,aaut SWILe A Pi.gnis isiiret I iau.N am of Appluam Put,lu Yutan PUNK SMART MELILLO Notary Public,State of New York No. 01 i.i4"6160083 01ialified in Westchr� ter County Commission Expires JanUary 29.20 BUILDING DEPARTMENT BUILDING INSPECTOR ASSISTANT BUILDING INSPECTOR VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK b CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER 938 DING STREET • RYE BROOK,NY 10573 (914) 939-0668 FAx (914) 939-5801 www ryebrook.org - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - INSPECTION REPORT - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ADDRESS : l W �F DATE: lZ l r Z PERMIT#-Z�Z I �i 6 ISSUED:SECT: 3S f?-�;- BLOCK: LOT: J LOCATION: C f( OCCUPANCY: -Z (r=> ❑ VIOLATION NOTED THE WORK IS... ACCEPTED ❑ REJECTED/REINSPECTION ❑ SITE INSPECTION REQUIRED ❑ FOOTING ❑ FOOTING DRAINAGE ❑ FOUNDATION ❑ UNDERGROUND PLUMBING NOTES ON INSPECTION: ❑ ROUGH PLUMBING ❑ ROUGH FRAMING ❑ INSULATION ❑ NATURAL GAS iI I/ � l S�t ❑ L.P. GAS ❑ FUEL TANK �7 ❑ FIRE SPRINKLER ❑ FINAL PLUMBING ❑47 CROSS CONNECTION 1 n�"� �� C +� 11`V`i-�1'•FLZ I 1 1 �4- FINAL � Lz'2u C n OTHER �4E BRC�k• O tim cu � 0 1982 BUILDING DEPARTMENT ❑BUILDING INSPECTOR ❑ASSISTANT BUILDING INSPECTOR VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK A�i0 ❑CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER 938 KING STREET • RYE BROOK,NY 10573 (914) 939-0668 Fax (914) 939-5801 www ryebrook,org 7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - INSPECTION REPORT - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A I DDRESS : DATE: (AV-(�A PERMIT# \% ISSUED: SECT: LOCK: OT: LOCATION: ��� { /n �L OCCUPANCY: t ❑ VIOLATION NOTED THE WORK IS... _ [ ACCEPTED D REJECTED/RuNSPECTION ❑ SITE INSPECTION REQUIRED ❑ FOOTING ❑ FOOTING DRAINAGE ❑ FOUNDATION ❑ UNDERGROUND PLUMBING NOTES ON INSPECTION: ❑ ROUGH PLUMBING P ROUGH FRAMING et INSULATION 4' ❑ NATURAL GAS ❑ L.P.GAS ❑ FUEL TANK ❑ FIRE SPRINKLER ❑ FINAL PLUMBING ❑ CROSS CONNECTION ❑ FINAL ❑ OTHER QyE 6RC�U�. O� �m • �9°2 BUILDING DEPARTMENT UILDINGINSPECTOR IPIASSISTANT BUILDING INSPECTOR VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK ©'CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER 938 RING STREET . RYE BROOK,NY 10573 (914) 939-0668 FAx (914) 939-5801 w aebrook.org - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - INSPECTION REPORT - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - 4- \\ i ADDRESS : -6 o-7 DATE' J PERMIT# ISSUED: SECT: I� . LOCK: LOT: LOCATION: ` C \ 1 OCCUPANCY: l) ❑ VIOLATION NOTED THE WORK IS... EY ACCEPTED [I 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 r. RECEIVED JUL - 7 2021 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS VILLAGE CLERK'S OFFICE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Jorge Robles (the "Applicant") for a deck coverage variance of 0.38% where the maximum allowable deck coverage is 3.5%pursuant to Village Code § 250-37.B in connection with a proposed rear deck expansion, on property located at 16 Maywood Avenue, in an R-5 zoning district on the south side of Maywood Avenue, approximately 320 feet from the intersection of North Ridge Street and Maywood Avenue. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID# 135.75-1-30; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on June 1, 2021 and July 6, 2021, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and WHEREAS,the public hearing was closed on July 6, 2021; and WHEREAS,the proposed action is a Type II action pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act and accordingly, no further environmental review is required; and WHEREAS, the Board, from the application, after viewing the premises and neighborhood concerned,and upon considering each of the factors set forth in Village Code §250- 13(G)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brook Code, finds: 1) The variance [WILL ILL�NOcreate an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood; 2) The benefit the Applicant seeks [CA CANNO be achieved through another method, feasible for the Applicant to pursue, that does not require the variance; 3) The variance [IKr sub a ti 4) The variance [WILj�WILL NO create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and 5) The need for the varianc IS IS NOT] self-created. �,yV NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the rKaiid�=alication for a deck coverage 5 °/d pursuant to Village Code §250-373 in connection with a proposed rear deck expansion,on property located at 16 Maywood Avenue is hereby GRANT ENIED] on the following conditions: 1) No permit or certificate of occupancy shall be issued until the Applicant has paid in full all application and consultant fees incurred by the Village in connection with the review of this application. 2) 3) Dated: July 6, 2021 Mr. Don Moscato, Chairman Mr. Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting: Aye Nay Abstain Glenn Brettschneider Voting: e Nay VAbstain Jamie Schutzer Voting: Aye Nay Abstain Joel Simon Voting: Aye Nay Abstain Don Moscato Voting: Aye Nay Abstain Ayes U Nays Abstain i � BR 1 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK MAYOR 938 King Street, Rye Brook, N.Y. 10673 ADMINISTRATOR Paul S. Rosenberg (914)939-0668 Fax(914) 939-6801 Christopher J. Bradbury www.rvebrook.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 3Rotice 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 # 21-012 Applicant: Jorge Robles 16 Maywood Avenue Rye Brook, New York 10573 Applicant Proposes to: Construct rear deck expansion. At the premises known as 16 Maywood Avenue in the Village of Rye Brook, New York, situated on the south side of Maywood Avenue, approximately 320 feet from the intersection of North Ridge Street and Maywood Avenue, designated and shown on the most current tax map as Parcel ID# 135.75-1-30, the applicant does hereby request a variance(s) from the following applicable section(s) of the Zoning Ordinance: § 250-37.B. The maximum allowable deck coverage is 3.5%. The proposed deck expansion will result in a deck coverage of�84. Therefore, a deck coverage variance of,;-5v is requested. ,3c?.7, 21 public hearing on said application will be held before the Village Zoning Board of Appeals on Tuesday, June 1,2021,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 June 1,2021 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting will he 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.rvebrook.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:830 0920 3503 or provided through the written chat section of the Zoom meeting. Comments can also be provided via email before and during the meeting to Michael Izzo, Village Building Inspector,at mizzo(if�ryebrook.ore. Please check the meeting Agenda posted on the Village website for further instructions to access the virtual meeting and for updated information. Plans and other materials associated with the proposed application may be reviewed and downloaded via the Public Meetings& Video link from the Rye Brook website. Dated: �`4'Z) Cx Vc—� Christopher J. Bradb , Village Clerk BA t� VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK MAYOR 938 King Street, Rye Brook, N.Y. 10573 ADMINISTRATOR Paul S. Rosenberg (914) 939-0668 Fax (914) 939-5801 Christopher J. Bradbury www.rvebrook.orQ TRUSTEES BUILDING & FIRE Susan R. Epstein INSPECTOR Stephanie J. Fischer Michael J. Izzo David M. Heiser Jason A. Klein NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL Application # 21-012 April 5, 2021 Jorge Robles 16 Maywood Avenue Rye Brook,New York 10573 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that your revised application for building permit dated, March 19, 2021, for the premises located at 16 Maywood Avenue, Parcel ID# 135.75-1-30, has been disapproved because of non- compliance with the following section(s) of the Code of the Village of Rye Brook: 250-37.B. The maximum allowable deck coverage is 3.5% . The proposed deck expansion will result in a deck coverage of 5%. 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 wwwjycbrook.org. Sincerely, Michael J. Izzo Building&Fire Inspector mizzonryebrook.org BUILDIN TMENT CIEMED REV LUVJLL ' 'oFR OOK QpR 2021 PLAN JUN 2 2 2021 KING STR RYE BROOK,NY 1 �,3 DATE E (914) 939-0668 • FAX (914) 939-SSOI VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK r. BUILDING DEPARTMENT BUILDING DEPARTMENT www.n elifl*fikorg APPLICATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Application Fee: S300.00 (paid • Escrow Fee: ?1.000.00 (paid Date: 41 12 O� I tleth/e9tskx�cic�c�t�e�cacicir�c�r-Je4c9e'c�c�t�t9t*sic$t9calc�ekk4'ts'tica'cye*Fcic*�cck�e�Jtshtlttic�t9ctrt4*�tflt�c*tkklt*ktt�t*�tltic�ttt$tk�e Subject Property: 16 MAYWOOD AVE, Parcel ID#: 135.75-1-30 Zone: R-5 Property Owner: JORGE ROBLES Address: 16 MAYWOOD AVE. Phone#: 914-497-6172 Cell#: 914-497-6172 email: jorgeroblesl978@yahoo.com Applicant: OWNER Address: Phone#: Cell#: email: Attomey/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 MARCH 19 , 20 21 . whereby the Building Inspector did: Grant: ( )/Deny: (X) the applicant a permit for THE EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING DECK I. Tvpe of Anneal: (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 ()()Area ( )Height ( )Setback ( )Other: In connection with: ( )A Proposed Building ()()An Existing Building 3. Previous ARDealfs); ( )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 Zoning Appeals Either Granted or Denied Concerning the-Subject Property a. A requested variance was ( )Granted/( )Denied on application# dated, for, b. A requested variance was( )Granted/( )Denied on application# dated, for, c. A requested variance was ( )Granted/( )Denied on application# dated, for, 1 (Use additional sheets if necessary) 3/21/19 4. Alteration: If work constitutes an alteration or extension to an existing building, describe briefly: THE EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING DECK 5. Construction Cost: What is the estimated cost of the proposed work? $ 3,000 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 EXISTING DECK IS TO SMALL AND MY FAMILY & I SPEND A LOT OF TIME ON IT MOSTLY DURING THE SPRING & SUMMER TIME. THERE IS NOT ENOUGH SPACE FOR A BBQ, DINING TABLE AND THE KIDS PLAYING, B. An Interpretation of the Zonins 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: 2 (Use additional sheets if necessary) 3/21/19 7. Requested Zoning Appeals I. Section of Rye Brook Code: § 250-37.B. Zoning Requirement: The maximum allowable deck coverage is 3 5% The proposed deck expansion will result in a deck coverage of,5�o" �3 Proposed Work: EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING DECK Requested Variance: 1 /o ADDITIONAL DECK COVERAGE II. 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: 3 (Use additional sheets if necessary) 3/21/19 8. Item checklist of information from instruction sheet: (q Letter of Disapproval ( ky'Properly Completed & Signed Original Zoning Variance Application ( L), 'Two (2) Sets of Sealed Plans ( t,-Non-refundable Application Fee of$350.00 (�'Escrow Account Fee of$1,000.00 O Provisions of any deeds, covenants, easements or restrictions affecting the kind of improvements allowed or prohibited upon the premises. ( ) Notarized Mailer& Sign Affidavits, Area Map&Public Notification List (Please note that the notes he 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: JORGE ROBLES ,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 OWNER 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 LP Sworn to before me this 1 ' day of 20 02 / day of 20 Notary Public Notary Public ,TOIL`-e CL o /eci x n R G P F R QV C5 Signature of Property Owner Signature of Applicant X o'g26 C b P. o h/e-5 A-� 3 Q-(3� Print Name of Property Owner Print Name of-Applicant 4 3/21/19 'NEUTON 51 ILTJ w 61 62 M w rN • I " � I •J � � ! /� • c ' s ,c to 63¢ fi4' 65 66 67'. 23 E a 24w m.. STONE p G MAYWOOD * r. AVENUE MAYWOOD nr i ^m > o � • • r AVENUE p 20 �2 • ! I• ! 1 . 44 s 45.2 4�1 LLL�1111---._1 S 47 ti I ! F i 49 g 23 24 � e w a W O IRENMYL r AVENUE Qp4 „ I IRENHYL 3 [�, c 888 Q � � � A•u>.� * (//� (�?�j . p I e' 1 ;. 1�'! 1 d , ---.__....... Q 74.1 52 ♦s, a 51 ' • 6 ti5D / ,,• , s 7fi ,s •19 I 17 82 � �. V $ t 6l 1� q I . n 62 y I 1B 4 78 79 87 . r . 29 29 �+ ,e � 36 'k G �•6 Z6 O ;-� � ' i s r• s a•EpAL dHiR[,6 LEGEND re 135.075 �� �.,.•.w ,iw�, TO'M+aF NYFNLIAGE OF RYE BRODIt o ..�, ___ � ���" .u.s••a� .mr +ESTa +xon YE6TtNE'STER CGIlNtt.NEW YGRN _ l JI4AL • SNEET INDEX � ,... ..(.,.,,,,w,Lnm. W.am f p MAY 2 5 2021 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING & SIGN POSTING VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals BUILDING DEPARTMENT STATE OF NEW YORK F ):SS COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER ) Re: Application#21-012 Address: 16 Maywood Ave. Rye Brook, NY 10573 1org2 2, jebS being duly sworn, deposes and says that pursuant to the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance of the Village of Rye Brook j Village Code §250-401, on the �0-�t day of J 10.y 2021, written notice was given to property owners within 250 feet of any point of the subject property, and the public notice sign was posted in accordance with posting requirements. F©Q (e e 1p V-o51t3 Signature of Applicant Sworn to before me this ZSL Day of 2021 Notary Public Mailing Labels for Owner's Addresses.Created from Municipal Tax Parcel Viewer http://giswww.westchestergov.com GISS .tia : 0— Touri,John J-Mary Touri Milana, Danuta Borda Igor-Carmen Borda 241 Irenhyl Ave 283 Neuton Ave 225 Neuton Ave RYE BROOK, NY10573 RYE BROOK, NY10573 RYE BROOK, NY10573 Papp, Edith Ilona Ladeairous,John C-Rosana P Rafferty,Brian-Elizabeth B Rafferty 79 N Ridge St Ladeairous 20 Maywood Ave RYE BROOK, NY10573 256 Irenhyl Ave RYE BROOK, NY10573 RYE BROOK, NY10573 Gigli Jack-Anna Maria Macchia Branch Kevin D-Alecia M Blancato, Ronald 15 Maywood Ave Thompson-Branch 10 Maywood Ave RYE BROOK, NY10573 279 Neuton Ave RYE BROOK, NY10573 RYE BROOK, NY10573 Duffy,Alice L-Eileen Nieto Marin Carmen Kellachan Jean C-Michael G Galimi 223 Neuton Ave 253 Irenhyl Ave 245 Irenhyl Ave RYE BROOK, NY10573 RYE BROOK, NY10573 RYE BROOK, NY10573 lanello Laura-Andrew lanello Viias Boas Roselene-Ritchelle M Vilas Caruso,Theresa 17 Maywood Ave Boas 8 Maywood Ave RYE BROOK, NY10573 237 Irenhyl Ave RYE BROOK, NY10573 RYE BROOK, NY10573 O'Donoghue, Mary M-Daniel J Sabia,William Vohannan Varghese-Elesy Varghese O'Donoghue 16 Hawthorne Ave 259 Irenhyl Ave 7 Maywood Ave RYE BROOK, NY10573 RYE BROOK, NY10573 RYE BROOK, NY10573 Ocasio, Rosa M Montagnese Family Trust-Francesco Amell,Donald-Katlyn Amell 19 Maywood Ave Anonio Montagnese 235 Irenhyl Ave RYE BROOK, NY10573 285 Neuton Ave RYE BROOK, NY10573 RYE BROOK, NY10573 Fantone Anthony-Lauren Fantone Fasolino,William Joseph-Patricia Spencer, Eugene-Camille Spencer 229 Irenhyl Ave Burke Fasolino 24 Maywood Ave RYE BROOK, NY10573 252 Irenhyl Ave RYE BROOK, NY10573 RYE BROOK, NY10573 Borowiak,Terri Rockey John W Ball Kelsey-Thomas Ball 281 Neuton Ave 13 Maywood Ave 11 Maywood Ave RYE BROOK, NY10573 RYE BROOK, NY10573 RYE BROOK, NY10573 Hyle Mark J Chavez Carrera, Luis Arturo-Violeta Moody Trust-John J Moody 9 Maywood Ave Concepcion Delgado Gomez 257 Irenhyl Ave RYE BROOK, NY10573 77 N Ridge St RYE BROOK, NY10573 RYE BROOK, NY10573 Created on: 4/6/2021 Page 1 of 2 Malting Labels for Owner's Addresses Created from Municipal Tax Parcel Viewer http://giswww.westchostargov.com Casino, Nancy C-Joseph Casino Tsakos Karl C Carmona,Eduardo-Patria Carmona 249 Irenhyl Ave 78 Woodland Ave 81 N Ridge St RYE BROOK, NY10573 RYE BROOK, NY10573 RYE BROOK, NY10573 Diamantopulos, Peter-Susan Albanese Concetta-Frank Albanese Marfia, Dennis-Ann Marfia Diamantopulos 21 Maywood Ave 287 Neuton Ave 85 N Ridge St RYE BROOK, NY10573 RYE BROOK, NY10573 RYE BROOK, NY10573 Colangelo,Regina A-Adrienne J Giamundo, Bernice Mutino, Philip J-Jennifer Mutino Orbach 14 Maywood Ave 75 Woodland Ave 18 Maywood Ave RYE BROOK, NY10573 RYE BROOK, NY10573 RYE BROOK, NY10573 Rivera Denise Cushman,Robert A-Kathy Cushman Elmore,Catherine-Wayne Elmore 6 Maywood Ave 12 Maywood Ave 83 N Ridge St RYE BROOK, NY10573 RYE BROOK, NY10573 RYE BROOK, NY10573 Gervino,Catherine Urbanowski, Louise Summa,Linda L 23 Maywood Ave 22 Maywood Ave 25 Maywood Ave RYE BROOK, NY10573 RYE BROOK, NY10573 RYE BROOK, NY10573 Robles,Jorge F Accurso,Jean M Hernandez Juan R-Paulina Hernandez 16 Maywood Ave 227 Irenhyl Ave 223 Irenhyl Ave PORT CHESTER, NY10573 PORT CHESTER, NY10573 RYE BROOK, NY10573 Created on 4/6/2021 Page 2 of 2 r ?a) OD ------------ J3rrjoer ' ags Cl j 1- o Z Z _ _ Z --- _ cp w � � n r n h1i n ;� 35 1 Ywor�;J yyvG ',� i 5� sLV1 7- 259 Irenhyl Avc a i e C a-0 Ma woudAve 2.3 A•laywp Ave W 135 75.1 3•; Y ry CD I 135 75 1-34 I 135 67 2 ou `` cA 1 257Ifelilr IAvc 1 l2 F4aawoodAvc I ! 21 Ataywc,otlAve i s ; 135 15-1 40 135.75.1 33 ;y I I 13:i 67.2 t>3 287 N Lit OnAve D 'D I I I 13fi.w .2.59 C c fD 253 1tenhyl Ave 20 1 Hywc)ckl ltvc: ( 1£ P,'"Y'VOod Ave 135 75.1 41 135 /g.;_,;2 f le T35.67-2.64 4 ti 265 Nruton e a 24911en11yl Avc I S 36.67•l 5 1;35.75-1 42 6 Maywood Ay,. I! #3, 7:>. I 17 Maywood Ave 3 5-31 D 135 67-2-65 !{ J 2.1 ' Irenhyl Avc ?&:i Ncut4ri Avc ! Jy 135 75-1 43 o it Ih l�lJywood qy(. 135 67-2-5-7 I 135 75.1-:JQ 15 Maywco:r Ave R I 241 Irenhyl AY I ?35 637.2.13i; 135 75-1 44 2P1 Neulol-,Av 135 67.2 ;G 14 1,laywuc>d Ave _ i 3 hta 237 uenhyl Ave 135 15 1 woad Ave -2 y y 2l9 Neutoi,qt. 1.i5 75-1 45 2 I 1:1� 67 2.r;7 135.67 2.55 I i 12 P:fa � 1 2,151rentrylAV 135Yi-c>aoAAvc• I I IirvtayyroodAve 135 75-1-45 1 T35 15-1-2:1 I C-` I 22:) Nuutc Ave Q 135.,7 a4 1C1 MaYwocaa Ave O y 136 75..1-21 II a PA I aywood Ave I < '35 /5 1 24 en 3 NcL)tO(l Ave " tS Mayw,.jt)d Ave ( Y 135 67-1-53 V I 135-75.1.2G h'iaywooa A is it 219 Neut,�n Ave � v r r:l ayvrocxl Av a: I 1115 67.2-52 :1 1:laYwOod Ave 3I 135.75-t 33 NPL 1.35 76 1-J4 _ I 2.15 Neutun Ave w 4 klaywood Ave: 135 EiB.1.5 LJ 735 /( 1.32 3 MaywOOdAve I — I x v � v Z. /(; S 35 111 Nc;utolr Ave K " N .' � 135681-4 o c 2 hlaywood Ave Z. ro 1 r:laywood Ave f �^ro 13L:- 763 135 76-1-3F 1-31 209 Neuton Ave v I -' I 13`� 68 1 N: ; s co (A y ti f1p 1 Mike Izzo From: Isbgl4@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, July 6, 2021 6:49 AM To: Mike Izzo Subject: 16 Maywood Avenue Variance request This is in regard to application #21-012 Jorge Robles request for variance for patio extension. I oppose variance due to additional nuisance it will cause due to larger patio. I already have to contend with their spot lights pointing at my home from their patio and from the side of their house near me on a regular basis I can't imagine a large deck and what that will cause. 14 Maywood Avenue i Mike Izzo From: Coke NOTRC <cokenotrc@gmail.com> Sent: Monday,July 5, 2021 1:13 PM To: Mike Izzo Cc: Donald Moscato #2; Drew Gamils; Glenn Brettschneider;James Schutzer,Joel Simon; Steve Berger, Steven Fews;Tara Gerardi; David Heiser Subject: Re: FW: 16 Maywood Deck - Board meeting Please note our continued opposition to the application for a variance at 16 Maywood Ave. We are unable to attend the meeting due to a death in the family.The funeral is late tomorrow afternoon on Long Island,followed by the shiva. Adrienne Orbach& Regina Colangelo 18 Maywood Ave., Rye Brook On Tue,Jun 1, 2021 at 8:07 AM Mike Izzo<Mlzzo@ryebrook.ora>wrote: Please see this email sent Friday after the office was closed, in opposition to the subject application. A/c%ael/(7, /zzo Building& Fire Inspector Village of Rye Brook, NY (914) 939-0668 From: Coke NOTRC<cokenotrc@gmail.com> Sent; Friday, May 28,20214:14 PM To: Mike Izzo<Mlzzo@ryebrook.org> Subject: 16 Maywood Deck-Board meeting Good Afternoon Mr. Izzo, We are in receipt of the notice for the variance application pending for 16 Maywood Ave. As the homeowners at 18 Maywood Avenue, Rye Brook, we write to advise the Board of our objections to the expansion of the deck at 16 Maywood Avenue, Rye Brook,New York. We ask that the board deny the variance to expand the deck under the proposed plans We plan on attending the meeting virtually,however, in the event there are technical difficulties we wanted to advise you of the same. If you need to contact me in advance of the meeting Tuesday, my cell would be best 914-649-4676. Thank you, Tara Gerardi From: Mike Izzo Sent: Tuesday,June 1,2021 8:07 AM To: Donald Moscato#2;Drew Gamils;Glenn Brettschneider;James Schutzer,Joel Simon; Mike Izzo; Steve Berger; Steven Fews;Tara Gerardi; David Heiser Cc: Adrienne Orbach Subject: FW: 16 Maywood Deck- Board meeting Please see this email sent Friday after the office was closed, in opposition to the subject application. Michael J. I!No ECEWED Building& Fire Inspector Village of Rye Brook, NY JUN - 1 2021 (914) 939-0668 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK From:Coke NOTRC<cokenotrc@gmail.com> I BUILDING DEPARTMENT Sent: Friday, May 28,20214:14 PM To: Mike Izzo<Mlzzo@ryebrook.org> Subject: 16 Maywood Deck- Board meeting Good Afternoon Mr. Izzo, We are in receipt of the notice for the variance application pending for 16 Maywood Ave. As the homeowners at 18 Maywood Avenue,Rye Brook,we write to advise the Board of our objections to the expansion of the deck at 16 Maywood Avenue,Rye Brook,New York. We ask that the board deny the variance to expand the deck under the proposed plans We plan on attending the meeting virtually,however,in the event there are technical difficulties we wanted to advise you of the same. If you need to contact me in advance of the meeting Tuesday, my cell would be best. Thank you, Adrienne Orbach i p EC ENE MAR 2 4 2021 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BUILDING DEPARTMENT To Whom it may concern, My name is I live in AA 6 Rye Brook,NY, 10573. 1 have been presented the plans, pictures and information for the deck extension for 16 Maywood Ave in Rye Brook NY 10573. 1 Support/don't support of this deck extension. I niture) p ECEOWE MAR 2 4 2021 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BUILDING DEPARTMENT To Whom it may concern, My name is_ —t`1/-� , I live in i �I�,wit /€� Rye Brook,NY, 10573. I have been presented the plans, pictures and information for the deck extension for 16 Maywood Ave in Rye Brook NY 10573. I don't support of this deck extension_ f Sipniture) F[SCENEMAR 2 4 2021 LAGE OF RYE BROOK BUILDING DEPARTMENT To Whom it may concern, My name is 4Yj 11,L' KI-iEf S , I live in 2-0 Rye Brook,NY, 10573. 1 have been presented the plans, pictures and information for the deck extension for 16 Maywood Ave in Rye Brook NY 10573. I ,� �/� re-- upportl on't support of this deck extension. (Signitnre) IRE MWE MAR 2 22021 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BUILDING DEPARTMENT To Whom it may concern, My name is ���, rt �_��n 6 a Aive in DJ Rye Brook,NY, 10573. 1 have been presented the plans, pictures and information for the deck extension for 16 Maywood Ave in Rye Brook NY 10573. 1 4 Suppwt/don't support of this deck extension- s (Signiture) 2 ECEWE MAR 2 4 2021 01 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BUILDING DEPARTMENT 7o Whom it may concern, M name is S�I live in Rye y Y Brook, NY, 10573. I have been presented the plans, pictures and information for the deck extension for 16 Maywood Ave in Rye Brook NY 10573. I Suppo don't support of this deck extension. (Signiture) MAR 2 4 2021 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BUILDING DEPARTMENT To Whom it may concern, My name is y`�S 0� `eV I live in �, 46C Rye Brook,NY, 10573. I have been presented the plans, pictures and information for the deck extension for 16 Maywood Ave in Rye Brook NY 10573. I Support/don't support of this deck extension. (Signiture) MAR. 2 4 2021 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BUILDING DEPARTMENT To Whom it may concern, My name is I�— �f , I live in Aj( A /1-0 Rye Brook, NY, 105711 have been presented the plans, pictures and information for the deck extension for 16 Maywood Ave in Rye Brook NY 10573. I don't support of this deck extension. h i ) p CCENE MAR 2 4 2021 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BUILDING DEPARTMENT To Whom it may concern. My name is j�p J I^/ �n , I live in i M����n�iv� /)--C Rye Brook, NY, 10573. I have been presented the plans, pictures and information for the deck extension for lb Maywood Ave in Rye Brook NY 10573. I don't support of this deck extension. J� (Signiture) IX��� bR � Village of Rye Brook Agenda ��`' `V`"' Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting C, Tuesday,June 1,2021 at 8:00 PM Village Hall,938 King Street ANNOUNCEMENT:The June 1,2021 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: 830 0920 3503 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�?u,�ebrook.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 ho2s://us02web.zoom.us/j/83009203503 and clicking on "Join a Meeting"and enter Meeting ID: 830 0920 3503 (no password required).You can also call in to the ZOOM meeting at+1(929)205-6099,when prompted,enter 830 0920 3503#. On the evening of June 1,2021,5 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@,zyebrook.org. 1. ITEMS: 1.1. #21-012 Jorge Robles 16 Maywood Avenue Construct a rear deck expansion. Mail Affidavit Vex Sign Affidavit Approvals; Adjournment lL� Z Aye; Nay; DM ail SB ti l GB f &F3 JDS V' JS Dx J 1 APPROVED DATE Cb?/ BR��fi MINUTES Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting ;i` •�. �' Village Hall, 938 King Street �j Tuesday,June 1,2021 BOARD PRESENT: Donald Moscato,Chair i AUG - 4 �Q2� Glenn Brettschneider James Schutzer VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK Joel Simon BUILDING DEPARTMENT Trustee David M. Heiser,Village Board Liaison BOARD ABSENT: Steven Berger STAFF PRESENT: Drew Gamils,Village Counsel Michael Izzo, Building Inspector Fred Seifert, Public Access Coordinator ANNOUNCEMENT: The June 1, 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: 830 0920 3503 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 mizzogryeb_ rig. 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 hMs://us02web.zgotn.us/j/83009203503 and clicking on "Join a Meeting"and enter Meeting ID: 830 0920 3503 (no password required). You can also call in to the ZOOM meeting at+1 (929) 205-6099,when prompted, enter 830 0920 3503#. Zoning Board of Appeals June 1, 2021 On the evening of June 1, 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 amarshall&ryebrook.org. Don Moscato Okay,welcome to the June 1 st meeting of the Rye Brook Zoning Board of Appeals.With us we have four of the five Board Members, and I'll speak to that in a moment.We have Village Attorney Drew Gamils, our Building Inspector Mickey Izzo,Board of Trustees Liaison,David Heiser. Now because we have four of the five members, each applicant will be given the opportunity to adjourn their hearing. Is anyone else getting that? Drew Gamils No,it was coming from a participant,I've muted.You know what Don,hold on one second. I'm going to mute everybody and then I will unmute you. Don,can you now unmute yourself? Don Moscato Okay, as I was saying,we have four of the five Board Members, so each applicant has the option to have their meeting adjourned for our next official meeting,which will probably be in July. In order for the successful passing of your resolution,we will need three of the four Board Members voting in the affirmative. So that reduces the degrees of freedom, so to speak by one. So,if any of you choose to adjourn the meeting at this particular point to next month,please,please let us know. If we don't hear from you.We'll assume that you want to stay on board. Drew, do we want to go directly to that adjournment,automatic adjournment Mickey, do you want to speak to that? That's the I believe this second application on the agenda this evening. Michael Izzo Yes,Don,it's application number 21-015 167 Country Ridge Drive, Fabrice and Merle Hugon,to construct a one story side fill-in addition and interior alterations. That application was,was faulted.We have some different lot size numbers, and they are trying to make the July agenda. 1.1. #21-012 Jorge Robles 16 Maywood Avenue Construct a rear deck expansion. Don Moscato Alright, thank you very much. The first item on the agenda is item number 21-012 Jorge Robles 16 Maywood Avenue, construct a rear deck expansion,who is going to speak to that application? Drew Gamils Everyone is on mute. So please unmute yourself if you are speaking on that application. Zoning Board of Appeals June 1, 2021 Glenn Brettschneider I'm not speaking. I unmuted myself, but I did, I did see Mr. Robles on the screen a little earlier. So,I know he was with us. Joel Simon He still is. Glenn Brettschneider Okay. Joel Simon Mr. Robles, are you speaking on the application? Jorge Robles Yes, I am. How are you. Don Moscato Okay,please introduce yourself and the nature of the requested variance and speak to any particulars that you think are important with respect to the application. Joel Simon Mr. Robles? Is he not hearing us? Jamie Schutzer Looks like he froze. Drew Gamils He froze. Jamie Schutzer In in-person meetings it doesn t happen.Just throwing it out there guys. Joel Simon I mean,we froze. Jeff Abraham This is Jeff Abraham. I'm a friend of Mr. Robles. He asked me to join this meeting in support of his application. He works for me from time to time. Maybe while he reconnects,I could speak to his application to the best of my knowledge. Don Moscato Okay,please,then proceed. Primarily not in from the terms of your support but the nature of the application. Zoning Board of Appeals June 1, 2021 Jeff Abraham Yeah,no, I'm, I'm a Rye Brook resident but not an immediate neighbor. So no, I couldn't speak to my support in that respect.But being acquainted with him, I could speak to the actual application. He is,he has a small deck which he is asking to expand beyond the three and a half percent area allowed,that limitation provides a hardship for him because the house and lot is quite small. And in order to make reasonable use of the deck in terms of his family and having a sufficient room for minimal gathering or dining,he needs to expand it as in the plan,which I think would bring it from the three and a half percent to five and a half percent.But it doesn't pose any other problem with zoning other than the minimum area issue. Don Moscato Okay. Would you know offhand how long Mr. Robles has lived in that in that location? Jeff Abraham Unfortunately,I do not. Oh,I can see Jorge is,Jorge, can you hear us? Can you get back and answer the question of how long you've lived in the house? Jorge Robles In July it's going to be two years. Don Moscato Two years? Jorge Robles Yes, two years. Don Moscato You have managed,Mr. Robles you have managed to garner quite a few letters of support for your application. Why after two years have you decided to go for that expansion now? Jorge Robles Because that happened last year, the pandemic so we, so my family came,so I see the deck is too small for my family. Don Moscato Okay, the, the houses are in an R-5 Zoning District.And as I drove by looking at them, they are pretty small houses and clustered together, do you see an issue with respect to the noise being created by the additional space that you have,that you're requesting? Shalen Robles Hi,I'm his daughter. My name is Shalen. Don Moscato Please officially Introduce yourself. Zoning Board of Appeals June 1, 2021 Shalen Robles Hi,I'm Shalen, his oldest daughter,I currently live with my parents. So,regarding the noise,I do understand the extension does,you know,we are allowed the extension it could be an issue.But so far,like we were talking about the letter, all of most of our neighbors have given approval for it.We actually went to each of their houses. And we talked one on one for a few minutes. Let them know what was going on.And they didn't really say anything about noise. They said it would be okay with them. Regarding the extension if it was possible. Don Moscato Okay. Thank you. Drew. There was one letter that arrived,I believe, a little late in the process. The individual was speaking against the,against the application. Could you retrieve that relatively easily?And just summarize, because if I if I pull that out, I'm working off two computers now, and if I pull that thing out, I am afraid I'm going to lose connection. Joel Simon If not, I have it here as well. Drew Gamils I have it. Glenn Brettschneider Don, one second Miss Orbach. Don, the letter is from Adrienne Orbach. I hope I pronounced that right. She's with us tonight. I don't think the letter says much really,if I remember when I read it. Joel Simon It doesn't say much. Glenn Brettschneider It did not say much. So,she's here. So,what I was going to ask and if I can is Ms. Orbach if you don t mind,you're not required to express your opposition in detail.We understand that you are opposed to it,but I would like to ask you if you feel comfortable,and again,you do not have to,provide the reasoning behind your opposition.You did provide a letter,but not anything to substantiate your feelings. So,if you're not uncomfortable, you know,do you mind sharing that again completely up to you? Drew Gamils I would just wait Glenn,I don't believe the Public Hearing has been officially opened. Glenn Brettschneider Oh,I see. Okay. Don Moscato Right, so I'd hold off on that. Zoning Board of Appeals June 1, 2021 Drew Gamils To summarize a letter was received by the Board from 18 Maywood Avenue, expressing general opposition to the deck expansion plans. Don Moscato Okay, okay,I have a question of the applicant. One of the pictures in the application shows the rear,rear existing deck. It also shows quite a bit of lumber on the on the ground. Could you clarify what that is?Have you started building the deck? Or what?What is that,that material there? Shalen Robles No,we haven't started anything. Lumber,I don't know what you mean by that. Joel Simon The photograph of the back of the house. Shows substantial lumber lying on the ground. Don Moscato Can you,Drew, can you pull that up and share it please? Michael Izzo I got it right here Don. Joel Simon Mickey has it on his. Michael Izzo I've got my screen. I dont know if it's going to work, but. Drew Gamils I think it might be easier to see if I just share my screen real quick. Shalen Robles Okay. Michael Izzo I mean,this is a picture that was provided by the applicant shows the back of his house with a lot of building materials laying all over the ground.What is that stuff? Shalen Robles That was for the fence that we were we did the application for the fence that we got approved by it. Zoning Board of Appeals June 1, 2021 Don Moscato Alright Thank you very much for that clarification. Okay, does any member of the Board have any questions with respect to the application of the applicant or his daughter? Glenn Brettschneider I actually do.You mentioned that I believe the reasoning behind the expansion of the deck was to provide an area so you could sit out and barbecue. Shalen Robles Right. Glenn Brettschneider But I think you also mentioned something about a play area for your kids. Am I mistaken? Or was that in the application? Shalen Robles No,you're correct. Yes. Glenn Brettschneider Okay. So,I'm trying to figure out how many kids and what,what kind of play area? Because I understand that,you know,when I was reading the application,I'm thinking a deck is not really a play area, I understand.You know,you there may be people opposed.Most people,table chairs may be firepit, or barbecue. So,I'm just trying to understand what you mean, since you presented on your application. Shalen Robles We don't plan on building any play area on the deck. Glenn Brettschneider I know, I understand that. I meant but it said so there's a play area for kids. I'm not sure what that means. Shalen Robles Okay, so, I think what my dad meant to put on there was my brother's a youngest,he's only eight years old. So, I think what my dad was going towards saying whenever his friends would come,he would have more space on the deck just playing around back and forth running,playing. The deck right now that we have is too small. Don Moscato Do you use the existing backyard area? For any functional purpose of this particular point in time, such as playing and life? Shalen Robles I'm sorry- Zoning Board of Appeals June 1, 2021 Don Moscato What is the non-deck part of your backyard?Do you make use of that?And would that take the place of an expanded deck?How would you,how would you make that case that the deck is important?Because the rear yard cannot be used for whatever purposes you would like. Shalen Robles We do have enough space on the other side of the deck. But,no, no, I don t think that's what he was talking about. Joel Simon If I can rephrase that a little just to clarify,you have what looks like a fair sized backyard. If what you're looking for is space to barbecue, and or have children play area,why can't you use the backyard for that, as it already is? Shalen Robles We can,yes. It's just,we were just,we believe that the deck that we have is too small.We are a family of five plus three dogs and the deck you know it's nice to have as we recently purchased a patio set.And it doesn't,it's too small for it. So... Jeff Abraham If I may, the way Mr. Robles explained it to me that the primary reason was the use of the deck for eating and really hanging out and having a place to dine in addition to the barbecue, that was what I heard as his primary concern and the reason for having a usable sized deck. Don Moscato Okay, thank you. I'd like to just follow up with one last question,Mickey,if you could chime in, can you just give us the square footage, or the parameters of the existing deck and what the proposed deck is being, that's being requested? Glenn Brettschneider While he's doing that Don, did we ask this individual applicant whether he wants to proceed with four Board members? Joel Simon Good point. Don Moscato Yeah,that's true. Do you Mr. Robles,do you want to proceed with the four Board members,is that okay? Jorge Robles Yes. Don Moscato Okay. Very good. Thank you.Mickey,do you have that information. Zoning Board of Appeals June 1, 2021 Michael Izzo I'm working on it Don. Don Moscato Okay. Jamie Schutzer That was my question to Don, seems that we know the length of the existing and the proposed, but we don't know that I did that depth. Yeah. Michael Izzo The depth is 11 foot 6. Don Moscato That's six feet by 11. Michael Izzo 11 foot 6 is the existing depth and the proposed addition is going to align with that 11 foot 6 depth. Don Moscato Okay,would that double that 11 to 22? Does it look like that from the plan? Michael Izzo No,it's 11 feet long 6 deep.And then the addition is going to align with that. Joel Simon So,it stays the same? Michael Izzo And extend across the house. Don Moscato Okay. All right. Michael Izzo And then, and then line up with the edge of the house. Don Moscato Okay, I'm just trying to fathom if they're,if they're dealing with five individuals now,you know,how comfortable that would be to sit and eat, and be able to walk around a table, etc. that was,that was the purpose of the plan. Zoning Board of Appeals June 1, 2021 Joel Simon Don,looking at the picture, I get my,you know, my feel from looking at the pictures right now.There's room for a barbecue, but there's no room to sit there and eat on that deck. If you were to build the extension as he's planning, it then give you some additional space to put a small table or a small seating area. Not overly large, but enough for something. Don Moscato That's where I was going. That's the that was the reason for the question.Thank you. Jeff Abraham Correct.And that was my understanding of his plan and reason, primary reason of doing this. Joel Simon Which is understandable. Jeff Abraham Yeah. Don Moscato Okay. Does anyone any other Board members have any other questions of the applicant? Jamie Schutzer I have one additional question. In the proposed drawings,so are you knocking the deck down and rebuilding a new one, or are you just, cause I see that the stairs are going to move, or are you just kind of working off of this? Jorge Robles We're not going to take the deck down.Just we're going to extend to the side. Jamie Schutzer You're just going to extend. Okay. Glenn Brettschneider Do we know the width of the deck? It's 11 six out,do we, cause again,I don't think I saw the numbers on the plans for the width. Side to side,do we,do we know what that is. I actually took the numbers that were provided,the total square footage, and I kind of did like 11 by 15.And I came kind of close to the number that's there. Michael Izzo The existing deck is 11 six deep as we have established. Glenn Brettschneider Right. Zoning Board of Appeals June 1, 2021 Michael Izzo By 15, 15 feet wide. Glenn Brettschneider Okay. Michael Izzo And the addition to the deck is going to be an additional 13 foot six inches. So, 13 six plus 15 is your total width or the length of the deck, I suppose. Joel Simon So,he's doubling the size pretty much. Glenn Brettschneider Right,so, so the question that I have for the Board,when I looked at the photos,like Joel you mentioned,because I thought those numbers sounded big enough to put whatever you want on there. But when I saw the photos,it did seem smaller when I tried to envision a barbecue and a table. But if you're going to get a table,you're going to get something that goes across, right so you really so what you're really doing is you're not pushing it out,whatever you want to put in there is kind of, can kind of fit where it is now,right?Except because you're not going to have a table that's 20 feet long. Right?You're really,you know,if you're not changing the depth,the 11, six, and you widen it, what would really,you know,how does that change the table that's there now? Is it,is it allow for someone at the end?I know it does give you a little more room. Joel Simon But Glenn, I didn't think there is the table there now, I think now it's some room to maneuver when you walk out the door. Jamie Schutzer Yeah. Glenn Brettschneider Okay. Joel Simon And room for a barbecue. By extending it. You're just creating room for a table and a couple of chairs,because you still need some room to be able to walk out the door and go to your left or go to your right. Glenn Brettschneider And around. You're right. I got it, okay. Jamie Schutzer Yeah.And you have the stairs as well. Zoning Board of Appeals June 1, 2021 Glenn Brettschneider Yeah,right. Right. That's right.That's an issue too. Right. Don Moscato Yeah.Are there any other questions from the Board? Seems like we all have asked our questions. Is there anyone other than Mr. Abraham,who wants to speak in favor of the application? Or if you want to augment what you've said already, Mr.Abraham? Okay? Jeff Abraham I'm good. Don Moscato All right. Do you have anything additionally you want to say to the application? Joel Simon He said he was good. Don Moscato Good. Okay. I'm sorry, I didn t hear that. Okay.Anyone else want to speak in favor of the application? Okay, anyone want to speak against the application at this particular point? Adrianne Orbach Yes,please. Don Moscato Okay,you're recognized. Please state your name and address. Adrianne Orbach Thank you,Adrianne Orbach O-R-B-A-C-H, 18 Maywood Avenue, Rye Brook,New York,immediate adjoining homeowner to the applicant. I sent an email to the Board through Mr. Izzo to make them aware that I was planning on attending today because I know it's difficult with zoom to sometimes let your presence be known. So, thank you for recognizing me. I want to address some, some of my initial concerns. And then the Board did an excellent job of asking some key questions. So,I would like to address them.But at the outset,I spoke with the homeowner. He's a neighbor. I'm not trying to be antagonistic we spoke before.And he was aware that I was opposing his application,I believe the other adjoining homeowner also withdrew her letter of support. And I want to address those letters.Basically, I think that the size and lot of the deck is one of the Board members indicated is small. The expansion that's being sought or the variance is out of keeping of character with the adjoining homes and all the homes and the people that supported the application by the letters actually signed them on or about March,mid- March,when I believe the first time the application was being made. The exact letters were re submitted in support of the variance. So,I think there's a disconnect between a lot of letters in support versus the neighborhood understanding how the letters were being used. I did not sign the letter because I had asked initially,you don't need letters when you're going for a deck renovation or improvement or building a deck as long as it's within the setbacks and variances. I was told there's no problems. There's no need for a variance.And I said,well,then,you know, there's no need for a letter. So,the letters I think are suspect the terms of their use of support, since they're not the Zoning Board of Appeals June 1, 2021 adjoining homeowners and they were resubmitted,they're identical.They're stamped in by the clerk on the 24th. And then again,April 14th. I've lived there 30 years,the deck that was recently renovated in the photos by Mr. Robles. I'm not sure what size I think we know what it is, I still have not been able to get an answer from Mr. Robles as to what the amount of the variance is. So, for example,if the variance is an application to go an extra six inches,then it's a de minimis application and I can't object really, but if it's a substantial enlargement of the existing deck,then I then I do raise concerns because it brings it so close to the property lines. That because of the, the lot sizes,we are on top of each other I sneeze somebody could say God bless you.You burn your steak,you call the fire department for each other. That's not a bad thing. But there is a need to have some screening or sensibilities around the, the noise and again, I think somebody pointed out,you're just enlarging the deck,you're not going out and I have two tables on my deck. I can easily sit 10 people on the property,And I didn't need a variance or,or any exceptions to it. So again, the photo shows a new and improved deck, I understand why you wouldn't want to tear it down. But I don't know what the permit was, or why it was changed in less than two years of ownership. The noise created is a concern and I think being good neighbors. Requires a sensitivity to that and as again, the adjoining homeowners are not in support. I also asked Mr. Robles if you would of consider using the patio or making a patio using the backyard instead of putting it up on a deck because what's important is to be driven on Maywood, Maywood Avenue slants. And in fact,his patio would be elevated beyond just the elevation that is off the ground,it would be above us because of the way Maywood is, there'll be a direct line of sight and, and noise. Is that there? So, I think it's there's still a question as to how substantial of a request it is. It's unclear as to the use of the letters, the adjoining homeowners are objecting,the photos are showing a new deck that could have been enlarged originally, when you made the application. That's,that's a new deck. And I'll be happy to answer any questions.But in 30 years, I think nobody's ever, to my knowledge,made a request to enlarge much past what we're already permitted because 5%coverage is in keeping with a much larger home,and not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. I'll yield back my time if there's such a thing,but I'm happy to answer any questions. Don Moscato I have a question. You're stating that the deck that's there now,when was that built,according to your recollection? Adrianne Orbach I would have to say it looks like new teak or trek or something Mr. Robles would have to tell you. The prior the prior deck was of different material, I'm sure. Don Moscato Okay. Joel Simon This this is new. This is a new deck to the best of your knowledge? Adrianne Orbach What was shown,what's shown as part of the application is what appears to be at least new handrails and white latticework and stuff appears new. Maybe the deck is not new,but the handrails and latticework is certainly new. Don Moscato Okay, thank you. Mr. Robles Can you answer that question?When was that deck built?And was it there when you bought the house? Zoning Board of Appeals June 1, 2021 Janella Robles Hi,my name is Janella. I'm the second daughter of Mr. Robles. So basically,like my dad was saying the deck is just renewed, everything's the same,like the structure itself is the same. It's just that my dad renewed like the white part of it.And like the base of it, basically,but everything else is the same. Don Moscato Okay, so then just to make that especially clear,you,you did not build that deck. That was there. Janella Robles No, it was there. Don Moscato Okay,very good. Thank you. Is there anyone else who wants to speak in opposition to the application? Adrianne Orbach Other than I know that the adjoining neighbor,withdrew her letter of support, she was unable to attend the meeting tonight. Don Moscato Okay, thank you. Joel Simon She didn't put in any letter in opposition,though,did she? Adrianne Orbach She withdrew her letter is what she did. Joel Simon Right.But she didn't put anything in opposition,did she? Adrianne Orbach Not that I'm aware of. I only know what I was responsible for. Don Moscato Okay. Glenn Brettschneider Are we aware?Are we aware just for the record that a letter of support was withdrawn?Because just so you know, and the record is clear,I did not come across anything about the withdrawal letter?And I'm also not aware of,you know, and unless I misunderstood,you said that there are multiple people that are not in support. And I've only seen your letter. So, am I misunderstanding what you said Ms. Orbach? Zoning Board of Appeals June 1, 2021 Adrianne Orbach No,what I'm saying is the letters that were submitted to the Board were not done in support of the variance.They were dated before the application to enlarge was rejected. They then were resubmitted.And as far as I know,no one was approached again,with the information that the application to enlarge was denied. And that the exact application excuse me,the letters were being used in support of the variance. Glenn Brettschneider I'm a little confused. I apologize. Adrianne Orbach Not a problem. Glenn Brettschneider In the folder,it looks like each person has two letters. I'm not sure why but,so you're saying that people initially gave letters of support for Mr. Robles to enlarge his deck and is that correct? Adrianne Orbach Yes. Glenn Brettschneider Yeah. Janella Robles Yes. Glenn Brettschneider And so what happened after the request to enlarge it? Adrianne Orbach It was denied is my understanding of the history,I've reviewed the file. So,after the march date, the submission of the letters,which are date stamped March 24. His application to enlarge was denied. Glenn Brettschneider Okay, I'm just, I just wanted to stop you here for one second. Do you know what? So,is anybody aware with that? I'm not sure what that means,what was denied? Joel Simon Glenn,I think what it means is that Mickey or somebody basically said,no,you need a zoning variance. Drew Gamils Exactly correct. So,he applied for his building permit. And Mickey reviewed the application and determined that his deck was not compliant.And then it's a denial,and then that denial is technically appealed to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance. Zoning Board of Appeals June 1, 2021 Jamie Schutzer But the plans didn't change. Joel Simon The plans didn't change. And the people who signed the letters,were aware that they were that of what size the plans were for. Glenn Brettschneider Right,that's my question. I just want to get that clear. Joel Simon I don't see any relevance to the point of the date of the letter. Glenn Brettschneider Right.But the neighbors were in support of the size of the deck, but when it became a zoning issue they did not. You're claiming that these letters, and these people no longer support? Adrianne Orbach No, no, don't stop that's not, Glenn Brettschneider Then you could correct me,please. Adrianne Orbach The comment earlier,that there's a lot of letters in support, I'm stating appear a bit misleading when they were used initially for the application. And now in support of a variance,number one,number two, the adjoining homeowners who are going to be most affected by the enlarging of the deck,which I still can't tell how much is the initial and what size would be permitted,versus how much larger is being requested other than basically adding on double of the deck to the end of the property. That's still not been answered in this meeting,or by the homeowner. It's just not clear. So,the letters forget the letter. Yeah. Glenn Brettschneider Would we even know. Joel Simon That's a valid point. Can we get that clarified Mickey as to what's allowed? Drew Gamils It's in the application materials but Mickey can provide. Michael Izzo It's in the application but I'll clarify for everybody's edification. Zoning Board of Appeals June 1, 2021 Glenn Brettschneider Thanks,Mickey. Michael Izzo Okay, the existing deck is 181.13 square feet. The proposed deck is 336.38.That's an addition of 155.4 square feet. Adrianne Orbach So,in layman's terms,math wasn't on the bar exam. So,if he did not get the variance. Joel Simon What's the largest he can go? Adrianne Orbach Exactly,that's the question. Glenn Brettschneider Right,that's the question. Could he go to 225?Mickey, could he go to 220? I think that's the question. Joel Simon 300 or whatever. Glenn Brettschneider Right. Michael Izzo Yeah.Let's see now. The maximum deck coverage for this lot is 3.5%. So,let's see now how big is the line?A lot. 235.4 square feet.That's the maximum size deck allowed in this zoning district. Joel Simon So,we're talking about 100,I'm doing in my head,about 130 square feet difference. Is that right about I think he said 360 before approximately? Michael Izzo 336 square feet. Joel Simon Ok, so about 100 square feet. Don Moscato Ok so about 100 square feet difference. Glenn Brettschneider Right? Okay. Zoning Board of Appeals June 1, 2021 Michael Izzo Yeah,it's about 10 foot by 10 foot bigger than that allowable by code 100 square feet. Adrianne Orbach I renew my objections that's substantial.And it brings it right to the end of the property. Don Moscato Well,both of those statements are technically correct. Michael Izzo Actually, that's not true it doesn't bring it to the end of the property,it brings it to the end of the home. Don Moscato End of the house. Adrianne Orbach End of the house which if you're familiar with the houses is basically a nine,nine and a half foot or so to the line but basically right there. Glenn Brettschneider Ms. Orbach,what is or Mr. Robles,I guess,what is,if the deck was extended,visually right now,what is between the end of the house where the deck would be and Ms. Orbach's property, either one,is there, shrubs, trees?Is there a fence?What is between you now? Adrianne Orbach Mr. Robles,Mr. Robles just put in that new fence.And I have hedges. Janella Robles Yeah,we have like a second. I don't know what to say. It's like a side door over there. And we also have my brother's bedroom.And we also have a small bathroom. Michael Izzo He's talking about the yard,he's talking about the yard. Is there a fence,bushes in the yard between the deck and the neighbor's house? Janella Robles Oh,yeah. Adrianne Orbach Mr. Robles just installed the fence. And I have hedges. Zoning Board of Appeals June 1, 2021 Joel Simon I have a question to the Robles's, and this is based upon something that you had raised before Ms. Orbach,was actually something I was thinking of earlier. I understand that you want this deck. I understand you want a nice continuation of a deck. But why couldn't you get the same benefit by having a patio,you know,coming down from your current deck, and then a patio on the backyard?Which I believe Ms. Orbach has less objection to. Glenn Brettschneider Or. Adrianne Orbach I suggested it. Glenn Brettschneider Or I'm just throwing this out. Or if,if there is a difference between a deck and walking down to a patio,I have both it is different. Joel Simon No question. Glenn Brettschneider For discussion's sake,would going back towards the property,and even if it was the same, for whatever reason,you know,we can make it smaller,whatever,if it went back and not towards you, or it extended a little longer and went further back. So,we had more room but not. Joel Simon Instead of being 11, Six it was 18. coming out from the house. Glenn Brettschneider I'm sorry, say it again. Joel Simon Instead of being 11. Six coming out from the house. If for the sake of argument,it was 18 coming out from the house. Glenn Brettschneider Right?Would,Miss Orbach,would you have less of an objection to that? Adrianne Orbach I have no objection to him building a deck that was within the setbacks that are permitted under the code. I have some concern about it going as large as a deck as a house that's got you know,the 5% coverage,I think is the largest town permits standard. Zoning Board of Appeals June 1, 2021 Glenn Brettschneider The setback is different. Adrianne Orbach I apologize. Glenn Brettschneider The setback is different than the variance that is going. Adrianne Orbach I'm mixing,I'm mixing my terms,I apologize,but the. Glenn Brett Schneider No problem. Adrianne Orbach The deck coverage. The deck coverage of 5%is what is. Don Moscato 3.5%. Adrianne Orbach For the R-5 zoning versus 5%,which is the largest I think the Town has for larger properties. So,you're asking me, am I agreeing to a variance?I still don't understand the size verses what it would look like. Glenn Brettschneider No, I didn't ask you. No,I didn't ask you if you were going to agree to a variance, I said would you have less opposition if he suggested that he would move it back so it's still usable?But away from his house and not towards your house. Jamie Schutzer Well,the only thing you don t know,does that create any issues going back the other way?And it looks like it's flush against the other part of the house. My other question was,what about making it smaller? So,what about getting to that,you know, splitting the difference? So not going all the way to the end of the house. But maybe you go you know, three quarters of the way, Joel Simon Like between those two windows. Jamie Schutzer Exactly what I was thinking Joel. Zoning Board of Appeals June 1, 2021 Adrianne Orbach Yeah,the square footage that's permitted I bet comes out there. Joel Simon I think it would still require a variance,but it would be a smaller variance and it wouldn't extend to the end of the house. Jamie Schutzer Exactly. Adrianne Orbach Which was one of the initial questions I asked Mr. Robles,what would it look like if he stayed within the confines of the coverage permitted? Or what would it be. Joel Simon As we mentioned before. The confines of the coverage permitted is roughly 10 by 10, or you want to call it the 11, Six by maybe nine extension. So,it would still extend,but it wouldn't be going to the end of the house. Adrianne Orbach Yeah,he's got 181 square feet now.And it's the difference to 225. He could do without anybody getting involved, other than obviously,building applications,permits and inspections. Joel Simon Or even if a variance was required,what we're talking about is just something that satisfies you both by. Adrianne Orbach Yeah.Yes.A de minimis. Joel Simon Yes, he would get a variance,but it would be a lesser of variance. Adrianne Orbach Yeah.And I invited him to show me options before you know getting on this and taking everybody's time tonight. I was responsive. As soon as I got the letter,became aware of it went to his house and asked him for information. So, this was not my first line of preference to deal with this in this forum. So yes, of course. Janella Robles I just have,is it possible to show you guys where we want to extend?Because my dad said it better to be visual and to show you this. Joel Simon I have no problem. Anyone else have a problem with that? Zoning Board of Appeals June 1, 2021 Don Moscato No,it's fine. Janella Robles Okay, so Don Moscato First, first of all,while are you doing that,let me just indicate that we are not going to as a Board set specific parameters. Joel Simon Right. Don Moscato One way or the other as to what the applicant should do. In the event that the Board denies the application, or adjourns the application,it's up to the applicant to come back with any changes, any proposed changes,and the Board will then determine on that basis. Okay, so now we're in the backyard. I don't know how helpful that's going to be at this point. But let's look. Adrianne Orbach You go out the slider,and then is his deck,I could,I could give you the blow by blow.That's what made me think it was a new deck, the banister. Joel Simon Let Mr. Robles show us. Adrianne Orbach And the trex. Joel Simon Ms. Orbach,let Mr. Robles show us. Adrianne Orbach Of course. Janella Robles Okay. This is a deck, right? So that ends here. And we've if possible,to up to here where the I don't know if that's helpful. You can't really see a lot,but Joel Simon Can you aim it towards we can see into the next,next property? I don t know if there's enough light for that. But Zoning Board of Appeals June 1, 2021 Janella Robles Yeah,do you have. Adrianne Orbach He's got a spotlight. He's got a spotlight he could trip. Janella Robles Yeah,it's on.But it's not. It's not doing anything. Joel Simon How much distance is there from the end of the house to your property line? Janella Robles Like maybe 8 to 10 feet. Michael Izzo There's 10 feet Joel, survey says 10 feet. Janella Robles So here, and then her house is over there,like a fence is there. So,I think it's enough space. Don Moscato How tall is that fence? Janella Robles I'm sorry? Don Moscato How high is the fence?How many feet? Janella Robles How many feet? Jorge Robles The fence, six feet. Janella Robles Six feet. Joel Simon Mr. Robles why don't you come back inside. Zoning Board of Appeals June 1, 2021 Janella Robles Okay. Drew Gamils And,Don,you know, the Board has also talked about conditions for these types of applications in the past requiring some sort of screening,you know, that's always an option as well. Don Moscato With that,would this application go before the ARB? Michael Izzo Yes. Don Moscato After zoning? Michael Izzo Yes. Don Moscato Would that be their purview? Michael Izzo Yes. Joel Simon What I'm curious about Don,if I may,is whether the applicant would consider shortening the extension to a point where it would end approximately halfway between those two windows,which I think serves the purpose of eliminating the concern of Ms. Orbach. But gives room to have a nice table. Glenn Brettschneider You know,how wide that would be in terms of a number. Can we approximate that?Maybe? Joel Simon I can do that visually. Glenn Brettschneider Yeah. Joel Simon If the whole thing is 15 feet,that looks to be the halfway point to me. So,I'm going to call it I'm going to call this visually about seven feet. Zoning Board of Appeals June 1, 2021 Glenn Brettschneider Seven feet further. Joel Simon That's what I'm a prime approximating. Glenn Brettschneider So,you didn't, so you d have a deck 11 and a half feet by 22 feet. Joel Simon Again,we are approximating but... Glenn Brettschneider Right. Right. I'm just wondering,because we we've done this many times with porches and decks and we try to get the least amount of variance that's still usable to the applicants. So, I'm trying to see what that number would be. Joel Simon It would probably be a round table,not,not a rectangular table there, but. Glenn Brettschneider Or an oval. Joel Simon Oh,yeah. Glenn Brettschneider An oval table probably makes the most sense. And then it would seem to be large enough. Right? Joel Simon Yeah.Mr. Robles,is this something that you'd be amenable to the idea of maybe shortening the deck so that it ends about halfway between those two windows? Glenn Brettschneider And if we did that,do we need exact numbers? Joel Simon Well,we couldn't,you would need new plans, I believe. Jamie Schutzer Yes. Glenn Brettschneider Right.That's right. Zoning Board of Appeals June 1, 2021 Michael Izzo Joel,Joel I can jump in. Joel Simon Let's get an idea if he even is amenable to it. Michael Izzo If can jump in. Joel Simon Sure. Michael Izzo That would be a six-foot addition to the deck that would take the deck right in between those two windows. Joel Simon So,he could theoretically go longer than that and still be, and not need a variance, right? Michael Izzo Well,I don't know, I'd have to crunch the numbers. But I do know,it's about six feet between the end of the deck. And that split and at the center of the window. So,a six-foot addition on the deck. Joel Simon Let me ask you a question. I think, correct me if I'm wrong,you said before that he would be allowed a roughly a 10 by 10 addition approximately?You know. Michael Izzo No, no, that's not what I said. Joel Simon Okay, that I misunderstood. Glenn Brettschneider No, I think that would actually give you from the 181 to the 235 is about 55, 56, 55, 54 square feet. So, 11 times. Michael Izzo Yeah,that deck would be code compliant. Glenn Brettschneider Yeah. Adrienne Orbach Yeah. Zoning Board of Appeals June 1, 2021 Michael Izzo Yeah.Yeah. That deck he would need to come before the Zoning Board with that. Joel Simon Is Mr. Robles or his daughter there? Shalen Robles Yes, he's here. But he just stepped out to show my mom something. Joel Simon Do you?Do you understand what we're suggesting as a possible idea something he would consider? Shalen Robles You were saying something between the windows? Joel Simon To shorten,not as long as he's planning something that would come roughly,to where the window so it's code compliant? So,you wouldn't even need the variance.Which would take them approximately between those two windows. Shalen Robles Okay. Would it be possible to extend it to the last window? Glenn Brettschneider It's always possible,but we would need dimension plans.And,and if it extended over approval, that we are not able to give you today. Joel Simon It would also likely require a variance. If you go that far,what I'm suggesting is by doing it a little bit shorter,you no longer need a variance. Shalen Robles Right. Don Moscato You know what I would,what I would suggest at this point that Mr. Robles. Think about that splitting the windows difference. Finding out for certain whether or not that becomes code compliant. By splitting the difference. If he decides to extend it to the second window,it most likely will incur the need for a variance, the amount of square footage,we don't know at this point in time, that has to be determined by the Building Inspector in consultation with your father. So,so that is an option that you will have,you know, once as a possibility going forward,that also presupposes a vote by the Zoning Board,which has not taken place yet. So, so that's something that, that needs to be considered. Drew, I see up on the screen an Oscar Ovalle,is that person germane to this application? Zoning Board of Appeals June 1, 2021 Drew Gamils I don't know. Don Moscato Can you unmute and ask? Oscar Ovalle Hello. Don Moscato Yes. Oscar Ovalle Hello,this is Oscar. Yeah, I basically drew the plan for Mr. Robles.And we are really close, the deck as existing is really close to the 3.5%. So,any extension is going to require a variance at this point So. Don Moscato Well,I don't know if you heard the discussion beforehand. But that 3.5%I think brings you up 235.4 if my note is correct. That's an additional 54 square feet. Oscar Ovalle Yeah,yeah. The thing is,when we were discussing at the beginning of the project,it was not worth it to extend those little square feet. So,he definitely wanted to go to the end of the of the house align with the with the end of the house,to have something that was worthy to build and to spend the money. So,basically, for us to do something that satisfy him and his needs.Anyways,we are going to require variance. Joel Simon But I think if I can, I'm thinking for myself that a variance of a lesser degree is,is something that I think would be, might be looked at,in a better way. Oscar Ovalle Yeah,exactly if Mr. Roble's agrees that reducing the size of the extension, of course we would present a updated plans. Joel Simon Then why don't we ask Mr. Robles,whether he'd like to adjourn the meeting,Don does that make sense? Don Moscato Yes,we could,we could help the situation by asking for a straw vote. That is non-binding at this point, to give him some indication as to whether or not the Board is because I mean after this,when and if we close the discussion, I'm going to go through the five factors with you.And I'm going to ask if all five of the factors are being met, or which ones are not being met. But if you want,we could take a straw vote at this particular point in time to help Mr. Robles make that decision. Drew? Does that make sense? Zoning Board of Appeals June 1, 2021 Drew Gamils I just want to add for the discussion, one of the, things that the Zoning Board has to consider that's not necessarily part of the five factors is approving the minimal variance possible to address the applicant's needs. So,Mr. Robles can go back and consider can a smaller deck address his needs and he can come back to this Board with a new proposal with something smaller,or you can come back and say,guys,absolutely not,I really need this size deck for this reason.And that's his choice.And the Board can consider it next month as well.You know,as I said, previously,there are conditions that the Board can consider. So,I think potentially taking your straw poll vote, and, you know,maybe adjourning this meeting, to go back and say,are there any other plans where you reduce the variance, maybe not eliminated completely?I think that could also be a good strategy. Joel Simon I think that makes a lot of sense. Glenn Brettschneider And that's what I said earlier Drew. I did want to address if we could Don about the adjournment because we have four today. I will be away next month,July. I'm traveling on the 1 s'I'll be back on probably the last day of the month. I will do everything I can to be available at a meeting provided Drew does not make us appear in person. I will not be able to do that. But I should be able to attend. I can't guarantee 100%. But I am pretty sure I will be able to make it. So, I just wanted to mention that because that will leave only three if I don't,but I think I will make it. I'll figure out a way to make myself available by zoom. Don Moscato Thank you. Okay,Mr. Robles, have you been following what we're thinking about doing?We're thinking about taking a straw vote of the four members who are here now on this present application. And you could use that information as input in your decision as to whether or not you want to go ahead with a full vote, or whether you want to adjourn the application, reconfigure your request and come back in the July meeting. Am I making myself clear in that option? Or you could request an adjournment right away. That's your prerogative. Joel Simon Mr. Robles? Shalen Robles Yeah,sorry. We're just translating to my dad. Yeah. Joel Simon Understood, no problem. Shalen Robles Excuse me. Sorry just give me a second. Don Moscato Would you,would you prefer to have an offline discussion with your,with your architect Oscar Ovalle and then come back later in the evening to give us your determination?Would that be helpful to you? Zoning Board of Appeals June 1, 2021 Shalen Robles No,it's okay. He said he would like to proceed with you. Don Moscato With a straw vote or with the adjournment? Shalen Robles Adjournment. Don Moscato With the adjournment? Oh, okay. I want to make sure I got that correct. Drew? Is that what your understanding is also? Drew Gamils That is my understanding.You're going to adjourn; the Board is not going to take your straw vote.You'll come back next month potentially with revised plans. And we'll continue the discussion. Everybody on the same page? Shalen Robles I'm sorry,I meant the other one. Glenn Brettschneider I don't think that's what they,it doesn't make sense. Shalen Robles Can we just get your votes? That's what I meant. I'm sorry. Glenn Brettschneider That's what I thought she meant. Don Moscato This is a non-binding vote on the application. Joel Simon Don,I just want to clarify, are you asking for us to do a straw vote, just so you can be guided? Or do you want actually for us to vote? Don Moscato No,no. We can't,we can't vote now. Because we have to go through certain procedures first before that. Joel Simon I understand that,but I'm asking us to what she wants us to do. Zoning Board of Appeals June 1, 2021 Don Moscato This is just a non-binding straw vote. Joel Simon Don, she may not be asking for the straw vote. Glenn Brettschneider I think she is. Joel Simon She may be asking to go forward. So that's my I want to clarify. She may be asking us to vote. Shalen Robles My dad just wants you to vote. Yeah,my dad just wants you to vote. Yes.Just straight with an answer. Joel Simon Straight vote on the application.Yes, so,we got to go through our procedures, but not a straw vote. Jeff Abraham Can I ask also to clarify for Mr. Robles? I want to make sure Mr. Robles understands. Is there any downside or disadvantage in doing a straw vote proceeding? Joel Simon No. Jeff Abraham So, so Jorge, there's no negative implication of a straw vote, other than it will give you an idea of where this is leaning,and then you can decide if you want to adjourn to next month, or if you want to continue. But it seems to me that a straw vote will give you a direction without necessarily a disadvantage. Shalen Robles Okay, straw vote please, yeah. Don Moscato Okay. All right.Yeah,we're going to conduct a straw vote. Okay, Glenn you're up first. Glenn Brettschneider Okay, so as presented,I'm actually less moved by Miss Orbach's concern,then I am by what I said,in that we need if you're going to ask for a variance,we need to have you provide us with plans for a deck that meets your needs, even if it does require a variance,but it's the smallest variance possible. So, so I haven't heard why it has to extend to the end of the house. So,I would be leaning towards if it's on,going to the end of the house,I would have to vote against. Zoning Board of Appeals June 1, 2021 Don Moscato Jamie? Jamie Schutzer Yeah,I'm the same as Glenn. I wouldn't be opposed to approving some,you know,a variance but,but I'd like to see some form of a compromise and not going to the end of the house as well. Don Moscato Okay,Joel? Joel Simon If this was any other size lot. I would,I would likely be in favor. But given the size of this lot. I think there are legitimate issues.And I think there's, there's compromises that could be done to again to meet the purposes with a smaller variance. So,if I was going to vote now, I probably vote against the variance. Don Moscato Okay, thank you. I agree with all those concerns. I believe that the size of a lot is each, each particular property is unique. And this size of this lot does indicate the substantial variance that's being requested is probably more than necessary that could meet the needs of the applicant in order to entertain, to have space for a table chairs and barbecue perhaps and still have some room to move around. So, I would also concur with my colleagues and suggest that the applicant work with the architect to revise the plan.And take note of the caution that we would like you to specifically state why the next proposal is enough to meet the needs of the applicant.We would like to hear that explicitly. The other thing is,if you choose to expand,as was suggested by the architect,if you choose to expand it to the allowable 3.5%,you do not have to incur the cost of whatever costs would be coming before the Board again,in the future,if the lot,if the deck becomes code compliant. And I think the architects should bring all those factors to Mr. Robles to enable him to make a decision. Okay,we now go back to Mr. Robles having heard the straw vote.The implications would be that if we continue down this road and vote the same way,at the end of our Board discussion,the application will be denied in its current state,and would have to be resubmitted down the road. On the other hand,if you just adjourn the meeting,you would not have to go through those hoops, so to speak,you can just come before us in July,with a revised plan.Did I make myself clear on that? Jeff Abraham So just to clarify, so I can explain as well to Mr. Robles, all he would be required now is to ask for an adjournment. And all he would need to present is whatever, as Drew pointed out,is the least variance that meets his needs, he may potentially come up with the same plan if he concludes that it is the minimum that would be required to meet his needs or a lesser plan if we were able to come up with a compromise. Don Moscato That is correct. Joel Simon And take into account our comments and how we voted in the straw vote. Zoning Board of Appeals June 1, 2021 Jeff Abraham Okay. Don Moscato And the Board in its deliberations,we'll balance all of the factors involved in that decision. And the least proposal that meets the needs is one of the five that we will consider. Jeff Abraham Okay. Don Moscato Is everyone clear on that then? Glenn Brettschneider Yeah,Mr. Abraham, that's why at the beginning,I asked the first question,what's the purpose of the deck when he mentioned a kids. Jeff Abraham Understood. Glenn Brettschneider If it's realistically to have a barbecue and a table around.What would be the size deck that would enable him and if it,if it actually requires a variance because you need to put a table there?That's something that we would certainly consider if he wanted us to. Jeff Abraham Understood. Glenn Brettschneider Because it looks nice. That's something we consider,but I don't know how much weight so that's why I think,you know,the Chairman was trying to make sure that we get across what,what are his real needs for this deck? Jeff Abraham Understood. So,I think you now need Mr. Robles to decide if he wants to adjourn to next to the next meeting. Don Moscato That is correct. We would need him to formally state that. Jeff Abraham Jorge,yeah. Are you ready to make that decision? Shalen Robles Hold on. Sorry. Zoning Board of Appeals June 1, 2021 Jorge Robles Yes.Yes. Jeff Abraham Are you ready to adjourn and come back in,what is it?July? Don Moscato July. Jeff Abraham And we can talk offline about what,what the best course of action is. Don Moscato Exactly,which is the reason why I wanted to pull that straw vote to help in terms of the logic that the Board was following, trying to come up with understood. Okay. Drew,are you comfortable then that the meeting has been adjourned? Drew Gamils Oh,we need a motion to adjourn and then I'll be comfortable. Joel Simon So moved. Glenn Brettschneider Seconded. Don Moscato Seconded. Okay,is Jamie, Glenn,Joel and Don,we all agree that the meeting will be adjourned for the July meeting. Okay. Thank you very much. Michael Izzo July 6`h to be exact. Drew Gamils Hopefully we'll see you next month. Don Moscato July 6th Michael Izzo Yes.July 6`h Zoning Board of Appeals June 1, 2021 Shalen Robles Same time? Michael Izzo Yes. Don Moscato Eight o'clock. Yes. Shalen Robles Okay. Adrienne Orbach Thank you. Michael Izzo Now you have to Mr. Robles,you have to repost the sign.You have a sign out in front of your property,you got to change the date on that sign. Jorge Robles Okay, thank you. Don Moscato But the mailing is not necessary. Is that correct? Michael Izzo That's correct. Drew Gamils That is correct. Michael Izzo That is correct. Change the date on the sign. Jorge Robles Okay, thank you. Michael Izzo Thank you. Don Moscato Thank you very much. Zoning Board of Appeals June 1, 2021 Jeff Abraham Thank you. 1.2. #21-015 Fabrice Hugon&Merle Hugon 167 Country Ridge Drive Construct a one story side in-fill addition and interior alterations. Don Moscato Okay. All right.The next item on the agenda, as was mentioned by the Building Inspector 167 Country Ridge has been withdrawn in order to clean up some of the parameters on the application. Is there anyone online here who was waiting for that particular application? Michael Izzo That's 167 Country Ridge Drive. 1.3. #21-017 Abhinav Gautam&Pooja Singh 11 Berkley Drive Construct a rear two story addition,new front portico,rear patio,deck and interior renovations. Don Moscato That's correct. Okay,they're being sounded that there is no one let's go to the next application.Application number 21-017.Abhinav Gautam and Pooja Singh 11 Berkley Drive, Rye Brook. Construct a rear two story addition,new front portico, rear patio,deck and interior renovations. Is that you,John?Is that yours? John Scarlato That's me. Don Moscato Okay,please introduce yourself for the benefit of the viewing public. John Scarlato I'm John G. Scarlato Jr. the architect for the owners of 11 Berkley who are also on the meeting. I'll share the screen. I'll start with photos. You can see the screen,right? Michael Izzo Yes. Zoning Board of Appeals June 1, 2021 John Scarlato Okay, so the house is a raised ranch.This is the front. This is the back of the house right now has a patio on the deck. The addition is going pretty much where the patio is. And there's a new patio going under the deck. Here's a shed. Jamie Schutzer John,while you are doing that can I ask you a question? What was that little slab that was,it looked like? John Scarlato A long patch in the backyard? Jamie Schutzer Yeah. John Scarlato It was the previous owners batting cage. Jamie Schutzer Oh, okay,that's what I thought. John Scarlato It's kind of sand. That's what it is. Okay.All right. So,what we're proposing to do on the front of the house is right now there's a portico.And the raised Ranch, the doors on the front of the house, you walk in the foyer,you're on Eke a four foot,you know,landing with a closet,then you need to go up the six steps or down the six steps. So, the owner wants to,would like to push out the foyer,like 4 feet.And then we're doing a three and a half foot portico that goes up to the main roofline, as opposed to the middle level of the house,we were trying to make the house look a little more less like a raised ranch. So,the front yard setback 7.5 feet is to the edge of the portico,three and a half feet of it is just the roof with the columns,which is up in here. And then we're building kind of a dormer piece into the roof setback, to try to give the door like some focus and kind of try to make the house look a little less like a raised ranch. The other thing we're doing is we're adding a gable over the roof over the living room window. And we're re pitching the roofline over the bedroom section of the house,which is going to extend out over the addition in the rear. So that's what's happening on the front of the house. And then on the back of the house. Michael Izzo So,John. John Scarlato Yep. Michael Izzo John,the work on the front. That's what is incurring the first two variances,right?The front yard setback variance. Zoning Board of Appeals June 1, 2021 John Scarlato I am sorry correct,you're right. Michael Izzo Yeah,let's talk about that. John Scarlato I'm sorry. Thanks for, thanks for being awake. I was going to bounce back to it. Okay. So that's the front yard setback. We're allowed 40,the existing portico is a 38.5 because we're basically enclosing almost the existing portico and we're adding the new one in front,it's 7.5 feet, so the front yards' going to 32.5,which means we need a 7.5 foot front yard variance for the portico and the entry foyer.But that's the only thing changing is this column of the house. In the higher part actually setback in the roofline. Now,because we're changing the pitch of the roof.And we're doing a gable it violates the front yard height setback. So,this new piece of the roof that we're building,which is only a seven and a half on 12. So,we're not even doing like a 12 on 12, or some real dramatic roofline are a nine on 12. It's a seven on 12. But,but the front yard setback kind of cuts through it. So, the other option is,which everybody knows I don't like is doing that cut off roof where you have the gable go up, and then it goes flat over the window.And that cuts back on the angle.And if I do that there, this one doesn't violate it,then the question is, do I,you know,do that same look, there,you all know,I'm not a fan of that look. So,and that we're talking about point five foot on the on the point six, so we're doing a point five. So, it's really cutting,you know,we're cutting like two feet off it. So. Michael Izzo Do you have a side elevation John,that shows that for the Board?The side elevation? John Scarlato Let me throw it on here? Michael Izzo Because that would be very helpful.You know, something with an incline plane or something like that right? John Scarlato Showing the cutting of the line through there. It's not on there, I would have to create it. Michael Izzo So,they could see how much of the roof is actually over. John Scarlato Yeah,I'm sorry, I can't go back and do that in a minute. But let's. Yeah,I could do it on paper, then scan it in. Michael Izzo So put the cursor where you're talking about. Zoning Board of Appeals June 1, 2021 John Scarlato Like we're talking about it hitting here and cutting across like that. So,we're talking about like two and a half foot by I don't know, say. Michael Izzo So,if you hip that part of the roof,you could slide under the line, but then you'd have a hip front looking affair? John Scarlato Because you can see all the roofs are behind,you can see where all the roof lines are behind. This is the one that's taller.And as I cut in,like that line cuts over everything else,but it just cuts this end. So. Michael Izzo Is the Board,is the Board clear on the front height setback variance? And the need for that or the reason for that variance? Don Moscato Yeah,I would feel comfortable seeing the side picture. John Scarlato I'll have to create it, okay. I can go back and create it in a minute. Okay, so with that said,then the main addition is actually to the rear of the house. So,we're doing an addition across. Basically,I want to say two story addition, again,a raised ranch so everything counts anyway, so we're doing a two-story addition,across the back half of the house, approximately half.And then we're doing as small, this piece is a just a small bump out where the kitchen is Eke a three-foot bump out here.And then this is the part that sticks out like 12 feet and comes across. And then we did the back window in the bedroom underneath it. So,we're creating a master suite. And we're creating another bedroom with a bath on the lower level, and a study on the lower level.And then we're creating a slightly larger kitchen. And then we went with the open concept on the first floor. So,it's just a great room. So then if we come back to this. This is the other side of the house. So, then this is this piece of the house already sticks out. And then where it already sticks out And then we're sticking,we're pushing it out three feet further back than it is on this piece where the door is. And this is the existing house. Don Moscato How am I the only one who cannot see a cursor moving around on there? Michael Izzo It's a little x Don,it's hard to see it. Don Moscato Yeah,I know.John, can you, can you kind of put something there other than that? Or keep it away from the grid because once you put it on the grid,it becomes. There you go. John Scarlato If I was,if I was savvy and knew how to do it,I would change it. Or I'll just move it more maybe that's my problem. If I move it more. Zoning Board of Appeals June 1, 2021 Don Moscato Take it in a clear space and then slowly bring it to the point that you're trying to discuss. John Scarlato Okay. Okay. So right now,this piece of the house is kind of in here.We're pushing that about three feet further back on the kitchen section. And then this part of the house,we pushed out about 12 feet. And then we bayed the master bedroom part. So,and then we're doing the two-story addition,the deck staying existing. But we're moving the stairway to the other side of it. Because right now the stairway goes. Right now, the stairway goes across the back of the house,which we're not doing. Michael Izzo So,John,just to clarify with the additions, I just want to get the numbers before the Board just so we understand what's going on. John Scarlato Okay. Michael Izzo You're adding a total of 1,380 square feet. John Scarlato Correct,between the rear addition. Michael Izzo Right. John Scarlato And the front foyer. Michael Izzo Which is 415 square feet over the allowable. Right? I'm just I trying to set the baseline for the Board. John Scarlato Okay. Michael Izzo The houses at 2,884. And it's going to wind up at 4,264. Which is 415 square feet over the allowable. John Scarlato Well,it's more than.Well,no. Don Moscato The allowable is 3,295. Zoning Board of Appeals June 1, 2021 John Scarlato No,it's 969.5 over allowable. Michael Izzo You're right. John Scarlato You're going over the footprint. Michael Izzo But the existing is 2,884. John Scarlato Correct. Don Moscato Yeah. Michael Izzo And you're going to 4,264. John Scarlato Correct. Michael Izzo Right. Don Moscato What I see here from advantage point of a Board Member,is you know,we're dealing with an R-15 zone, and the house is 15,637 square feet. And what you're doing is you're putting a house in an R-15 zone,proposing what really should be in a higher zone part of the Village. And so,there's this tension between keeping an R-15 zone essentially an R-15 zone, or creeping it into an R-25, or an R-20 zone,putting this size house in that type of zone. So,I can understand an owner wanting to enhance their house, but you're really asking to put a very large house, an oversized house in an R-15 zone.That's the tension that I see happening with applications of this nature. Can you speak to that,perhaps? John Scarlato Yeah,I can. The disadvantage of this home is it's a raised ranch house, so it has no basement,it has no free space, there's entire house counts FAR where a lot of its neighbors,you know,have basements under part of their houses. So that you know, they pick up,you know, 1,500 square feet. So unfortunately,this house is 100% FAR,there's no free space, even the boiler room, everything counts. So,yes,it's a high number. But in this kind of house,when you add on the first floor,your second,your basement counts. This is why we chose to only go to story behind the bedroom section of the house was to do one more bedroom on the main level to get them the suite because right now,you know,the typical house with the three bedrooms, the master,you know,with the little bathroom with the Zoning Board of Appeals June 1, 2021 shower,toilet and sink.And then create a guest bedroom underneath it in the basement because you're writing that space Anyway, once you add it, and then we only push out the kitchen minorly as opposed to just want with a great room. So yeah,these houses are difficult, and the numbers on these houses are bad.We tried to keep I mean, our concept was to keep the addition,most of the work behind the house.And you know,not really changing too much from the road other than changing the entryway.And,you know, try to add what we need to add without,you know,redoing the whole entire house. So yeah,the number is high,the number on this type of house is always high. So that's it. So,I mean,we didn't go across the whole back of the house,we didn't really add much more space other than to the kitchen. And then we're just going with the open concept. So yeah, the disadvantage of these houses is there's no free space. So. Joel Simon Before we go further,don't we need,we need to give him the option of continuing or adjourning when we have a full contingent. John Scarlato Yeah,the full Board would be helpful. Yes. Joel Simon Well,John,what do you want to do? Do you want to you want to put this off for the full Board or you or you want to proceed as we are? John Scarlato I think we can proceed over a little bit more and then see how it's going. And I don't know whether there's going to be some neighbor concern too. I know there were two notes from neighbors. Don Moscato Well,the way I,the way I see it. And I want to go back to that point,that when the Board of Trustees created an R- 15 zone, they were aware that there is such a thing as a raised ranch. I know,when I bought mine 45 years ago,as a raised ranch, I knew it was raised ranch on a slab.And everything is counted in the square footage. So,there's, there's nothing in the covenants that says,if you happen to have a raised ranch,we'll let you blow the doors off your house and make it a 4,200 square foot house. John Scarlato Yeah,but when you went by when you bought your house,Rye Brook didn't have FAR. Rye Brook was your footprint. So,you could have built the biggest two-story house that you could have shoved in your footprint.They didn't have lot coverage,we didn't have the height setbacks,we didn't have a thing called FAR. So,when you bought your house,you'd even think that way. Because if you wanted to put a two-story addition on part of it,there was there was really no issue unless you had a setback issue. Don Moscato Yeah,but I'm sitting on 26,000 square foot lot,not a 15,000 square foot lot So. Zoning Board of Appeals June 1, 2021 Michael Izzo Yeah,but to John's point,I mean,yeah, that's why the Village adopted those laws was because they didn't have them. And they saw the need for them.That's why John, the Village adopted gross floor area laws and height setback ratio laws was to curb that sort of potential development.That speaks directly to Don's point. Glenn Brettschneider Yeah,the other thing,you know,I mean, I echo Don's concern. And,you know,not to sound callous. But I think well,when Don moved in, they may not have had the FAR and everything. I think when the applicants moved in these requirements were there. And so,it's not like they came in sight unseen. I understand it's a challenging house with the raise ranch,you know, my question was,with all that you're doing even to the back?Why are we encroaching? On top of that the front as well,you know,it's already I think, even without the front,it's,it's probably an issue for the Board to struggle with. But adding the portico and the,you know,the two variances, the front is kind of like to use a football term,like,piling on,you know, I mean,it's,it's a,it's a lot. So,I don't know, what you can do with these things.But I think that is a concern,because these laws,you know,and the zoning was in place. John Scarlato Right.Well,I mean,the question is whether we do the work to the front,or we just right,work on the back of the house and leave the front the way it is, but that's definitely an option. Glenn Brettschneider It wasn t really an either or,but I was just saying how it's. John Scarlato I mean,that you said, alleviates.Yeah,that alleviates,too,right. I mean, right.That's,that's right. But that has a valid point. Michael Izzo So,do you want to withdraw or what do you want to do? Don Moscato Joel or Jamie do you have any questions? Jamie Schutzer Yeah,just, just a quick question,John,just so I understand. So,you're adding two bedrooms, and a study and then you know,the bathroom master bath. John Scarlato And we're adding a master suite on the on the main level,we're bumping out the kitchen, Jamie Schutzer Right Zoning Board of Appeals June 1, 2021 John Scarlato And then pushing out the floor on the main level. Jamie Schutzer Right. John Scarlato Well,that was the concept. And then underneath there,we're adding a bedroom with a bath,and then a study. And then we're just pushing out under the kitchen took to loop from these new rooms into the old rec room. Joel Simon A lot going on. Jamie Schutzer Yeah. Don Moscato Now,John,in your conversations with the applicants have you, have you discussed what you would know to be Board concerns with respect to what they're asking for,you know,and what has been their response? John Scarlato Now,we had a discussion I mean one of the main issues with them, to some degree is the desire to change the front of the look of the front of the house,which you know, a lot of times you know, I don't do a lot to the front of the house when we're doing you know,we're,we're leaving the front kind of more of the way it is maybe tweaking it slightly.This one definitely is trying to make the front of the house you know,look less raised ranches,which,you know,is,I understand is a concern,because we're making the house look bigger, even though we're making it bigger and making it look bigger. So, the Board's usually more apt to let a house get bigger when it doesn't look like it's getting bigger. So that's a, that's a point But they also have a valid point that when you walk in the front door,like in any raised Ranch, it is what it is. It's tight and that's where they usually are. So, something might have to give, and that might be something that gives. Joel Simon You want to come back and see whether you can figure out something that can give? John Scarlato Can you put us on second call and go to your next one?And I could discuss it with my client. Don Moscato Well. John Scarlato And are there any,do you want to open it up to the public?Because I know there were two letters. I'm just curious anyways, on the if there's any other? Zoning Board of Appeals June 1, 2021 Don Moscato Well,we normally would wait until we finished our discussions, our questions with the architect before we went into asking the public and then closing the Public Hearing. So,you know,if there's a procedural issue involved here. John Scarlato Okay. Abhinav Gautam I think from the owner's perspective, this is Abhinav and Pooja,thanks for giving us the opportunity to present here.John spoke,I think there,you know,there are a couple of areas for sure we're willing to work with the Board. We understand there's some concerns around the front of the house.And I think if we were to give up the front of the house,that's okay. I think the key for us is the back of the house. And one of the reasons we chose the back of the house,we focused the back of the house rather than anything else in the house,was the fact that we're an expanding family,we want our parents to be close as well. That's why the primary reason was to basically add a master suite. There's not much space in the house per se, to have a proper family room with kids running around. So,the primary objective here is to make sure that we can do the back of the house and the front of the house has to give so be it and that's a compromise, I guess, should be okay on our side. Right. Don Moscato What about the concern that I had expressed earlier about dealing with expanding a house in a zoning district that was not designed to permit oversized houses within,within that particular zoning district? Have you ever thought about that? Abhinav Gautam Yeah,we have definitely thought about that we've been working on this plan with John since the day we moved in actually, the very first day we moved in John was right there.And we've been working on this since October. And we've gone through multiple revisions with John.And you've looked at this very,very closely. So,we're not taking this extremely lightly. And we understand the rules of the road per se, so to speak. So,we very well understand the code of the Village,we've done a lot of work on our side. And I know it's hard to see the plan per se,but we've done a lot of work on our side,done a lot of homework research neighborhood spoken to a bunch of folks as well to understand what the zoning requirements per se are.And if you look around the block, every single house is basically being renovated except this house. But if you walk around the block Berkley Drive,you will see there's been not a single,there's maybe one house that is actually still raised Ranch,per se,it looks like a typical raised ranch from the 50s 60s.And this house is basically been as is for 40 plus 50 years, there's not much work has to be done on this house. So, this house basically stands out to us a polite word in the entire neighborhood.And we look at the zoning,you know, there's a lot of blocks. If you look at Winthrop drive which is basically right next door. There's much bigger,massive houses there. If you go take a tour down to red roof, similar situation there. If you go down similarly to there's a couple of other names, forgetting that those houses are actually much bigger than even this house. So,what are the three things the Board consider here is,look,we tried to expand our family.We want to have our parents close to us. I think it's been well documented that all the parents being away has been extremely hard for everybody involved last year.And you don't want the last few years of your parents to suffer in isolation. So,I think that's the key thing here that's driving a lot of these things,renovation around the house. Plus,we have an expanding family as well. So, I think the key thing people should consider is,look, there's a human element to this, trying to keep everybody close. And we're more than willing to work with the board to give up the front of the house and make other accommodation as need be. So that's number one. Number two, this is not a massive house Zoning Board of Appeals June 1, 2021 compared to rest of the house.This is a house based on all the research we have done,we poured massive number of days and hours into this.And it's not a massive house by the standards of the of the rooms and of the house around us. And number three is,you know,will obviously work with the Board to make any accommodations and adjustments if need be. Don Moscato Thank you,I would just call people's attention to that we're dealing with an existing non-conforming front yard setback. And we're being asked to expand an existing nonconformity. And one of the letters that came in points to that issue, that you're,you're expanding an existing nonconformity. And the Board always looked very carefully, whenever it and John knows from his portico experience that we,we always look very careful at any expansion of an existing nonconformity. I would also suggest that John visit with the applicants,again,at ways in which they can meet their needs,without necessarily incurring such a large GFA increase to the to the request,it's,it's quite substantial. It's about,about a third of the existing house being expanded. So,you're allowed to go up about 400, 500 more square feet,and you're asking for about close to 1,964. So, I would look very,very carefully at the GFA aspect, as well as the front yard setback aspect.And that's basically the concerns that I have.Joel,do you want to speak to anything? Joel Simon You said it very clearly. Don Moscato Okay,well. Joel Simon I share the exact same concerns. Don Moscato Okay.Jamie,how about you? Jamie Schutzer Yeah,I mean, same. I mean,I understand the applicant's point of view, and I don't think,you know, any of us here are saying,we don't believe that he shouldn't be able to do something, and maybe it does require a variance. But I mean,the size of this is definitely pushing the limits. Don Moscato Okay, Glenn, do you want to comment? Glenn Brettschneider Yeah,I don t think you will clear at all. No,I'm kidding.John, I just have a quick question. If you, off the top of your head,if you just,just the front,how much square footage does the front of the house add on to the total?I'm just looking for a number before you come back. If you come back. John Scarlato The front? I don't know, maybe 50 square feet of the front. Zoning Board of Appeals June 1, 2021 Glenn Brettschneider 50? John Scarlato We'd have to tweak the back a little bit Glenn Brettschneider Okay. John Scarlato But the front, depending on what we did at the front, the front yard setback?When would we go away if we decide not to do anything with the flyer or we dealt with the foyer inside the house,which is kind of a pain,because there's a lot more renovation. Glenn Brettschneider There's not a lot being done square footage to the front,but it's coming forward. John Scarlato Yeah,it's coming forward, because we're trying to make that level,you walk between the levels. So,you walk in and you have like four feet, and then you either going up or down, shows how tight this house is. So,we're trying to kind of push that out and then push have still a covering over the front door. So,if we didn't have a covering over the front door,we could just enclose in theory, Glenn Brettschneider Right. John Scarlato The portico,in the existing nonconformity,and then everything would just get wet,which is,you know, a trade off. So,I don't know,we'll have to figure out. Don Moscato I know you could work your magic John. John Scarlato There you go. Glenn Brettschneider That's why you're here all the time. John Scarlato I like a challenge. Zoning Board of Appeals June 1, 2021 Don Moscato Good,good. Keeps you sharp.The other thing is I just wanted to mention the COVID issue. You know,when we grant the variance,it goes in perpetuity with the house,pre COVID, COVID and post COVID.And although each of us as human beings are sympathetic with the demands that this has placed on us this past year, I also think that as the Zoning Board,we have to consider what the bulk standards were, their logic behind them and what we,what we can see in Rye Brook as very definite creep in its context of expansion as opposed to character. So, there's a concern that we have about just trying to maintain some balance between the bulk standards and the needs of folks,we know that everybody wants a master suite now, houses weren't built with them at one point,and now everybody wants one. And sometimes the Jerry rigging that's necessary to put that in,pushes all sorts of other demands on the GFA of a house that wasn t originally designed for one. So,John, are you ready to step back? Glenn Brettschneider Don,I just wanted to just say something that,you know,it's a testament to the town,the village of Rye Brook that people want to come here with houses that need quite a bit of renovation, there older,to,to accommodate the current needs. When people can move elsewhere and get the house they want. But they all seem to be coming because it's such a great village.And that really becomes the, you know, the challenge because people want to be here,if with these houses that require a lot of work. So Don Moscato Yeah,that's a good point,because,you know, to pay$1.8 million for a house that's being built,you know,as opposed to buying one at a lower price and putting a couple of$100,000 in renovation to make it look like that 1.6 or seven or$8 million house, right. That's a tradeoff that each of us has to have. subject to the financing,dimension of that. Okay,John are you ready. Glenn Brettschneider Kudos to the Village. Don Moscato Yeah,John,are ready to request an adjournment? John Scarlato Yeah,no,we'll adjourn it and we'll,we'll,we'll revisit and edit it for July. Don Moscato Okay, thank you. And please include that, that side issue if it's relevant John Scarlato If it's still there. Don Moscato Okay, thank you much. We're going to have a motion to adjourn. Joel Simon So moved. Zoning Board of Appeals June 1, 2021 Glenn Brettschneider Second. Jamie Schutzer Second Don Moscato Okay. The motion. I think Jamie is approving of that.And I am. So,motion to adjourn is approved. So,July is stacking up there,Glenn. So hopefully your,your internet. Glenn Brettschneider I will make, I will make it my business to be on just as long as I have Wi Fi where I'll be and I think I-,vill. I will be there. Don Moscato You're not going on a safari then. Okay,good. Glenn Brettschneider Nope. Don Moscato Okay. All right.Very good. Motion. We made the motion. Meeting adjourned.All right,John. John Scarlato Yeah.Let me stop sharing and that people can. Don Moscato Okay. Anyone who is on for that application,please. You'll get the signage saying that the meeting is July 6 assuming all the items are in place at that particular point in time. Thank you. 1.4. #21-018 Stuart Sindell &Marcia Sindell Joseph Abbe 980 Anderson Hill Road Applicant seeks to reverse the Building Inspector's determination to grant Building Permit #21- 054 issued on 3/22/2021 authorizing the construction of a new teaching building, reconfiguration of the front entrance roadway, and construction of a new chip and putting green for the property owned by The Blind Brook Club Inc. Zoning Board of Appeals June 1, 2021 Don Moscato Okay. The next application is for the reconsideration of a decision by the Building Inspector. So,unlike the last times, I will ask the representative of the applicant if they would like to adjourn to our July meeting.July 6`'meeting or would they like to continue with a four-member Board. Is attorney Gelfarb on the line here? David Gelfarb Yes, can you hear me? Don Moscato Yes,we can. David Gelfarb Good evening. I would like to proceed and then move toward a straw vote if that would be acceptable. Don Moscato Okay-, fine.That's your prerogative. David Gelfarb Okay. May I begin? Don Moscato Yes,please. David Gelfarb Thank you. Good evening,Chairman Moscato and members of the Zoning Board of Appeals. My name is David Gelfarb. I am an attorney with the law firm,Moss &Kalish in New York City,and a former 17-year Rye Brook resident. I represent homeowners and residents Stuart Sindell,Marcia Sindell and Joseph Abbe. The Sindell's live at 27 Carol Court and Mr. Abbe lives at 29 Carol Court in the Enclave development in Rye Brook. The Enclave borders the Blind Brook Golf Club. I understand that numerous Enclave homeowners are watching or at least are very interested in these proceedings tonight. My clients requested the Board vacate Building Permit number 21-054, which was issued to the Blind Brook Club in connection with the construction of a golf building at the club,the widening and modification of the driveway leading to Anderson Hill Road,and the installation of new chipping and putting greens at the club. I would like to give some background to this application,which I think would be helpful. In November 2019, the Blind Brook Club filed an application for amended site plan approval,as well as for numerous and extensive improvements,including a new irrigation system, a new pump house,a new stormwater management system, and the restoration of the golf course to its original design. On March 24, 2020,following a Public Hearing, the Village Board approved the amended site plan, subject to the club obtaining a steep slopes permit and a wetland permit. Meanwhile, on February 13, and April 9 of 2020. Following referral by the Board, the Planning Board held a Public Hearing on the application for those permits. On April 9, 2020, the Planning Board approved the steep slopes permit and the wetlands permit subject to certain conditions,including the conditions set forth and the Board of Trustees resolution. Next, on October 21, 2020, the club submitted a second application for site plan amendment, as well as an application for a wetlands permit. The club sought approval to reconfigure the front entrance by widening the driveway to 24 feet, to construct a new chipping and putting area and most importantly to construct a golf Learning Center. The Gulf building as we call it is to be 20 feet by 40 feet and 22 Zoning Board of Appeals June 1, 2021 feet four inches in height. It is an approximately 1,800 square foot building. It is to be located 249.09 feet from the side property line of the Enclave where the applicants'homes are located. The second application for site plan approval was addressed by the Planning Board at its November 12,2020 meeting, the entire application was addressed in less than 17 minutes. The Planning Board held the Public Hearing on December the 10d'. No drawings, diagrams, schematics, or representation of the golf building was shown at the Public Hearing. The Planning Board voted at the December 101h meeting to grant the application for a second site plan amendment as well as a wetlands permit. At this point four building permits for work have been issued over a nine-month period the total value of the work to be performed has been valued by the applicant at over 9 million dollars. That includes of course,the permitted issue on this appeal,which was issued by the Building Department on March 22nd of this year. I would Eke to move on to Village of Rye Brook Code section 209-2.B which deals with construction management plans. That section provides as follows, any residential or commercial construction project that is subject to the site plan review and approval of the Planning Board or the Village Board of Trustees shall be required to prepare a construction management plan unless the Planning Board or the Village Board of Trustees, as applicable waives the CMP requirement. The construction management plan shall be submitted as part of the application for site plan approval and shall be subject to the review and approval by the Building Inspector and the Superintendent of Public Works\Village Engineer prior to the issuance of any permit for the project. The CMP pursuant to Rye Brook code shall include the following information,a project schedule,it shall also include the location on the project side of all loading and unloading areas, job box and material storage areas. Portable toilets, dumpsters and on-site temporary power, any protective fencing around the job site, any trees and vegetation to be preserved in any trees and vegetation to be removed.These have any other construction related facilities shall not be located in the public right of way without the prior approval of the Building Inspector.The CMP shall also include a traffic control plan. The traffic control plan shall identify the path of travel for delivery trucks and emergency vehicles to and from the project site. In addition,all on and off-site worker parking locations shall be identified,including any carpool pickup and drop off locations. D staging areas,the CMP shall specify construction staging area locations,it shall also address delivery and construction vehicle staging for the duration of the project. The staging plan shall estimate the number of truckloads,the number of heavy equipment deliveries etc., expected and their timing and duration for each stage of the project. Accordingly, the club was required to prepare a CMP unless the requirement was waived. There is no record of a CMP in the file. There is no record of the Panning Board in any of its resolutions having ever waived the CMP requirement. Thus,the Building Inspector and the Superintendent of Public Works did not review and approve any CMP as is required by Village Code. Now we understand that there may be an argument that due to the size of the project, no CMP was required. In fact, the building permit reflects that the work is valued at$562,000. More importantly,the Code does not provide any exception to the requirement that a CMP must be submitted unless it has been waived by the Board of Trustees or the Planning Board,which did not happen here. In brief,a CMP is a combination of diagrams, documents, drawings, and specs that clearly define the steps that will be taken to demonstrate how the impacts to the community will be addressed and minimized.We also understand that there may be an argument that the drawings and materials that were submitted to the Building Department constitute a construction management plan. I'd like to ask Miss Gamils to please,if she can share her screen and put up some drawings I sent to her. I was a little afraid I'd lose my entire screen if I did it myself since everything is on my work,work files and I have to go through my home computer. Drew Gamils No problem. Zoning Board of Appeals June 1, 2021 David Gelfarb Okay, so I'd like to if you can put up the sheets. Okay,if you can go to sheet,the cover sheet.That's the top one, and then there's,let's just SP-6 and the next one is SP-7. Now go back up to the top one,please. Now pursuant to the Village Code, the club was required to provide a CMP containing, first, a project schedule. None of these three documents contain a project schedule.A schedule allows for better planning of activities and to improve safety performance,as well as proper protection of all of the workers on the site. It also allows neighbors much less those living barely 250 feet away to plan for the inevitable disruption that a major project like the Gulf building will bring. For example,the project schedule will assist with dust control and reducing emissions of fugitive dust. Second, the club was supposed to set forth a location on the site of loading and unloading materials, material storage areas, portable toilets, dumpsters, fencing,protective fencing, trees, and vegetation to be removed,and trees and vegetation to be retained.This was not done.A schedule for materials helps to minimize on site storage. A plan would set forth how materials will be stacked and stored to ensure safe access and moving throughout the site. A plan will also set forth where dumpsters will be located in order to minimize waste handling and overflow. It would address storage of construction debris,as well as the recycling of construction materials and conventional materials. Fencing as we all know is very important that a construction site is used to isolate the construction areas from pedestrian and other forms of traffic. Here it will also help improve Detecting damage to trees and other vegetation. Since the site is essentially a golf course,there is no provision for fencing on this spec. Dumpsters should be addressed and sealed to prevent infestation of pests.Also,as previously noted, the Planning Board has issued a wetlands and steep slope permit for this work, there are obvious stormwater and erosion issues to be addressed here. Next, the club is required to provide a traffic control plan. This has not been done. A traffic control plan ensures the safety of road and roadway users and pedestrians and helps to protect construction workers. It shows how traffic is to be safely separated from workers at the site. In other words, a traffic control plan is essential to helping to reduce the risk of injury and in helping the project progress. Fourth,the club was required to set forth staging area locations and delivery and construction vehicle staging for the entire length of the project. This too has not been done. If the club had submitted information regarding staging locations, the numbers of trucks,the duration of operations,the Village would have much more ability to evaluate and to work toward minimizing disruption to neighbors. In short,then a construction management plan would, among other purposes,help to identify and mitigate the adverse impacts from construction activities,including in connection with the construction of the Gulf building, a CMP would help neighbors such as Enclave residents to learn about activities and schedules related to noise, dust, runoff, and transportation impacts. Without a plan,the site has no control measures that the Village Building Inspector can regulate and enforce.Nor was the Village given an opportunity to express input on these measures. Indeed,the photo next as exhibit four to the application,which was taken on April 28,2021, shows a lack of any protective fencing around the job site.The construction vehicles are scattered around without regard for staging areas. I reviewed the site yesterday and today, and there's still no fencing around the job site. Given that the applicants homes boarder the club property. All of these issues have a significant impact on my clients. The Building Inspector does not have the authority to waive the requirement of a CMP and thus should not have issued the permit.Accordingly,this Board should direct that the Building Permit be vacated and that the club be directed to provide the necessary documentation to the Building Inspector and the Village Engineer.By doing so,the club would be as it is required to do follow the procedures set forth in the Code in order to provide the proper safeguards for the community. The Enclave owners thank this Board as well as the village staff, consultants and attorneys for the time and effort that they have devoted to reviewing this appeal.We respectfully request that the Zoning Board of Appeals vacate building permit number 21-054. Thank you for the opportunity to speak before you tonight Are there any questions? Zoning Board of Appeals June 1, 2021 Don Moscato Thank you.Thank you very much. I'm going to ask two individuals to speak with respect to this request. Drew, our Village Attorney, could you speak to the issue?There were two issues.A lot of a lot of documentation was forthcoming.And if I'm not mistaken,there were two issues of concern that were expressed in a letter one having to do with not getting State of New York,Westchester County approval for changes to Anderson Hill Road, entry and exit. Could you just clarify that for purposes of the Board members what that situation was? Drew Gamils So,Mr. Gelfarb originally raised an issue that the applicant,the applicant being Blind Brook Club failed to satisfy condition. I believe its condition number five of the Planning Board Resolution,which required the applicant to secure a permit from Westchester County Department of Public Works because Anderson Hill Road was believed to be a County road. After that Resolution was adopted. It was discovered that Anderson,Anderson Hill Road is actually a Village road so no permit from the County is required. That condition was satisfied when Blind Brook received approval from the Village Department of Public Works. Don Moscato Okay, thank you and the other issue that I'd like to have spoken to by Building Inspector Mickey Izzo is Mr. Gelfarb referred to and put up on the screen,shared screen. Item numbers six and seven of the site plan. Could you speak to that?Because the assertion was that you could not make, I hope I'm characterizing this correctly,you could not make a correct decision on issuing the permit on the basis of site plan six and site plan seven, could you please comment to the Board on that? Michael Izzo Certainly,Mr. Chairman.Well,Drew, can you put that up on the screen please? Drew Gamils Sure can. Michael Izzo Thank you. I'm going to try to enlarge this on my screen. One has to remember that this,that this portion of the application was made in concert, or directly thereafter,issuance of the permit for the other work that was going on at the club, so we had sort of,you know,a four pronged permitting initiative going on at the Blind Brook Club at this time.And although I don't have a listing of all the items,Mr. Gelfarb mentioned, I'm sure he has them in front of them. I'll try to go through as many of them as I can recall that he brought up. The sanitary facilities, staging area,materials, storage area,dumpster area,was scheduled during the previous permit,it's all in the same spot that it was then. So, all of these requirements for this sort of stuff are already on the site, the last contractor had set that up,and this contractor is using that area in the same way. So, all of that stuff already existed on the site. I didn't feel the need to duplicate it, because I knew it was there.And I knew that the contracted knew it was there. And he was intending to use that space,the same way that the previous contractors did. Also,there's a dedicated storage stockpile area that is shown on the plan. There's a circle in the middle of the plan that says stockpile area,it's clearly that's a stockpile area, that's where you put materials. That's what a stockpile area is. Drew it's to the right.Yeah, there it is there,that round circle that says stockpile area or you can zoom in on what it actually says it's getting,it's getting too blurry to really zoom in, but that's what it says. Zoning Board of Appeals June 1, 2021 Don Moscato I can see it Michael Izzo With respect to traffic,you have to remember that, that the golf course is huge first of all. Second of all,it's completely private property. There's no public traffic to be concerned with. So, the need for a traffic control plan is not there,what else did you bring up Mr. Gelfarb? David Gelfarb First,I wanted to mention,yes,we learned that the Anderson Hill Road although it is in Harrison is still a county road. It is no longer a county road and Rye Brook ironically, and the golf club's kind of on the border. All right, there is project schedule issue. Okay,is that issue which is required by the Village Code.There is a requirement to things like dumpsters, fencing? Michael Izzo Let's do it.Let's do it one thing at a time, shall we?The project schedule. We know what the schedule is. David Gelfarb Ho«-? Michael Izzo And so does the contractor because the work hours Village Code sets the schedule hours of operation of construction equipment It's in the code. David Gelfarb Well, our position is that there's much more to a project schedule than simply the hours of work. I mean the hours of work of course set by the Code which you know,you would enforce but it's not just a matter of well,they can work eight to six, nine to five or whatever. Michael Izzo Well,it may not be,it may not be the matter for you, but it's,it's the matter for me and I don't believe a job of this scope requires that complicated schedule.We know the hours that they can work,and we know what they're doing. David Gelfarb Well,you know they could have gone before the Planning Board in connection with their resolution and asked that the requirement of the CMP be waived.With all respect. It's not your determination that it can be waived,it's their job to ask for it to be waived. Michael Izzo No, but it's my determination to figure out what the need is based on the project. Not every project requires the same degree of detail as another. And it's a scope of work that determines what the construction management plan, or whatever you want to call it needs to be. It's not the same for this project as it would be for another project. Zoning Board of Appeals June 1, 2021 David Gelfarb That may be, but that's not to say that it doesn't have to exist at all, of course, 900 King Street one day is going to require more extensive schedule. But no schedule,is still no schedule. Michael Izzo Yeah,but it doesn't not exist at all,you have SP-6,which is the proposed site plan.And in my determination,this satisfies the requirements of a construction management plan,based on the scope of this job. Don Moscato Drew, drop that down,maybe enlarge it a little. Mickey, can you speak specifically to your logic on using SP-6,as a sufficient explanation of what's taking place at that site? Michael Izzo Sure,Drew,bring up SP-6,this is seven,there it is,well,you're constructing a slab on grade building,which requires minimal excavation, and minimal disturbance of the lot. The really the only trenching is to is to put the footing in, which is at grade and pour a slab.The only real excavation is to bring the utilities in,which is narrow trenches for, you know,pipes and conduits. So,you've got very minimal disturbance there.The road is being relocated. Again, that's all on grade work. There's no significant excavation taking place. They're moving the road from one spot to another. So, there's no digging, a substantial digging there, either. It's all it's all surface, basically,topsoil being moved. The stockpile areas are very clearly delineated the dumpster area, the sanitary facilities,the material storage area,the staging area for the trucks, like I said,it was all set up under the last construction permit.And it's the same, they're using the same areas, the parking lot in the back. That's where they staged everything. That's what they keep their materials. That's where they have the construction trailer. That's where their trucks pulling that's the area. Joel Simon Can I ask you a question? Michael Izzo Yeah,Joel, sure. Joel Simon When a CMP is referred to,I don't know whether this is specified in the Code somewhere or not. Is it a specific document? Is that a specific form? Or is it simply information? Michael Izzo It's information,there is no blueprint or outline that I'm aware of that lays it out other than the language in the code. Joel Simon So,your view is that if the information is provided to you in one form or another from one source or another, that is a CMP for you? Zoning Board of Appeals June 1, 2021 Michael Izzo Yeah,well,yeah,definitely. I mean if I'm provided, basically,I look at what I'm provided.And the question is, can this job be performed and controlled by the Village by me and by my staff,and meet the needs of a construction management plan or the intent satisfy the intent of having a construction management plan. Is that sufficient, and I make that determination every day all day on hundreds of hundreds of permits.Just because,just because the Code says you need X,Y, and Z,if you're not doing that kind of work that needs that sort of stuff,then having that stuff is pointless. David Gelfarb If it was pointless,the applicant could idea the club could have said is pointless. We shouldn't have to do it.Also,I want to point out that this Board, I didn't want to get into the hyper technical legal arguments.We did present them in our application.The determination by this Board is de novo you are to step into the shoes of Mr. Izzo,you are not there to really say you're not there to say whether well,he acted arbitrarily and capriciously. This is a de novo review, and you start from ground zero. Drew Gamils And just to go off what Mr. Gelfarb is saying,you make the decision you believe ought to have been made in the first place. I think one thing to consider because I'm sure you'll probably think about precedent and other construction management plans and how they might have looked. This law is brand new. It was adopted in October 20, on October 27,2020, the Planning Board's Resolution was adopted December 10, 2020. So,we don't have a lot of,we haven't had a lot of discussion about construction management plans,as set forth in the Code by the Planning Board,because it is as newer concept. David Gelfarb Also,the Planning Board is not the one who,you know,was to approve the construction management plan is to be done,unless it's waived by the Planning Board, and is to be approved by Mr. Izzo and the Village Engineer that clearly has not done here. Joel Simon My concern is, and maybe I'm trying to get clarification on this is what actually constitutes a construction management plan?Is it sufficient? If I'm standing in Mr. Izzo shoes,is it sufficient to say,gee, from this source, that source and that source,I have the information that I would that if that if somebody handed me a document saying construction management plan, I'm getting that same information from another source? Or do I need an actual document or form or whatever labeled, this is your construction management plan? David Gelfarb Well,it says in the Code 209-2.B says,in part, the CMP shall be submitted as part of the application for site plan approval and shall be subject to the review and approval by the Building Inspector and the Superintendent of Public Works/Village Engineer prior to the issuance of any permit for the project. That didn't happen.Thus, the Code was not complied with. It doesn't say well throw it here and there and scatter it amongst various drawings that is submitted in support of the Building Permit.The Code says it's part of the application for site plan approval,and I would ask this Board,well,where was it?It doesn't exist. Zoning Board of Appeals June 1, 2021 Don Moscato Yeah,I mean, I think that the case that Mr. Izzo is making,is that he had satisfactory information in his capacity as the issue of the permit to relegate a sufficient decision based on the information that he had there. You are correct in a specific piece of paper called the construction management plan was not issue that I think is an obvious statement,the question that we're wrestling with as a Board is,was sufficient information that normally would be in a construction management plan present for a reasonable,intelligent decision to be made,that I think that's the issue before us. Joel Simon I'm not sure of that. Don Moscato I can see there was no official piece of paper. But as you indicated,Joel,a few moments ago,is there enough information on there for the Building Inspector to make a decision regarding the construction of a building on the site of Blind Brook Golf Club? Joel Simon I'm just going to play devil's advocate a little bit. I'm not 100% sure that is sufficient,that a Building Inspector and this is nothing derogatory towards Mr. Izzo, has the ability pursuant to this provision,to waive an actual construction management plan being provided?If he feels he has information otherwise?Wouldn't that be the same,the reasoning that the Planning Board is given that authority to do that. Because they may feel Gee,we have this information otherwise? But if it's not waived by the Planning Board, don't we then need an actual construction management plan? Don Moscato You bring up the Planning Board. And we've all read a lot of the correspondence. That was part of this,this application,and a great deal of the objections were and I'm trying to characterize this as diplomatically as possible, were that the Planning Board did not perform its function in a way that the applicants feel should have been done. That they gave it short shrift to put a word in,in parentheses. That is not our jurisdiction. That is,we are not here to chastise the Planning Board how they made an application. But they made the decision to go ahead with the amendments to include the construction of the building. It's quite clear from the letters that we received,that the representatives of the applicants do not want that building there,period. And a great deal of their objection was focused on the existence of a building so close to their property. A lot of that is Planning Board jurisdiction information, our decision,basically, and I think you've identified it, did the Building Inspector have adequate information to make that decision? Joel Simon No, I disagree with you,that is not the issue. Don Moscato And you're saying.well,you're saying it has to be a certificate. Zoning Board of Appeals June 1, 2021 Joel Simon No,no,what I'm saying is, does that,I think the issue is actually can the Building Inspector make that,grant the permit if he,if he has that information from other general sources without having an actual formal construction management agreement? Don Moscato Understood, understood.That I think is a general statement,okay,that exist across many different applications. That may come down the pike in the future,this particular case,the request to remove the Building Permit is predicated on the nonexistence of a construction management plan,period.And I'm looking at it from the point of view of this application,not the conceptual argument that the Board of Trustees can in effect state in the future that under absolutely no circumstances is the Building Inspector to use judgment. Okay,regarding what is adequate information to issue a Building Permits I think your position is without that construction management plan should we give the building inspector that latitude,am I characterizing it correct? Joel Simon You're characterizing it correct. It's also partly,it is some aspects of the provision mandatory,while other aspects of the provision may not be mandatory, for example,it may be mandatory, that there be a construction management plan in one form or another, but they may not be mandatory that it be a formal document that can be distributed among different,different parts of the local government. Don Moscato That I think is something that you can clarify,that can be clarified in the future. Joel Simon But I think it's well,it has it's relevance now. Because it goes directly to the Building Inspector authority to grant that permit. Don Moscato Okay, understood. I understand your point. I understand your point.Jamie,do you and Glenn, do you want to weigh in? Jamie Schutzer Yeah,yeah,I have,I have a bunch of questions,and maybe not in a particular order. But one,Mickey,you mentioned, the previous contractor,had some of the requirements were already in place,like the stockpile,and in the,in the toilets,and all that,that was from one of the prior approved permits,is that correct? Michael Izzo Yeah.Jamie,they were doing three jobs at once over there at one particular time. There was a lot going on over there. So, they had two separate contractors who were sharing the same staging facility one was one was winding down and one was winding up.And in fact,the CO was just issued that last week for the for the for the first phase of the job, and they were pulling out while the new contractor was in place and working along on the on the new golf,golf teaching facility. So,you know, they shared the same parking lot in the back they had you know,that's where they put their sand for make some concrete they had gravel back there all the lumber was back there, the Zoning Board of Appeals June 1, 2021 trailers all that the trucks would load and unload back there load and unload back there.You know, that's where the high low is,you know,you know,that's where all the staging took place on this, on this piece of private property. David Gelfarb Now,these are comments that should be pointed out, don't even relate the ones that Mr. Izzo is referring to,is for a completely separate site plan approval. In fact,this site plan approval came,you know, 8, 9, 10 months later,and is the subject of its own building permit doesn't necessarily have to have the same contractors,it's not even the same. It's not even covered by the same Planning Board resolution. It's a completely separate thing,which was done,you know, approved by the Planning Board at the end of 2020. Whereas,you know, the other,the other work was pursuant to a resolution from March/April 2020. Michael Izzo I think I said that. Don Moscato If I'm not mistaken, the amendment is that what you're referring to the amendment. David Gelfarb I'm saying it was to site plan amendments, the first one,you know, dealt with the, the more,you know,with one set of work that had to do with,you know,the,the irrigation and straightening out the golf course, or whatever else they were doing on,you know,the pump house, the stormwater management system,all of that was earlier on, and later on,they came back and that,you know,getting to saying,Mr. Chairman,the anger and the upsetness, if you will,of my clients was that later on,they kind of slipped through this widening and modification of the driveway, the installing a new chipping and putting green. Most importantly, from their perspective, the construction of the golf building, those three items are subject to a separate building permit. I don't know,where you can just say,well, we can overlook the requirement of the construction management plan by piecing it together from these,you know, drawings here,drawings there,and most particularly,how can you say it's there by saying why don't we refer to an entirely different building permit issued months before,pursuant to a separate Planning Board resolution? Jamie Schutzer Well,what I was trying to say,the reason I asked that question, right,is when you look at the information that's required in the CMP. B is,you know,jobsite facilities, and storage. D is staging areas. So,I guess in Mickey,in your opinion,if another permit is required.And if you're going through the requirements of a CMP. Can you piggyback off of a prior permit,which has jobsite facilities and storage and has staging areas. You know. Michael Izzo If it serves the needs of public safety and the job. Certainly,you know, I just want to clarify something,although this was a two prong jobs,this was the same general contractor for both the same general contractor to Clark construction, they're doing both projects,it's just a different GC,two different GC's, but it's the same construction company,two different individuals that work for Clark Construction,one guy was in charge that portion of the job. And when the permit was issued, for the teaching facility, Clark Construction is the construction company for that portion of the job. It's just a different guy running that job. But it's the same construction company, and it's all their gear there. It's their high lows. It's not like somebody came in,took all their stuff away,and they brought,it's the same company. So,all that stuff was already there already. Zoning Board of Appeals June 1, 2021 David Gelfarb And what I find very relevant,is that per the provision, the purpose of the construction management plan is for the review by the Building Inspector and his approval. So,if the Building Inspector has obtained this information it's meeting the purpose. Jamie Schutzer Right,that's Yeah,I mean,that's why I'm asking the questions. The other one. Does anyone else want to comment on that? David Gelfarb Yeah,our position is,you know,how can you rely on the previous contractor, contractors can change,there needs to be an objective plan that is approved by Mr. Izzo or the Building Engineer. If there was a problem,how do you even know what plan to look at?That's why you need an obj ective plan that is submitted by the applicant to the Planning Board or the, or the Board of Trustees as the case may be when it's filing as an application for site plan approval. The Code does not say well,piggyback on another resolution for another job or another three jobs. No,it doesn't say that.They submitted an application for a second site plan amendment,and it was the applicant's duty to comply with the Code at that time, not to say,well,you know,we kind of comply with it nine,ten months ago for other work. This is not the same work. If it was the same work. They wouldn't need a fourth permit. Joel Simon Mr. Gelfarb, correct me if I'm wrong, the construction management plan while it can be waived by the Planning Board,is put together to be submitted to the Building Inspector. David Gelfarb And, and the Village Engineer. Joel Simon Correct,correct. Don Moscato Jamie, did you want to,you had Additional questions? Jamie Schutzer Yeah, so the question on the traffic control,Mickey,you said,is not required,because it's a private road. But I mean,the fact that it, that it turns on to a public road, and I know,I read somewhere that,hold on,what would they call it,ISD. In the Planning Board's resolution that an ISD was required? So just can you expand upon that? Michael Izzo Sure,generally,Joel,you know, and,rather,Jamie,when you look at these sites,it's not a typical Rye Brook site, this is a sort of an anomaly.You know,we only have a couple of properties like this in the Village,you know,nine times out of 10,you see these site plan approvals,you know, for one family homes, or this type of thing,where you have staging that needs to take place on a public road,you know,like Ridge Street, or we have a project coming up,you know, that's going to,you know, really test how well,projects can take place on a public road.But the purpose of that is,is so trucks can stage in areas,when they're bringing in loads of material for the types of jobs that normally Zoning Board of Appeals June 1, 2021 require Planning Board approval. But in this instance,you have,you have this massive piece of private property, with an entranceway that is vastly longer than,you know,most driveways that are in the Village. So,you're not going to have material truck staging on the road to get into the site, the roadways is huge. And the staging area is also huge to accommodate any kind of vehicles that could be brought in or whether it be semi-trailers, or concrete trucks, or contractor vehicles. So,the road, the public road,is a non-issue here,there's no staging that's going to take place on the public road,because they have the voluminous golf course,with which to stage they just drive down the street,put on their blinker and turn in,there's no,you don't need flagman, or you don't need anything like that And they can turn around in there, they don't have to back out onto Anderson Hill Road,they can pull out just Eke any other vehicle with their blinkers,looking both ways. So,to require some kind of traffic management plan for non-existing traffic problem is a waste of resources and time. David Gelfarb That's not the test.And in fact,you have quite a bit of traffic at this Golf Club.And this is now golf season.And there is quite a lot of activity going on at this place.And in addition, staging can be done on the bigger project, the more likely you are in fact to do the staging off site of 900 King Street, for example, there's plenty of space they have it's not public roadway to do staging,I would argue that the bigger the lot,the bigger the place,the more likely you are not to need to stage right off of a public road. And once again, there is a lot of traffic in this place. And on top of that the construction vehicles are 250 feet from my client's backyard. So,in fact,they are very close to public, you know,to the public. Michael Izzo Well,not compared to most jobs. Mr. Gelfarb.With all due respect,you drive around Rye Brook, the construction projects here. Most people are 30 feet away from the construction projects, or 40 feet or 50 feet 250 feet is not a number that I would hang my hat on as being right next door,it's pretty far away. David Gelfarb Oh,then the point is,it's neither here nor there is what the Code requires. Michael Izzo Why make the point. If it's neither here nor there, there's no point in bringing it up. 250 feet is a long ways away compared to 99% of the jobs going on in Rye Brook where neighbors live 30,40 feet from each other and 30, 40 feet from construction projects. So,250 feet versus 30, 40, 50 feet, that's, that's a huge difference. Glenn Brettschneider Yeah,can I ask a question,because. Don Moscato Wait,Jamie have you finished? Jamie Schutzer Yeah.Well, the last thing I'd mentioned just was a comment on the Planning Board resolution. I don't know if it's relevant or not because it's been determined that part of Anderson Hill Road is Village property,not County, but it had mentioned that shall provide the Village and the County the required Intersection Sight Distance for the modified driveway. Is that part relevant here? Zoning Board of Appeals June 1, 2021 David Gelfarb I assume. Michael Izzo Depends who you ask apparently. David Gelfarb I think given the fact that you know,it's been determined that Anderson Hill Road is a Village road. I think the Village kind of had the discretion to do as I wish with that. Jamie Schutzer Okay. David Gelfarb We're not hanging out on that anymore. Don Moscato Okay, Glenn, do you want to chime in? Glenn Brettschneider Yeah,I was actually trying, I didn't realize that. Every time I tried speaking,I had muted myself and didn't realize it. No one told me.And I actually,honestly,I thought Joel,Don and Mr. Gelfarb for being really rude because every time I went to speak,they just spoke over me.And I'm like, I don't believe this.And now I realize I was on mute. So,what I wanted to say,at the same time that Joel spoke,but obviously he was not on mute,is that you know,as he said,there is no one CMP it's not one form like applying for a driver's license for or for your learner's permit or to get a passport. Right. It's not a form or a 1040 tax form. Would,would that be a fair assessment,Mr. Gelfarb and Mickey that there was no one form required? David Gelfarb I think it's fair to say that it's a document that certainly will depend upon the work being done. It is required in connection with any, any site plan amendment or site plan approval. Glenn Brettschneider But there's no,I understand that. There's no one document,you would,you would argue that for your clients, that it's no one document,but it requires to encompass a number of things,which was not all in there,according to the Code. David Gelfarb I think it requires something that the applicant at the very least says,here is our construction management plan. I do not accept that the construction drawings themselves,which is subject to change,which may be approved by Mr. Izzo or not approve whatever, those go back and forth. No, I don t agree that is what the Board meant when they enacted this provision of the Code. Zoning Board of Appeals June 1, 2021 Glenn Brettschneider So,it doesn't have to say CMP on it,it just needs to really encompass what's in the Code. David Gelfarb I think it does need to say CMP, so that so that Mr. Izzo can review it, so that the Village Engineer can review it. So,this Board can review it, and if you get to that point, a court can review,I do think it needs to have a name.No, it may not have to be 50 pages for a smaller project. But no, I think it needs to have some name. Glenn Brettschneider If all the requirements that are in the Code are in that document,and it did not say CMP would that satisfy you? David Gelfarb No, it wouldn't and that's not what happened. A) It's not what happened. Glenn Brettschneider Okay. David Gelfarb B) I don't even agree that's what the code even requires. Glenn Brettschneider Okay. And Mickey,your,your position is that the six-page document that you looked at, encompassed either a CMP, or everything that you would need in order to issue the permit? Michael Izzo I believe that SP-6 and SP-7 are the documents pertinent to the construction management required for the scope of this work,based on the existing conditions of the site,the existing conditions of the construction staging areas that was set up by Clark construction under their previous project that they were just going to continue to use under this project?Yes, I believe my interpretation SP-6 and SP-7 constitute a satisfactory construction management plan for this job. Glenn Brettschneider So,pulling away the layers of the onions that we started with Joel and Don,I think it really comes down for us is, was the document that Mickey relied upon either a CMP and or did it contain enough information that said he could he could make a decision?And is that enough?And I think that Mr. Gelfarb on behalf of the applicants is saying that it is not enough. And I think it comes down to something as simple as that for us to choose. I think it's also interesting that the letters that came in from the applicants are kind of a little different,they seem not to want this, I respect that,you know, not in my backyard kind of thing. I completely understand where they're coming from. But I think Mr. Gelfarb's coming at it from a legal perspective.You know, you may not like the election and the results, but that doesn't,you know,you can't do anything about that election. But there were people that entering the election using the law,you know,as a way to get around the voting. So,it's kind of similar. Yeah,I know,I understand what your applicants want.But we really have to look at was this a CMP for all intents and purposes that allowed Mickey to make that decision?I think those are really two choices. Would you know which one it is? Zoning Board of Appeals June 1, 2021 Joel Simon And,Mickey,can I ask you an additional question?What's the involvement of the Superintendent of Public Works, Village Engineer in pertaining to the issuance of this permit? Michael Izzo Well,he is the liaison to the Planning Board. So,he sits at the Planning Board meeting. So,he may have some information that,you know,germane to things that were said at the Planning Board meeting, he,you know,he's going to look at the same things I'm looking at. He's not looking at anything different. As far as that's concerned,I don't know why it's got to be a, you know, co-review. Joel Simon Is this something that you're discussing with him as you're in the process of issuing the permit? Michael Izzo Well,it depends.You know,I mean,it could be just as much as Hey,Mike, have you looked at this job?And what do you think about,you know, the staging areas and all the site protection and stuff like that?And you know,him saying,Yeah,it's good to go or no,they need this. They need that. What do you think about that?And so we do discuss it. Yeah. Joel Simon And he's looking at the same documents you're looking at it? I guess what I'm getting to. Michael Izzo Oh,yeah. Yes. Glenn Brettschneider Drew,is there anything that would provide guidance? I mean,it really,to me,it really comes down to whether there's a requirement for an actual CMP for whatever form, or whether what's,what Mickey would rely on can be a CMP. Drew Gamils There is no guidance. Glenn Brettschneider It would make it a lot easier for us. Drew Gamils I wrote this section of the code. Don Moscato Oh,well,here we go,now we know. Zoning Board of Appeals June 1, 2021 Drew Gamils I regret some things. I can say it's 2020 always,you know,maybe there'll be amendments in the future. But I think the purpose was, and just to put this into context,when the Planning Board was reviewing the streamlining local law, and the Board of Trustees was reviewing the streamlining local law,which was meant to streamline the site plan review process, so that single family homes and two family homes wouldn't necessarily require site plan review, unless there were other triggers.Well,as part of that goal,we beefed up other areas of the Village Code to address other concerns, and construction management was a concern. So, at that time,we just wanted to make sure that these issues, the schedule,the storage areas, during the discussion of the streamlining local law, these areas came up, as you know,how are we going to make sure that we're aware of what's going on,in hopes that we can continue to streamline the process and make sure that construction is happening safely and efficiently in the Village of Rye Brook. So,these areas,it wasn't ever pictured as an actual planned document, but more that this information would be available, so that we can ensure construction is happening a certain way. You know,I don t write construction management plans, I think they can come in all different shapes and sizes, depending on the project, because this applies to both residential and commercial. So,a CMP, for one is not going to look like a CMP for the other and same thing,you know,within that variations in size of the project. So,you know, I think it's going to look different across the Board. Joel Simon And what I keep coming back to is where it's the purpose is for the approval by the individual who are after the people gathering the information,it's for them to decide in my thought process as to what is sufficient. Glenn Brettschneider Joel that might be, but again,playing devil's advocate, even if that is true,if you're of the belief that you still need a CMP then it doesn't really matter that Mickey had all the information. Joel Simon Unless,unless you determine that a CMP is not a specific document,but the information which satisfies these categories. David Gelfarb And that is not realistic to say,it's not a specific document.What did you write a code section, specifically mentioning it?And in fact,to add on to what Miss Gamils is saying, had the project been so small or so insignificant,that you know Mickey thought he'd have all the info he needed from the drawings the applicant could have asked,well,gee,gee Planning Board,please waive the requirement. They could have done that. And it didri t happen. You have a,you have a code section,which specifically refers to construction management plans. It doesn't say,Well,you know,it can be conjured up from drawings. That's not a reasonable reading of the statute.And,you know,many of us are lawyers,if you have to read a statute to give effect to all of its provisions, a statute has to be read in a way to make sense not to lead to absurd results. Glenn Brettschneider This reminds me,this reminds me really quickly of,because,you know, you could look at both sides. This reminds me what I always tell my clients-who's right, depends who's paying me.And you know,as we sit here,we really can see,I can see where both arguments make sense, I could see where there should be a document that either says CMP or fulfills that requirement. But I also completely understand where Mickey is relying on the information, which is really more important than a piece of paper that has everything checked off as long as he has everything. Zoning Board of Appeals June 1, 2021 So,it's really,it's really,you know,I guess how you look at it,you know,will determine how,what we think it means,I guess,right. David Gelfarb Also,what about the public. Joel Simon And Glenn,what about the building inspector,not only reviews, but he approves?What constitutes the CMP, pursuant to the provision,it specifically says and approves?That gives the Building Inspector the ability to say that this. Glenn Brettschneider That might be but theoretically,again,playing devil's advocate, that may be completely acceptable,but you lose on a technicality. The technicality is if you know,if you don't sign everything and do things a certain way,he counted the election.You know,someone voted for John doe,it's no doubt this and that,but it, but if he didn t do something or she didn't do something that has nothing to do with the ballot itself That ballot can get discounted. So that's, that's kind of why, you know,I think Mr. Gelfarb says,you need that documents. Joel Simon I understand that. My point is that, by the provision,giving the Building Inspector the ability to approve the construction management plan, that gives the Building Inspector the ability to say,this is the construction management plan. David Gelfarb Yeah,I would respectfully disagree,it says shall be submitted as part of the application for site plan approval. How is the Planning Board supposed to know what the construction management plan is if no one tells them? Hey,folks, here's the construction management plan,which is required by our statute, and then and shall be subject to the review and approval by the Inspector and the Village Engineer. They're both supposed to approve this for whatever reason that's how,you know, that's how the Village wrote the code. Both Mr. Izzo and Mr. Nowak are supposed to review and approve it.And also, there is the element that the public with by using a term like construction management plan,it gives the public an understanding what's going on.The public,you know,has reasons to be concerned about traffic and about dust and about noise. If there's a document out there with the main construction management plan,persons of the public have a better ability to,you know,plan accordingly. Glenn Brettschneider Mickey,I have a question,just for argument's sake,if the permit was revoked or whatever,and they the Blind Brook,you know,Blind Brook Club, Country Club submitted a CMP,how quickly could they do that? I'm just saying could they do that tomorrow if they wanted,and then have a permit issued right away? Is there any timeframe? Joel Simon There are other steps that would have to be gone through. Zoning Board of Appeals June 1, 2021 Glenn Brettschneider Yeah. Michael Izzo Well. Glenn Brettschneider If we agree with Mr. Gelfarb, and then a new permit has to be issued,what steps are needed? Michael Izzo I don't know, I never did this before,Drew,you got any comment on that. Drew Gamils I actually have a couple different ideas. I think there's a couple options for the Planning Board. I'm sorry, I didn't eat dinner. There's a couple options for the ZBA,you can ask the applicant for additional information.You can ask him in theory to summarize the things that are already in the plan into a construction management plan.Now, keep in mind that construction has already moved forward. So,the building permit was issued,and steps were taken. So option one, ask Blind Brook to take what they've already submitted and put together something you know,that meets the requirements of the construction management plan and review that and make your determination next month,is that sufficient for you to deem that the building permit can stay in place, option two,you can rescind the building permit and instruct Blind Brook Club to submit the CMP to Mickey for his review, and approval,Mickey and Mike Novak, option three,you can uphold Mickey's decision. Don Moscato Now Drew. Joel Simon If they were to submit a construction management plan to Mickey I mean, how long? I'm not familiar with construction management plans, assuming for the sake of argument,it's,it's some sort of formal document. How long do you think they need?They would need to put that together and give it to Mickey. Drew Gamils Well, considering that,you know, some,a lot of those details are in those SP-6 and SP-7 they can probably just pull them out.Write them in a document,you know, I think it can be done. I have not personally drafted CMP's it's not one of those things law school has you do. So,I don't want to put a timeframe on it I imagine that,you know,it can get done. But the applicant's representative is here. So, Don,you might want to consider opening it up to allow him to speak more on that.And to allow the public to speak as well. Joel Simon I do have one question for David though. I'm just and this is more my own curiosity than anything. This is obviously not a play to stop the construction because it doesn't do that. If anything,it's a very short-term delay. So, what's the point? Zoning Board of Appeals June 1, 2021 David Gelfarb It is what it is. My clients have the right to, to seek to have the permit vacated.And,you know, that's, that's what they have the right to do.And that's what they have chosen to do.What happens after the permit is vacated. I mean,that's up to the applicant,the Planning Board,Miss Gamils,you folks. I mean. Glenn Brettschneider Right,Mr. Gelfarb's right. That's his legal argument. Joel Simon Right?I understand that's his right but,as a general rule,you know, as attorneys think there's usually a strategy involved. Glenn Brettschneider Because Mr. Gelfarb can't come forward and say my I'm just saying,you know, they don't like it,you know,he can't come in and present that to us. Joel Simon No, I understand. I'm just curious as to what the ultimate strategy is. It doesn't go back to the Planning Board. It simply gets re-approved by theoretically by Mickey in two days.And he issues a new permit. David Gelfarb I can't say what Mr. Izzo would do.And,I'm only here today on behalf of my clients. Joel Simon I would like to think your clients aren't paying you for no reason. That's their prerogative. Jamie Schutzer Joel,you bring up a good point. So just to state that for the record. If we vacate this permit,and they file a CMP this is only going to Mickey and Mike Nowak for their approval. This isn't going back to the Planning Board? Joel Simon Right Drew? Don Moscato That's correct. Drew Gamils That is correct. And the rest of the building permit application was acceptable and didn't have any problems. The only issue and potential issue is that the CMP is deemed missing,and that they would have to submit that CMP. Jamie Schutzer Joel, that's a good point you brought up. Zoning Board of Appeals June 1, 2021 David Gelfarb Well,we don't agree because it should have been submitted to the Planning Board in this case, the Planning Board, not the Board of Trustees. But you know, realistically that's of course, for another day. Joel Simon Or unless the Planning Board, at its very next meeting says we waive the CMP. David Gelfarb They can do that.That's their prerogative. I will argue to the contrary to them that they shouldn't. But of course, that's their prerogative. Joel Simon I'm just thinking it through. Don Moscato I have a question for Mr. Gelfarb.When the Planning Board adjudicated the application for the amendments,I believe that was the vote was taken on December 10"'. Okay,why was there no challenge made to the Planning Board's decision,their process,their apparent, according to the applicants, they're giving short shrift of the application,and all sorts of other disparaging comments on the behavior of the Planning Board and making their decision?Why wasn't a challenge made then?Because you just alluded to the fact that the Planning Board should have had the site plan before them. So, I don't understand what the benefit is going to be if you hadn t challenged the Planning Boards decision? David Gelfarb I would say that at the time,you know,zoom made everyone a little a little crazy,not everyone. Unfortunately for us attorneys,not every time someone sees a sign out on the public road,do they think I better call my lawyer immediately?I wish they did. And I wish for Miss Gamils sake and all the Planning Board after that it worked that way.But it does not everyone knows that,you know,as soon as I see the sign,get my lawyer on the phone,had they done that things would have been a little different, admittedly. But that's not how it worked.And so,you know,we here today faced with the current set of facts, that was what I personally may have wished had happened, you know,back at the end of last year. Don Moscato Well,that's the purpose of the sign.And that's the purpose of sending out notifications to folks. I'm a senior citizen, and I wasnt too happy in hearing,blaming things on senior citizenship, and zoom and COVID and not being able to stay informed of an application,I've got one going on next door to me, that's coming before the Planning Board in a week.Well,it's my responsibility to f follow the procedures. David Gelfarb It's,you know,you're terrific Chairman of the Zoning Board,not everyone has a,you know, a part time career in effect in that area.And,you know,we're here to use,you know,to make the legal arguments and set forth the claims and that we can make at this point, and,you know,like I said, I cant go back to the end of 2020.And wish, you know,I could transport myself back there, I can't. Zoning Board of Appeals June 1, 2021 Don Moscato Okay, before I open it up to folks who want to comment on it. I visited the Enclave this afternoon,drove up to the applicant's houses, stop there,look through the yards,appreciate the pictures that were provided.And then I drove to the Blind Brook Golf Club. And I drove to the construction site, compared to what's being built around me, as we speak,a block or two away,that's a minor construction project. In all sense,it's built on a slab,you pour concrete,you put up a frame. My sense is the objections are to the existence of the building. They don't want to have to look at it because for years before they didn't have to look at,but now they do. But it is on private property. The discretion of the, of the Blind Brook Club to put it where it was went before the Planning Board,and the Planning Board,asked questions,looked at the site plans,and apparently agreed that is the location,the appropriate location for that.And therefore, they approved it. So,what I'm thinking of in the light of a lot of the comments that have been made by, by the Board members and by Mickey, I consider that even though it's a structure,it is a minor construction site. And as a result,that informs me in terms of the decision-making ability of the Building Inspector, it's not an overly complex site,to manage, to build.And it all comes down to,do we need a certificate, a construction management plan piece of paper,that's what it comes down to. The residents in the Enclave, most of them that are against it,and will speak,do not want that building there.And in my opinion,if a construction management plan was forthcoming,it will have all the I's dotted and the T's crossed,it will be reviewed by the Building Inspector and a decision is going to be made.And that's not going to make the people in the Enclave any happier. If the approval is given. They just don't want that building there. it obstructs their quality of life. That's understandable. But the applicant has a right to build something and all we're adjudicating is, should there be a formal Certificate of management certificate I'm sorry, construction management plan.And I'm,I'm leaning toward the fact that it's a minor construction project.And it was sufficiently covered by,by SP-6 and SP-7. And the experience and discretionary authority of the Building Inspector. That's where I'm coming from.And I wanted to state that out front, before the applicant's representatives would speak,so that they might be able to comment on that. So,Drew at this particular point,how many other folks are on here who have the potential to comment? Drew Gamils This is a Public Hearing. So,you just open up the Public Hearing, and anyone who wants to speak has the opportunity. Don Moscato But I want to know how many other people around here I can't see. Drew Gamils Oh,I see. Mr. Sindell. I see Mr. Palmer. Glenn Brettschneider I see 15 people. Joel Simon 15 participant's total. Don Moscato Okay,Drew. Zoning Board of Appeals June 1, 2021 Joel Simon Including us. Don Moscato Okay,Drew,in past experience where we had volume. In terms of individuals wanting to speak,we usually put a time limit on there. And I'm not quite sure how best to proceed because I don't want,I want people to state their position with respect to the construction management plan,period. Not their dissatisfaction with a building going on. Because that is not our purview this evening. So,I would like the, the people who are going to speak,to focus specifically on the issue before us,the construction management plan. And if they want to speak around that they can,but that's the issue. So,Drew,do you want to call on these people, since you can see the, the broad picture and ask the two major applicants to speak first? Drew Gamils Absolutely. Everyone can either hist the raise hand button or I can see you and raise your hand.We'll start with Mr. Sindell. I'm going to ask you to unmute. There you go. Stuart Sindell I'd like to address the issue of the construction management plan. But I don't have the technical knowledge. And I'm not qualified to talk about that.That's something that a lawyer needs to talk about, something a lawyer needs to examine, I can tell you this,that have a plan like that we're available to the public. That makes sense. It should be some kind of separate document. But that's the layman's analysis of the issue. I actually have some other bones to pick, I hope you will be,I hope you will be receptive to what I have to say,even if you don't agree with it. It's something that the public needs to hear it's something that needs to be said. It needs to be recorded. It needs to be preserved. I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak this evening,which you're about to hear is important. Well,I know you inspected the, the site today and you looked at our properties and so forth. But you haven't seen with all due respect is the completion of the building, and what it's going to look like from our viewpoint. What you're about to hear is important. This is a lesson, there's a lesson here for all of us. It's about the Blind Brook Golf Club and its renovation plans,in particular the construction of a building to house a Golf Learning Center,which is approved by the Village Planning Board without adequate notice for disclosure. My name is Stuart Sindell. I live with my wife Marcia,at 27 Carol Court in the Enclave. We moved into our home nearly five years ago,while the Enclave was still being developed. The back of our property consists of a patio and a garden faces the Blind Brook golf course.We paid a premium for the location.We've been retired for some time and had every expectation of enjoying an undisturbed lifestyle with a tranquil view of the greens to our chagrin. It looks like it won't turn out that way. I appear today on my own behalf And on behalf of my neighbor and friend, Joe Abbe and other beleaguered neighbors.We are united in the opposition to the construction of the golf club of its so called Learning Center an unwelcome unsightly oversized structure the making,in the making that will dominate the horizon and cast a pervasive shadow over the landscape. With the raised platform it will rest on,it will be a permanent,imposing presence and stretch well beyond its intended height of 22 feet four inches. For a sense of contrast and scale. Consider this,the infamous Berlin Wall was only,was all of 12 feet.While the Great Wall of China is a massive 22 feet in height,let's face it,no member of the golf club willingly or even reluctantly,would ever want to see a golf Learning Center bordering their back lawn. No person serving on the Planning Board would have accepted without protests, such a Colossus hovering near their backyard. No one on this call or on God's good earth would welcome such a behemoth close behind their back garden. No one could be expected to tolerate this disturbing presence of a monument like structure rising more than 22 feet suddenly thrust into full view staring you smack in the face. Indeed,the resident of the Enclave, an active golfer, but not a member of the club,who in a Zoning Board of Appeals June 1, 2021 letter to the village sang the praises of the club's efforts to erect a learning center would it be singing a very different tune if the center were placed directly behind his back lot,like an extended stage set looming in the background, of the residents only outdoor space for relaxing, entertaining, and barbecuing. Sad fact is,we've learned about the Learning Center,its size, location and proximity to our homes. On the Enclave side of the golf course,relatively recently,we had to retain the services of a lawyer at great expense to research the matter to enable us to understand what happened and how it happened. And why we were left uninformed ordinary homeowners especially retirees on fixed incomes should not have to spend money on lawyers to learn what they had a right to know if there had been full and fair disclosure. Congratulations,Blind Brook Golf Club.You managed to blindside your neighbors big time,because you had to know that if they had any clue as to what was being hatched,you have been faced,you would have been faced with formidable pushback. So,you took the stealth approach, amid the COVID-19 distractions and constraints to take advantage of an unsuspecting and vulnerable community, community by rushing through the proposed project during an abbreviated and somewhat disorganized zoom meeting of the Planning Board,December 10,2020. With no drawings, diagrams and schematics provided, and no explanation or discussion of the location or proximity to neighboring properties. In doing so,the Blind Brook Golf Club managed to finesse the issue past the Planning Board,who seemed more eager to wrap up the session than to insist on full disclosure, or to consider the impact on the neighborhood.And opening up these issues for discussion and debate.The Board had to know that interested parties were clueless about the location of the center and its potential consequences and made no effort to safeguard the interests of those likely to be affected. The Board has an affirmative duty to protect, protect small homeowners from the predatory building practices of the big and powerful. The performance of that duty in this case was never in evidence. The Blind Brook Golf Club is one of the biggest landowners,if not the biggest in Rye Brook. It could have easily chosen anymore, any number of more suitable. Drew Gamils Mr. Sindell, I am sorry to interrupt. Can you give your closing remarks? I just want to remind you that the ZBA's focus is just on the Building Permit and the Construction Management Plan and that the site plan issue is not within the purview of this Board. It's also been seven minutes for your talking points,and it's 11:12. So if you just want to summarize your main points and that way,we can let other people speak as well. Stuart Sindell I'm sorry you allotted me just seven minutes. But this is a story that is a story that has to be heard. I know that your time is limited okay, but it's not fair for me to be deprived of an opportunity to finish the story. Joel Simon Mr. Sindell, but that's not the issue before this Board. We're not the Planning Board. We're only dealing with a very specific issue. Stuart Sindell Pathetic,that really is pathetic. Don Moscato You know, as Chair,and as I've been in your position,Mr. Sindell many,many times, over many,many months,if not years,which is one of the reasons why I landed on the Zoning Board in order to be able to give people a fair and complete hearing,as they request relaxation of the building standards that limit what they want to do with their property.And I recognize that this is going to be a difficult situation,when and if anything is built on a golf course, that people can see. And no one is,is cutting short,you did write a very complete letter,it is part of the record,it is Zoning Board of Appeals June 1, 2021 part of the official record.And I'm sure that people who are waiting to speak, are going to focus again,not on the major issue, the construction management plan. But on their emotional,their emotions, as to their objection to this. This is not the forum to question, the judgment of the Planning Board, or the Board of Trustees in allowing construction projects to go forward. They follow due process. And I'm sure if you ask each Planning Board member,do they feel they shortchange the application, they would say no, they studied it beforehand, they then did their best to make a judgment.And that judgment went forward. Stuart Sindell The public never got an opportunity. Don Moscato The Board's only have one decision to make. Stuart Sindell The public never got an opportunity to hear anything that they considered,we knew nothing,we were completely in the dark,we never got complete notice,we never got complete disclosure,we had no clue whatsoever. The reason we're here is because you're called the Zoning Board of Appeals,we have no other recourse but to try, to try to get you interested in this problem. Don Moscato If I could just say,if a construction management plan was presented,and it was approved by the building inspector, you're still not going to be satisfied that something is going to be built within 250 feet 270, 350 feet,you're still not going to be happy. If you can look out your backyard and still see it. Stuart Sindell I don't mind if it was done fair and square,but it was done stuffily and it was done deceptively. It wasn't done aboveboard.The system failed. Don Moscato Okay. All right.Thank you. I think you made your position very,very clear.And we appreciate your passion and your comments. Drew,do you want to go on to the next person and again, I'm going to ask you to be an impartial policeman on this one Drew. If the person is not going to speak to the construction management plan,we're going to have to limit them because,you know,I, as a Board member, sometimes we run late,but at the same time,we can't solve the world's problems.We can only deal with the problem that's put before us.And that is the presence or absence of a construction management plan. So,Drew,who's up next. Drew Gamils Mr. Palmer,would you like to speak? Taylor Palmer Please. Thank you,Miss Gamils,Mr. Chairman, members of the Zoning Board of Appeals. For the record. My name is Taylor Palmer. I am a partner at the law firm of Cuddy&Feder we are appearing on behalf of the Blind Brook Club Inc.who's the owner of the Blind Brook Club property located at 980 Anderson Hill Road in the Village. Tonight,we find ourselves in a unique position where we're appearing before your Board as the public Zoning Board of Appeals June 1, 2021 rather than as the applicant in the matter. In opposition.We did want to just highlight a few points regarding Mr. Gelfarb's presentation,which really is a guise of objecting to the Planning Board's approval.But as discussed tonight, that review is limited to request to overturn the properly and validly issued building permit. The details of which Mr. Izzo accurately and fully discussed earlier this evening as embodied in the plans and the submissions comprising the construction management plan for this project. Indeed,Mr. Gelfarb's presentation even review the construction drawings and the applicant's approvals and the submissions to the Building Department for its review in furtherance of these approvals. Further as discussed by the Board this evening,the Code does not require a specific cover stamped CMP. Sorry, my weird screen blocks my air quotes. In one document rather requires the details that make up the CMP including the construction drawings and details provided in the Code to be reviewed by the Building Inspector and the Engineer as noted. Does it pass the smell test, does it quack like a duck? It's a duck. Mr. Izzo's comments this evening confirm the details comprising the construction drawings or the CMP. Again, they're getting the air quotes were properly submitted for these improvements. For the benefit of the Board at this late stage. This appeal comes from property owners concerning the issuance of the building permit following the approvals from the village,which included properly noticed Public Hearings in connection with approvals of much needed renovations for the clubhouse and the course which haven't been done in the last 40 or 50 years, as well as drainage and irrigation and other maintenance efforts mentioned this evening. This includes the golf course learning center,the widening of the entry drive,which is not accessed by a county road and the creation of the chipping green. We are pleased to report to this Board that the work is nearly complete on the site pursuant to the validly issued building permit.As we can say,we're typically representing applicants that are submitting these materials to Mr. Izzo's office and his review is very thorough and detail oriented. And oftentimes we try to object directly to that thorough review on an applicant side. In short,the short game and chipping and putting greens are already complete the widened driveway entrance that is not accessed by a county road was finished. And the foundation of the golf course learning center was already poured in the concrete lumber for the walls are going up as we speak,and the roof itself and the work is to be completed within the next two to four weeks. That is weather depending. I would also note for the record,Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, there's also a letter of support though that individual may be here this evening from 25 Carol Court also in the Enclave a non-club member that notes the Blind Brook has been an excellent neighbor and has gone to great lengths to hear the adjoining property owners concerns throughout the review,which includes installing screening trees, and as Mr. Izzo mentioned significant setbacks from these properties under those conditions. So,in a similar vein,we'd also note that Mr. Gelfarb failed to advise this Board that notwithstanding the validly issued permits. Blind Brook remains in contact with Mr. Gelfarb's office to set up a meeting with his clients and the property. Indeed, as this Board may be aware, the applicant recently appeared at the Planning Board where it approved Blind Brooks requests for a brief extension of its steep slopes permits to complete this work on site,which is a belt and suspenders measure. After that meeting, our office did follow up as indicated to Mr. Gelfarb to set up that meeting,we only just recently heard from him,where he agreed to set up a meeting after tonight's meeting with his clients at the site. So given that the Building Permit was validly issued,based on the construction management plan,and associated plans that comprise the document that were prepared and submitted properly to the Building Department,we respectfully request that this Board deny the request as the Building Permit was validly issued by the Building Department. Thank you very much for your time. Don Moscato Thank you.Drew who is up next. Drew Gamils Mr. Armentano,do you want,do you want to say anything? Or you're just listening?You don't have to comment. Zoning Board of Appeals June 1, 2021 Joe Armentano I would like to comment if I can. Thank you for calling on me. I want to try to limit myself to the construction management plan. This is Joe Armentano. I'm at 21 Carroll Court in Rye Brook.And I've been interestingly listening to this session and been on since probably eight o'clock.And you know,I don't,what's clear to me is a few things. Number one,what really encompasses a construction management plan seems to be unclear.There's doesn't seem to be clarity on what that really entails. Number two,there's no doubt in my mind a construction management plan should be a written document in one form or another. I am not, I think my experience with the with the Town of Rye,the Village Rye Brook and the Building Department has always been great. So, there's no aspersions on my part in reference to their judgment. I just think a formal construction management plan should have been submitted, especially of a project of this magnitude in size. I mean,I've heard over the last two hours about how this Zoning Board scrutinizes decks and variances on decks and the project here is of an incredible magnitude. Now I don't know if it would have made a difference in reference to how the Engineer would have looked at that who's advising the Planning Board if they had a construction management plan. And I'm not so sure that it would have made a bigger difference.But from my perspective,I think there's a responsibility. I lived in Bronxville for about 30 years as well. And I know whether it's the Village of Bronxville or the Village of Rye Brook,the Zoning Board has a very high fiduciary responsibility in my opinion to help,to protect the you know, the residents of the community and even though this may not be directly in their purview, because of the Planning Board, I just want to emphasize whatever the Zoning Board can do to try to make fairness part of this solution is the only thing that I would recommend. I think being fair trying to get my neighbors who did obviously invest a lot of their hard earned money into an expectation,that is not going to be what they realized, and trying to make and having Blind Brook and this is probably a message to the attorney who just spoke, having Blind Brook try to make the neighbors happy. I think would go a long way, at this particular stage. So,that's just my message. And I appreciate the time given and, and hopefully, you guys can find a solution of fairness to, to the residents of the Enclave's at Rye Brook. Don Moscato Thank you,thank you very much. The term make your neighbors happy,you know,is something that,you know, we have to hear,you know, opposition,but when it comes down to it, sometimes you cannot make everybody happy. You can make things better.And hopefully future discussions with Blind Brook,they could mitigate what appears to be,you know, an eyesore in some people's eyes. But in Blind Brook Golf Club, something that they feel they need. So,it's important. Joe Armentano Point well taken. Don Moscato Yes.All right. Drew,who's up next? Drew Gamils So that's everybody on camera. If there is anybody who is not on camera,if you want to hit the raise hand function, or unmute yourself to speak,you may do so now. Drew Gamils Don,it looks like nobody else would like to speak. I don't see any raised hands. I don't see anyone trying to take themselves off mute. Zoning Board of Appeals June 1, 2021 Don Moscato Okay,well, thank you. Thank you very much for conducting the orchestra there, on my behalf.Just as a point,I cannot see the full screen at once,which is a benefit that Drew as the administrator does have and that's why I asked her to call on that. In terms of Board members,are there any in your minds unanswered questions?Before we take the next step,whatever that is, because I'm going to ask Drew procedurally what the next step is. But are there any other questions that the Board would like to ask any of the participants at this point? Okay,there being none, Drew,in terms of an appeal,it's not the normal procedure that we follow. Do we have to close anything at this particular point? Or do we just talk amongst ourselves? Drew Gamils So,I would as far as next steps,I would close the Public Hearing. I would then discuss amongst yourselves and take a straw poll vote on how you're feeling with some discussion attached and direct me based on that discussion and vote to prepare a resolution reflecting your decision.As I previously mentioned,I'd say that there are three avenues the ZBA can take. 1) is to adjourn the meeting and ask the applicant, ask Blind Brook to submit a CMP to the ZBA for your review before you rescind the Building Permit. Option 2) rescind the Building Permit and direct them to submit the CMP to Mickey's office for Mickey's review and Mike Nowak's review. Option 3) is to uphold the Building Inspectors determination that SP-6 and SP-7 did indeed meet the necessary requirements to constitute a CMP. Don Moscato Okay, can you repeat that first one, again? Drew Gamils Well,going back step one,step one, close the Public Hearing. And then step two straw poll vote and direct me to prepare a resolution.With our first option is to adjourn the meeting and ask Blind Brook to submit a CMP to the ZBA just summarizing what you know is already included in SB six and SP seven but meets the requirements and maybe is labeled more clearly a construction manager Plan, then the Board can look at that. Don Moscato All right,that's enough,I'm good on that. Thank you. Okay,I have Joel,you have,you're raising your hand. Joel Simon I just want to put in my thoughts, I mean, of those options. In my mind,it comes down to two of them,either. If you believe that a construction management plan still needs to be submitted, I think it would go to Mickey. And for his review and approval as per the provision,if you if you believe that what was provided and information you had was sufficient, and that constitutes a construction management plan, then the granting of the permit gets approved my own thought process and listen,I'm,no offense Drew, I'm not a big fan of this provision. I think it could have been clearer. But that being said,I think it, I think it meets the parameters of complying with what,what the Buildings Inspected did,I think the fact that it goes to his approval,I think the fact that is no requirement that it be a specific form,there's no other definition or other sample document anywhere in the code that says this is a construction management plan. I think the Building Inspector has the ability to view the documents,view the information submitted to him,gather that information and say, I have my construction management plan. And that's my own take on it. Zoning Board of Appeals June 1, 2021 Don Moscato Okay, so I'm going to follow Drew s suggestion and close the Public Hearing,and then hear from the other Board members and maybe. Joel Simon My apologies cause I went too soon. Don Moscato Okay, so can I have a motion to close the Public Hearing? Jamie Schutzer So moved. Glenn Brettschneider Second. Don Moscato Okay. And Jamie you're okay? Jamie Schutzer I made the motion,Don. Don Moscato Okay. You weren't on the screen? Okay. Public Hearing is closed.We heard from Joel's first draft. We want to go to our second lawyer. Glenn,Glenn,do you want to comment before? Glenn Brettschneider Yeah,I do.You know, I wish I heard from the applicants seeking to revoke the permit. How having a CMP would have benefited them?But I didn't hear that.As you mentioned, they do not like this in their backyard. And I completely understand. They're very capable counsel argued for them.What he had,you know, and if you don't have a hand grenade,and you only have a flyswatter,use a flyswatter. I'm not minimizing your arguments. I'm just saying,you know, to use what you have. I found Joel to be very persuasive. And I don't always say that. If the purpose of the CMP is to provide information for the Building Inspector and Mickey, that I have to believe that,in following what Drew said,I have to believe that,that it's not a requirement that you have a four corner document that has CMP on it,with everything in it. If it was for the public,if it was written in a way that it's hung in town,you know,Town Hall,in the newspaper so that people can see what's being done. I'd be more sympathetic that you would need a more formal document. Okay. But I'm leaning towards that Mickey had enough. But I would like to split the baby with the bit,you know,I mean, split the baby down the middle. I honestly don't want to have to make a decision. My preference would be the application is that there's they want the permit revoked because there's no CMP going one step further. If there is a CMP. They've gotten what they wanted,again,you're not getting rid of the buildings. So, I would like if they would adjourn this so that we wouldn't even have to make the decision based on the code. Because there may be no right or wrong just our interpretation. We get the CMP and then they get the permit. I guess fully up you know,no one has to say Mickey shouldn't have issued it. No one has to say we don't have the documents. To me, that would be the kind of the easy way out. But I kind of would like it to be that way, Zoning Board of Appeals June 1, 2021 Joel Simon You're saying the CMP goes to Mickey or goes back to us? Don Moscato Goes to Mickey. Glenn Brettschneider Goes to Mickey. Joel Simon There were two options. Glenn Brettschneider Oh,I only listened to one. It goes, that one struck me. I'd like it to go to Mickey. Mickey then has it and said,you know what, okay, I still think I did the right thing. We're not saying he didn't. But just to be safe. Here's the CMP. Joel Simon And that work would be stopped in the meantime until a CMP is delivered. Glenn Brettschneider Right,a day or two. It you know what,yeah,it's the easy way out. But it kind of gets what's done that has to be done. If,if Mr. Gelfarb doesn't want that, his idea is to revoke the permit,because that's what he's hired to do. He may not be interested in that. Drew Gamils Glenn,I just want to clarify,you're saying not to revoke,your preference would be not to make a determination on the building permit,but to have Blind Brook submit a CMP to Mickey before the ZBA's next meeting? Glenn Brettschneider Yes, that's my preference. Drew Gamils I guess it's a fourth option,I didn't really mention. Glenn Brettschneider It's the easy way. To me,it's the easy way out. But you know,you don't have to find fault.You don't have to make a decision. We don't have to absolutely interpret the code.And I don't think that's such a bad thing until it's rewritten. Don Moscato Jamie? Don Moscato Hopefully sooner than later. Zoning Board of Appeals June 1, 2021 Jamie Schutzer One question, has the work been stopped while this is all going on? Or is it continuing? Don Moscato Continuing. Jamie Schutzer So,it hasn't. So,throughout this whole appeal process,it's been going on. Joel Simon There's a permit in place right now so there's no reason to stop the work. Jamie Schutzer Right. Okay, so as the non-lawyer, one of the non-lawyers on this Board,you know, and I think Glenn had mentioned,you know, I can look at this both ways, but I look at it more as the CMP is,is a checklist,right. And you have A,B, C and D. And whether it's,you know,kind of,because it's not clear whether it's formally in a packet labeled CMP, or that information is included in some way, shape or form. To me,you know,as long as that checklist is met,you know, that to me,would constitute a CMP. But that being said,I certainly,I understand there is some ambiguity here,which we've discussed already. And,and I want to just be crystal clear about this,and I asked this before, but if we say,we want a formal CMP, and have it stamped CMP,the process only goes to getting those documents in place,submitting them to Mickey and Mike Nowak and they're going to approve it and things are going to go on,there's going to be no reconsideration of the building, there's going to be no reconsideration of any of what probably the neighbors are not happy with. Is that correct? Michael Izzo Yes. Joel Simon Except I want to point out one thing,Jamie,if I can? Jamie Schutzer Yeah. Joel Simon Theoretically, could they come back and say,Aha,it was never submitted as part of the original package. Therefore, the whole thing is no good. I mean, I don't think, my own personal thought,I don't know if that has much merit but is it an argument to make? Glenn Brettschneider Unless you adjourn it,which is,you don t have that's my point. You don't have to make that decision. If it got adjourned, and you did it. They can't do a Ha. That was my point.By the way,Jamie, you'd make a fine lawyer. Zoning Board of Appeals June 1, 2021 Joel Simon Actually Glenn,you have to play devil's advocate,what they theoretically could do, even if it was a adjourned, they would say that, that,that providing it now is no good. Because it had to have been provided with the initial materials at the beginning. So therefore,no good, the whole thing goes to has to start over from scratch. So that would be that would theoretically,I don't know, I don't think it has a lot of weight behind it. But that would be theoretically. Glenn Brettschneider Right. Okay. Jamie Schutzer So, so Drew to go back to your option number one,work continues. The documents are submitted as an official CMP and we move forward. Drew Gamils Yeah. So,if you request you know, a formal, something labeled CMP document and it's approved,you know, Mickey looks at it and says, okay, same information is in the CMP. This is good,good for me.You know,we move forward. And you know,they continue to do the work as they have been. And you know that's it.And there can't be any challenge to the site plan as the statute of limitations to challenge the Planning Board that has expired. So, there's no opportunity to go back and challenge that,you know, and the issuance of the Building Permit,the only thing we're dealing with is the construction management plan topic. And this won't stop the project. Michael Izzo Drew, can I ask you a question? Drew Gamils Sure. Michael Izzo What,what ramifications given the choices,might some of those choices have on the on the precedent?With this sort of thing moving forward. That is to say that,will certain decisions by the Board have impacts on the types of analysis and decisions that the Building Inspector, currently can make?I mean,you know,if you have a competent Building Inspector that knows which way is up,and can tell a construction management plan from a hole in the ground,whether it says CMP on it or not,you know, how will those,how will some of those those decisions affect precedent moving forward, either negatively or positively. Drew Gamils So if the ZBA determines that a construction management plan is its own document and needs to be submitted on an identified form, or I guess it depends on how long the,how long the construction management plan is maybe several sheets of paper together labeled construction management plan, that determination is going to carry over to every single application moving forward, that based on the Board's decision on this application,the construction management plan would have to be in that same form moving forward, and any other form would not be acceptable. Zoning Board of Appeals June 1, 2021 Glenn Brettschneider If so,if we thought more about my suggestion, my preference, not my suggestion,my preference, that what Mickey issued was valid, but we want to tidy it up a little bit.Does that then,you know,won't have that incurring impact that you said we might have now,if we if we say we need CMY agreement? Drew Gamils A CMP agreement? Glenn Brettschneider CMP. I'm sorry. Right. Sorry. Drew Gamils I think... Joel Simon I think it's one or the other? Don Moscato Yeah,yeah. Let me let me try to summarize give my take and try to summarize some of the different issues that have been raised very well by the Board members. First of all,Jamie, I don't think there's any ambiguity here. It's either there is a formal piece of paper that on the top says CMP, or there isn't And there is not a single piece of paper that says CMP. So,it's not ambiguous. However,what Joel and Glenn have indicated, and you Jamie,is that the spirit of the CMP was included in the data provided to the Building Inspector. So that's sort of that part of the take. The second thing I would say is that if I have a sick person in my car,who's bleeding, and I come upon,I come upon the road there, and the light is red.And it's three o'clock in the morning.And I'm going to stop at that red light while the person next to me is bleeding. I'm going to go through that light, even though I'm not following the letter, as prescribed,you stop and wait a minute. The higher priority is to go through and take care of that person. It's a stretch, but it's also has to do with formalities, because I've done that in the past.The other thing is, we heard from Mr. Palmer, that in about two weeks, the structure will be pretty much complete. If the Blind Brook Club takes three weeks to submit a CMP, the building will already be up. And it's going to be approved, because there's really not any new information that will come in,in the opinion of the Building Inspector that he doesn't already have. So,there's still going to be a lot of unhappy campers that a building is up, even though a CMP is in place. So that idea of delaying just to get a piece of paper, even though I'm not a lawyer,I'm a pragmatist.And the pragmatist inside of me says,in the opinion of the Building Inspector, the I's and the T's are there to make an intelligent decision on the on the management of that particular building going up. So,where I'm coming from,and where I will vote in a straw poll,is to uphold the opinion of the Building Inspector,and not delay to get to the eventual result anyway, just so that we can formalize the process. I just don't see that as a pragmatist,as a reasonable solution. Glenn Brettschneider If it was done in a day,would that have changed your mind? Zoning Board of Appeals June 1, 2021 Don Moscato No,no, because I think, I think that I'm just saying that from a tricky strategy, they could delay and it's still built, but the decision is going to be the same. I can't speak for Mickey, but if he feels he has all the facts, to make a decision on putting a building up on a slab, that in some people's opinions is unsightly,and destroys the quality of life. It's still an approved plan. And it's coming back to Mickey and back to Mike. And therefore,why,why spend the time when I think we've,we've,we've expressed all the logical extensions of this. Glenn Brettschneider The only the only reason is,I happen to agree that,that you don't need that one document. But going forward, this will be the law of this Board,that you don't need all that stuff in there that make you just have to have Mickey has to know enough about the construction plan.And that'll be enough. Don Moscato If this project is 900 King Street,or they're building the Arbors or they're building Talcott or Kingsfield,you're going to need it. But if you go on that site,it's a little small area with a slab framed out, concrete to be poured,and then the little box to go up. Joel Simon I'm going to slightly disagree with you if this was a larger construction project And we had the same issue come before us.You know,I don't think we would necessarily need a stamp document then. But it'd be more involved, and we'd have more of the we'd be able to theoretically be able to go,gee, Mickey,what you had before you wasn't sufficient I think I think the key point here is that we feel that the information that Mickey had was sufficient. Glenn Brettschneider Right. I think if you had a big project,if you had a big project,Mickey probably would not accept that document, even if it didn't say the CMP. If it was a bigger project,Mickey would probably have more. So, I probably agree with that this is probably for this specific job. He had what he needed. Joel Simon It's like every residential situation is different. Glenn Brettschneider Yeah. Joel Simon Every job is different. Don Moscato And if I might add to that, most of us have been on this Board for several years now. And if there was something missing,that was needed by the Building Inspector,if you recall,it was brought to our attention that we need.Just earlier today. We said we need this side elevation for that property in order to make a complete decision. And that was brought up by the Building Inspector that it would be nice to have that because he felt it was needed. We concur. And therefore,that was adjourned. So,I think you know micromanaging the Building Inspector has hundreds of applications and makes judgments all the time. Occasionally one bubbles up like this because of its Zoning Board of Appeals June 1, 2021 nature.You know, of its nature.And I think Glenn,you brought out the reason nobody wants to see a building in their backyard. So, I think you need to give some discretion in the past,and I think Drew is well aware now of future drafts. Joel Simon And I think that it is implicit in the,in the Code provision. Don Moscato Yeah.And,you know, I think that's a doable thing. I mean,there might,there might be 50, best case construction management plans out there that can be that can be utilized if you want to go and line by line, line by line, or you can just,you know,make the make the wording a little different. So,are we prepared to come up with a straw vote at this particular point in time? Okay, all right. I'm hoping everybody is still here. Glenn,where do you stand on this? Glenn Brettschneider I have to figure out how to phrase it. So,I don't say the wrong thing. I am in favor of keeping the permit. So, I'm not sure how we I'm against the application. I think is that. Joel Simon You believe that Mickey's determination was correct. Glenn Brettschneider Yes, I do. Don Moscato Okay. Drew Gamils Joel, just,just so everyone's clear. You are ultimately you're making a decision on the building permit. So, the way Glenn phrased it was appropriate. Glenn Brettschneider Thank you,Drew. Don Moscato Okay,Jamie,you could say I concur, or I disagree with Glenn. Jamie Schutzer I concur.But just,just to reiterate,it's upholding the Building Inspectors decision to grant the permit? Don Moscato Correct. Zoning Board of Appeals June 1, 2021 Jamie Schutzer Am I saying the same thing Drew? Okay. Joel Simon I concur as well. Don Moscato Joel concurs as well.And I concur as well. David Gelfarb Since I was given the option,Mr. Chairman earlier,to request an adjournment,based upon the fact that all five members of the Board are not here, I respectfully request that this matter be adjourned to the next meeting. Don Moscato Okay. Drew Gamils The Public Hearing was closed,a motion was already made and accepted and voted upon. So this meeting is going to be adjourned to next month,this is not a formal vote,it's only a straw poll vote,I will now go prepare a resolution based on this discussion, circulate it prior to next month's meeting, and then you can discuss it and formally vote on that resolution next month,but the Public Hearing is closed. So,it is going to automatically be adjourned to next month for you to formally vote on. Joel Simon But there will be no more evidence submitted no more discussion on it. Drew Gamils Correct.The ZBA can have more discussion on it.But the Public Hearing was closed. I apologize,Mr. Gelfarb. But you should have made that motion before the Public Hearing was closed. David Gelfarb But the idea was to wait, the idea is to wait until the straw poll was conducted. There was no point in requesting it. I said it. You know, at the very beginning,the Chairman said that,you know,we can have straw polls and then decide what to do that,in fact, I think was done with the first applicant. So, he said the,initially he said since all five of you are not here. We can request an adjournment based upon a straw poll. So that's, that's what I'm doing. Drew Gamils Well,in that application, the Public Hearing wasn t yet open,and they took the straw poll. In this case, the conversation has gone on for two hours, the Public Hearing was formally and appropriately closed.But like I said this was not a formal vote.And the ZBA will discuss this again next month. But the Public Hearing was closed, and no new information has been submitted to the Board. So, and again,you don't have to make the vote on the resolution next month, but one will be prepared for your consideration. Zoning Board of Appeals June 1, 2021 Joel Simon Very good Don Moscato And Mr. Gelfarb you will be meeting with Mr. Palmer and some of the owners of the Enclave. David Gelfarb No,we've been trying for many, many,many weeks I'd say three months to meet with Mr.Palmer's boss, but his boss has had a medical issue and when that's resolved,you know, I'd like to meet. I would have met months ago, but he has this issue Mr. Palmers boss and to be blunt. I'll say it frankly,to me, a zoom meeting is a waste of time. I don't want and my clients do not want a zoom meeting.We want a meeting in person with the Blind Book Club with some representative of that.And you know,with an attorney, I don't want to zoom meeting. Taylor Palmer If I may,Mr. Chairman, my partner Mr. Gioffre had recently had surgery,but again we tried to reach out to Mr. Gelfarb after the last Planning Board meeting.We're certainly already,you know,we've made many attempts and we tried to reach Mr. Gelfarb but we understand he was away last week and was unable to meet. So,we'll,we'll again trying to meet with the neighbors as well. David Gelfarb We can't meet until he can drive,he can't drive so until he leaves his house,we can't meet,you know if he can leave his house tomorrow,we'll be there tomorrow. Joel Simon Gentlemen why don't you discuss this offline. Taylor Palmer We'll discuss that offline. Don Moscato Okay. Drew, should we? So,this has been moved to discuss the resolution at the July meeting? Drew Gamils Yeah. So just a motion to adjourn this appeal to next month. Joel Simon So moved. Don Moscato Second Glenn Brettschneider Second. Zoning Board of Appeals June 1, 2021 Don Moscato Okay,we all approve. Okay. Glenn Brettschneider Now I really have to be there next month. Don Moscato Yes. So don't go on a safari to a non-internet place. David,I applaud you. I know you're a late-night guy. But this is really past your bedtime. David Heiser Oh,this isn't even close to my bedtime. I was just laughing because I went to NYU law school.And for civil procedure I had a horrible human being named Herbert Peterfreund.And his favorite phrase was nunc pro tunc. Lawyers will know what that means. Now for then. And that's all I think about is could you make almost a ruling that they could submit the management plan, the construction plan? Now as if it had been done, then just make a judicial decision? It's really a ministerial error. Don Moscato You're really sharp tonight. David Heiser Yeah.Because you're basically just curing a ministerial error. Somebody should have asked for a piece of paper that said that which they said orally. Glenn Brettschneider But then you're going back to the whole argument of not having to make that decision that we didn t have it and that he doesn't have the authority. David Heiser That's the idea of nunc pro tunc,which is you're curing things now, as if it happened then. Joel Simon Right.But then you're making the ruling that if you do that you've made the decision that what we have now is not enough. David Heiser Well,what you are really saying is if there's a formality for the need for a piece of paper. Joel Simon If. Zoning Board of Appeals June 1, 2021 David Heiser If you have all the information. Okay, then it really is just a formality. So Fine. Give me a piece of paper that incorporates all that what you've said orally. Glenn Brettschneider But that was the whole problem before. Joel Simon If we come to that decision. Yes. David Heiser Yeah.To me that can be cured. Drew Gamils We are still on. I believe there's one more item for the minutes. Don Moscato Okay. Motion to approve. Joel Simon So moved. Don Moscato Second. Glenn Brettschneider Second. Don Moscato Okay. Approved. Joel Simon Motion to adjourn the meeting. Glenn Brettschneider Wait if go two more minutes.We'll make it past 12. Drew Gamils No. Glenn Brettschneider Four minutes. Zoning Board of Appeals June 1, 2021 David Heiser You know, I have late meetings because Drew,were you at the last Planning Board meeting which seemed to go on forever also. Drew Gamils Yes. David Heiser That's the whole thing. I'm so used to this. Glenn Brettschneider Let's adjourn the meeting,Don. Don Moscato Okay. meeting is adjourned. Thank you. David Heiser Good night. Have a good vacation. Glenn Brettschneider Thank you. Village of Rye Brook y� � } ' Agenda Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Tuesday,July 6,2021 at 8:00 PM Village Hall, 938 King Street� ANNOUNCEMENT:The July 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: 839 4332 2687 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.rvebrook.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 httl2s://usO2wgb,zoom.us/j/83943322687 and clicking on `Join a Meeting"and enter Meeting ID: 839 4332 2687 (no password required).You can also call in to the ZOOM meeting at+1(929) 205-6099,when prompted,enter 839 4332 2687#. On the evening of July 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 amarshall ryebrook.org. 1. ITEMS: 1.1. #21-012 (Adjourned fmm 6/112021) Jorge Robles 16 Maywood Avenue Construct a rear deck expansion. Approvals; Adjournment Aye; 3 Nay; DM _ / MI J SB SF GB K&B JDS J JS DH 1 ECE V E SEP - 9 202, DR �'�. VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BUILDING DEPARTMENT y MINUTES W Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Village Hall, 938 King Street j, Tuesday,July 6, 2022 APPROVED BOARD PRESENT: Donald Moscato, Chair DATE�}�tt�lP hP, Steven Berger James Schutzer Trustee David M. Heiser,Village Board Liaison BOARD ABSENT: Glenn Brettschneider Joel Simon STAFF PRESENT: Drew Gamils,Village Counsel Michael Izzo,Building Inspector Fred Seifert, Public Access Coordinator Chairman Don Moscato welcomed everyone to the July 6, 2021, meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. He introduced the members of the Board, Village staff, and the liaison from the Board of Trustees,Trustee David Heiser. He instructed anyone addressing the Board to come to the podium, use the microphone, state their name, address, and the nature of the application. Chairman Moscato noted that only three(3) of the five (5)members of the Board were in attendance. He explained that each applicant has the opportunity to adjourn to the next meeting.Chairman Moscato stated that the applicants were contacted and agreed to be heard with the three (3) members of the Board present. He advised the applicants that a successful application must have a unanimous decision of all three (3) Board members. Chairman Moscato explained there are some applications from last month and would like to focus on new information or changes from the previous application. Steven Berger stated he was not at the previous meeting but watched the entire video and feels he can participate in the discussion. Chairman Moscato called for the first item on the agenda. 1. ITEMS: 1.1. #21-012 (Adjourned from 6/112021) Jorge Robles 16 Maywood Avenue Construct a rear deck expansion. Zoning Board of Appeals July 6,2021 Oscar Ovalle,associate of NY Architect Designers for the applicants addressed the Board. He refreshed the Board regarding the previous proposal. The previous plans requested a 155 square foot deck expansion. The deck would result in a deck coverage of 5%whereas the allowable deck coverage is 3.5%. Mr. Ovalle explained how they are now proposing a substantial reduction. The applicant has reduced the deck expansion to 80.5 square feet, almost half of the initial proposal. This deck expansion would now result in a deck coverage of 3.88%.The deck coverage variance would now be reduced to 0.38%. Chairman Moscato stated that letters were received from the neighbors and the Board has reviewed them. Chairman Moscato called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in support or opposition to the application. There being no one, Chairman Moscato called for a motion and a second to close the public hearing. The public portion of the hearing was closed,and the Board began deliberation. The Board discussed the reduction. Chairman Moscato pointed out how one of the letters commented on an annoying spotlight. He noted that is not relevant to the size of the deck.The nature of the complaint was the ensuing noise. Chairman Moscato explained that theoretically,you can make as much noise on a smaller deck as you can on a larger deck. The Board agreed. Chairman Moscato did not consider those to be significant objections to the nature of the application. Steven Berger advised the applicant to make sure they follow the approved plans and not the previous plans. Michael Izzo,Building Inspector explained that there is an interim inspection which is called a framing inspection. It's at that juncture that we examine the plans,the deck for overall size and structure. The Building Department will assure that the project gets built as per the approved plans. After reviewing the five factors used by Zoning Board when reviewing the application, Chairman Moscato read the following resolution: Page 2of31 Zoning Board of Appeals July 6,2021 RESOLUTION WHEREAS,application has been made to the Zoning Board by Jorge Robles (the "Applicant") for a deck coverage variance of 0.38%where the maximum allowable deck coverage is 3.5%pursuant to Village Code 250-37.B in connection with a proposed rear deck expansion, on property located at 16 Maywood Avenue, in an R- 5 zoning district on the south side of Maywood Avenue, approximately 320 feet from the intersection of North Ridge Street and Maywood Avenue. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID# 135.75-1-30;and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on June 1, 2021 and July 6, 2021, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and WHEREAS, the public hearing was closed on July 6,2021;and WHEREAS, the proposed action is a Type II action pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act and accordingly,no further environmental review is required;and WHEREAS, the Board, from the application,after viewing the premises and neighborhood concerned,and upon considering each of the factors set forth in Village Code § 250-13(G)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brook Code,finds: 1) The variance WILL NOT create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood; 2) The benefit the Applicant seeks CANNOT be achieved through another method, feasible for the Applicant to pursue, that does not require the variance; 3) The variance IS NOT substantial; 4) The variance WILL NOT create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and 5) The need for the variance IS self-created. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the said application for a deck coverage variance of 0.38%where the maximum allowable deck coverage is 3.5%pursuant to Village Code § 250-37.B in connection with a proposed rear deck expansion, on property located at 16 Maywood Avenue is hereby GRANTED on the following conditions: Page 3 of 31 Zoning Board of Appeals July 6,2021 1) No permit or certificate of occupancy shall be issued until the Applicant has paid in full all application and consultant fees incurred by the Village in connection with the review of this application. Chairman Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting:Aye Glenn Brettschneider Voting: Excused Jamie Schutzer Voting:Aye Joel Simon Voting: Excused Don Moscato Voting:Aye The resolution was adopted by a vote of three ayes and zero nays. Page 4of31 Zoning Board of Appeals July 6,2021 Chairman Moscato called for the second item on the agenda. 1.2. #21-015 (Adjournedfmm61112021) Fabrice Hugon&Merle Hugon 167 Country Ridge Drive Construct a one story side in-fill addition and interior alterations. Tom Haynes, Haynes Architecture for the applicants addressed the Board. He began his presentation by noting the existing dwelling is a single family detached dwelling. It currently exists as four bedrooms three and a half bathrooms. The house is approximately 4,200 square feet. Chairman Moscato noted that the reason this application was adjourned from last month's agenda is because when a lot contains storm water issues there is a formula the Village requires a portion of the lot be considered. Chairman Moscato asked for Michael Izzo, the Building Inspector to formalize his statement. Michael Izzo,Building Inspector explained that the Village Code requires that you discount portions of the property that are either under water or are affected by a steep slope by 25%. He stated you can't use the entire square footage of the lot when calculating bulk standards if a portion of the property is under water or a steep slope.A portion of this property has a stream running through the rear yard. The architect had to recalculate and reduce the usable size of the lot based on that portion that is under water to reflect the 25%reduction. Tom Haynes continued his presentation by going over the interior changes that are proposed. One of the first floor bedrooms will be converted to a master closet. The new basement space will provide a new laundry room, mudroom and two additional bedrooms with en-suites for their growing children. Mr. Haynes clarified that the new garage will be constructed below the existing open car port He explained that this is the least environmentally impacted way to achieve additional living space for the family. It will also be more aesthetically pleasing and increase the value of the property. The homeowners spoke to the adjacent neighbors, and they have no objections to the application. Mr. Haynes believes this is a unique scenario because of the stream running through the lot causes a large reduction in the allowable square footage. He is not sure if any other house is Rye Brook have this scenario. Chairman Moscato expressed that they do have a common theme. Houses in the R-15 zoning district are moving more and more towards significantly increasing the square footage and making a house that was thought to be in a R-20 or R-25 zoning district. This is a recurring issue. The topography of every lot is different. On paper,this lot is a substantially large lot for an R-15 zoning district. Michael Izzo,Building Inspector clarified that if they were able to count the whole lot,the allowable gross floor area would be 4,204 square feet. Due to the reduction, they can only have a gross floor area of 3,674.9. If the property didn't have the stream running through it,it would be code compliant,and the variance number sought would be greatly reduced. Chairman Moscato explained that because of the reduction in lot size,it substantially increased the square footage requested. He stated that the mitigating factors here, the large lot size and no increase in the footprint,influences his decision in this particular case. Page 5 of 31 Zoning Board of Appeals July 6,2021 Chairman Moscato called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in support or opposition to the application. There being no one, Chairman Moscato called for a motion and a second to close the public hearing. The public portion of the hearing was closed,and the Board began deliberation. The Board discussed the increase in the GFA. Chairman Moscato pointed out that each application is looked at uniquely.After looking at the plans,there doesn't seem to be a way to reduce the square footage. The applicant is not increasing the footprint,which is a very important factor. After reviewing the five factors used by Zoning Board when reviewing the application, Chairman Moscato read the following resolution: Page 6 of 31 Zoning Board of Appeals July 6,2021 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Fabrice Hugon &Merle Hugon (the "Applicants") for a gross floor area variance of 916.11 square feet where the maximum allowable gross floor area is 3,674.89 square feet pursuant to Village Code § 250-20.E, in connection with the proposed one story side in-fill addition and interior alterations, on property located at 167 Country Ridge Drive,in an R-15 zoning district on the west side of Country Ridge Drive, approximately 850 feet from the intersection of Rocking Horse Trail and Country Ridge Drive. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID# 129.74-1-2; and WHEREAS, the existing non-conforming gross floor area is 4,202 square feet and the proposed in-fill addition will result in a gross floor area of 4,591 square feet; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on July 6, 2021,at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and WHEREAS, the public hearing was closed on July 6,2021; and WHEREAS, the proposed action is a Type II action pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act and accordingly, no further environmental review is required; and WHEREAS, the Board, from the application, after viewing the premises and neighborhood concerned, and upon considering each of the factors set forth in Village Code § 250-13(G)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brook Code,finds: 1) The variance WILL NOT create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood; 2) The benefit the Applicants seek CANNOT be achieved through another method, feasible for the Applicants to pursue, that does not require the variance; 3) The variance IS substantial; 4) The variance WILL NOT create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and 5) The need for the variance IS self-created. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the said application for a gross floor area variance of 916.11 square feet where the maximum allowable gross floor area is 3,674.89 square feet pursuant to Village Code § Page 7 of 31 Zoning Board of Appeals July 6,2021 250-20.E,in connection with the proposed one story side in-fill addition and interior alterations, on property located at 167 Country Ridge Drive, is hereby GRANTED on the following conditions: 1) No permit or certificate of occupancy shall be issued until the Applicants have paid in full all application and consultant fees incurred by the Village in connection with the review of this application. Chairman Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting:Aye Glenn Brettschneider Voting: Excused Jamie Schutzer Voting:Aye Joel Simon Voting: Excused Don Moscato Voting: Aye The resolution was adopted by a vote of three ayes and zero nays. Page 8 of 31 Zoning Board of Appeals July 6,2021 Chairman Moscato called for the third item on the agenda. 1.3. #21-017 (A,§ournedfmm 61112021) Abhinav Gautam&Pool Singh 11 Berkley Drive Construct a rear two story addition,new front portico,rear patio,deck and interior renovations. John G. Scarlato,Architect for the applicants addressed the Board. He refreshed the Board regarding the previous variances requested.They have reduced the front yard setback variance by 2 feet, eliminated the height setback ratio variance and reduced the gross floor area variance by 128 square feet. The revised plans now propose an 841.5 square foot gross floor area variance and a 5.5 foot front yard setback variance. Michael Izzo,Building Inspector clarified the square footage reduction is 127.5. John G. Scarlato presented 2 properties with similar lot size and square footage. 24 Latonia Road has a gross floor area of 4,250 square feet which is 950 square feet over the allowable. 15 Berkley Drive has a gross floor area of 4,575 square feet which is 1,000 square feet over the allowable. Chairman Moscato asked how these changes have impacted the applicant. John G. Scarlato explained that the reduction has made the rooms smaller. Chairman Moscato asked the architect to explain the contribution to the increase in gross floor area to increasing the footprint. John G. Scarlato stated they have kept the increase to a minimum. The rear addition is over an existing patio which doesn't increase the impervious. The front portico is to enlarge the entry foyer and has been reduced. Chairman Moscato called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in support or opposition to the application. There being no one, Chairman Moscato called for a motion and a second to close the public hearing. The public portion of the hearing was closed,and the Board began deliberation. The Board discussed that the bulk standards are driven by the size of the lot not by the zoning district that they are in. Raised ranches have a unique characteristics to it. There is very little you can do to a raised ranch because everything is considered in the square footage. This causes a lot of houses to greatly exceed the allowable GFA. Chairman Moscato asked Michael Izzo,Building Inspector if he and the Building Department can look back at the last 2 years for how many applications in an R-15 zone came before the Board. Once that has been completed, he would consider going before the Board of Trustees requesting their review of the bulk standards in the R-15 zone to see if it's in keeping with the maintenance of greenspace and either maintain the existing standards or modify those standards. Page 9of31 Zoning Board of Appeals July 6,2021 Chairman Moscato commended the architect and the applicants on their effort to reduce the size and still maintain the quality of life they were pursuing. After reviewing the five factors used by Zoning Board when reviewing the application, Chairman Moscato read the following resolution: Page 10 of 31 Zoning Board of Appeals July 6,2021 RESOLUTION WHEREAS,application has been made to the Zoning Board by Abhinav Gautam & Pooja Singh (the "Applicants") for a (1) a front yard setback variance of 5.5 feet,where the minimum required setback is 40 feet pursuant to Village Code § 250-20.G(1) in connection with the proposed new front portico, and (2) a gross floor area variance of 840.5 square feet where the maximum allowable gross floor area is 3,295 square feet pursuant to Village Code � 250-20.E in connection with the proposed rear two story addition, on property located at 11 Berkley Drive,in an R-15 zoning district on the south side of Berkley Drive,approximately 80 feet from the intersection of Winthrop Drive and Berkley Drive. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID# 135.34-1-54; and WHEREAS,the property has an existing non-conforming front yard setback of 38.5 feet;and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on June 1,2021 and July 6,2021,at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and WHEREAS, the public hearing was closed on July 6,2021; and WHEREAS, the proposed action is a Type II action pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act and accordingly,no further environmental review is required;and WHEREAS, the Board, from the application,after viewing the premises and neighborhood concerned,and upon considering each of the factors set forth in Village Code � 250-13(G)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brook Code, finds with respect to the requested variances that: 1) The variances WILL NOT create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood; 2) The benefit the Applicants seek CANNOT be achieved through another method, feasible for the Applicants to pursue, that does not require the variances; 3) The variances ARE substantial; 4) The variances WILL NOT create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and 5) The need for the variance IS self-created; and Page 11 of 31 Zoning Board of Appeals July 6,2021 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the said application for (1) a front yard setback variance of 5.5 feet, where the minimum required setback is 40 feet pursuant to Village Code § 250-20.G(1) in connection with the proposed new front portico, and (2) a gross floor area variance of 840.5 square feet where the maximum allowable gross floor area is 3,295 square feet pursuant to Village Code § 250-20.E in connection with the proposed rear two story addition, on property located at 11 Berkley Drive, is hereby GRANTED on the following conditions: 1) No permit or certificate of occupancy shall be issued until the Applicants have paid in full all application and consultant fees incurred by the Village in connection with the review of this application. Chairman Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting:Aye Glenn Brettschneider Voting: Excused Jamie Schutzer Voting:Aye Joel Simon Voting: Excused Don Moscato Voting: Aye The resolution was adopted by a vote of three ayes and zero nays. Page 12 of 31 Zoning Board of Appeals July 6,2021 Chairman Moscato called for the fourth item on the agenda. 1.4. #21-018 (Adjourned from 6/1/2021) Stuart Sindell &Marcia Sindell Joseph Abbe 980 Anderson Hill Road Applicant seeks to reverse the Building Inspector's determination to grant Building Permit#21-054 issued on 3/22/2021 authorizing the construction of a new teaching building,reconfiguration of the front entrance roadway, and construction of a new chip and putting green for the property owned by The Blind Brook Club Inc. Steven Berger stated he was not at the previous meeting but watched the entire video and read the draft minutes and feels that if no one objects,he can participate in the discussion. Chairman Moscato explained how the application last month was discussed over Zoom. There were a few contributors on the call. The applicant reiterated a statement that was submitted indicating the two major points. One, the road being a County road. That was determined to not being an issue since it is a Village road. Two, the presence or the absence of a formal Construction Management Plan. The Blind Brook Club proposed various alterations and had attended two Planning Board meetings.A formal Construction Management Plan was submitted at that time.An amendment was presented for the training facility and putting greens. The issue before the Board is,do the two approved site plans,SP-6&SP-7 contain sufficient information that the Building Inspector can make a decision to issue a building permit with the existence of the original plan submitted for the Club. Drew Gamils,Village Counsel stated for the record that a draft decision has been prepared based on the discussion last month. This was circulated to everyone and uploaded to the agenda packet. Chairman Moscato noted that he listened to the meetings and read the meeting minutes. He visited the Blind Brook Club and the Enclave. Chairman Moscato explained how a substantial amount of information was provided in the original permit application for the Club. The training facility was an amendment application. The Building Inspector had the discretion to say there was enough information provided based on the original application. The need for a traffic study and other items in the Construction Management Plan were not necessary based on the location of the training building on the Blind Brook property. When the applicant read their response to the Board, they did not focus on the CMP but exclusively on the topic that they don't want to look at the building. They did not address the issues of the CMP, only the attorney for the applicant spoke of the CMP. David Gelfarb, Attorney for the applicants expressed how not every application that goes before the Planning Board requires a CMP, only when there is a site plan approval or amendment. The BOT enacted this code. If someone feels they don't need a traffic control/ Construction Management plan when they go before the Board, the Board can say they don't require it. Michael Izzo, Building Inspector noted that there was information in the initial plans that constituted a Construction Management Plan. The amendment applications had no effect on the site. Page 13 of 31 Zoning Board of Appeals July 6,2021 Drew Gamils, Village Counsel explained how that the Village did not have "Construction Management Plan" defined in the Village Code. This law was adopted in October 2020 and officially filed on December 2, 2020. The law did not take effect until the Department of State filed it.The Blind Brook Club amendment decision was made on December 10, 2020. The original site plan approvals predate this law. The Board discussed the information provided on the approved plans and concluded that it contained enough information for the Building Inspector to issue the amended permit therefore,the Board upholds the Building Inspectors decision. Drew Gamils,Village Counsel read the following resolution: Page 14 of 31 Zoning Board of Appeals July 6,2021 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made by Stuart Sindell and Marcia Sindell, 27 Carol Court and Joseph Abbe, 29 Carol Court, (collectively referred to as the"Appellants"),by their attorney David B. Gelfarb,Esq.,to the Village of Rye Brook Zoning Board of Appeals on May 5,2021,appealing the Village of Rye Brook Building Inspector's determination to grant Building Permit#21-054 issued on March 22,2021 authorizing the construction of a new golf teaching building,reconfiguration of the front entrance roadway,and construction of a new chip and putting green for property owned by The Blind Brook Club Inc,located at 980 Anderson Hill Road in the R-35 Zoning District and Scenic Roads Overlay District, and designated as Section 129.58,Block 1,Lot 1 as shown on the Town of Rye Tax Assessor's Map;and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on June 1, 2021,at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity, and the public hearing was closed on June 1,2021; and WHEREAS, due to public health and safety concerns related to the current COVID-19 pandemic, the June 1,2021 meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals at which this application was heard,was duly noticed and held via videoconference in accordance with the requirements of the Zoning Code of the Village of Rye Brook and the Governor's Executive Orders which suspend the "in-person" requirements of the NYS Open Meetings Law and provide alternative means by which to conduct public meetings and hearings; and WHEREAS, the proposed action is a Type II action pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act and accordingly,no further environmental review is required;and WHEREAS,the Board considered comments from Village staff,consultants and the public and has reviewed all written materials submitted in connection with the application. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that upon consideration of all written and oral arguments and submissions in the Record before the Zoning Board of Appeals for the reasons set forth in the attached "DECISION ON APPEAL OF BUILDING INSPECTOR'S DETERMINATION TO GRANT A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE BLIND BROOK CLUB INC., 980 ANDERSON HILL ROAD, RYE BROOK, NEW YORK,"as amended on July 6,2021,the Zoning Board of Appeals hereby upholds the decision of the Village of Rye Brook Building Inspector to issue a Building Permit for the construction of a new golf teaching building, Page 15 of 31 Zoning Board of Appeals July 6,2021 reconfiguration of the front entrance roadway and new chip and putt greens at the Blind Brook Club Inc., at 980 Anderson Hill Road. Chairman Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting:Aye Glenn Brettschneider Voting: Excused Jamie Schutzer Voting:Aye Joel Simon Voting: Excused Don Moscato Voting: Aye The resolution was adopted as amended by a vote of three ayes and zero nays. Page 16 of 31 Zoning Board of Appeals July 6,2021 DECISION ON APPEAL OF BUILDING INSPECTOR'S DETERMINATION TO GRANTE A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE BLIND BROOK CLUB INC., 980 ANDERSON HILL ROAD, RYE BROOK,NEW YORK This is an appeal pursuant to the Village of Rye Brook Code("Village Code") 5�250-13(G)(1)and (4),brought by Stuart Sindell and Marcia Sindell, 27 Carol Court and Joseph Abbe, 29 Carol Court(collectively referred to as the "Appellants"), by their attorney David B. Gelfarb,Esq. On or about May 4,2021,Mr. Gelfarb filed,on behalf of the Appellants,an application appealing the issuance of Building Permit No. 21-054 for the construction of a new golf teaching building, reconfiguration of the front entrance roadway, and new chip & putt greens (the `Building Permit), issued by Michael Izzo, the Village of Rye Brook Building Inspector (the `Building Inspector"), on March 22, 2021 to The Blind Brook Club, Inc., located at 980 Anderson Hill Road, Rye Brook, New York. The Appellants allege two grounds on which they believe the Building Permit should be revoked: (1) failure to obtain a permit from the Westchester County Department of Public Works to modify the driveway entrance on Anderson Hill Road,and(2) failure to provide a Construction Management Plan ("CMP"). I. BACKGROUND —BLIND BROOK CLUB, INC. SITE PLAN APPLICATION On March 24,2020,the Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees granted Amended Site Plan Approval to The Blind Brook Club, Inc. (the "Blind Brook Club") for the reworking of the fairways and greens, upgrades to the irrigation and drainage systems, the development of groundwater sources for irrigation to reduce reliance on public water and additions to the clubhouse's patio and terrace for property located at 980 Anderson Hill Road,designated as Parcel ID 129.58-1-1 on the Town of Rye Tax Map and located in the R-35 Zoning District and Scenic Roads Overlay District (the "Property"). The Property consists of 163.2 acres and is developed with a golf course, club house, maintenance building,parking areas, and minor accessory structures. Thereafter, the Blind Brook Club sought further amendments to the Amended Site Plan. The Building Inspector determined such amendments to be minor modifications to the approved Amended Site Plan.The Planning Page 17 of 31 Zoning Board of Appeals July 6,2021 Board was determined to be the approval authority for such minor amendments pursuant to Village Code � 209- 1.A(2)(c). On December 10, 2020, the Village Planning Board issued Amended Site Plan and Wetland Permit Approvals to the Blind Brook Club to allow the conversion of an existing disturbed portion of the site to practice and putting greens,a shift in the location of the existing driveway,and the construction of an approximately 1,700 square foot teaching facility building on the Property (collectively referred to herein with the original Amended Site Plan approved by the Board of Trustees as the "Project"). The Planning Board's December 10, 2020 Resolution included several conditions, including Condition #3, which provides as follows: Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit,the Applicant shall secure a permit from the Westchester County Department of Public Works to widen the driveway since Anderson Hill Road is a County Roadl. As part of the application to the Westchester County Department of Public Works, the Applicant shall provide to the Village and to the County the required intersection sight distance (ISD) for the modified driveway. Trimming or removal of vegetation may be necessary along the edge of Anderson Hill Road to achieve ISD to the south of the access drive and along the Property. On March 22, 2021, the Building Inspector issued Building Permit #21-054 for the construction of the new golf teaching building, reconfiguration of the front entrance roadway and construction of the new chip and putting greens at 780 Anderson Hill Road. On May 4, 2021, the Appellants filed the appeal at issue in this proceeding. II. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN REQUIREMENTS On October 27, 2020, the Board of Trustees adopted Local Law 9 of 2020 which, in part, created Village Code § 209-2.B entitled "Construction Management Plan." Pursuant to Village Code 5 209-2.B, any residential or commercial construction project that is subject to the site plan review and approval of the Planning Board or the 'It was later determined that the portion of Anderson Hill Road at issue is not a County Road and instead is a Village Road. Page 18 of 31 Zoning Board of Appeals July 6,2021 Village Board of Trustees shall prepare a Construction Management Plan ("CMP"), unless the Planning Board or Village Board of Trustees, as applicable,waives the CMP requirement. The Village Code requires a CMP include the following information: (a) Schedule:The applicant shall provide a project schedule. (b) Job site, facilities and storage:The CMP shall include the location on the project site of all loading/unloading areas, job box and material storage areas, portable toilet(s), dumpsters and on-site temporary power, any protective fencing around the job site,any trees and vegetation to be preserved and any trees and vegetation to be removed.These and any other construction-related facilities shall not be located in the public right-of-way without the prior approval of the Building Inspector. (c) Traffic control plan.The traffic control plan shall identify the path of travel for delivery trucks and emergency vehicles to and from the project site.In addition,all on-and off-site worker parking locations shall be identified, including any carpool pickup and dropoff locations. (d) Staging areas. The CMP shall specify construction staging area locations.The CMP shall also address delivery and construction vehicle staging for the duration of the project.The staging plan shall estimate the number of truckloads,number of heavy equipment deliveries, etc., expected and their timing and duration for each stage of the project. III. APPEAL OF BUILDING INSPECTOR'S DETERMINATION Pursuant to Village Code � 250-13(G)(1) and (4), on May 4, 2021,Appellants submitted an appeal to reverse the Building Inspector's determination to grant Building Permit#21-054,issued on March 22, 2021, authorizing the construction of a new teaching building, reconfiguration of the front entrance roadway, and construction of a new chip and putting green for the Property. On appeal,Appellants argue that the Building Permit was improperly issued because the Blind Brook Club (1) failed to obtain a permit from the Westchester County Department of Public Works to widen the Club's driveway with access to Anderson Hill Road,and (2) failed to file a CMP for review and approval by the Building Inspector and the Superintendent of Public Works/Village Engineer. A public hearing on the appeal was opened and closed on June 1, 2021, at which time the Appellants, a representative from the Blind Brook Club and all members of the public were permitted to provide public comment before the Zoning Board of Appeals ("ZBX). Due to public health and safety concerns related to the COVID-19 Page 19 of 31 Zoning Board of Appeals July 6,2021 pandemic, the June 1, 2021 meeting of the ZBA at which this application was heard,was duly noticed and held via videoconference in accordance with the requirements of the Village Code and the New York State Governor's Executive Orders which suspended the "in-person" requirements of the NYS Open Meetings Law and provided alternative means by which to conduct public meetings and hearings. The following written submissions were considered by the ZBA in this appeal: 1. ZBA Application re:Appeal of Building Permit#21-054 prepared by David Gelfarb,Esq. of Moss & Kalish,PLLC., on behalf of Appellants,with letter in support,application form and enclosures, dated May 4,2021; 2. Email to ZBA from Lee Paton,dated June 1, 2021; and 3. Email to ZBA from Karen Coombs,dated May 28, 2021. IV. DECISION A. Standard of Review The ZBA is required to review the appeal based on the legal principle that "zoning restrictions, being in derogation of common-law property rights, should be strictly construed, and any ambiguities are to be resolved in favor of the property owner." Robert E. Havell Revocable Trust v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Vill. of Monroe, 127 A.D.3d 1095, 1097, 8 N.Y.S.3d 353 (2d Dep't. 2015), citing Matter of BBJ Assoc., LLC v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Kent, 65 A.D.3d 154, 159, 881 N.Y.S.2d 496 (2d Dep't 2009). If the ZBA finds that the language in the Village Code or other applicable statute is ambiguous in its meaning,the ZBA should refer to any legislative history and Village policies concerning the subject language which may include the Building Department's past practices with respect to the review and issuance of Building Permits, in general, and CMPs in particular. Legislative history can include minutes from any Board of Trustee meeting(s) at which the code provision at issue may have been discussed, studies or reports commissioned by the Board of Trustees,memoranda,etc. The ZBA is also aware of general statutory construction principles which are applicable when interpreting Page 20 of 31 Zoning Board of Appeals July 6,2021 local code provisions. When interpreting statutes, each word must be given effect and words may not be construed to render the statute ineffective or create an inconvenient, unreasonable or absurd result. N.Y. Statutes �5142, 143, 144, 145, 213 (McKinney's 1971). Also, words in a statute are to be given their usual and commonly understood meaning, unless it is clear from the statute that a different meaning is intended. N.Y. Statutes §232 (McKinney's 1971). To the extent the ZBA must interpret provisions of the Zoning Code, the ZBA shall first determine whether the words of the provision are clear and unambiguous in their meaning. If there is no ambiguity in the language,there is no need to resort to extrinsic evidence of the meaning of the words—such as legislative intent and Village policy. B. The Basis For The Building Inspector's Determination 1. Approval from the Westchester County Department of Public Works As stated above, the Planning Board's December 10, 2020 Resolution included the following condition (Condition#3): Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit,the Applicant shall secure a permit from the Westchester County Department of Public Works to widen the driveway since Anderson Hill Road is a County Road. As part of the application to the Westchester County Department of Public Works, the Applicant shall provide to the Village and to the County the required intersection sight distance (ISD) for the modified driveway. Trimming or removal of vegetation may be necessary along the edge of Anderson Hill Road to achieve ISD to the south of the access drive and along the Property. The Village of Rye Brook,however,later determined that the portion of Anderson Hill Road at issue is not a County Road and instead is a Village Road. The portion of Anderson Hill Road in the Village of Rye Brook was categorized as a Village Road in 2005. The Blind Brook Club obtained the required permit from the Village Department of Public Works to widen the road and satisfy the above referenced condition. Furthermore, since the portion of Anderson Hill Road at issue is not a County Road,the County would not have jurisdiction of the road or the ability to issue the permit as set forth in Condition#3 in the Planning Board's December 10, 2020 Resolution. Page 21 of 31 Zoning Board of Appeals July 6,2021 2. The Construction Management Plan During the public hearing held on June 1, 2021, the Building Inspector explained that the Blind Brook Club had submitted an acceptable CMP. The Building Inspector made a determination that Sheet SP-6 (Blind Brook Site Plan Amendment) and Sheet SP-7 (Proposed Site Notes & Detail), prepared by Ahneman Kirby, LLC, last revised on December 18, 2020, submitted to the Building Department in connection with the building permit application, satisfied the requirements of Village Code 5 209-2.B, based on the scope of the Project. The Blind Brook Club submitted its building permit application for the reworking of the fairways and greens,upgrades to the irrigation and drainage systems, the development of groundwater sources for irrigation to reduce reliance on public water, and additions to the clubhouse's patio and terrace for Property,as approved by the Board of Trustees on March 24,2020. The Building Inspector determined that Sheets SP-6 and SP-7 constituted the construction management plan required for the scope of this work.During the hearing,the Building Inspector discussed the construction management setup for the previous project. The Building Inspector considered the existing conditions of the Property, the existing conditions of the construction staging areas that were set up by Clark Construction Group for the construction of the new golf instruction building,and continued use of the existing staging areas by Clark Construction Group set up for the previous project. The Building Inspector determined that Sheets SP-6 and SP-7 contained the information necessary to satisfy the requirements of Village Code � 209-2.B for the Project. The location on the Property of all loading/unloading areas, job box and material storage areas, portable toilets, dumpsters, on-site temporary power, protective fencing around the job site, staging area, materials, storage area, dumpster area,was established and approved for the previous work on the site. The facilities and storage areas were already located on the Property and would be used in the same manner. In addition, Sheet SP-6 shows a dedicated storage stockpile area and trees and vegetation to be preserved and removed. With respect to traffic,the Building Inspector stated during the June 1,2021 hearing that a traffic control plan was not necessary for the Project because all the work would occur solely on the Property. At no point would any Page 22 of 31 Zoning Board of Appeals July 6,2021 truck be parked on a public roadway.The Property is accessible via Anderson Hill Road.Anderson Hill Road and the asphalt driveway to the site are capable of accommodating any kind of vehicle that would need to access the Property, whether it be a semi-trail, concrete truck or contractor vehicle. The Building Inspector determined that the Project would not impact traffic on Anderson Hill Road and to require a traffic control plan for a project of this scope, that does not generate any traffic,was not necessary. It was also not necessary to show all on- and off-site worker parking locations as all workers would be parking on the Property and the Property includes very large existing parking areas. Furthermore, Sheet SP-7 satisfied the requirement of Village Code 5 209-2.B(1)(c) as such plan sheet noted the path of travel for delivery trucks and emergency vehicles to and from the Project site via the existing driveway and Anderson Hill Road. The Building Inspector also determined that a separate work schedule was not necessary for the Project considering its size and scope.The Village Code expressly limits the hours of operation of construction.The Building Inspector concluded that no further scheduling details were necessary for the Project due to its limited scope. Construction of the slab and the on-grade building requires minimal excavation and minimal disturbance of the Property. The Project also involved the physical disturbance of less than one (1) acre. The Building Inspector determined that additional scheduling information was not required for the Project because it involved minor site work. The Building Inspector issued Building Permit #21-054 after finding that the information required in a CMP was submitted to the satisfaction of the Building Inspector and Superintendent of Public Works/Village Engineer. C. The Building Inspector's Determination Should Be Affirmed The ZBA finds that the Building Inspector's determination should be affirmed because it was rational and supported by the evidence in the record of this proceeding. The Village of Rye Brook previously determined that the portion of Anderson Hill Road at issue was not a County Road and instead was owned by the Village of Rye Brook. The portion of Anderson Hill Road in the Village Page 23 of 31 Zoning Board of Appeals July 6,2021 of Rye Brook was categorized as a Village road in 2005.The Blind Brook Club obtained the required permit from the Village Department of Public Works to satisfy Condition#3 of the December 10,2020 Planning Board Resolution. As a result, the Appellants' argument that the Blind Brook Club's asserted failure to obtain a permit from the Westchester County Department of Public Works' to allow the widening of the Blind Brook Club's driveway with access to Anderson Hill Road is without merit and does not require the revocation of the Building Permit. The ZBA further finds that the purpose of the CMP is to provide information for the Building Inspector to evaluate the proposed construction and ensure that it is done in an appropriate and organized manner. It is the Building Inspector's responsibility to determine what is needed in the CMP based on each individual project scope and size and not every project requires the same degree of detail in the CMP as another project. The requirements of the CMP set forth set forth in Village Code § 209-23 represent a checklist.As long as the information is provided to the satisfaction of the Building Inspector and Superintendent of Public Works, such information constitutes a valid CMP.The Building Inspector and Superintendent of Public Works had the discretion to conclude that the information provided in Sheets SP-6 and SP-7 and otherwise available to the Building Inspector and Superintendent of Public Works/Village Engineer were sufficient to satisfy the CMP requirements for this Project. Accordingly,the determination of the Building Inspector to issue the Building Permit is affirmed. Page 24 of 31 Zoning Board of Appeals July 6,2021 Chairman Moscato called for the fifth item on the agenda. 1.5. #21-020 Gary Ellis&Mary Ellis 22 Old Orchard Road Legalize the attached one car garage constructed under Building Permit#510 dated 5/8/1952. Phillip Grimaldi,Attorney for the applicants addressed the Board. He explained how the house is for sale and the title search revealed and open permit from 68 years ago. The property has sold 3 or 4 times prior to the current property owners purchasing in 2014 and this open permit has never come up. The garage is in character with the neighborhood. There are two other properties,23 Old Orchard Road and 25 Old Orchard Road that have similar setbacks to this property. The Board discussed including a condition in the variance that the garage remain a one-story structure. If any future owners wanted to construct a second story above the garage,they would have to come back to the Zoning Board. The attorney for the property owners agreed to the condition. Chairman Moscato called for members of the public wishing to address the Board in support or opposition to the application. There being no one, Chairman Moscato called for a motion and a second to close the public hearing. The public portion of the hearing was closed,and the Board began deliberation. After reviewing the five factors used by Zoning Board when reviewing the application, Chairman Moscato read the following resolution: Page 25 of 31 Zoning Board of Appeals July 6,2021 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application has been made to the Zoning Board by Gary Ellis & Mary Ellis for (1) a single side yard setback variance of 4.1 feet where the minimum required single side yard setback is 15 feet pursuant to Village Code � 250-20.G(2)(a) and (2) a total of two side yards setback variance of 18.8 feet where the minimum required total of two side yards is 40 feet pursuant to Village Code � 250-20.G(2)(b),in connection with the proposed legalization of the attached two car garage constructed under Building Permit#510 dated 5/8/1952, on property located at 22 Old Orchard Road,in an R-15 zoning district on the west side of Old Orchard Road, approximately 220 feet from the intersection of Winding Wood Road North and Old Orchard Road. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID# 135.26-1-65; and WHEREAS,a duly advertised public hearing was held on July 6, 2021,at which time all those wishing to be heard were given such opportunity; and WHEREAS, the public hearing was closed on July 6,2021; and WHEREAS, the proposed action is a Type II action pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act and accordingly, no further environmental review is required;and WHEREAS,the Board, from the application, after viewing the premises and neighborhood concerned, and upon considering each of the factors set forth at Section 250-13(G)(b)[2][a]-[e] of the Rye Brook Code, finds that: 1) The variances WILL NOT create an adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood; 2) The benefit the Applicants seek CANNOT be achieved through another method, feasible for the Applicants to pursue, that does not require the variances; 3) The variances ARE substantial; 4) The variances WILL NOT create any adverse impacts to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; and 5) The need for the variance IS NOT self-created; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the said application for (1) a single side yard setback variance of 4.1 feet where the minimum required single side yard setback is 15 feet pursuant to Village Code § 250- Page 26 of 31 Zoning Board of Appeals July 6,2021 20.G(2)(a) and (2) a total of two side yards setback variance of 18.8 feet where the minimum required total of two side yards is 40 feet pursuant to Village Code� 250-20.G(2)(b),is hereby GRANTED on the following conditions: 1) No permit or certificate of occupancy shall be issued until the Applicants have paid in full all application and consultant fees incurred by the Village in connection with the review of this application. 2) The one-story two car garage shall remain a one-story structure. A second story shall not be permitted. Chairman Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting:Aye Glenn Brettschneider Voting: Excused Jamie Schutzer Voting:Aye Joel Simon Voting: Excused Don Moscato Voting:Aye The resolution was adopted by a vote of three ayes and zero nays. Page 27 of 31 Zoning Board of Appeals July 6,2021 Chairman Moscato called for the sixth item on the agenda. 1.6. #20-020 Julie Santorelli Casino 6 Latonia Road Request extension of approval of Zoning variance,Village Code � 250-13.H. John Scarlato,Architect for the applicants addressed the Board. He refreshed the Board of the scope of the project. He noted that due to COVID the owners are having trouble securing a contractor and request an extension. The consensus of the Board was that it was reasonable and should be granted. Chairman Moscato read the following resolution: Page 28 of 31 Zoning Board of Appeals July 6,2021 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, on December 1, 2020 the Village of Rye Brook Zoning Board of Appeals granted Julie Santorelli Casino (the "Applicant") (1) a front yard setback variance of 6 feet where the minimum required front yard setback is 40 feet pursuant to Village Code § 250-20.G(1); (2) a single side yard setback variance of 5.4 feet where the minimum required single side yard setback is 15 feet pursuant to Village Code§ 250-20.G(2)(a);(3) a main building coverage variance of 2.3%where the maximum allowable main building coverage is 16% pursuant to Village Code 250-37.B; (4) a side height setback ratio variance of 0.98 where the maximum allowable side height setback ratio is 1.60 pursuant to Village Code 250-20.I(2); and (5) a gross floor area variance of 45 square feet where the maximum allowable gross floor area is 3,221 square feet pursuant to Village Code § 250-20.E,in connection with the proposed rear two story addition, rear second story addition, rear one story addition, front portico, interior and exterior alterations, on property located at 6 Latonia Road, in an R-15 zoning district on the East side of Latonia Road, approximately 300 feet from the intersection of Winding Wood Road an Latonia Road. Said premises being known and designated on the tax map of the Village of Rye Brook as Parcel ID# 135.26-1-30; and WHEREAS, the variances expired on June 1,2021 pursuant to Village Code § 250-13.H; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board is in receipt of a letter from John Scarlato dated June 10,2021 requesting an extension of the variances; and WHEREAS, the Applicant requires an extension of the variances due to unforeseen delays; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board has the authority pursuant to Village Code § 250-13.H to grant an extension of the original variance approval for an additional six (6) months if the applicant demonstrates that there is a good cause for an extension. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Village of Rye Brook Zoning Board hereby grants a six (6) month extension of the variance referenced herein for property located at 6 Latonia Road to expire on December 1,2021 unless a building permit is issued prior to December 1, 2021. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, except as specifically modified by the amendment contained herein, the Zoning Board of Appeals Resolution dated December 1, 2021, and the conditions set forth therein,is otherwise to remain in full force and effect. Page 29 of 31 Zoning Board of Appeals July 6,2021 Chairman Moscato called the roll: Steven Berger Voting:Aye Glenn Brettschneider Voting: Excused Jamie Schutzer Voting:Aye Joel Simon Voting: Excused Don Moscato Voting:Aye The resolution was adopted by a vote of three ayes and zero nays. Page 30 of 31 Zoning Board of Appeals July 6,2021 Chairman Moscato called for the final item on the agenda. 2. SUMMARY APPROVALS: 2.1. Approval of June 1,2021 Zoning Board Summary Chairman Moscato adjourned the minutes until the full Board is available. There being no further business before the Board, Chairman Moscato called for a motion to adjourn. On a motion and a second,the meeting was adjourned at 10:20 PM. Page 31 of 31 1, Building Permit Check List&Zoning Analysis Address: mi 0 o:r-> A\)e SBL: Zon . - Use: 2 O Const.Type: Other: Submittal Date: 3 t0 2 Revisions Submittal Dates: 2- Applicant: Nature of Work: � �� � 4 f C) Reviews:ZBA: MAR 1 8 2021 PB: BOT: Other. OK (✓ ( ) FEES:Filing. .S BP: b � �- C/O: Legalization: { ) (�APP.- Dated�tarized: SBL Truss I.D. Cross Connection H.O.A.: ( ) ( ) Scenic Roads: Steep Slopes: Wetlands: Storm Water Review: Street Opening: ( ) ( ) ENVIRO: Long. Short Fees: N/A: ( ) ( ) SITE PLAN:Topo: Site P otection S/W Mgmt: Tree Flan Other. ( ) (. SURVEY:Dated S Current: Archival: Sealed --"/ Unacceptable: ( ) { PLANS:Date Stamped: ✓Seale ✓ Copies/mac Electronic. ✓ Other. (. ( } License: Workers Co V Liability: v Comp.Waiver. Other. (� ( ) CODE 753#: 0���(�dI- 101 Dated �4 0 N/A: ( } ( ) HIGH-VOLTAGE ELECTRICAL:Plans: Permit: N/A: then. ( ) ( ) LOW-VOLTAGE ELECTRICAL:Plans: Permit N/A. Other. ( ) ( ) FIRE ALARM/SMOKE DETECTORS:Plans: Permit H,W.I.C.:!Battery_Other: PLUMBING:Plans: Permit Nat.Gras: LP Gas: N/A/: Other. ( ) ( ) FIRE SUPPRESSION:Plans: Permit N/A: Other. („) O H.V.A.C.: Plans: Permit 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 Plans: Other. BP DENIAL LETTER: ✓ C/O DENIAL LETTER: Chher. O O Other. GARB mtg. date: `7 1 Z Z l approval• 11al.141 notes: ( t BA mtg.date: 16 111 2 1 approval:- Z r0 12 notes: Z L - I Z ( )PB Yntg. date: approval:- notes: REOLMED EXISTING PROPOSED NOTES APPROVED -Arm S k I i L 22 ivr� Cir : SO" wh! Fron�taoe; S Fraru: Front: -2 o Sides: l l .1 Q Main Cov Accs.Co v 3 S Z z• � 3-7 70 V AL- 12F'2k . Fc H S .HS : '1 TOL imp: boy 6 < Cp Ft IMP: Parlung Height/Stories: notes: I SSA N .Nt G f o COVC-zo A P_ W Z7, plly to �. -3 • ' BUILD JJNY ENT ® C `' VIL AGE OF RYE` OK 938 KrnG STRFFT RYE BR 10573 MAR 16 2021 (914)939-0668 YLAX(914)439-5801 w_ wWw.rArook.oru VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK 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: 16 MAYWOOD AVE. Date of Submission: Parcel ID#: 135.75-1-30 Zone: R-5 Proposed Improvement(Describe in detail): APPLICANT CHECK LIST: MUST BE COMPLETED BY THE APPLICANT DECK EXTENSION The following items must be submitted to the Building Department by the applicant-no exceptions. 1. ( )Completed Application _ 2. ( )Two(2)sets of sealed plans. (one full size {maximum Property Owner: o 0.G a CL V_Li allowable plan size=36"x 42"} and one 1 I"x 17") / 3. ( )Two(2)copies of the property survey. Address: 1 G �-t L0 toll 4. ( )Two(2)copies of the proposed site plan. Phone# ej y- Y dr Ca 1 :1 2— 5. ( )One electronic/disc copy of the complete Applicant appearing before the Board: application materials. 6. ( )Filing Fee. 7. ( )Any supporting documentation. 8. ( )HOA approval letter. (ifapplicable) Address: 9. ( )Photographs. Phone# 10.( ) Samples of finishes/color chart. (a sample board or Architect/Engineer: DANIEL F. MAYET model may be presented the night of the meeting) Phone# 203-618-0053 /203-550-3540 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 Sworn to before me this day of /�f�Q!C�j , 20 r day of GI , 20� Signature of Property Owner signature of Applicant 0944 F 1`XI e S 5 IT o g-A G f- Print Name of Property Owner Print Name of Applicant Notary Public Notary Public Ili 3/21119 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BUILDING DEPARTMENT 938 KING STREET, RYE BROOK, NY 10573 (T) 939-0668 (F) 939-5801 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD Wednesday, July 21, 2021 NAME&LOCATION TYPE OF APPLICATION MOTION SECOND APPROVED REJECTED APPL.# 1 Lincoln Ave(Parr) Replace Wood Retaining Consent 5.209 Wall, w/Masonry Liberty Agenda Stone, & Walkway 15 High Point Circle Re-Do Existing Deck in Consent 5219 (Hashimoto) Trex, Railing & Stairs. Agenda Paver Patio on Grade 8 Fairlawn Pkwy Roof Top Solar Array Consent 5220 (Levin) Agenda 17 Eagles Bluff 4' High Open Picket Fence 5221 (Seguljic) Rear Yard 4 Belle-Fair Road 6'0" Fence In Rear Yard Consent 5222 (Kitchin) Agenda 20 Pine Ridge Road New Fence Consent 5223 (Bassuk) Agenda 39 Mohegan Lane Replacement of Bluestone Consent 5224 (Sheinheit) Walks In Kind Agenda 7 Ridge Blvd Amendment To Prior 5225 (Holleran) Approval omit window 16 Maywood Ave Rear Yard Deck 5226 (Robles) Expansion 17 Jeniffer Lane Above Ground Swimming 5227 (Dutra) Pool, Retaining Wall, Fence & Re-grade Yard 43 High point Circle Removed Old Existing 5228 (Goldman) Deck, To Build New Deck 8 Heirloom Lane New Rear Deck 5229 (Goldman) ML NM MR ,/r SE JM V SF AC N1 KC VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BUILDING DEPARTMENT 938 KING STREET, RYE BROOK, NY 10573 (T) 939-0668 (F) 939-5801 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD Wednesday, July 21, 2021 3 Edgewood Drive Exterior Projects, Deck 5230 (Feldberg) w/Stairs to Patio, Pergola, Outdoor Kitchen, Pond- less Water Feature 19 Beacon Lane Reconfigure Roof, New 5231 (Nebauer) Front Porch, & 2nd Floor Terrace 167 Country Ridge 1 Story Side In-Fill 5232 Drive (Hugon) Addition 11 Berkley Drive Rear 2nd Story Addition, 5233 (Signh/Gawtam) Rear Deck &patio. New Front Portico 19 Birch Lane In-Ground Pool, Turf 5234 (Jaccoma) Patio, Rear Yard Fire Pit 51 Country Ridge Dr Enlarge Existing Deck, 5235 (Wolf) Enlarge Existing Patio, New Front Walk 108 Old Orchard New Front Gable Roof, 5236 Road (Martino) Masonry Steps, Patio, Flagstone Walk& Cupola Over Garage. ML NM- , - MR SI JM SF AC M1 KC �• r r �.?�_..G._'_.`. -. two.. ... . ._- •.�..—,.R+�.w�r OD 16 • • , AVE ♦ • one 1 ''F� 1•. �4, a ��� �,.. 1 r 1 fl� . - 16 • • D AVE & RIGHT SIDE NEIGHBOR r � . �� 41 r� ilk ACROSS STREET NEIGHBOR IL O! - 71 MEN �� . Lu r - 44 REAR OF 16 MAYWOOD AVE. Laura Petersen From: Laura Petersen Sent: Friday, July 23, 2021 3:53 PM To: JORGEROBLES1978@YAHOO.COM Subject: Building Permit Application for the deck - 16 Maywood Avenue Good afternoon, The building permit application has been approved by the Building Inspector. Before I can issue the building permit the following items must be submitted to our office, I. General contractor's contact name & phone number. 2. Copy of general contractor's valid Westchester County Home Improvement License. 3. General contractor's valid liability insurance (the Village Of Rye Brook must be the certificate holder) 4. General contractor's valid workers compensation on a NY State Board form (C105-2 or U26.3) 5. Building permit fee $100.00 (due once permit is issued and ready for pick-up) 6. Contractor must call Dig Safe NY and get a ticket number. This information can be emailed to me. Thank you Laura Laura(Petersen Office Assistant Village of Rye Brook 938 King Street Rye Brook, New York 10573 Phone(914)939-0668 1 Fax(914)939-5801 1 Inetersen(&ryebrook.org 1 DECLARATIONS (Coverage afforded by this policy is I We will provide the 1provided by: I insurance described in I I this policy in return for the premium ISTATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY I and compliance with all applicable IPO BOX 8000 provisions of this policy. IBALLSTON SPA NY 12020 ----------------------------------------I 1 32-CM-U520-8 Policy Number IA Stock Company with Home Offices in I ---------------------------------------- IBloomington, Illinois. I Named Insured and Mailing Address ROBLES, JORGE F ------------------------------------- 16 MAYWOOD AVE RYE BROOK, NY 10573-2402 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Policy Period begins and ends at (Automatic Renewal - If the Policy 12:01 a.m. Standard Time at the residence (Period is shown as 12 months, this premises. (policy will be renewed auto- Imatically subject to the premiums, 10/03/2020 Effective Date Irules and forms in effect each 12months-Policy Period Isucceeding policy period. If this 10/03/2021 Expiration of Policy Period (policy is terminated, we will give ------------------------------------------- 1you and the Mortgagee/Lienholder Limit of Liability - section 1 (written notice in compliance with $ 373,300 Dwelling (Coverage A) Ithe policy provisions or as Irequired by law. I----------------------------------- IDeductibles - Section 1 $2000 Policy Type TALL LOSSES In case of loss under Homeowners Policy Ithis policy, the deductible will be Dwell Repl Cost - Similar Construction (applied per occurrence and will be Increase Dwlg Up to $74, 660 - Option ID Ideducted from the amount of the ------------------- -----Iloss. Other deductibles may apply Y PP Y Location of Premises I - refer to your policy. 16 MAYWOOD AVE I RYE BROOK, NY 10573-2402 15.00% HURR 18665 I------------------------------------ IPolicyPremium $1, 258.00 ------------- -_ - Forma, Options, G Endorsements --------------- HW-2132 HOMEOWNERS POL OPT JF J&F 2500/5000 LSP Al SMLR CONST-A LSP B1 LMT RPLC COST-B OPT ID COV A-INCR DWLG BOL10,A BLD ORD/LAW-10� HO-2687 WORKERS COMP HO-2689 HURRICANE DED HO-2727 CYBER/IDR HO-2439 ENGY EFF UPGRD --------------- Mortgagee ------------------------ FLAGSTAR BANK FSB I Agent Name & Address ISAOA/ATIMA I NAMY, DALILA D PO BOX 52198 1 150 S REGENT ST PHOENIX, AZ 85072-2198 1 PORT CHESTER, NY I 10573-3569 (914)481-8989 I Loan Number: 0440611390 1 I ----------------------------------Prepared: December O1, 2020 ---"--'-" 9D66 559-916.5 Agent's Code MORTGAGEE COPY PREMIUM NOTICE STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANIES AGENT ISSUED DECLARATIONS --------------------------------------------------------------- I POLICY NUMBER I BILLING PERIOD I AGENT CODE I 132-CM-U520-8 I FROM 10/03/2020 1 TO 10/03/2021 1 9D66 I -------------------------------------------------------------- LOCATION 16 MAYWOOD AVE RYE BROOK, NY 10573-2402 INSURED PREMIUM $ 1,258.00 ROBLES, JORGE F 16 MAYWOOD AVE AMOUNT PAID $ 1, 258.00 RYE BROOK, NY 10573-2402 AMOUNT DUE $ .00 DATE DUE MORTGAGEE AGENT NAME & ADDRESS FLAGSTAR BANK FSB NAMY, DALILA D ISAOA/ATIMA 150 S REGENT ST PO BOX 52198 PORT CHESTER, NY PHOENIX, AZ 85072-2198 10573-3569 (914)481-8989 Loan Number: 0440611390 STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANIES PO Box 588002 North Metro, GA 30029-8002 Affidavit of Exemption to Show Specific Proof of Workers' Compensation Insurance Coverage for a 1, 2, 3 or 4 Family, Owner-occupied Residence **771iis form carrot be used to►taive the itorkers'compensation rights to oblipairrits of ary party,.*" Under penalty of perjury, I certify that I am the owner of the 1, 2, 3 or 4 family, owner-occupied residence (including condominiums) listed on the building permit that I am applying for, and I am not required to show specific proof of workers' compensation insurance coverage for such residence because (please check the approp `ate box): I am performing all the work for which the building permit was issued. ❑ I am not hiring,paying or compensating in any way,the individual(s)that is(are)performing all the work for which the building permit was issued or helping me perform such work. ❑ I have a homeowners insurance policy that is currently in effect and covers the property listed on the attached building permit AND am hiring or paying individuals a total of less than 40 hours per week (aggregate hours for all paid individuals on the jobsite)for which the building permit was issued. I also agree to either: ♦ acquire appropriate workers' compensation coverage and provide appropriate proof of that coverage on forms approved by the Chair of the NYS Workers' Compensation Board to the government entity issuing the building permit if I need to hire or pay individuals a total of 40 hours or more per week(aggregate hours for all paid individuals on the jobsite)for work indicated on the building permit,or if appropriate,file a CE- 200 exemption form, OR ♦ have the general contractor, performing the work on the 1, 2, 3 or 4 family, owner-occupied residence (including condominiums)listed on the building permit that I am applying for,provide appropriate proof of workers' compensation coverage or proof of exemption from that coverage on forms approved by the Chair of the NYS Workers' Compensation Board to the government entity issuing the building permit if the project takes a total of 40 hours or more per week(aggregate hours for all paid individuals on the jobsite)for work indicated on the building permit. (Signature of Homeowner) (Date Signed) Home Telephone Number (Homeowners Name Printed) Sworn to ieforo aye this jay of Property Address that requires the building permit: ounry er or Notary pap&M7- et N p }f SHARI MELILLO Notary public,State of Newyork No.01 ME6160063 Qvallfled in Westchester County Once notarized,this BP-1 form serves as an exemption for both workers'compensation and disability benefits inwramm mverant BP-1 (12/08) NY-WCB Ticket: 07301-001-101-00 Type: Regular Previous Ticket: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ State: NY County: WE5TCHESTER Place: RYE BROOK Addr: From: 16 To: Name: MAYWOOD AVE Cross: From: To: Name: Offset: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Locate: ENTIRE PROPERTY NearSt: N RIDGE ST Means of Excavation: SHOVEL Blasting: N Site marked with white: N Boring/Directional Drilling: N Within 25ft of Edge of Road: N Work Type: HAND Estimated Work Complete Date: 08/25/2021 Depth of excavation: Site dimensions: Start Date and Time: 08/04/2021 07:00 Must Start By: 08/18/2021 --------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- Contact Name: TARA GERARDI Company: Addrl: 16 MAYWOOD AVENUE Addr2: City: RYE BROOK State: NY Zip: 10573 Phone: 914-939-0668 Fax: Email: tgerardi@ryebrook.org Field Contact: TARA GERARDI Alt Phone: 914-939-0668 Working for: WORK TO BE PERFORMED BY: JORGE ROBLES (HOMEOWNER) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Comments: CALLER ADVISED TO HAVE CONTRACTOR CALL DIG SAFELY NEW YORK : Lookup Type: PARCEL ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Members: ALTICE USA 800-262-8600 CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NY 800-762-0592 x3 SUEZ WATER WE5TCHESTER 800-262-8600 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK 914-939-0753 WESTCHESTER COUNTY SEWER 914-813-5419 LO to E U) 4—< cr 0 W F z w W < L E 3:r: LD F- Z CD w > Z a M �0, co 0 m.r-:E 0 C:)u .2 46 a)— W, a L�-0 0 5 >, —w WZS <100 'co Cc W F-j Z(a A o S O H <C) '. w 2 C= z 0:5 W. C; D C W4 C� w N lit di 0 —a, r T-0 z At,4 o F--Z6 2 cc 0 0 C.2 Lc. 6 CL Ix -q;CO .0 w >-C)LLJ z U) >- 0)Z ZZU)cb<o z HI w 190d vxY -V CO o 0 7 M wo -J LLI < CL a:m J 11 5-i 1 :)< LU 0 WAR MLUM > e CU>j �4 tv CC 0- LU 1908 kxq Wu u u Lj- TWAVA I-wmIGDG P a tx LL u u u 7.. LU LU M4 monvGNnoi cslxa 0 z ---------- ---------- ------------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- NOTIVaNno,4 i! z 00 z ----- -- Lq ........---- t'u z a z is Lu=. -Z u 10 --- ------ "q a t; 0 LIJ --- ------ --- --- - ------ ------------- ----- -- I f). CL F ------ ----- -1 — — --- 0 8000 uooa Ao uaimo C woa-,0 M21N93 C) 1 ------- - -- - LLJ n LLJ E-4 -4 ------- - -- - e,e w I Iz -------- ce CL 1z 09 ce 6 z 22 0 0 N g "� 0 ce w 00 ------ -------- ----------- LL II NI -------------------- ------------- u ------------ V4.0-S LLJ 9 ' —1 zi I'A LU ----------- u LL. :�-� LU C) 0� to; 0�� ry LLJ 8 0". .0 LLJ< u ------------- Cie !o r4 --a, Y F- ��S n o z L! Q. Lo (D N D o� 0 a H- -0 w LLJ ,00 O ° Z Q ( © ory XW 0 c'�� S r-- (� N A LL o w.72 o o' >, 00 � N O d' � O -� to NN V O WZ O = c 0 w w os Z �.` w �.� v > O � � d- N l J a� U . N L JD a) a) w C: T w N •- U) N CN r7 N r— > N ' w 4-J O v U 1 w Z o _j O > w O c Q1 o � �zz � � � � � o � o cn o co LL- cn aOuaj POOH 10 w O •M W O o w '^ 0 p 1 0 �� 0 c� � 0 Z v O �Li 0) .01 Z _ �t _0 W L. �- 4-1 .01 LL- Cnc4) o � o v 3 Z N o- O "'4) � � 3 V ��• Ln O r� m O �[ �• 0 J ,^ y w O N l0 0 )01 LLJ v? w W �- w U 0 c o Q •-z � U) , ° a� w -� N co Z :�, o � w ' o U rn rn .�t f I aOuaj lull UID40 0 >°, o c Q w 1. O O A 00 aO ua� POOH w o o.c � �- ° L 6 l L l m « � w 006��zL S �' ' >- cn c - > .o 0 o C Q ° 0 •-- Z to � c CL Q t^ Q O vJ -0 0 Q 0 a� v ° o N Q a) T- .N .Z J L. U -0 0P ° pc O CY) p 0 o U p T-- >- c c W m �ZZ aw w c ai 05 O 0