HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA21-018 RECEIVED
VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK
JUL - 7 2021 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
VILLAGE CLERK'S OFFICE 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, reconfiguration of the front entrance roadway and
new chip and putt greens at the Blind Brook Club Inc., at 980 Anderson Hill Road.
Dated:July 6, 2021
Donald Moscato
Mr. Don Moscato, Chairman
Mr. Moscato called the roll:
Steven Berger Voting: Aye
Glenn Brettschneider Voting: Excused
Jamie Schutzer Voting: Aye
Joel Simon Voting: Excused
Don Moscato Voting: Aye
3 Ayes
0 Nays
2 Excused
RECEIVED
JUL - 7 2021
VILLAGE CLERK'S OFFICE
VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
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") §§ 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
-1-
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 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 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
1 It was later determined that the portion of Anderson Hill Road at issue is not a County Road and
instead is a Village Road.
-2-
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 § 209-2.13 entitled "Construction Management Plan." Pursuant to
Village Code § 209-2.13, 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
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.
-3-
(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 ("ZBA"). Due to
public health and safety concerns related to the COVID-19 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:
-4-
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 Monme, 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 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
-5-
inconvenient, unreasonable or absurd result. N.Y. Statutes §§142, 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
-6-
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.
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 § 209-2.13, 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
-7-
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 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 § 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.
-8-
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 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
-9-
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 § 209-2.13 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.
Dated: July 6, 2021
Donald Moscato
Mr. Don Moscato, Chairman
-10-
��yyJDAy �•
W
. 19
=t tit fit.
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,acbrook.ore
TRUSTEES BUILDING&FIRE
Susan R.Epstein INSPECTOR
Stephanie J.Fischer Aiichad J.Izzo
David M.Heiser
Jason A.Klein
NOTICE OF HEARING ON APPLICATION
Aotice is hereby given that the undersigned has filed an application to appear before the Zoning Board of Appeals of
the Village of Rye Brook.
Application#21-018
Applicants:
Stuart Sindell&Marcia Sindell,27 Carol Court,Rye Brook,New York 10573
Joseph Abbe,29 Carol Court,Rye Brook,New York 10573
The applicants named above have filed an application with the Zoning Board of Appeals pursuant to Village Code§250-
13.G(4) to reverse the Building Inspector's determination to grant Building Permit #21-054 issued on 3/22/2021
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
[fill Road,Rye Brook,New York,designated and shown on the most current Tax Map as Parcel ID #129.58-1-1.
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 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
provided via email before and during the meeting to Michael Izzo, Village Building Inspector, at
mizzona.iyebrook.otg. 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: C7-L3-ZWZ1 C'11<_
Christopher J. Bradbury,VW Clerk
p CC EWE
MAY - 5 2021
MOSS & KALISH , PLLC
COUNSELLORS AT LAW VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK
122 EAST 42ND STREET BUILDING DEPARTMENT
MARK L.KALISH NEW Y O R K, NY 1 0 1 6 8-0 0 9 8 NASSAU OFFICE
GARY N.MOSS 500 OLD COUNTY,SUITE 206
DAVID B.GELFARB* --- GARDEN CITY,NY 11530
--- TELEPHONE: (212) 867-4488 ---
.LAMES SCHWARTZMAN T E L E C O P I E R: (2 1 2) 9 8 3-5 2 7 6 writer's e-mail:
'ALSO ADIA RED IN NEW JERSEY E-MAIL: LAWYERS @ M O S S K A L I S H.C O M gelfarb@mosskalish.com
May 4, 2021
Honorable Chairman Donald Moscato
and Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals
Village of Rye Brook
938 King Street
Rye Brook,New York 10573
Re: Appeal of Building Permit#21-054
The Blind Brook Club, Inc.
980 Anderson Hill Road Rye Brook,NY 10573
Parcel ID No. 129.58-1-1
Dear Honorable Chairman Moscato and Members of the Board:
This office represents Mr. Stuart Sindell and Ms. Marcia Sindell (the "Sindells"), who reside
at 27 Carol Court, Rye Brook, New York 10573 and Mr. Joseph Abbe, who resides at 29 Carol
Court, Rye Brook, New York 10573 (collectively, the "Applicants"), with respect to their
application to the Zoning Board of Appeals for an order directing the vacating of Building
Permit No. 21-054. The Building Permit was issued with respect to proposed construction at the
Blind Brook Club, including the construction of a new golf building, the widening and
modification of the driveway accessing Anderson Hill Road and the construction of new
chipping and putting greens.
The Applicants request that the Board direct the Village Building Inspector to vacate the
Building Permit on the ground that it was improperly issued in contravention of the applicable
law, including the Village Code. Specifically, the Club failed to provide a Construction
Management Plan to the Club and to obtain a required permit from the Westchester County
Department of Public Works.
In connection therewith, enclosed please find the following documents:
a. Application to the Zoning Board of Appeals;
b. Memorandum in Support with applicable exhibits; and
c. Check for $1,350 payable to "Village of Rye Brook" in payment of the required
application fee and escrow fee.
Honorable Chairman Donald Moscato
May 4, 2021
Page 2
I will confer with Village Counsel regarding the Notice Requirements for this matter,
particularly a public notice sign, given that the Applicants are not the owners of the subject
property.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter. We look forward to this matter being heard
at the Board's June, 2021 meeting. If you have any questions or require any additional
documentation, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
David B. Gelfarb
cc: Mr. Michael Izzo, Village of Rye Brook Building & Fire Inspector
Rye Brook Planning Board
Mr. and Mrs. Stuart Sindell
Mr. Joseph Abbe
BUILDII�I "iiTMENT V
VILL F RV OOK MAY _ 5 2021
KING ST
RY OOK,NY 3 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK
PHONE (914)9 14) 939-5801 BUILDING DEPARTMENT
ww .org
APPLICATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Application Fee: $350.00 ( paid • Escrow Fee: $1,000.00 (✓aid Date: S 1(0I a0a
Subject Property:980 Anderson Hill Road Parcel ID#:129.58-1-1_Zone: R-35
Property Owner:Blind Brook Club Address:980 Anderson Hill Road,Rye Brook,NY 10573
Phone#914 939 1450 Cell#: email:bcampbell(iWindbrookclub.org
Applicant: Stuart Sindell,Marcia Sindell,Joseph Abbe Address: 27 Carol Court,Rye Brook,NY 10573
Phone#: Cell#: 203-912-8813 email: sindell@optonline.net
Attorney/Agent: David B.Gelfarb,Esq. Address: Moss&Kalish,PLLC 122 E.42°d Street Ste.2100 New York,NY 10168
Phone#:212-867-4488 Cell#:917 817 8046 email: Qelfarb(i�mosskalishxom
The applicant named herein does hereby request an appeal from the decision made by the Building Inspector on
an appheatien dated , 2021_, whereby the Building Inspector did: Grant: ( x)/Deny: ( )
the applicant a permit dated March 22, 2021 for a new Golf Learning Center. This is an appeal of Building
Permit No. 21-054 to allow the construction of the Golf Learning Center.
1. Type of Appeal: ( )Variance to the Zoning Ordinance ( )Interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance
( ) Certification for Continuation of a Nonconforming Use ( ) Permit for Occupancy
( ) Permit for Use (x) Other-Issuance of Building Permit
2. This application relates to: ( )Use ( )Area ( )Height ( )Setback ( x )Other:
In connection with: (x )A Proposed Building ( )An Existing Building
3. Previous Appeal(s); ( )Have ( x)Have Not been made with respect to this particular decision of the
Building Inspector, and ( )Have (x )Have Not been made with respect to any other previous
decision(s)made by the Building Inspector regarding the subject property.
List All Previous Zoning Appeals Either Granted or Denied Concerning the Subiect Property
a. A requested variance was( )Granted/( )Denied on application# dated, for,
b. A requested variance was ( )Granted/( )Denied on application# dated, for,
c. A requested variance was ( )Granted/( )Denied on application# dated, for,
1 (Use additional sheets if necessary)
3/21/19
4. Alteration:
If work constitutes an alteration or extension to an existing building, describe briefly:
5. Construction Cost: What is the estimated cost of the proposed work? $562,000
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:
B. An Order vacating Building Permit is requested because:
See Memorandum Submitted Herewith.
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: §
Zoning Requirement:
Proposed Work:
Requested Variance:
II.Section of Rye Brook Code: §
Zoning Requirement:
Proposed Work:
Requested Variance:
IH.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:
( ) Letter of Disapproval
( ) Properly Completed & Signed Original Zoning Variance Application
( ) Two (2) Sets of Sealed Plans
(x ) Non-refundable Application Fee of$350.00
(x ) Escrow Account Fee of$1,000.00
( ) Provisions of any deeds, covenants, easements or restrictions affecting the kind of improvements
allowed or prohibited upon the premises.
( ) Notarized Mailer& Sign Affidavits, Area Map &Public Notification List
(Please note that the notarized affidavits must be received by the Building Department by no later than the
Thursday prior to the scheduled zoning hearing)
***********************************************************************************************************
This application must include the notarized signature(s) of the applicant of record as well that
of the legal owner(s) of the subject property in the spaces provided below. Any application not
properly signed shall be deemed null and void and will be returned to the applicant.
STATE OF NEW YORK,COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER ) as:
David B. Gelfarb ,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 he is the legal owner of the property to which this application pertains, or that (s)he is the
attorney for the applicants 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 Sworn to before me this 41
day of , 20 day of May, 2021
FREDRICK A. BECKER
Notary Public, State of New York
No.02BE4766691
o,wified in New York County
Notary Public Commission Expires Aug.31,20,f( No ublic
061
/ r
Signature of Property Owner Signature of Applicant
David B. Gelfarb
Print Name of Property Owner Print Name of Attorney for Applicants
4
3/21/19
STATE OF NEW YORK: COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER
VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
In the Matter of the Application of STUART SINDELL,
MARCIA SINDELL and JOSEPH ABBE, Applicants
Property Parcel ID number: 129.58-1-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR REVOCATION OF
BUILDING PERMIT NUMBER 21-054 WITH RESPECT
TO PROPERTY LOCATED 980 ANDERSON HILL ROAD
Introduction
Stuart Sindell and Marcia Sindell, who reside at 27 Carol Court, Rye Brook, and Joseph
Abbe, who resides at 29 Carol Court, Rye Brook (collectively, the "Applicants"), respectfully
submit this memorandum in support of their application to the Zoning Board of Appeals for an
order vacating Building Permit Number 21-054(the"Building Permit"). The Building Permit was
issued to the Blind Brook Club("Club")in connection with the construction of a new golf learning
center("Golf Building"), the widening and modification of the driveway leading to Anderson Hill
Road and the installation of new chipping and putting greens at 980 Anderson Hill Road, Rye
Brook, Ne York ("Club Property) . A copy of the Building Permit is annexed hereto as Exhibit
461.59
The Building Permit was improperly issued on March 22, 2021, and hence, work is being
performed on the Club Property in violation of the Village Code and to the detriment of the
Applicants' property which abut the Club Property. As detailed herein, the Village Code requires
that the Building Inspector and the Superintendent of Public Works/Village Engineer review and
approve a Construction Management Plan ("CMP") prior to issuance of the Building Permit. No
CMP was filed with the site plan application, or, for that matter, at any time prior to the issuance
of the Building Permit. Further, pursuant to the Planning Board resolution attached hereto as
Exhibit "2" (the "PB Resolution"), the Building Permit could not be issued until the Building
Inspector was in receipt of the Westchester County Department of Public Works' permit allowing
the widening of the Club's driveway with access to Anderson Hill Road. The Building Permit file
does not show that such County permit was ever issued. Accordingly, as is more particularly set
forth herein, this Board should direct that the Building Permit be vacated immediately.
The within application to the Zoning Board of Appeals is taken within sixty days of the
issuance of the Building Permit. Accordingly, it is timely pursuant to Village Law §7-712-a(5)(b),
which provides that "[a]n appeal shall be taken within sixty days after the filing of any order,
requirement, decision, interpretation or determination of the administrative official. . . ."
Jurisdiction and Standard of Review
The Zoning Board of Appeals has the power and authority to hear this application and to
vacate the Building Permit. The Board's appellate authority extends to "hearing and deciding
appeals from and reviewing any order, requirement, decision, interpretation, or determination
made by the administrative official charged with the enforcement of any local law adopted
pursuant to this article. Such appeal may be taken by any person aggrieved . . . ." Village Law §7-
712-a(4).
Further, pursuant to Village Law §7-712-b(1):
The Board may reverse or affirm, wholly or partly, or may modify the order, requirement,
decision, interpretation or detennination appealed from and shall make such order,
requirement, decision, interpretation or determination as in its opinion ought to have been
made in the matter by the administrative official charged with the enforcement of such
local law and to that end shall have all the powers of the administrative official from whose
order, requirement, decision, interpretation or determination the appeal is taken.
Similarly, pursuant to Village of Rye Brook Code §250-13(4), the
"Zoning Board of Appeals may reverse, affinn, or modify, in whole or in part, the order,
requirement, decision or determination made by the building inspector or administrative official
2
charged with the enforcement of this chapter and appealed from and
the Zoning Board of Appeals shall make such order, requirement, decision or determination and
have all the powers of the building inspector or administrative official from whose order,
requirement, decision or determination the appeal is taken."
In the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, the function of a Zoning Board of Appeals is
not merely to decide whether enforcement officer's action was "`arbitrary and capricious" but,
rather, it must conduct a de novo review "on the merits." Cerame v, Town of Perinton, 6 A.D.3d
1091, 1092, 776 N.Y.S.2d 660, 661 (41h Dept. 2004) (citing language in Town Law §267-b(1)that
is identical to language as Village Law §7-712-b(1), supra); see also Anagnos v. Lesica, 134
A.D.2d 425, 426, 521 N.Y.S.2d 47, 48 (2°d Dept. 1987) (Zoning Board of Appeals empowered to
hear appeal of grant of building permit by Zoning Enforcement Officer).
Factual Background
The Applicants live in the Enclave at Rye Brook, a development of 30 homes in Rye Brook
bordered by Anderson Hill Road and King Street and adjacent to the Club Property. On April 15,
2021, the Applicants wrote to the Village Board of Trustees and Mr. Michael Izzo, the Village
Building Inspector,expressing their concerns about the proposed construction of the Golf Learning
Center. The April 151h letter, a copy of which is annexed hereto as Exhibit"3," sets forth in detail
the history of two separate applications made by the Club for site plan approval.
The first application (the "First Site Plan Application") was for, among other matters,
"reworking of the fairway and greens,upgrades to the irrigation drainage systems,the development
of groundwater sources for irrigation to reduce reliance on public water, and additions to the
clubhouse's patio and terrace."The First Site Plan Application did not mention the Golf Building.
Ultimately, the Village Board approved the amended site plan, subject to numerous conditions,
3
pursuant to a resolution, dated March 24, 2020. On April 9, 2020, the Planning Board granted a
wetlands permit and a steep slope permit, in connection with the First Site Plan Application,
subject to certain conditions.
On October 21, 2020, the Club submitted a second application for site plan amendment and
an application for a wetlands permit (the "Second Site Plan Application"). In essence, the Club
sought approval to: a) reconfigure the front entrance by widening the driveway to the Club by 24
feet; b) construct new practice chipping and putting area; and c) most significantly, construct the
Golf Building.
The Golf Building is an approximately 1,800 square feet building more than 22 feet in height.
It is to be located 249.09 feet from the side property line of the Enclave,where Applicants' homes
are located.
On December 20, 2020, the Planning Board issued site plan approval with respect to the
Second Site Plan Application, along with a wetland permit for the purpose of converting a portion
of the Club Property to practice and putting greens, shifting the location of the driveway, and
constructing the Golf Building.
The PB Resolution (Exhibit "2")provides, in the third decretal paragraph, that:
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 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.
A review of the RB Docs website does not indicate that the County Department of Public
Works ever issued a permit for widening of the driveway of the Club. Nor does it show that the
Club provided the required intersection sight distance for the modified driveway to the Village.
4
On January 21, 2021, the Architectural Review Board issued an approval with respect to the
work sought to be performed in the Second Site Plan Application (the Building Permit states, in
part, "Other Approvals Architectural Review Board 1/21/2021"). On March 22, 2021, the
Building Inspector issued the Building Permit.
The Buildinp.Permit was Improperly Issued and Must be Vacated
Village of Rye Brook Code §209-2(B)provides as follows:
Construction management plan. 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 (CMP), unless the Planning Board or
Village Board of Trustees, as applicable, waives the CMP requirement. 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 WorksNillage
Engineer, prior to the issuance of any permit for the project. [Emphasis added].
(1) The CMP shall 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.
Accordingly, the Club was required to prepare a CMP, unless the requirement was waived.
There is no record of a CMP in the file. Furthermore, there is no record of the Planning Board, in
the PB Resolution, having ever waived the CMP requirement. Thus, the Building Inspector and
5
the Superintendent of Public Works/Village Engineer did not review and approve any CMP, as is
required by the Village Code.
Pursuant to the Village Code,the Club was required to provide a CMP containing: (i)a project
schedule; (ii) location on the site of loading/unloading areas, material storage areas, portable
toilets, dumpsters, fencing, etc.; and (iii) traffic control plan and staging areas. This document
would, among other purposes, help to mitigate the adverse impacts from construction activities
including in connection with the construction of the Golf Building. Without the CMP,the site has
no control measures that the Village Building Inspector can regulate and enforce.
Indeed, the photo annexed hereto as Exhibit"4," 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 any regard for staging areas, as is required in a CMP. Given that the Applicants' homes
border the Club property, all of these issues have a significant impact on the Applicants.
The Club not only failed to submit a CMP for approval by the Building Inspector and the
Superintendent of Public Works/Village Engineer. The Club also failed, as was mandated by the
PB Resolution, to secure the necessary permit from Westchester County Department of Public
Works regarding the widening of the driveway accessing Anderson Hill Road. Moreover, the PB
Resolution also states that "[a]s part of the application to the Westchester County Department of
Public Works, the Application shall provide to the Village and to the County the required
intersection sight distance (ISD) for the modified driveway."
The furnishing and evaluation of adequate intersection sight distance is important because
when motorists departing the Club approach the intersection of the Club driveway and Anderson
Hill Road, obstructions such as trees and fences may block their view of oncoming vehicles. In
turn, inadequate sight distance can lead to motorists to edge out into the intersection, increasing
6
the risk of motor vehicle accidents. Given these safety concerns, the Club should have provided
the adequate sight distances and obtained the necessary permit from Westchester County.
The Building Inspector does not have the authority to waive the requirement of a CMP or
the permit from Westchester County Department of Public Works and therefore should not have
issued the Building Permit. Accordingly, this Board should direct that the Building Permit be
vacated and that the Club should be directed to provide the necessary documentation to the various
agencies and follow the procedures set forth in the Village Code in order to provide the proper
safeguards for the community.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, Applicants respectfully requests that the Zoning Board of Appeals
vacate Building Permit No. 21-054 and grant Applicants such other and further relief as the Board
shall deem just and proper.
Dated: New York, New York
May 4, 2021
Respectfully submitted,
MOSS & KALISH, PLLC
By: 3.
David . Gelfarb
Gelfarb@mosskalish.com
Attorneys for Applicants Stuart Sindell,
Marcia Sindell and Joseph Abbe
122 E. 42nd Street Ste. 2100
New York, New York 10168
(212) 867-4488
Exhibit 1
to
O
M M fT �./ pC � � Cad '� ■
u016
06
€ F
m
H
i �/
gz co
I�1 cooM U � W o V �
CDs zz ONz
z U 9 El 0
■ u A o E-, w A d U a 4 0 s 0 n .- �••.. w
00 Mil u z � W a p � � w �'1 c �. � N r7
�] M W r.� V U " O IL a0C
9 a z >
v► U p N , NNE
Z C4 Z z a o I 's a
\ � O � �i •• � � I M ram.
o � -
a
aanw F+y Z (� C V U G d � > � E E H
, N H 7
� 5 Z 0 a W Q � < = o a s
a V ., o a z a = ° cc <
5
"� p W W > > '-
W LL �
>
d
4G4 tots 441V14444444444446444644t 49 9 Cm em 9 4444 4641414499499
Oz
111 : !1
a dui
J o I-• �j CL �iT, M LJ c u u S
al
A •T
•L ' �• I� ` w � L V l
Z C� � '� � (�� Q� s 7 � •• �i ��a I x c � E E,� JT`
Q O N vi
c O;Ag I � � Z s.n U 0
La
gr
N Qob
Nl 41
•�Nni qua S
9 OE
p a a a t a i'n
n • �p `G n < p < ..
V1T,^Y71 �L • .r a Q m a N O Q . ,
. 11 r
Q
o. 0
v
o ��
b �E __$
-S
x rn� m mR E
a
in
41
o m rn
J e tOIN 66
0o Q m � E
8 w e e o � $� �� ss �� a as a F.8
G m c _$p o Ci
0 » ;i 0 w rn � » 0) a ro
cti �a Z 8 y�E Eta o LL a U. a LL � E
c
u CO m
p � w
AO > < ~Q b ? 9 �n �n w i o . m �,
$ �LD
�a o �o �o �Zo �o rio ..o ..w w .. ..
_
o ; LL o o W gx u mv� wcn l w I Cl) Mtn Mtn 0`n 0� �N O * -yJJ--
•'� Q » O N t¢ 3 M LL LL LL LL LL ILL U. U. U. cj
W x to Cp C) I °° O �FF W�5 p Z
J 0 7 Co N N w W �b fi � d v f� •
8 E
m b LL n u u v.Y o wo a 0 w 0 ui ui ui �O
qq m
�o �Zo �o �o �o rz`� Rio �Zc
rt Y r = O Oy OV Oy Oy O� Oy Ow Oy Oy
O N U �•` m p, LL LL U. LL LL LL LL U. U. LL
rua O °--
O ' 2 }
X 4,i -M O w w
LL
w ¢ w a WLL g
¢ co a c LU
_ Q
E
-Q
E w rr, � y Q c u Eo v ra p
3 7 3 F e Y A o = 4 W
O # N
ape �C u O P A c : A L c r'I I^ i yy� Q m 2' N U ♦ A C L 'O�J C U E �1
e a_ . ` rip
n a m : N $°
m� U XIo� wa� : t NEr q7€, vi v Z z
O � } 24.
O p ~
C
V M u �_ ..S 2 M N O_V • `V' L V d �n O J�
o U a C'p
Z. or
> $ C > E c A a
L'a m u o 3 i M t w
D 4 C O ti a .4 g w yy ud m c : p G g v c
_>1 L C _ C
^ � , g� � � �•'i!L mm � V a ti c ^ : _ $ L Y �i VU {N�Lu_€
d w
A � N w a C t� A O_ w � j �y � m L p O u ♦ U y O
ZIF
o
= C_
c • r :_ u` �' SS_ s«
c�tD �3-3 o m W : O r-. M 5
A u L O.Q` U ,M,.w. � Q
Z < :) A
aL g� = u W c ti b8 o y " U o m a ; c
�t td W r.
3 3w 3 0� 3g 3C `E z w adov OSa�Zt - D `e
of o m p>� • .t E off' E m�' E `o o M _
L Y O L C • H S t 0 $_ w
HJ = am • ar f- A A� to v IF
a
N
LU
LU
0ia� �� } Zoe 8
Sao mI iai p
rrw�r I HIMe
� ,I��� o zI HIM
rw•o.ta•rrrr6..
.r..•w•. Q er+ t €
0 6
rn
J J R b
=Y�>�
�5
I
z
E
�•t W 3 is
3 — - d N O S!y@ #!!
rr e�
a Be
M4 a b [[ gR I
KIP 9p ; ';jq ' y ;a I � i �€
t� pa l8 � 3� R ' k 5� � Fb !` W �p !It. `P! NO
R° !
�tJ � 3 L L R ! e • 3 e
Qi �G °
Z J —1 ZR �� �{ 'gg � ! EYE 5 ` 9g@ � plfi
Q w Y 2 Y d N � Ri� afRb t@ffi eF�
Q 000
Cc CD
N l �9 e�iEi@� ■ � cEQ ■ ■sa4 ° :�■E5l ■� e8g ■ t: L? & ■ ■i .0
0 � cr OCR 5 E
fY] tb L.L N
z w 0 LLJ LV � � `pp �y qi �6ga d!a ` fa 4 ! ° �•� �R �
2 > Z cr} l.16 L!!p SR � iEE ! f3ip 9 � Rgg PR ! e p 'aea
U J Q Cn @� 1 4 R ! � W to b � tl YTia it, v> JR
CEJ — b � �@� g�� � W � b� �p � �@ ���g,� � y■� �i
W 00 ! @@ aR S � �j its mr ! a
� a;� a�� a� �ig�� ��� '� :�• I, � 6�■a� � � p���te
rn 2 R � b i• �" � 7! Wi♦ �! ! EE'�R L K,� R �tl
! b b Ei W W° ■ i 3W
fill $a� ig[Y� Y ' €
W I� L �; !'1 S Sa g
"Im lilt! ; f �f I !
EpEii r.�e�
i�{FFtF � i 1• a ,1 Ft { 1➢ � '� �. ��{F- Ia !•E � � f➢ � f i dilli�{4{!�! it€Oi6k:{�!{�riaE!!S Edlii3fi� � �lEi!li�fl���iit6l�iP►�dt>�ailri 1i4
',!l.lA.F■terli e l ti.F.aiaaets.iru,•i :B➢iFyiiea:u....uei,iEE�E�fttt[,Iv..-atk•sr•a.,t [a atdiar...,F tlElrr.rtlrcnb �"may�V /' '_ !N
1��Ni1al.11ila i€S.E{�tE{➢!��i{.�°F€E,;F gF 9�!if Efi�I!tl i!.tl Elca�l 9 {tl!,k1{itl�l Al f°t dl,iiiiilild�lE�1{ i � 13s FiEs{Ifc6c►Ei S!ai;��In � `: 1 Q � o '
�
!!FSle,,,.eR■.trtw,FtH➢1•ut.nS) r�eFla1°c ... Fa, ett,tfee.:ee➢L•�!! ,.glittlphiiliFEPE.r1aFFEnli .rd➢l.rs InelrUi,l�a.lellFd�l � � ip
1pF_
➢ �� fp I i➢Ef11 t Itf FI Ilc 1lp� t E° tln.}1 {E➢2ti1l,aF i z
Iea��$II�,.i6 i�i 111;t1141 EfiS lill�y i11 �I I ��Eii� �i€ai€ s�� EciNlip� �i h� 3Ell!! tN`::�l4.Ep{osC{Ipt€��.3.co
CD
_ ,a
„rt•.➢FUNr°.F.�i6 Ipr■1[I,utill 6eEt66t61eaaFtlaleieletlax4M�EEelESaasEE ie.lililAlruti,llw IlsYlet�I•S:3tetar!!.lttE!.!!?tFF:eV11.1t ! 4
1 T
LU
ZS • 0Q 4 .• Y !V> ZZS g
� ow
o m< j �.
F R j
ill
d
_ _ r i•
I ��•-xl
1
I I
I 1
I 1
' I I
I I I 1
1 • 1 1 �•/
1 I I
1 I I
j I I y
j 1 �
iEmb
I g
r I
I
� b
1 4 E
• r r O 6
® if;Yi s 7 =, !sW
i1ll -0
/
Liz,
�
yww¢ Y • .1,,
�b
d��;lfEa�ail�F� !t gef�8ds ►�o
� 11E��1f1E1�1d Il16d6f�11 �t�ti�a•ti���
sJl j Iae �
f�il���i'9a { I Ife•xl�f a•� � � � - ���
� I 1� t-� � ®f�3•y•
K $38.63.301E
c a•i f
Q �! � __�q t t RE• V. •QJ
a�t ' �C �' I� t1 •, �1st1 Id1 p6
H oil
" j • t Yi � be QEiI����
! - -' -� � •del + t, `� • � t t
t' g
ID' III!! fit_
oi
IU
r E
x �
2 � s �tad ii � • -
I�
n ; h iI i
� d Q
{
�,�1111
i
! ( �id
d tt ! 4 E '�• i EE f• � a lE d �$6 � ��� i
gip i i d
' tp a;�fe ���5s�.•�� �75i�' E� 19iZr ii1' �id o € i ii��l 9i aelar i `dd a �ea
ja 041ia 1 1 ;a f° sf ia: ;! t At
fi
yt�
is Ea isae.a °°� ➢ °„ il� ala i a i b dd ,1 9 E fi�
� i'
Hi
it
—
,� di i t
.^•,�,�. lit
Y m
z
dlliii�i g '�
R e
a all
'gym b
ti �v
_ o
Mi
U to 4 d e 3 a
Qu al ms� g y,�a: gar• 1 -�:/ =W oww m<
S
Boo 1 CL
1 a• 6
_--------- 111_-_--__- (9
♦ j5� 3
i i J.
I I I eyQ� f■p�1�yp� ��I 1��
I I I I I
I I
I I 3
I I I I I C
I 1 I I
-------------- =------------
e`� a � o
Fpbl
F11g
I I
I I
I I I I :. Ij
gill I I 3 R
ni
---
.va
a �
y e6 �
.0
gilKit
F �
LIJ
Ou t _
-------------
I MIT ,
-----L Hall
log 1
C�
R $ g
En
Sb
Ins 3MR
131 1
L � 7
Y �a{
O _
�0) 4 L
J
N
Wj i E Z Ja� O
�
Y
_ 1 s
OU co
ow LU
ui
jig
m aC
r--- -- ^_ --- ---------------- li f G
p �
I 33 i■
I
I
I
1
I C Y
I ` SEBppg
ILLS Y !
6
8 fa
4� � P
I
� g jib E ;
g
4 1 l
i
9 6F6E 6 Y
O
le
Wes! w G �2 8w� °X gill
.f��1 i Q Z g Q
�l o y' 6 ° gS 11 I`w R
C m is aww
cr
F� fa i m
1
LJ! _ ° a ; ii
- T M
--- -
° i e
1 6
;ilk O1LaI ° p t
_i . - -
o b
AAA
111JJJ W
� o ❑ O O V4f9 €� E � 2a �
m o
o °
® N=Y a{]
F
°�
® L
J -
5.
- , Rol T
R OOOb$yjr
�ilrW
a
$F I #f
i tll/�•F 1
His
tars
Flo
lit
is
fol
��I
l l an y 3tly
}i w
! N
if '� @; t
O
o� er
3
u jig
ou am
rr
r;�� �33��7
i
gggJA
>!
� I
I'
>s- Qo
;p H.1 ;
9 INS
■ y a 3 B 9
lip
_a
tn� z�a !will� Q
�rj
LU�
3g 5 CO M
ilk
J—bd� K �
HI
G
®
I I I
� I
fib
f I
pL S
ZID
coLU
C
O U 4lal Pig, � � � ` r & B s' mLU
MIS
8
i cc icr
c t I`a m
4
I. .
k�
a
Pose
r -
a
LLJ
_ ee 3 Gi yyypry� `cypX 5X 6a VQQ/
CC
O ;v
OLU
J d IJ ta
m �k3
F
q Y
a--
c r
�� #ai�Zj �„ gi4gg 9f3q �' Q W xxY �e e Z (n
a g 9 >�Q z
;Pn
Q Q��UD
OW
mZr
a
8%'e ■ 5 g WLU
� �� - W i � 0� l C � � q � t M ai• g P
u� g yE€ Uec alti��c as ° ° g @ a • 4� S3�3 4 3 °P7
IM
zi
RYg
a
—55
mall all
iJ i
< < ._.
fill 14 le}� s o 9 s e b s
� o it
Is
O iEpt �
! E LQ� ac99t1llati€ E H Is13CitF�
l Y = t3 • i
s
R' E i P. P ' II P . ss i s s ± • ° . ti
ol
t 3= $ >; sI a t it Ee] ! $ ! " ae � l '
ga5 � j� ��� � � q . 3 � !s! i i� �Y s� 3p9a �P Q ■c-S 6� a � �c@�
� �� � � Q' �}�� § � e ■�#� 'a q �3F €.� �� �g��q9� � asi � !il<t ' � � E��� ��� �lg�� § � �� ;� �6i t a
1le
1111
it
If fit
� H � �!4 = ye$ Q� � c i IP� ° $1#1 is� g= ,31° ;$
$ � 6 €" . . e [
Pey3� M
Ili I 9 cIND 4t� g �3S[[ � I . y9iy"laY�aggEE {{ 14FeFery3r�I II��N i1V3Yi1€1 i is 1a i 939 i t c � it7 �i s
4 i bg�P i D p:a �P ; to to t et it °tt eRsove. 8 P g e
-'al y r
, > �; _ I ONE, l t
�a �a �{3 If � aI I 11$ygir g q �p Ck
}��� ��:IIE`�9
- 111 R
11 Oil j , ';III
pw
CD
fill �ircw �
'k
I fl1ill, km
f _
g 9 � gg jq�� gg
4 0 q Hu 4
,M
1 1 Dry j/
1 I
1 �
I91 1 sit!
a ■ 1
N7. ilk
1 I
1 ,
I��I�yyyf� a
I
I
p 1
r---- rl^-r - -.� f'
a:`. ;1
1 1 I dt 1 ld�l
J I f py�j, T�' •: IY
1 I
e! I 3k
E
DID
�w= t w SE Jo>LLJ
EE i o
o
zw awm
w) Ili N
F. g GW B
Z. '04 !
!
r '
a
f
� A ,
6
pap
1* i
e �
it'll G ey!
$g
aA6xdyyp Ali
6
i
N
' �•�r
01 if
(�E
Y
�y
Q m U 0 W
IF = o
�; } EE
wC� a:a G gs , � ° !1 i r aW oxY IF 1 (n
r °-
na
Q —oa' g�c 'g 3 LL} o=g =e z
�L {��GAw�CI� � 'J� {r u7 �
( Zz It ■ y LL
W m?i ��lil
F
A
MiltDoi
M.1 € gg
Y
I A A
4, .* I
j f I
I I :
I cl
i E I
I C i
I i
° I I
l.-t.— 17I 6 1 1 r.J
i 11
I >A...�.ar o.+w we Iw=vw=YAawi; I
Q
1
c
g
Q m �V� 0 W B
C
Ln �
L1J Q a l" 9 _
U E
zi cr e g 1
Yp •`:
dk
i rill
il Q� �
�r
e6 �!
`c I
F s II I
I I I
� I
�I I
q I
I
I
ry I
6 � I
I
I I
I I
I
�I I
J� Nl.Jn a.¢ 6 mJ� wlwfvu.:¢ f I
•� I I
pt 3y � I I
I
_ � I
1 �
1
`•yy I I
w run.¢ } ��• r¢ �r-I
� I
1
8 ! $ I I
1
I
.anr JUP.
:
I
I I �
m
(&
$/ \\ h/\ §! \
LLJ
U.
zz
i \ |
/y \ / p§q
§/ ,u■ �• | L g: �
« R|[ ` '
e �
a ; . I M
\| �
\� \�
IL (
\ r \Hill [� i
\ \
� !
/ b � § ; . $ ���| �'� | ' ■�� |
�
, .
/ {
C. j
�■ � � � | ° � � � � �� ] \§ � \91 N' 4 (
CD
t - co
J _
�� =III ` N �� z
m t++ i ~W Y i Y , Ch
y� Y'� POO z e�i &Iaixay �! �� 9dam i
Y [ OW
i� ..�aN 8 1� + Q V Q��
I ITT 3E�
i H
rig
li; F. -
lilt 11111
y r
lo
CL
mi
e
i
g`
ez �
e g e
u
41. ,LU
Qjif 3 � i0['S � 'I d IL
� � 4 S> _,
11 �� g 9 - Ii 1
�J �J
e g�
fit
8 EE p e
F } $ € II 3 iE eel
Imo.
IL
! 6
Him
It
-S
pEl
W�
a }-
10 ip
6 Mn'8 ; x
gAll
E
E
p
g � 6 E i k IP4E�f
rtEeei Qom.
s
-- o
� � •�_: m 1dEi�¢a��� i��;� m �� 1� silo �i#
� ii11
1 �
f < 0 4S ga ?
CL
U ON
P I I'M
Of
Er I . W --_I - i R
N c
e Q 4 Ir
g
ti
0 tl
W �j
I
O I
1� K s- El
rMl
•-}--��-_fir:�!!!���1� `La
Qa iMlw--i;� L yy
�i�• W i
g
LL
3 C7 Oy¢ U
c i 8'I LLLL�
4p f +I W
5 6 6 e 14 @ 1 4 _ __ = I
J ,
Ll 11
0 "1. � III a
Z f' t Z e s@ n R /#--f�� Q h o e !
O Q :f a _ 1
U ��t NR p6pb rp@° I w § —�
e
-
3
N -- -
2 AS = = Cp t,
Wad I i 'Ij I '�$r� m J a Z
Pie U �-c -1' IL
15
w C �ya Ia' E6A S� �C� V I+ p -
Y 4 �_ � gl �a4 EI� a Q j ri
CI- all Al 11 Oil mix��°l@1���!� �.. �.���� � 8
= — -
e s g L -
u
e
!g _
uj
Ln
J
' `A
o'j 8$I
~H
y! U
>i O I
K
a(if
Ii LLJ a e
L o
F
cr
Clf a,
U tti: � ■ § Ac �� mMto it
it U 1
ip
I O cS S
Y '
z
I 1u
I
i
ly
Y
�' a3
R
�.
i$ k\ E | | § I. § o
■
�« -�@ /` ■ � f���■ | �� )§ � � �
§2 &$ | | h� , / $ o . -
�I §(� � �
| , � Milli �
§
|
|
� " | )
8 ■ ■■ |
/. 3 �. � ■ .. |
/ |
LLJ D
§ | � |
§ ) | j f §
2 | } ! Ckf | ■■ �
Ln
■
| | \ $ } | ' I.,
| R
' \ | } ' \ { | ,
,
f ' §
�
§ ,.
| |"- � | � � ! | ■ � ` |
En
| || | | | | | | | | | | |
■ � | � | � | � | � | �
,
, !,■ | ! ■ | ; ■ & ! . | | |
\
� � || 3 ■| | | ||
\ ■ '■| ( ||�||| • ,||||| �. . ||||||■||| .|||■■||■||||||| |■||||||||
| ,■■,;,,,.,�,l�.� .;,.,�.l.,
,
|
�
'" llll JG
Lp
LLJ
P191
Z, -gyp 1 9 1 pa Z =°
o i i 8
1E c fv
m h
Oo as A Fk�^ ® 6
r Z a e,U —�_ 1
Y »az d i I
• �-� �� �k� Y8 Yb acr
O
qg pp
<h
i
i 1 I i df d r �ipn 0
�fateela Y !� �df 1�= a p
1e1a11s1 N i - s it
a ¢ to
01 O OO ip
S �e p_p d'j M. �PO
_ '
El
cr
3 a Fi ➢ i i k i a
o16
®®o
p
�� ailr rl
a o " 4ir
Iola
g@"
Uj
P
Z I ¢ illl�R@� i y 6 � a0 iR �� ! � a t "i ggi i a q " Qj � :
c�l$ Is
f 1a VHI
� @@ gill
w ip
6
si
wQ
0u
p !
i �e
R P
Y-
S
W91S � AIt � � � � rya ' k N
fill
g !6!
1 �
i W
e u Q sB94 e403
9 fit
a i
e e l��rC e1®
= Cg c `LD
!
r
@
J SlCQi 3e� � ! ' ! a�
p W
N ill
i! O 0 0*
N !a
z
a0 ayy yp
ur : _____AAAA4.AAtt a LLJ
LOJ
fit
I Jill
Z !jj !j� rj� I�� !jj g / I i •� !��IE°
M i f E E E C f 1 E oll g W= 1I}
�13
O p6�=
2
.Z
P o� ley--189EIC9999919
3 ^!
Y f!d a - o
U � .0 4° g ! i! I
iIlslpEp� W rllla41 �! I ;if bra Q r
gg
till C Ia91a111166C ! �aCCCCClli 1lEi0ilEl!l �@�� C�Cii61I
u p< /PAP 4 toil P P 4 4 4 P P P / •
.Sl+C AA AAAAAA4Rs� • R �y:I»tg7i'l;tf l�
5
Exhibit 2
D ECL� OdC
DEC
December 10, 2020 APPROVED 5-0
1 fi 2020
VILLAGE CLERKS OFFICE RESOLUTION
GRAN I ITE PLAN AND WETLAND PERMIT APPROVALS
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT
980 ANDERSON HILL ROAD FOR THE BLIND BROOK CLUB
VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK PLANNINQ BQARD
WHEREAS, The Blind Brook Club, Inc. ("Applicant") submitted an application for
approval of an Amended Site Plan and Wetland Permit to convert 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 (the
"Project"), as the owner of certain property located in the Village of Rye Brook ("Village's
commonly known as 980 Anderson Hill Road ("Subject Property") and shown on the tax
assessment map 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; and
WHEREAS, the Property consists of 163.2 acres and is developed with a golf course,
club house, maintenance building, parking areas, and minor accessory structures; and
WHEREAS, on March 24, 2020 the Village Board of Trustees granted Site Plan
Approval 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; and
WHEREAS, on April 9, 2020 the Planning Board granted Wetland Permit and Steep
Slopes Permit Approvals in connection with same project; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant now seeks further amendments to the site plan which have
been determined by the Building Inspector to be minor amendments to the approved site plan
and therefore the Planning Board is the Approval Authority for the Project pursuant to Section
209-1.A(2)(c) of the Village Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board is also the Approval Authority for the Wetland
Permit applications pursuant to Chapter 245 of the Village Code; and
WHEREAS, the Project is a Type II Action pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617.5(c)(9) of the
State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) thereby requiring no environmental
review; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has received and reviewed the following plans and
application materials:
131310817070900 12 16 20
1. Short Environmental Assessment Form dated 11/11/20 and EAF Mapper Summary
Report dated 9/18/20;
2. Cover letter to Michael Izzo, Building&Fire Inspector, prepared by Cuddy and
Feder,LLP, dated 10/21/20 and 11/24/20;
3. Application for Site Plan Approval;
4. Wetlands Permit Application;
5. Functional Assessment of Wetlands and Watercourses, prepared by Evans
Associates,dated 9/22/20 and 11/23/20;
6. A Drainage Summary Report prepared by Ahneman Kirby, dated 10/6/20;
7. A set of Engineer's and Architect's Plans,generally entitled, "Teaching Facility&
Driveway Entry," prepared by Rogers McCagg and Ahneman Kirby:
Sheet Number Sheet Title Dated
G1.0 Coversheet 10/20/20
SP-6 Blind Brook Site Plan Amendment rev. 11/23/20
SP-7 Pmposed Site Notes and Detail rev. 11/23/20
A1.0 Teaching Facility Proposed Plans rev. 10/20/20
A2.0 Teaching Facility Proposed Exterior
Elevations rev. 10/20/20
A3.0 Driveway Entry Proposed Plan &Elevations rev. 10/20/20
A9.0 Photo Simulation 11/12/20;and
WHEREAS, the Village Planning Consultant, Village Staff and the Planning Board
reviewed the information, submitted comments regarding the Project and made
recommendations regarding Scenic Roads Overlay District and wetland buffer disturbance;
and
WHEREAS, the application was referred to Westchester County Planning for
Notification purposes on December 1, 2020; and
WHEREAS, on December 10, 2020, the Planning Board opened a public hearing on
the subject application and all persons interested were given an opportunity to speak on behalf
of or in opposition to said application, and the Planning Board closed the public hearing on
December 10, 2020; and
WHEREAS, due to public health and safety concerns related to the current COVID-
19 pandemic,the November 12,2020 and December 10,2020 meetings of the Planning Board,
at which this application was heard, were 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 total area of disturbance proposed within the wetland buffer is 2,798
square feet necessitating a total mitigation area of 5,596 square feet pursuant to Village Code
§245-9.A(3) which requires mitigation of buffer disturbance at a ratio of at least two to one,
1313/08/707090vl 12•16.!20
and the Applicant is proposing that the mitigation provided as part of the earlier application
approved in April 2020 in excess of the mitigation required at that time should be considered
as mitigation toward the current proposed wetland buffer disturbance; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the Wetland Permit standards set
forth in Village Code §245-8.A and finds that the Applicant proposes sufficient wetland
mitigation in compliance with Village Code standards subject to compliance with the
conditions set forth herein; ind
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the provisions of the Scenic Roads
Overlay District and finds that the proposed improvements are architecturally compatible with
the surrounding structures and the important scenic and natural features of the site will be
preserved, including the wall at the entrance of the property which will be replaced in-kind
with a wall of the same height and layout in connection with the widening of the driveway.
NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that for the reasons stated herein, the
Village of Rye Brook Planning Board hereby approves the Amended Site Plan and Wetland
Permit applications for the to convert 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 at property located at 980 Anderson
Hill Road, upon the following conditions:
1. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the Applicant shall submit a revised
Landscape Plan that provides specific locations for the planting of the 60 trees that are
proposed as part of the application. Trees shall be located so as to provide visual
screening of the proposed improvements. The plan reviewed by the Planning Board
at its December 10, 2020 meeting is satisfactory to the Planning Board.
2. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit,the Applicant shall revise the plans to address
fire truck turning radius movements to the Building Inspector's satisfaction prior to
the issuance of a Building Permit.
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.
4. Any new (replaced) wall along the Anderson Hill Road frontage shall be the same
height and layout of the existing/remaining wall.
5. Due to the Property's location within the Anderson Hill Road Scenic Road Overlay
District, all areas in the 35-foot vegetative buffer along Anderson Hill Road which are
1313/08/7070900 12116,20
proposed to be disturbed shall be restored and graded so that the final, post-
development contours appear consistent with the predevelopment terrain.
G. The Wetland Permit shall be valid for a period of one year from the date of this
resolution, however, an extension of an original permit may be granted upon written
request to the Planning Board by the original permit holder or his/her legal agent at
least 90 days prior to the expiration date of the original permit.
7. The written Wetland Permit issued pursuant to this approval shall contain the following
conditions pursuant to Section 245-11.13 of the Village of Rye Brook Code:
a. Work conducted under a permit shall be open to inspection at any time,
including weekends and holidays, by the approval authority, the Advisory
Council on Environmental Conservation, the Superintendent of Public
Works/Village Engineer or their designated representatives.
b. All permits issued under this chapter shall be void and of no effect after one
year from the date of issue thereof, unless the work for which the permit
was issued has been actually commenced and not been abandoned during
that period. In such cases, the applicant may reapply for a permit from the
approval authority in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. If the
work for which the permits were issued have commenced within one year
from the date of issuance of the permits, such permits may be renewed by
the approval authority in accordance with the renewal provisions set forth
at SS 213-12.D and 245-5.B(7) of the Village Code.
c. The permit holder shall provide written notification to the Superintendent
of Public Works/Village Engineer of the date on which the regulated activity
is to begin at least five business days in advance of such date.
d. The approval authority's permit shall be prominently displayed at the project
site during the undertaking of any of the activities authorized by the permit.
e. The boundaries of the regulated activity and all wetlands and watercourses
shall be stated and appropriately marked in the field so as to make the
boundaries visible.
f. The permits,including all conditions, shall be binding on all successors and
assignees of the permit holder.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that if said conditions are not fully complied with
this resolution approving the Amended Site Plan and Wetland Permit,described above, shall
become null and void.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that no permits shall be issued by the Building
Department until the Applicant has paid to the Village all applicable fees and professional
review fees incurred in connection with review of this Application.
On motion by Mr. Morlino, seconded by Ms. Schoen, Mr. Michal Nowak, Superintendent of
Public Works/Village Engineer, called the roll:
1313108.7070900 12'16 20
MS. DRECHSLER Voting AYE
MR. GRZAN Voting EXCUSED
MR. MORLINO Voting AYE
MS. SCHOEN Voting AYE
MR. TARTAGLIA Voting EXCUSED
MR. ZAHL Voting AYE
CHAIRMAN GOODMAN Voting AYE
Approved: 5-0
13131081707090v1 12116120
Exhibit 3
MOSS & KALISH , P L L C
COUNSELLORS AT LAW
122 EAST 42ND STREET
MARK L.KALISH NEW Y O R K, NY 1 0 1 6 8-0 0 9 8 NASSAU OFFICE
GARY N.MOSS 500 OLD COUNTY,SUITE 206
DAVID B.GELFARB* """ GARDEN CITY,NY 11530
TELEPHONE: (212) 867-4488 ---
,LAMES SCHWARTZMAN T E L E C O P I E R: (2 1 2) 9 8 3-5 2 7 6 writer's e-mail:
'/ALSO ADMRTED M NEW JERSEY
E-MAIL: LAWYERS@MOSSKALISH.COM 9elfarb@mosskalish.com
April 15, 2021
Via e-mail to smelillo(d�ryebrook.org Via e-mail to mizzo@ryebrook.org
and first-class mail and first-class mail
Honorable Mayor Paul Rosenberg Mr. Michael Izzo
and Village Board of Trustees Village Building Inspector
Village of Rye Brook Village of Rye Brook
938 King Street 938 King Street
Rye Brook,New York 10573 Rye Brook,New York 10573
Re: The Blind Brook Club, Inc.
Golf Learning Center
Dear Mayor Rosenberg, Honorable Village Trustees and Village Building Inspector Izzo:
This office represents Mr. Stuart Sindell and Ms. Marcia Sindell (the "Sindells"), who reside at 27
Carol Court, Rye Brook, New York 10573 and Mr. Joseph Abbe, who resides at 29 Carol Court, Rye
Brook, New York 10573. Carol Court is in the Enclave at Rye Brook (the "Enclave"), a development of
30 homes in Rye Brook bordered by Anderson Hill Road and King Street and which is adjacent to the
Blind Brook Club.
We write to demand that the Village issue a stop work order with respect to the Golf Learning
Center being constructed at the Blind Brook Club (the "Club") and that the Golf Learning Center be
moved to a location further away from its planned location, which is only 249 feet from the black fence
separating my clients' homes from the Club. Indeed, the Learning Center should never have received
approval to be built so close to the homes of my clients and other residents of the Enclave at Rye Brook
development. Moreover, on March 24, 2020 the Club agreed, at a Rye Brook Board of Trustees (the
"Board of Trustees") meeting, to sit down with its neighbors in one year to see if there were issues or
concerns and to try to address them. My clients demand that the Club be directed to promptly conduct
such a meeting.
As you are aware, on or about November 19, 2019, the Club initially submitted an application to the
Village for site plan approval for, among other matters, "reworking of the fairway and greens, upgrades
to the irrigation drainage systems, the development of groundwater sources for irrigation to reduce
reliance on public water, and additions to the clubhouse's patio and terrace."The Club also submitted a
Honorable Mayor Paul Rosenberg
April 15, 2021
Page 2
wetland permit application, zoning analysis and other materials. Absolutely nowhere in this application
was there any mention of a Golf Learning Center.
On December 10, 2019, the Rye Brook Board of Trustees (the "Board of Trustees") took up the Site
Plan Application. Larry Cohen, Esq. ("Cohen"), an attorney for the Club, spoke on behalf of the Club. In
addition, Rob Good ("Good"), a hydrogeologist, spoke on behalf of the Club. Good explained that the
Club intended to upgrade certain facilities and to deal with various deferred maintenance issues. Among
the work to be undertaken was the following:
a. Replacing the irrigation system,including installing new pumps;
b. Constructing a new pump house and installing new pumps and piping;
c. Installing ground water sources;
d. Replacing the storm water management system to alleviate drainage and ponding issues;
e. Restoring the golf course to its original design, which is over 100 years old;
f. Removing about 100 sick and dead trees; and
g. Restoring and revegetating the banks of the Blind Brook.
On December 10, 2019, the Board of Trustees passed a resolution referring the application for a
proposed site plan amendment to the Rye Brook Planning Board (the"Planning Board").
Thereafter, on January 9, 2020, the Planning Board discussed the proposed project (the "Project").
Cohen and Good spoke again. In essence, they went over the same topics that had been addressed at the
December 10t' Board of Trustees meeting.
However, there was absolutely no discussion of a Learning Center, much less a blockhouse like
structure fully 22 feet high, that would be placed less than 250 feet from my clients' back yards. Indeed,
the Club intends to construct an aircraft hangar like structure adjacent to the homes of my clients.
At the end of the discussion, the Planning Board set the application down for a public hearing at its
February 13, 2020 meeting.
On February 13, 2020, the Planning Board held a public hearing. The Village Planner explained that
the Club had failed submit the number of trees to be replaced, and what species would be planted. The
Club also had not submitted a wetlands analysis, which was necessary for determining what mitigation
would be required.
After this presentation, Mr. Sindell and Mr. Abbe spoke. Mr. Sindell expressed concern about the
nature of the Project, including storm water runoff near his home and his neighbors at the Enclave, and
how little had been disclosed to the public. In response, Cohen, the attorney for the Club, addressed
numerous topics, including: a) realigning the golf course; b) repositioning the water sprinkler and
drainage systems; c) removing and replacing grass and shrubbery; d) roadwork; and e) remodeling the
clubhouse and club entrance.
Mr. Sindell asked further questions about potential impacts on Enclave homeowners. Members of
the Planning Board asked about potential impact on homeowners. Both Mr. Sindell and the Planning
Honorable Mayor Paul Rosenberg
April 15, 2021
Page 3
Board were assured that there was nothing to worry about and that the Project would have no impact on
the Enclave or its homeowners. After another homeowner, Garrett Sanders ("Sanders") asked about
water impact to his home in the Country Ridge section of Rye Brook ("Country Ridge"), Good
explained that there would be no impact to either Enclave residents or residents of Country Ridge. In
fact, Good stated that certain areas would have better drainage. The theme was reinforced again and
again-Enclave residents had nothing to worry about.
Mr. Abbe expressed concern about the pooling and ponding of water from the golf course at and
around his property. He expressed hope that the proposed changes would improve matters.
The Planning Board decided to hold open the public hearing until its next meeting, on March 13,
2020. It then voted to issue a Report and Recommendation approving the Project, subject to comments
set forth therein on topics including a landscaping plan and tree removal, wetlands and wetland buffer
disturbance, stormwater management and groundwater impacts and construction management. There
was not a single word in the Report and Recommendation about a Learning Center.
Immediately after the Planning Board meeting, a long-time Club member and neighbor of Mr.
Sindell and Mr. Abbe actually approached them. The neighbor said that there was nothing to worry
about and that no action would be taken that would impede his neighbors' ability to enjoy their property.
Mr. Sindell and Mr. Abbe believed their neighbor and believed that there concerns had been alleviated.
The Planning Board did not address the Project at the March 13t' meeting and adjourned further
consideration of the Project until its April 9, 2020 meeting.
Thereafter, on March 10, 2020, the Board of Trustees addressed the Site Plan application and opened
a public hearing. Good, the hydrogeologist, addressed the Board and reviewed the Project. He explained
that components to the Project included the following: restoring the golf course to its original design and
course condition; replacing the irrigation system; and adding an underdrainage system and additional
piping. Beth Evans, the Club's wetlands consultant, addressed wetlands issues. Again, not a word was
mentioned about a possible Learning Center.
The Board of Trustees held over the public hearing until its March 24, 2020 meeting. On that
date, the Village Board reopened the public hearing with respect to the Site Plan application. During the
public hearing, Saunders explained that drainage from the golf course continued to be a problem in
Country Ridge. Mayor Rosenberg noted that his home backs up onto the golf course and during storms
water pools right up to his yard. After extensive discussion between the Board and the applicant's
representatives, the Village Board closed its public hearing.
The Board of Trustees then took action with respect to the Project. It enacted a resolution
declaring itself to be Lead Agency for SEQRA purposes and adopted a Negative Declaration under
SEQRA. In other words, the Village Board determined that the Project would not result in any
significant adverse environmental impacts.
Honorable Mayor Paul Rosenberg
April 15, 2021
Page 4
The Village Board's resolution went on to approve the amended site plan, subject to numerous
conditions, including obtaining a wetland permit and steep slopes permit from the Planning Board,
submission of an erosion and sediment control plan.
Village Trustee David Heiser suggested that the Club have a sit down with the neighbors after
one year. Cohen confirmed that would be okay with the Club. The attorney for the Village, Jennifer
Gray, Esq. stated that the Club would be required to notice a meeting, one year after improvements are
complete, with residents who would be impacted and that the Club would make a good faith effort to
address them.
On April 9, 2020, the Planning Board continued its public hearing from the February 13, 2020
meeting. Beth Evans and Good addressed erosion, Blind Brook bank destabilization, drainage and
related hydrological issues. No members of the public spoke at the public hearing. The Planning Board
then voted to issue a wetlands permit and a steep slope permit, subject to certain conditions, including
those set forth in the approval resolution enacted by the Board of Trustees. Those permits were made
valid for one year and can be renewed upon certain conditions. We understand that the Club has applied
to renew the steep slopes permit.
To this date, there had been no mention at any time about a Golf Learning Center.
On October 21, 2020, the Club submitted a new application for site plan amendment and an
application for a wetlands permit. In essence, the Club sought to reconfigure the front entrance by
widening the driveway to 24 feet, construct new practice chipping and putting area and, most
significantly, to construct the Golf Learning Center. The proposed structure was to be 20 feet by 40 feet,
and 22 feet 4 inches in height.
We submit that the Club should have undertaken to hold a meeting with the residents of the
Enclave before submitting such an application, in order to explain what was being proposed and why,
particularly with respect to the Golf Learning Center. At its March 24, 2020 meeting, the Board of
Trustees, clearly expressed its intent that after the earlier work was done, the Club was to meet with
homeowners and seek to address their concerns. There was no excuse for the Club to conduct no
outreach or effort to explain what it was doing, particularly the intent to construct such a large building
next to the Enclave.
The Planning Board addressed the application for a site plan amendment at its November 12,
2020 meeting. The Planning Board addressed the application for less than 17 minutes. Anthony Gioffre,
Esq. ("Gioffre"), the attorney for the Club, addressed the Planning Board. Gioffre stated that the Golf
Learning Center would encompass 1,676 square feet and would be located only "249 feet from the side
property line of the Enclave." That side property line is where the homes of the Sindells and Abbe are
located. In other words, this 22 foot high building is not even 250 feet from their back yards.
We note that the minutes state (and as can be viewed at approximately 31 minutes, 50 seconds of
the video) that "[t]he side property line where the Enclave is has an existing mature vegetated buffer,
which you can see in one of the photos, photos that we included in our material in which we can show
you if necessary." In fact, of the three photos that were submitted on October 21, 2020, only one (the
Honorable Mayor Paul Rosenberg
April 15, 2021
Page 5
third photo) even shows the Enclave, and it is readily apparent that Enclave homes can be seen right
through any vegetation—and thus, the Golf Learning Center would be plainly visible from Enclave
homes.
During the discussion, the Village Planner, Ms. Brown, stated that the Board would "love"to see
screening material on the landscape plan so that any screening would be adequate for the "neighboring
residences." Gioffre went on to say (at about 38 minutes, 38 seconds of the video) that the Club would
"provide a landscape plan demonstrating the landscaping that will be proposed in the area to further
screen the proposed teaching facility."
Planning Board member John Grzan asked "I'm just curious, why was this not included as part
of the last application." Gioffre went on to obfuscate and waffle (at about 41 minutes, 24 seconds into
the video), stating"[b]ut we're basically lumped in whatever we could at this point in one application."
Most significantly, the Club did not answer why the Golf Learning center was not included in the earlier
application. Indeed, to this day, the Club has never explained why the Golf Learning center was not
proposed at an earlier time, but rather was lumped in with widening a driveway and creating a pitch and
putt area.
We note that the Board determined that the proposed work covered by the second site
amendment constituted a Type 2 action under SEQRA, and thus did not require further SEQR review.
The Planning Board went on to enact a resolution scheduling a public hearing for its December
10, 2020 meeting.
Between the November 12a' and December l0a' Planning Board meetings, the Village Planner,
Ms. Brown, sent a Memorandum dated December 4, 2020 to the Planning Board. In it, she noted that her
office had sent a November 6, 2020 memo requesting that a landscape plan be provided "so that the
Board could evaluate if sufficient screening would be provided for the proposed teaching facility."
However, the specific location of the trees were not shown in the site plan. The Planner requested that
the location of the proposed trees be in the area of the proposed greens and training facility be noted on
the plans so that it can be determined that that sufficient screening will be provided." We are unaware
that this request was ever complied with and demand that the Club do so.
Mr. Sindell and Mr. Abbe attended the December I Oa'public hearing via Zoom. At this public
hearing, speakers repeatedly spoke over each other and out of turn. The speakers literally were in
competition to grab the floor.
The Sindells and Mr. Abbe, all of whom are senior citizens, did not recognize the imperative
need to obtain an amended site plan, or drawings of the Golf Learning Center prior to the public
hearing. Moreover, as part of its plan and scheme to disguise its intentions, the Club did not even display
any drawings, diagrams, schematics or other representations of the Golf Learning Center, including its
location, during the meeting.
Honorable Mayor Paul Rosenberg
April 15, 2021
Page 6
We note that Board members asked questions at the public hearing. Most of the questions were
answered by Tony Panza, who we understand is the Club's architect. Panza stated, in response to a
question from Planning Board member Sal Morlino, that the Golf Learning Center is a"one story slab
on grade building." In fact, drawing A2.0 states that the elevation of the building is 22' 4", which by any
standard is a two story building, and thus much larger than a one story structure.
Various residents of Country Ridge expressed concern about the landscaping, construction
scheduling and fencing of the proposed project. One homeowner, Frienlish, mentioned that trucks were
in their backyard and that the work had ruined their backyard last summer. The architect also mentioned
that there should not be much happening in the spring besides "normal golf course work." That is
obviously not the case, as a visit to the site will reveal.
Mr. Abbe spoke expressed concern about whether large trees would be maintained along
Anderson Hill Road, and was assured that they would be. He also asked about all of the standing water
from the Club that pools next to his house every time that there is heavy rain. Such rain also has a
terrible impact on the grass at Mr. Abbe's house, causing it to turn brown. There was not a word spoken
about how close the Golf Learning Center will be to his house.
Ultimately, Mr. Abbe was the last member of the public to speak. The Planning Board then voted
to close the public hearing. At this point, virtually no attention had been given, whether at the November
or December meetings, to this structure and its impact on neighbors. This is particularly egregious given
the size, scope and significance of this building to the renovation and rehabilitation of the Club. Indeed,
this aspect of the Project has more impact on the neighbors than any other part of the Project.
The Planning Board then voted to approve an amended site plan and wetland permit for the
purpose of converting a portion of the Club to practice and putting greens, shifting the location of the
driveway, and constructing the Golf Learning Center.
Among the conditions of the approval were that prior to the issuance of a building permit, the
architect submit a revised Landscape Plan providing the location for the planting of 60 trees proposed as
part of the location, and that the provide visual screening of the proposed improvements. We are not
aware that such a plan has been provided. The wetland permit was valid for one year from the date of
the resolution.
We are aware that the Club has submitted an application to extend the steep slopes permit that
was granted on April 9, 2020 with respect to the earlier proposed work at the Club. We understand that
the application will be addressed at the May 13, 2021 Planning Board meeting and intend to oppose any
extension. The Golf Learning Center was proposed, applied for and approved without any meaningful
dialogue with the homeowners of the Enclave. My clients, who are senior citizens, could not have been
expected to figure out from a confusing, garbled Zoom meeting that a hulking and imposing building
that:
a) lacks a contextual relationship with the surrounding area;
b) is incompatible with and disproportionate to the surrounding area;
• Honorable Mayor Paul Rosenberg
April 15, 2021
Page 7
c) does not conform architecturally or otherwise with the area; and
d) is plainly out of scale with its surroundings,
would be slipped past them without any effort to reach out to them or their neighbors.
The Golf Learning Center does not relate favorably to the planning, landscaping, topograpy and
existing character of the neighboring Enclave homes. The building has an extremely negative effect on
sunlight, view and drainage. It will forever dominate the views of many Enclave homes. Moreover, it
will have a significantly adverse impact on property values in the Enclave, which will cause financial
harm and detriment to my clients and other Enclave homeowners.
The foregoing is particularly disturbing given the long and storied history of the Club, and its
attempts for over 100 years to be a good neighbor, both before and after the establishment of the Village
of Rye Brook. It is apparent that the Club: a) took advantage of that image; and b) the fact that during
the pandemic meetings of Village Boards and Commissions are held on Zoom to slip through this
enormous facility that would have encountered significant community opposition, had the neighbors
known the true facts about the size and location of the building.
The construction of the Golf Learning Center is not in compliance with the Village Code or the
December 10, 2020 resolution approving the amended site plan. As such, the Village Building Inspector
should immediately issue, pursuant to Rye Brook Village Code ("Code") §214-3, a written stop-work
order, halting construction of the Golf Learning Center. Ultimately, the building should be relocated,
preferably next to the Clubhouse.
First, Rye Brook Village Code ("Code") §209-2(A) provides that an application for site plan
approval must contain a map showing the location of the site in respect to nearby properties. The
amended site plans did not indicate the locations of any homes in the Enclave, some of which are barely
249 feet from the Golf Learning Center.
Second, Code §209-2(B) provides that "[a]ny 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 (CMP), unless the Planning Board or
Village Board of Trustees, as applicable, waives the CMP requirement. The Village Board of Trustees
and Planning Board did not waive the requirement of a construction plan at the December 10, 2020
Planning Board meeting or the March 24, 2020 Board of Trustees meeting. Among other matters, the
CMP should include a proper project schedule and a traffic control plan.
Third, Code §209-3(c)(1)(f) requires that the location and owners of all adjoining lands as shown
on the latest tax records be shown on the site plan. This was not done.
Fourth, Code §250-40 requires that "in order to provide adequate notice to neighboring property
owners and others affected by land development applications . . . ." In addition to providing mail notice,
the applicant is required, pursuant to Code §250-40(B)(6), to provide an affidavit certify to the fact and
date of the mailing, along a map, public notification list and a sample of the material included in the
mailing. The Club failed to provide such materials-indeed a review of the November 12, 2020 and
December 10, 2020 Planning Board agendas does not contain any such mailing affidavit(however, the
Honorable Mayor Paul Rosenberg
April 15, 2021
Page 8
agenda for the March 10, 2020 Board of Trustees meeting, discussed above, does contain a mailing
affidavit and related documents).
Fifth, Code §158-4(B)(3) provides that no construction work may be conducted that is audible
beyond the property on which it is located on Sundays. My clients, while sitting in their backyards on
April 11, 2021, could easily hear construction activity.
Moreover, my clients are extremely concerned that the Club is not conforming to the
requirements of the two approval resolutions with respect to the wetland permit, screening, trees,
landscaping, and stormwater runoff and mitigation.
Accordingly, the Village should issue, pursuant to Code §214-3, a stop-work order with respect
to the Golf Learning Center.
We urge that the Village issue the stop-work order immediately. We understand that the
foundation is being laid and any delay in action will cause great harm to my clients. My clients further
request that the Village direct that the Club demand that you hold a meeting with them, and their
neighbors in the Enclave, as the Club agreed to do at the March 24t'Board of Trustees meeting.
My clients thank you for your attention to this matter.
Very truly yours,
David B. Gelfarb
cc: Village of Rye Brook Planning Board
Village of Rye Brook
938 King Street
Rye Brook, New York 10573
(via e-mail to smelillo@ryebrook.org)
Mr. Bruce Campbell Anthony B. Gioffre, III, Esq.
General Manager Cuddy& Feder LLP
The Blind Brook Club, Inc. 445 Hamilton Avenue
P.O. Box 229 White Plains, New York 10601
Purchase, New York 10577 (via e-mail to agioffre@cuddyfeder.com)
Exhibit 4
w
Opp
L r
� St
Tara Gerardi
From: Mike Izzo
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2021 8:27 AM
To: Donald Moscato#2; Drew Gamils;Glenn Brettschneider;James Schutzer;Joel Simon;
Mike Izzo; Steve Berger; Steven Fews;Tara Gerardi; David Heiser
Subject: FW:Village Zoning Board of Appeals meeting,June 1, 2021
FYI...
Michael J. T Ro MAY 2 7 2021
Building& Fire Inspector VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK
Village of Rye Brook, NY(914) 939-0668 BUILDING DEPARTMENT
From: Lee Paton
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2021 5:23 PM
To: Mike Izzo
Subject:Village Zoning Board of Appeals meeting,June 1, 2021
Dear Mr. Izzo,
I am writing to express an opinion regarding Application #21-018,which is scheduled to be discussed at thereference
meeting on June 1.
My wife and I reside at 25 Carol Court, Rye Brook, NY. Our unit, at The Enclave,abuts the property of the Blind Brook
Club, as do those of Mr. & Mrs. Sindell and Mr. Abbe,the applicants.
I am an active golfer(not a member of The Blind Brook Club), and familiar with the type of facility that is planned. My
wife and I have studied the plans which were approved by the Building Inspector's (your)office.We have also spent
time watching the progress of the construction described in those plans.
I do not know the basis for the applicants'desire to have the Zoning Board of Appeals reverse the existing decision,
however, as an interested party, living in close proximity to the applicants, I feel very comfortable supporting the
existing decision.
The Blind Brook Club has been an excellent neighbor and the club has gone to great lengths to lessen whatever
discomfort the applicants and others here at The Enclave might have had, by planting dozens of trees that will shield the
neighbors from any noise that might be forthcoming.
Of interest, we have an active two-bay practice and teaching facility at our home club and I can attest that very little
noise emanates from that facility. What little noise there might be is channeled out of the front of the bays,toward the
practice range. In fact,the existing practice range of Blind Brook Club,which is only a few feet further from the
boundary of The Enclave, and is not surrounded by a structure, has been of no nuisance,whatsoever. I fully expect that
will continue to be the case when the practice facility is completed.
Sincerely, Leland B. Paton
1
p ECENE
MAY 2 8 2021
Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK
Village of Rye Brook BUILDING DEPARTMENT
I live at 30 Carol Court next to the Blind Brook Club and I am writing in support of the
application by my neighbors in the Enclave,the Sindells and Joseph Abbe, to reverse the
Building Permit#21-054 granted to the Blind Brook Club.
In this year of Zoom meetings, we only became aware of the extent of the planned
construction at the Club when heavy construction machinery began work on the site (often
12 hours a day) this spring. The minutes of the Planning Board's November and December
meetings do not show that the Club's proposed teaching facility and its impact on neighbors
received the thorough review that a project of that size warrants.
I do not understand how a building the size of the proposed golf training center has been
approved by the Village with so little Board discussion. At 1800+ square feet in floor area,
22+feet in height with two 24-foot rolling doors, this hangar-like building is completely out
of character for a residential neighborhood. According to the Planning Board minutes for
the November 12 and December 10 meetings when the amendment to include the training
center was considered, the Club's attorney presented the structure as a one-story building;
however, it will be taller than an average two-story building, and, built on a slope, will
appear even taller when viewed from the Enclave.
This massive training center was first presented at the Planning Board's November 12
meeting as a "minor amendment"to the original Club project to renovate the greens,
improve irrigation to reduce reliance on public water and make minor additions to the
clubhouse patio and terrace. The minutes show it described as a "modest teaching facility
building" of 1676 square feet. When asked why this building was not included in the
original plan, the Club's attorney replied that they had discovered that they had "leftover fill
that could not be used" from the earlier work. This is the only explanation given and no one
from the Board asked for more details on the proposed structure. In fact, according to the
minutes from the December meeting, some Board members appeared unfamiliar with the
scope of the project they were approving. One Board member seemed not to realize that
there was to be a building at all, asking "is this just a level surface ...? Is it a structure?"
According to the meeting minutes, the discussion at the November and December meetings
was mainly focused on screening, particularly from Anderson Hill Road.
The way the training building was added as a "minor amendment" to an unrelated project,
and the seeming lack of understanding by the Planning Board members of what was
actually being proposed, shows a lack of a serious review by the Village.
This is not a "minor amendment"to the original proposal and to allow the building to go
forward without addressing neighbors' concerns is wrong.
Karen Coombs
May 28, 2021
Tara Gerardi
From: Stuart Sindell <stuartsindell@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday,June 1, 2021 10:57 AM
To: Tara Gerardi
Cc: David Gelfarb;Judy merten E C E U V E
Subject: Blind Brook Golf Club D
JUN - 1 2021
—for distribution and posting
VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK
MEETING OF THE BUILDING (DEPARTMENT
VILLAGE of RYE BROOK
Zoning Board
June 1,2021
8:00pm via Zoom
PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD
Dear Board Members:
Thank you for affording me the opportunity to speak this evening.What you are about to hear is important.There is a lesson
here for all of us. It's about the Blind Brook Golf Club and it's renovation plans,in particular the construction of a building
to house a golf learning center,which was approved by the Village Planning Board without adequate prior notice or 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, consisting of a patio and 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 that of my neighbor and friend Joe Abbe and other beleaguered neighbors.We are
united in opposition to the construction by the Golf Club of a so-called"Learning Center,"an unwelcome,unsightly,
oversized structure in the making that will dominate the horizon and cast a pervasive shadow over the landscape.With the
raised platform of land it will rest on,it will be a permanent,imposing presence and stretch well beyond its intended height of
22 feet,4 inches.For a sense of contrast and scale,consider this:The infamous Berlin Wall was all of 12 feet high,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 protest 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 the 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 Golf Club—who in a letter to the Village sang the praises of he Club's efforts to erect a Learning Center,
would be singing a different tune if the Center were placed directly behind his backlot—like an extended stage set,looming in
the background of that resident's only outdoor space for relaxing,entertaining and barbecuing.
The sad fact is we 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 had 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 blind-side your neighbors big time,because you had to know that
if they had any clue as to what was being hatched,you would have faced formidable pushback.So you took the stealth
approach—amid the Covid-19 distractions and constraints—to take advantage of an unsuspecting and vulnerable community
1
by rushing through the proposed project during an abbreviated and somewhat disorganized Zoom meeting of the Planning
Board(Dec.10,2020),with no drawings,diagrams or schematics provided—and no explanation or discussion about size or
location or proximity to neighboring properties.In doing so,you 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 these issues up 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 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 any
number of more suitable,less objectionable sites,for the Learning Center.Logically and logistically,it should have been placed
near the clubhouse.
I understand and appreciate the purpose and benefits of a golf learning center.It is not only a place to improve your game, but
it is also designed to draw members and guests to the Club,particularly during the off-season,when the course and facilities
are underutilized.But that's not the issue here. The issue,as they say,is location,location,location.
The proposed Learning Center is much more than just a place for golfers to practice their game.I understand it will have a
lounge,a bar,and very likely some form of eating facility—so it will serve as a mini clubhouse and possibly even a limited
entertainment venue.Its operation will generate a great deal of human traffic.Not only will we be forced to endure the
intrusive presence of the Center,but we'll be forced to endure the clamor and the comings and goings of club members and
their guests.Having a Learning Center building dominating our backyard will have collateral consequences.We and our guests,
while outdoors,will be subjected to a permanent distraction and will not be able to enjoy the peace and quiet to which we and
our visitors are entitled.Moreover,our homes may experience a material decline in value. In all likelihood realtors will rate
them"sore thumb—comparables"for the pricing of homes in our development.
What is particularly galling is what Joe Abbe and I were told—or not told—by the team of professionals representing the Golf
Club at a Planning Board meeting(February 13,2020),at which the renovation work was first discussed publicly.We
introduced ourselves and complimented the Club for being a good neighbor and a comforting presence.We said we were
interested in knowing that the Enclave and its residents would not be inconvenienced or suffer any harm or intrusion.We had
asked,respectfully,for a description of what the job will entail.We were told that the Club's rehabilitation plan would address
issues such as drainage,landscaping,topography,clubhouse updating and other less substantive renovation details. Based on
what we were told,we felt assured that we had nothing to worry about:That nothing untoward would be done that would in
any way interfere with the quiet enjoyment of our homes.That assurance was echoed quite emphatically by a member of the
Club who happened to be a resident of the Enclave who attended the meeting.He buttonholed us after the meeting and
personally pooh-poohed any possible concerns posed by the project.These combined assurances lulled us into a false sense of
security and induced us to lower our guard—leaving us in the dark,trusting in the good faith of the Golf Club and the scrutiny
and diligence of the Planing Board.That was a fatal mistake.It now seems possible that the assurance we received from the
Club's representatives was in fact a calculated strategic gambit.Why?Because there was no mention-no disclosure-not the
slightest hint of the intent to build a Learning Center.I can only wonder if withholding such vital information about the
prospect of constructing a Learning Center—by far the Club's single most ambitious construction project,certainly the
centerpiece of the clubs redevelopment—is a reflection of the times in the era of the`Big Lie."
At some point when ground was beginning to be broken,I called the Club and spoke to the manager,Bruce Campbell. I said
it looks like a structure is going up directly behind us near our side of the golf course—without any warning.He blithely
responded by saying that he had"no control over what HIS neighbor does."Of course that's only true in a callous and
unregulated environment.And it's not true if you have a considerate and honorable neighbor who scrupulously follows
acceptable standards of disclosure and respects the privacy and well-being of his neighbors.And it's ordinarily not true if your
neighbor's building plans require Planning Board review and official approval.
Ironically,it is more than likely that the Golf Club had much to say about the construction of the Enclave and exacted critical
concessions.
So much for our civic-minded neighbor,the Blind Brook Golf Club,whose callous disregard for the welfare of its neighbors is
nothing short of shameful.
2
Based on the facts and circumstances I have cited,I would respectfully ask the Zoning Board for a resolution revoking the
applicable Building Permit and halting further construction,pending the reconsideration of the Golf Club's Learning Center
building design plans,particularly a construction management plan.The existing plans are unnecessarily intrusive,divisive and
adversarial.They need to be modified,redesigned—or better yet,the project needs to be relocated—in the interests of
fundamental fairness and in deference to equitable principles.A stand must be taken to demonstrate that small homeowners
will be protected by this Board from being bulldozed and bamboozled by an expansionist,influential Goliath with unlimited
resources from acting relatively unchecked.
Respectfully submitted:
Stuart Sindell
Marcia Sindell
Sent from my iPad
Sent from my Wad
3
D E c �L
MAY 21 2021
STATE OF NEW YORK: COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER
VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK:ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
In the Matter of the Application of STUART SINDELL, Zoning Board of Appeals
MARCIA SINDELL and JOSEPH ABBE, Applicants Public Hearing Date:June 1,
2021 at 8:00 P.M.
Property Parcel ID 129.58-1-1 Application No. 21-018
-----_-__-----------------------------—-------------------------X
STATE OF NEW YORK )
) ss.:
COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER )
DAVID B. GELFARB,being duly swom,deposes and says:
1. I on over the age of 18 years. I reside in Westchester County,New York.I have personal
knowledge of the facts and circumstances set forth herein. I submit this affidavit in connection
with the application of Stuart Sindell, Marcia Sfiu ell and Joseph Abbe (the "Applicants') to the
Zoning Board of Appeals for an order vacating Building Permit Number 21-054. I am the attorney
for the Applicants in connection with the within application.
2. On May 18,20211 directed the mailing of a notice to the owner of each property within
the notification area defined in Rye Brook Village Code 250-40B(2). Each such notice was sent
by prepaid first class mail at least 10 days before the initial public hearing in this matter.As is set
forth in the above caption, the public hearing in this matter is scheduled for June 1,2021, at 8:00
PM.The notification consisted of a description of the location of the property that is the subject of
the public hearing,the proposed action sought and the date and time of the hearing.
3. Pursuant to Rye Brook Village Code 250-40B(6), enclosed herewith is an area map,
public notification list and one sample of the material included in the mailing.
.&� 6'. /�V—
DAVID B. GELFARB
Sworn to before me this
27th day of May,2021.
r �
otery Public
JAMES A.SCRWARTZMAN
NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF NEW YORK
NASSAU COUNTY
Lr, 71231
1n i4.f y:•
VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK
MAYOR 939 Sing Street,Rye Brook,N.Y. 10573 ADMINISTRATOR
Paul S.Rmenberg (914)9394WO Fax(914)939-5801 Christopher j.Bradbury
wwwachnwLma
TRUSTEES BUIMING&FM
Susan R.Epstein INSPBCrOR
Stephanie j.Fischer
Michael J.Isso
David M Heuer
Jason A.Klein
NOTICE OF HEARING ON APETICATION
Aotiee u hereby g1ven that the underwgaed has filed an application to appear before the Zoning Board of Appeals of
the Village of Rve Brook.
Application#21-01B
Stuart Sindell&Muria Sindell,27 Carol Court,Rye Brook,New York 10573
Joseph Abbe,29 Carol Court,Rye Brook,New York 10573
The applicants named above have filed an application with the Zoning Board of Appeals pursuant to Village Code§250-
13.G(4) to reverse the Building Inspector's detemsination to grant Building Permit #21-054 issued on 3/22/2021
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,Rye Brook,New York,designated and shown on the most cuttent Tax Map u Parcel ID#129.58-1-1.
Of 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 webaite homepage and are available for review at the Building Department.
The June 1, 2021 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting will be held via vldeoconferencing 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 webeite
( ),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 daring the meeting at+1(929)203-6099,Meeting ID:
830 0920 3S03 or provided through the written chat section of the Zoom meeting. Comments can also be
provided vis smmail before and during the meeting to Michael Izzo, Village Building Inspector, at
Please check the meeting Agenda posted on the Village website for ttiether instructions
to access the vhtud 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 websitt. 7
Dated: Qr 13-40
Christopher J. Bradbury,V;I Clerk
M&VV L"o for Mww&Addmosew,Crated flan MuNolpal Tax Parool Viewer. hftw67lererer�wsabhssteroov.00m
Saunders,Gary A-Adele Saunders Mariam Thomas-A"Applemen Blum,Leonard-Ooldemfth Mum
133 Country Ridge Dr Mariam 88 Country Ridge Dr
PORT CHESTER,NY 10573 89 Country Ridge Dr PORT CHESTER, NY 10573
PORT CHESTER,NY 10573
Slndeil Stuart L-March C SbxW Plnoker,Margwet L Haller,Michael A-Alysea B Holier
27 Carol Ct 84 Country Ridge Dr 52 Country Ridge Dr
PORT CHESTER,NY 10573 PORT CHESTER,NY 10573 PORT CHESTER,NY 10673
Sakata,Hkotsugu-Toruko Sakato Tlsc,Anthony il-Janice Tlso Cohen Jaton A-Dina J Cohen
1004 Iarg St 49 Country Ridge Dr 098 Iang St
PORT CHESTER,NY 10573 PORT CHESTER, NY 10573 PORT CHESTER,NY 10573
BMW Brook Club Inc. Bachman,Michael-Sortn Bachmann Gold,Jeffrey A-Heyloy F Gold
980 Anderson Hill Rd 92 Country Ridge Dr 85 Country Rkipe Dr
PORT CHESTER,NY 10673 PORT CHESTER,NY 10673 PORT CHESTER,NY 10573
Abbe,Joseph-Joseph Abbe That Paton Narmy-LeMnd Pow Shim ,Mary-Harry Sknone
Intl of 25 Card Ct 67 Country Ridge Dr
29 Carol Ct PORT CHESTER,NY 10573 PORT CHESTER,NY 10573
PORT CHESTER,NY 10573
Branch Andre-Rolafn Branch Fam Claude-Brian Pam Lopes,Barbara
12 David Ln 53 Country Ridge Dr 31 Country Ridge Dr
PORT CHESTER,NY 10573 PORT CHESTER,NY 10673 PORT CHESTER,NY 10573
Nagrs Aysafu-Kwln R Bhuve Jacobs,Gery-Cynthia Jacobs Momocela,Marcallo-Janet Marcocela
64 Rocldng Horse Tri 116 Country Ridge Dr 109 Country Ridge Dr
PORT CHESTER,NY 10573 PORT CHESTER,NY 10573 PORT CHESTER,NY 10673
Barger,Theodore-Ellen Berger Savttt Daniel C-Shari Markowrl"evltt Freundlich,Ronald-Char F." Bch
4 Pine Tres Dr 104 Country Ridge Dr 93 Country Was Dr
PORT CHESTER,NY 10573 PORT CHESTER,NY 10573 PORT CHESTER, NY 10673
Current Occupant Toiler Luclow-Rodrigo Areas Tailor Handelsman,Lawrence M-Sara P
PORT CHESTER,NY 10573 88 Country Ridge Dr Hand -an
PORT CHESTER,NY 10573 16 Carol Ct
PORT CHESTER,NY 10573
Roles,Joseph Phillip-Rebecca Lee Skumiek Jordan A-Evans 0 Bartlett,VAlma Marl"-Jwwuwn
Roles Langhaus BardaN
20 Country Ridge Dr 37 Country Ridge Or 994 Iang St
PORT CHESTER,NY 10573 PORT CHESTER,NY 10673 PORT CHESTER,NY 10573
Created on: 5/14/2021 Page 1 of 4
Maft Ledele lbr Araverty Address".Created ftm A*rd p@l Tax Peal Vbwar.
Umbra John M-Neville A Umbra Barnett,Michael-Dad"Bamalt Current Occupant
33 Country Ridge Dr 153 Country Ridge Dr PORT CHESTER,NY 10673
PORT CHESTER, NY 10573 PORT CHESTER,NY 10573
KBB-Mrowwood Do Paola,Bruce-Felicia De Paola Waldman,Mark-Ross Wakkr
975 Anderson Hll Rd 128 Country Ridge Dr 117 Country Rkigs Dr
PORT CHESTER,NY 10573 PORT CHESTER,NY 10673 PORT CHESTER,NY 10573
Lovins,Marty-Alyea Lavine Askillosl,Jceph-Joyce Aekkml Grant RavooabNTrust Jorsolhon Lute
76 Country Rklge Dr 89 Country Ridge Dr -Suaaraw @I mew Grnrt
PORT CHESTER,NY 10673 PORT CHESTER,NY 10573 55 Country Ridge Dr
PORT CHESTER,NY 10673
Thomas Isiah L-Lym Thomas Trtplle Denial F Golan Ayelot-Yw*W Golan
24 Card Ct 48 Country Ridge Dr 28 Country Ridge Dr
PORT CHESTER,NY 10673 PORT CHESTER, NY 10573 PORT CHESTER, NY 10673
sbMrberill,sltewn-Rhoda SWnbong McKenna Francis-Erin McKenna Doral Conference Center Assoc
1000 Kling St 17 Carol Ct 975 Anderson HUI Rd
PORT CHESTER,NY 10573 PORT CHESTER, NY 10573 PORT CHESTER,NY 10673
Arrowwood Dogua,Robyn-Sol M Dogus Belton Dane
975 Anderson HIA Rd 108 Country Ridge Dr 105 Country Ridge Dr
PORT CHESTER,NY 10573 PORT CHESTER,NY 10573 PORT CHESTER,NY 10673
Vsnorsky Liss J Current occupant United Water Westche~
100 Country Ridge Dr PORT CHESTER,NY 10573 700 Anderson Hill Rd
PORT CHESTER,NY 10573 PORT CHESTER,NY 10573
KrolonatsiN William-Judith Schoen,Manfred-Steven Schoen Paterno,Frank P-Mary Elizabeth
Kralonstoln 73 Country Ridge Dr Patemo
81 Country Ridge Dr PORT CHESTER,NY 10673 72 Country Ridge Dr
PORT CHESTER,NY 10673 PORT CHESTER,NY 10573
Hecht,Michael-Loa Hecht Schoen Barry L-Laurie A Schoen Napwk Robed-Rosdnd Napack
56 Country Ridge Dr 14 Carol Ct 23 Card Ct
PORT CHESTER,NY 10573 PORT CHESTER,NY 10573 PORT CHESTER,NY 10573
Pkissecu Mlohsel-Joerxre p4lossou "at,LouNe 8-Susan J Geist Bolles,Kenneth.Francs Balllvi
11 David Ln 40 Country Ridge Dr 32 Country Ridge Dr
PORT CHESTER,NY 10573 PORT CHESTER,NY 10573 PORT CHESTER,NY 10673
Created on: 5/14/2021 Paps 2 of 4
Melling Label for Pronsify Addroam,Crested Aom Munlopof Tax Peroe/Vbwer.
Belay sMphan P-Kathleen A Salley Hyatt,Henry-Karen Hyatt Novick,Stephen-Bbphan Novick
20 Card Ct 145 Country Ridge Dr 121 Country Ridge Dr
PORT CHESTER,NY 10673 PORT CHESTER,NY 10573 PORT CHESTER,NY 10573
Paley I11401 r,Joan-QuelMed Personal Current Occupant Wohl David-Jenrffw Wohl
Rceldertoc PORT CHESTER,NY 10573 97 Country Ridge Dr
1 AMad Ct PORT CHESTER,NY 10573
PORT CHESTER,NY 10573
Schiller,Philip-Nancy Sehilier Mugno John F-Karen A Coombe DR Rosily Hold"is,LL.0-Dorody J
84 Country Ridge Dr 30 Carol Ct Bohm
PORT CHESTER,NY 10573 PORT CHESTER,NY 10573 28 Card Ct
PORT CHESTER,NY 10573
CIrninMe Thomas Annoods o Joseph MullerYavin-Yushm Wang
28 Carol Ct 21 Carol Ct 10 David Ln
PORT CHESTER,NY 10673 PORT CHESTER,NY 10673 PORT CHESTER,NY 1 MM
Wolf Bars-Andrew Wolf Walsh George J 18-Evelyn M Walsh Lachman Robert-ham Lashmen
51 Country Ridge Dr 19 Card Ct 992 Iang St
PORT CHESTER,NY 10573 PORT CHESTER,NY 10573 PORT CHESTER,NY 10573
Pouics,George Brockman JIM-Peter Brookmm Shapiro,Rhoda
125 Country Ridge Or 124 Country Ridge Dr 120 Country Ridge Dr
PORT CHESTER,NY 10673 PORT CHESTER,NY 10673 PORT CHESTER,NY 10573
Current Occupant Colbert!Richard-Marion Cellbo tl Ate,Peter-Lauren Alter
PORT CHESTER,NY 10573 3 Pine Tree Dr 101 Country Ridge Dr
PORT CHESTER, NY 10573 PORT CHESTER,NY 10673
Hooker,Joel L-Loraine T Hecker Volouch Jacqueline Low David-Amy Low
80 Country Ridge Dr 1 David Ln 59 Country Ridge Dr
PORT CHESTER,NY 10573 PORT CHESTER, NY 10573 PORT CHESTER,NY 10573
Lewis Samuel B-Shelle L Lewis Wechsler Stuart-Stacey Weolaler Heimann,Wendy
22 Card Ct 44 Country Ridge Dr 36 Country Ridge Dr
PORT CHESTER,NY 1D573 PORT CHESTER, NY 10573 PORT CHESTER,NY 10573
Bedell,Blwen Grp-Jennlhr A Bedell Schuallor John D-Nlldd A Sch uslar hisngno Robert-Rosemary Infontlno
45 Country Ridge Dr 1002 tang St 22 Country Ridge Dr
PORT CHESTER,NY 10573 PORT CHESTER NY 10573 PORT CHESTER,NY 10673
Created on: 5/14/2021 Page 3 of 4
MWIN Labeh forAmpartyAdftems,Created hom Munk"Tax PwoN VArwer. htw;ft&www.MMwheatsroov.00m Gas--Abddkrr ss
Wallace,JN1rey H Gusmeno,Auerbseh L.J Kauhnan,Lrmwwe-ftm Kaufman
41 Country Ridge Dr 18 Country Ridge Dr 36 Country Ridge Dr
PORT CHESTER,NY 10573 PORT CHESTER.NY 10573 PORT CHESTER,NY 10573
Stab of New York Gokh"n,JWm Fries,Richard-Robin FrtN
Anderson HE Rd 149 Country Ridge Dr 141 Country Ridge Dr
PURCHASE,NY 10577 PORT CHESTER,NY 10573 PORT CHESTER,NY 10573
Greenberg Jason-Melissa Greenberg Cassuto Wend A-David Caeauto 101sman Gsraid-Wendy KSgrnan
129 Country Ridge Dr 111 Country Ridge Dr 1 Pine Tres Dr
PORT CHESTER,NY 10573 PORT CHESTER,NY 10573 PORT CHESTER,NY 10573
Beklonl Raba Sands cbm Joseph 11-Sbphsnle Lowk%Constance
2 Pine Tree Dr dandrole►o 1 Dorel Grams Dr W
PORT CHESTER,NY 10573 112 Country Ridge Dr PORT CHESTER,NY 10673
PORT CHESTER,NY 10573
Current Occupent Gabel,JsRny Poplauft.Maurice R.lhv-,
PORT CHESTER,NY 10573 77 Country Ridge Dr Poplawky
PORT CHESTER,NY 10573 61 Country Ridge Dr
PORT CHESTER,NY 10673
DsMalbo Robert E-Therese M Ress Willem m M servo.Paul-Wendy Serylo
DeMettea 13 Card Ct 47 Country Ridge Dr
15 Card Ct PORT CHESTER,NY 10573 PORT CHESTER,NY 10573
PORT CHESTER,NY 10573
Raesnberg Paul S-Del mreh F Currell Antonio Angelo-Isabella Handwergo,Arnold
Crystel4tosenbrg Maaale 24 Country Ridge Dr
43 Country Ridge Dr 18 Carol Ct PORT CHESTER,NY 10573
PORT CHESTER,NY 10573 PORT CHESTER,NY 10573
Austrian Jonathan-sham Au.Msn Segal,Mtaheel-Debre Segal
39 Country Ridge Dr 996 King St
PORT CHESTER,NY 10573 PORT CHESTER, NY 10573
Created on: 5/14/2021 Pape 4 of 4
5l27=21 Westchester County GI3::Tax Parcel Maps
Tax Parcel Maps
Address: 980 Anderson HUI Rd
Print Key: 129.58-1-1 SBL: 12905800010010000000
f
. � may. ✓ yy�� .�
V
a_y
10A
d N.
r sr �A
This tax Parcel map is provided as a pubic service to Westchester County nsldsnts for general Information and planning purposes
only,and should not be roiled upon as a sole Informational source.The County of Wesinheder hereby dlscislrns any Willy,from the
use of tins GI3 mapping system by any person or entity.Tax parcel boundaries represent approodmats property Ine location"should
NOT be Interpreted as or used In Ileu of a survey or property boundary des&ptlon.Property descriptions must be obtained from
surveys or deeds.For more Information please contact the asseseor's office of In municipality.
httpsllglsvwvw.westch"torgov.00m/tenunapallayoutaspx?r=RYK212289 1/1
QyE DR
VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK
MAYOR 938 King Street,Rye Brook,N.Y. 10573 ADMINISTRATOR
Paul S.Rosenberg (914)939-0668 Fax(914)939-5801 Christopher J.Bradbury
www.ryebrook.org
TRUSTEES BUILDING&FIRE
Susan R.Epstein INSPECTOR
Stephanie J.Fischer Michael J.Izzo
David M.Heiser
Jason A.Klein
July 22,2021
Applicant: Stuart Sindell,Marcia Sindell&Joseph Abbe
27&29 Carol Court
Rye Brook,New York 10573
Re:Zoning Board of Appeals Escrow Account—980 Anderson Hill Road
Dear Applicant's:
On May 6,2021 a deposit was made by Moss&Kalish,PLLC check number 12814 in the amount of$1,000.00
towards your escrow account for an application to the Zoning Board of Appeals related to the application filed
pursuant to Village Code §250-13.G.(1)and(4) to reverse the Building Inspector's determination to grant
Building Permit#21-054,for the property located at Blind Brook Club,980 Anderson Hill Road,Rye Brook,
New York, designated and shown on the current Tax Map as Parcel ID #129.58-1-1. Building Department
records indicate that the professional fees incurred over the course of the Zoning Board's review of your
application total $3,925.00. As such your project escrow account has a negative balance of$2,925.00,which
must be brought up to date. Please deposit with the Village, the sum of$2,925.00 as soon as possible. Our
office has not received the final invoices for this application however a spread sheet outlining invoices is
attached for your review. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
The applicable section of Village Code requiring payment of professional fees by the applicant is included on
the next page for your review and convenience.
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.
Sincerely,
Michael J.Izzo
Building&Fire Inspector
mizzona ryebrook.ore
Ag
cc:David Gelfarb,Esq.
i
§47-2.Escrow accounts. [Adopted by the Board of Trustees of the Village of Rye Brook 8-9-1994 by L.L.
No.9-1994;amended in its entirety 10-27-2020 by L.L.No.9-2020.Subsequent amendments noted where
applicable.]
A. An escrow account to pay such consultant's fees may be required where the Village deems it necessary to
retain a consultant regarding the application for the following applications:
(1)Applications requesting an interpretation of any provision of the Village Code;
(2)Site plan applications in accordance with Chapter 209;
(3)Special use permit applications in accordance with§250-6H;
(4)Variance applications in accordance with§250-13;
(5)Subdivision applications in accordance with Chapter 219;
(6)Architectural review in accordance with Chapter 8;
(7)Erosion and sediment control permit in accordance with Chapter 118;
(8)Floodplain development permit in accordance with Chapter 130;
(9)Steep slopes work permit in accordance with Chapter 213;
(10) Permits to perform any regulated activity in a wedand in accordance with Chapter 245;
(11)Tree removal appeal in accordance with Chapter 235;and
(12)Any other application where the Village deems it necessary to retain a consultant regarding the
application.
B.The applicant shall submit a separate check in an amount to be determined by the Village Administrator or
Superintendent of Public Works/Village Engineer,but not less than$250 nor more than$2,500,to be
used to establish an escrow account,from which withdrawals shall be made to reimburse the Village for
the costs of professional review services.
C.The applicant shall be provided with copies of any Village invoice for such services as they are submitted
to the Village.All costs charged to the applicant shall be those reasonable and necessary to the decision
making function of the reviewing board as set/defined in§47-1B.
D.The applicant shall be required,from time to time,to deliver additional funds to the Village for deposit in
the escrow account if such additional funds are required to pay for professional consultation services
rendered to the Village or anticipated to be rendered.This amount shall be determined by the reviewing
board or the Superintendent of Public Works/Village Engineer based on an evaluation of the nature and
complexity of the application.
E.If such account is not replenished within 30 days after the applicant is notified,in writing,of the
requirement for such additional deposit,the reviewing Board may suspend its review of the application.
An application shall be deemed incomplete if any amount shall be outstanding.
F.In the event that any application before any Board or department is withdrawn prior to any actions being
taken,the applicant is nevertheless responsible for any expenses incurred by the Village with regard to said
application prior to such withdrawal.
2
G.A deposit in escrow may be required at any stage in the application process,including but not limited to
preapplication discussions with the applicant.
H.The applicant shall be provided with copies of any invoice for consultant fees as they are submitted to the
Village and with Village staff time records for services for which reimbursement is sought.
I.Escrow funds shall be refunded to the applicant when the applicant formally withdraws the application
from consideration by the permitting authority or when the applicant receives a final determination from
the permitting authority;in either case,all reimbursable charges incurred by the Village shall be first
deducted from the escrow account,leaving an unencumbered balance that is not required by the permitting
authority to pay consulting costs attributable to the application. Fees collected in accordance with the
Village Code shall not be refunded.After all pertinent costs have been paid,the Village shall refund to the
applicant any funds remaining in the escrow account within 30 days from the date of the final
determination issued by permitting authority or from the date the applicant notifies the Village,in writing,
of the withdrawal of the application.If the applicant is indebted to the Village for any fees,the amount of
money still owed shall be added to the real property Village tax of the property and shall become alien
against the property if not paid within 30 days of written demand.
J.A building permit nor certificate of occupancy or use shall not be issued unless all professional review fees
charged in connection with the applicant's project have been paid by the applicant.In no case shall a
building permit or certificate of occupancy be issued to the applicant if the applicant is indebted to the
Village for any professional review fees in excess of the escrow.
K The imposition of escrow account fees are in addition to,and not in place of,other fee schedules currently
in force.
3
PRO CT ADDRESS 980 ANDERSON HELL ROAD
PRO CT NAME MOSS&KALISH,PLLC
CCOUNT#
ACCOUNT START DATE:
ACCOUNT CLDSE DATE: Aed rkn dak ben
INVOICE DATE INVOICE# CHECK DATE CHECK# DISTRIBUTED TO DEBIT DEPOSIT Balance Unpaid Invoices
5/5/2021 12814 VRB f 1,000.00
6/14/2021 69818 K&B f 1,175.00
7/14/2021 70607 K&B f 2,750.00
f 3,925.00 f 1000.00 926.00 I f3 925.00
cUC4.°uv�v
to
VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK
MAYOR 938 King Street, Rye Brook,N.Y. 10573 ADMINISTRATOR
Paul S.Rosenberg (914)939-0668 Fax(914)939-5801 Christopher J.Bradbury
www.ryebrook.org
TRUSTEES BUILDING&FIRE
Susan R Epstein INSPECTOR
Stephanie J.Fischer Michael J. Izzo
David M.Heiser
Jason A. Klein
September 2,2021
Applicant: Stuart Sindell,Marcia Sindell&Joseph Abbe
27&29 Carol Court
Rye Brook,New York 10573
Re:Zoning Board of Appeals Escrow Account—980 Anderson Hill Road
Dear Applicant's:
On May 6,2021 a deposit was made by Moss&Kalish,PLLC check number 12814 in the amount of$1,000.00
towards your escrow account for an application to the Zoning Board of Appeals related to the application filed
pursuant to Village Code §250-13.G.(1)and(4) to reverse the Building Inspector's determination to grant
Building Permit#21-054,for the property located at Blind Brook Club, 980 Anderson Hill Road,Rye Brook,
New York, designated and shown on the current Tax Map as Parcel ID #129.58-1-1. Building Department
records indicate that the professional fees incurred over the course of the Zoning Board's review of your
application total $4,250.00. As such your project escrow account has a negative balance of$3,250.00, which
must be brought up to date. Please deposit with the Village, the sum of$3,250.00 as soon as possible. The
spread sheet outlining invoices is attached for your review. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
The applicable section of Village Code requiring payment of professional fees by the applicant is included on
the next page for your review and convenience.
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.
Sincerely,
Tara A. Gerardi
Secretary,Planning Board,
Zoning Board of Appeals&
Architectural Review Board
Cc:Michael Izzo,Building&Fire Inspector
David Gelfarb,Esq.,Moss &Kalish,PLLC
1
§47-2.Escrow accounts. [Adopted by the Board of Trustees of the Village of Rye Brook 8-9-1994 by L.L.
No. 9-1994;amended in its entirety 10-27-2020 by L.L.No. 9-2020.Subsequent amendments noted where
applicable.]
A. An escrow account to pay such consultant's fees may be required where the Village deems it necessary to
retain a consultant regarding the application for the following applications:
(1)Applications requesting an interpretation of any provision of the Village Code;
(2)Site plan applications in accordance with Chapter 209;
(3) Special use permit applications in accordance with§250-6H;
(4)Variance applications in accordance with§250-13;
(5) Subdivision applications in accordance with Chapter 219;
(6)Architectural review in accordance with Chapter 8;
(7)Erosion and sediment control permit in accordance with Chapter 118;
(8)Floodplain development permit in accordance with Chapter 130;
(9) Steep slopes work permit in accordance with Chapter 213;
(10)Permits to perform any regulated activity in a wetland in accordance with Chapter 245;
(11)Tree removal appeal in accordance with Chapter 235;and
(12)Any other application where the Village deems it necessary to retain a consultant regarding the
application.
B.The applicant shall submit a separate check in an amount to be determined by the Village Administrator or
Superintendent of Public Works/Village Engineer,but not less than$250 nor more than$2,500,to be
used to establish an escrow account,from which withdrawals shall be made to reimburse the Village for
the costs of professional review services.
C.The applicant shall be provided with copies of any Village invoice for such services as they are submitted
to the Village.All costs charged to the applicant shall be those reasonable and necessary to the decision
making function of the reviewing board as set/defined in§47-1B.
D.The applicant shall be required,from time to time,to deliver additional funds to the Village for deposit in
the escrow account if such additional funds are required to pay for professional consultation services
rendered to the Village or anticipated to be rendered.This amount shall be determined by the reviewing
board or the Superintendent of Public Works/Village Engineer based on an evaluation of the nature and
complexity of the application.
E.If such account is not replenished within 30 days after the applicant is notified,in writing,of the
requirement for such additional deposit,the reviewing Board may suspend its review of the application.
An application shall be deemed incomplete if any amount shall be outstanding.
F.In the event that any application before any Board or department is withdrawn prior to any actions being
taken,the applicant is nevertheless responsible for any expenses incurred by the Village with regard to said
application prior to such withdrawal.
2
G.A deposit in escrow may be required at any stage in the application process,including but not limited to
preapplication discussions with the applicant.
H.The applicant shall be provided with copies of any invoice for consultant fees as they are submitted to the
Village and with Village staff time records for services for which reimbursement is sought.
I. Escrow funds shall be refunded to the applicant when the applicant formally withdraws the application
from consideration by the permitting authority or when the applicant receives a final determination from
the permitting authority;in either case,all reimbursable charges incurred by the Village shall be first
deducted from the escrow account,leaving an unencumbered balance that is not required by the permitting
authority to pay consulting costs attributable to the application.Fees collected in accordance with the
Village Code shall not be refunded.After all pertinent costs have been paid,the Village shall refund to the
applicant any funds remaining in the escrow account within 30 days from the date of the final
determination issued by permitting authority or from the date the applicant notifies the Village,in writing,
of the withdrawal of the application. If the applicant is indebted to the Village for any fees,the amount of
money still owed shall be added to the real property Village tax of the property and shall become a lien
against the property if not paid within 30 days of written demand.
J.A building permit nor certificate of occupancy or use shall not be issued unless all professional review fees
charged in connection with the applicant's project have been paid by the applicant.In no case shall a
building permit or certificate of occupancy be issued to the applicant if the applicant is indebted to the
Village for any professional review fees in excess of the escrow.
S.The imposition of escrow account fees are in addition to,and not in place of,other fee schedules currently
in force.
3
PRO CTADDRESS 980 ANDERSON HU.L ROAD
PRO CT NAME MOSS&KAUSH,PLLC
CCOUNT#
CCOUNT START DATE:
ACCOUNT CLOSE DATE: Acct chn date ben
BWOICE DATE E WOICE# CHECK DATIO CHECK# DISTRIBUTED TO DEBIT DEPOSIT Balance Unpaid Invoices
5/5/2021 12814 VRB j 1,000.00
6/14/2021 69818 K&B j 1,175.00
7/14/2021 70607 K&B j 2,750.00
8/12/2021 71631 K&B j 325.00
j 4,250.00 1 $ 1,000.00 -$3 250.00 1 j4 250.00
BR(�v� Village of Rye Brook
Agenda
U W. 2 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting
O te%j 44 v
C', (`. 1� 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(@ryebrook.org. Please check the
Village website for updates.
INSTRUCTIONS TO ACCESS THE VIRTUAL MEETING:If you have a computer,tablet
or smartphone,you can register,log in and see the video and hear the audio of the live session.
You can access the Zoom meeting at his://us02web.zoom.us/i/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 amarshall(g tyebrook.org.
1. ITEMS:
1.1. #21-012
Jorge Robles
16 Maywood Avenue
Construct a rear deck expansion.
Mail Affidavit Sign Affidavit
Approvals; Adjournment
Aye;
Nay; ISM MI
SB SF
GB K&B
JDS
Js
DH
1
BR(�,�� Village of Rye Brook
Agenda
Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting
cc�`co Tuesday,June 1, 2021 at 8:00 PM
Q %;
Village Hall, 938 King Street
1.2. #21-015
Fabrice Hugon&Merle Hugon
167 Country Ridge Drive
Construct a one story side in-fill addition and interior alterations.
Mail Affidavit Sign Affidavit
Approvals; Adjournment
Aye;
Nay;
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.
Mail Affidavit Sign Affidavit
Approvals; Adjournment
Aye;
Nay;
DM MI
SB SF
GB K&B
JDS
JS
DIi
2
�[1R Village of Rye Brook
Agend
J c•� ��''� �' Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting
to,
(,�..�t`�y '� Tuesday,June 1, 2021 at 8:00 PM
j " � Village Hall, 938 King Street
1.4. #21-018
Stuart Sindell&Marcia Sindell
SZ 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.
Mail Affidavit Sign Affidavit
Approvals; Adjournment 7 2 l
Aye;
Nay;
2. SUMMARY APPROVALS:
2.1. Approval of May 4,2021 Zoning Board Summary
Approvals; Adjournment
Aye;
Nay;
DM V/ MI
SB SIB
(;B ✓ K&B
Jvs
Js f
DII
3
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
l�R(�v� Azenda
O y Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting
Tuesday,July 6,2021 at 8:00 PM
>J 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 mizzonae.ryebrook.org. Please check the
Village website for updates.
INSTRUCTIONS TO ACCESS THE VIRTUAL MEETING:If you have a computer,tablet
or smartphone,you can register,log in and see the video and hear the audio of the live session.
You can access the Zoom meeting at hops://usO2web.zoom.us/i/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 amarshallgryebrook.org.
1. ITEMS:
1.1. #21-012(Adjourned from 6/112021)
Jorge Robles
16 Maywood Avenue
Construct a rear deck expansion.
Approvals; Adjournment
Aye;
Nay;
DM MI
SB SF
GB K&B
JDS
Js
DH
1
bRnv� Village of Rye Brook
�X Agenda
`'w ' Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting
t�l c,�uJv v
5 tt'.�t ,t Tuesday,July 6, 2021 at 8:00 PM
C.�j
C. ' Village Hall, 938 King Street
1.2. #21-015 (Adjourned from 6/112021)
Fabrice Hugon&Merle Hugon
167 Country Ridge Drive
Construct a one story side in-fill addition and interior alterations.
Mail Affidavit Sign Affidavit
Approvals; Adjournment
Aye;
Nay;
1.3. #21-017 (Adjourned from 6/112021)
Abhinav Gautam&Pooja Singh
11 Berkley Drive
Construct a rear two story addition,new front portico,rear patio,deck and interior
renovations.
Approvals; Adjournment
Aye;
Nay;
DM MI
SB SF
GB K&B
JDS
JS
I)tI
2
Village of Rye Brook
R�v� Agenda
J w%.:��'� y Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting
�.L4 VvV Jd V
Tuesday, July 6,2021 at 8:00 PM
°it'`� Village Hall, 938 King Street
>�7.
1.4. #21-018 (Ad oumed 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.
Approvals; Adjournment
Aye; 3 —!�D��C\S r o T� •o�►���.D r 1 F
Nay; `3 v I t,.-1>1 M 4 N,f E e'Z9ti ,� COIL
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.
Mail Affidavit Sign Affidavit
Approvals; Adjournment
Aye;
Nay;
SB SF
GB K&B v'
Jvs J
Js
I�11
3
Village of Rye Brook
yE DR(1V�• A� d
Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting
"� i�,`<<• "` Tuesday, July 6,2021 at 8:00 PM
Village Hall,938 King Street
1.6. #20-020
Julie Santorelli Casino
6 Latonia Road
Request extension of approval of Zoning variance,Village Code 250-13.H.
Approvals; Adjournment
Aye;
Nay;
2. SUMMARY APPROVALS:
2.1. Approval of June 1,2021 Zoning Board Summary
Approvals; Adjournment
Aye;
Nay;
I
DM MI
SB SF
GB K&B
JDS
JS
DH
4
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