V illage Zoning Board of Appeals
Regular Meeting
February 5, 2002
8:00 p.m.
A Regular Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Briarcliff Manor, New York, was held in the Village of Briarcliff Manor Municipal Building, at 1111 Pleasantville Road, Briarcliff Manor, New York on the 5th day of February 2002, commencing at 8:00 p.m.
Present
Jonathan J. Lerner, Chairman
Ronald H. Alenstein, Member
Stephen H. Smalley, Member
John O'Leary, Member
David M. White, Village Counsel
David Turiano, Building Inspector
Absent
Stephen W. O'Connell, Member
CASE #V-27-2001: MICHELLE COPPOLA, 57 Becker Lane
Chairman Lerner called Case #V-27-2001 and he stated that the application was adjourned from January 9, 2002. Mark Reilly, attorney, represented the applicants on behalf of Attorney David Steinmetz.
A reading of the Public Notice from Building Inspector Turiano stated the Zoning Board of Appeals would hold a Public Hearing on December 10, 2001, wherein Michelle Coppola, property located at 57 Becker Lane, was seeking a variance to construct a new single-family dwelling, located in an R60 zoning district for the following reasons:
 Column 16 of the Zoning Ordinance Schedule permits a 2½-story building. Plans indicate that a 3-story building is proposed.
Column 17 of the Zoning Ordinance Schedule permits a maximum principal building height of 35 feet. Plans indicate that a principal building with a maximum height of 38'6" is proposed.
Column 18 of the Zoning Ordinance Schedule permits a maximum accessory building height of 15 feet for sloping roofs. Plans indicate that the accessory building has a maximum height of 16'8".
Section 4(D)B(e) of the Zoning Ordinance Schedule requires that no tennis court shall be permitted in a front yard as proposed.
Section 4(D)B(b) requires that the minimum distance from the outer perimeter of any tennis court shall be 40 feet to any lot line. The tennis court is proposed with 30+/- feet of the southern lot line.
Section 4(D)B(c) of the Zoning Ordinance Schedule permits a maximum 12 foot fence height surrounding any tennis court. The proposed west wall elevation is in excess of 12 feet.
Section 4(D)B(k) compliance required since tennis court proposed to be less than 50 feet from adjoining property to the west.
Section 4(E)B(b) of the Zoning Ordinance Schedule requires that any pool located in any yard other than the rear yard, a minimum 100 foot setback from every side or street line shall be provided. Proposed side yard setback is less than 100 feet to the west and less than 100 feet to Becker Lane.
Zoning Ordinance Schedule, Item 11, permits solid walls or fences not more than six feet in height in the rear yard and/or side yards and four feet in height in the front yard. Proposed entrance gates located in the side yard are proposed to be 24 feet in height.
The following items were marked as Board Exhibits:
1. Application submitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals dated November 9, 2001 with attached letter from Attorney David Steinmetz.
2. Code of Ethics Certification signed November 9, 2001.
3. A memorandum dated November 14, 2001 to the Zoning Board of Appeals from the Planning Board.
4. A letter dated November 21, 2001 to the applicant from the Building Inspector advising the Building Permit Application has been denied.
5. Notification of the Public Hearing dated November 26, 2001 from the Village Clerk to the attorney.
6. A memorandum dated November 30, 2001 to the Zoning Board of Appeals from the Planning Board.
7. A letter dated December 3, 2001 to the Village from Muriel Bogdanoff, 150 Law Road.
8. A letter dated December 5, 2001 to the Zoning Board of Appeals from Attorney David Steinmetz.
9. A memorandum dated December 12, 2001 to the Zoning Board Members from Building Inspector Turiano regarding the site visit.
10. A letter dated January 3, 2002 to Attorney David Steinmetz from the Chicago Title Insurance Company with attached Schedule and Deed.
11. A memorandum dated January 4, 2002 to the Zoning Board of Appeals from the Fire Department Site Plan Review Committee.
12. A letter dated January 4, 2002 to the Zoning Board of Appeals from Lackowitz Engineering.
13. A letter dated January 9, 2002 to the Zoning Board of Appeals from Attorney David Steinmetz.
14. Eight sets of full architectural plans, including site plan and survey.
15. Ten exhibits of alternative designs submitted by the architect.
16. Affidavit of Publication of the Public Notice dated November 27, 2001.
17. Affidavit of Publication of the Public Notice dated December 10, 2001.
18. Receipts of 11 certified mailings of Public Notice to neighbors located within 200 feet of subject property stamped November 28, 2001.
19. A letter dated January 4, 2002 to the adjacent landowners from Attorney David Steinmetz with attached affidavit of 12 certified mailings to neighbors located within 200 feet of subject property; and
20. A letter dated January 29, 2002 to the Village from Muriel Bogdanoff, 150 Law Road.
21. A letter dated January 29, 2002 to the Village from Engineer Ralph Mastromonaco.
22. Receipts of 12 certified mailings of Public Notice to neighbors located within 200 feet of subject property dated January 25, 2002.
Discussion:
Building Inspector Turiano: He read a letter dated January 29, 2002 received from Muriel Bogdanoff, 150 Law Road, opposing the application.
Chairman Lerner: He requested comments from the public, in which there were none. He recommended that the Public Hearing be closed.
Attorney Mark Reilly (on behalf of Attorney David Steinmetz): He submitted twelve (12) certified mailings to Building Inspector Turiano.
Chairman Lerner: He questioned the status of the issue concerning the easements.
Attorney Mark Reilly: He stated that Attorney Steinmetz has reached out to both Brooke Russel Astor and Thomas Shearman, but there has been no decision on how the easements would be handled. He maintained Attorney Steinmetz was confident that title could be acquired from Mr. Shearman, however the applicants could also abandon their rights to the property. He stated that a fuller title search needed to be completed in order to determine Astor's rights to that property.
Chairman Lerner: He asked if it has been determined who has the rights to the easements.
Attorney Mark Reilly: He stated that the title insurance report submitted to the Board indicated that the property belonged to Mr. Shearman.
Jerry Marr: He stated that the Chicago Title Report indicated he was the only party who had the rights-of-way to the access road, which he would be conveying to the applicants. The report also indicated that Mr. Shearman positively owned the strip.
Chairman Lerner: He stated that if Mr. Marr relinquished the rights-of-way, Mr. Shearman would still have the ability to put a road through if he made arrangements with Mrs. Astor.
Member Smalley: He stated that the title conveyed in October of 1928 referenced a Briar and Scarborough Highway. He stated that when he walked the property, it appeared that there was an old road up there. He asserted that any question of ownership would need to be resolved.
Attorney Mark Reilly: He stated that Attorney Steinmetz was very confident that title could be acquired from Mr. Shearman.
Chairman Lerner: He questioned the time period needed to acquire the title.
Barbara Gilbert, 121 Law Road: She stated that she has discussed the matter several times with Mr. Sherman and he indicated that he was willing to convey the title.
Chairman Lerner: He questioned Mrs. Gilbert on her objectives.
Barbara Gilbert, 121 Law Road: She stated that she wanted to make sure that it would never be used as a road.
Chairman Lerner: He indicated that it was his understanding the applicants would relinquish all of their rights to the rights-of-way as part of the process.
Attorney Mark Reilly: He stated that the other alternative would be for the applicants to gain title to the strip as well.
Chairman Lerner: He stated that the applicants would be receiving Mr. Marr's rights as part of the property transfer and it was his understanding that the applicants would abandon that right. He stated that as part of the package the Board would like to extinguish those rights-of-way.
Jerry Marr: He stated that he was not concerned knowing that the applicant's were making such an investment in the property. He also indicated that during the past few weeks, the applicants have made overtures to the Astor estate to purchase that 20-acre strip. He stated that he was convinced that the applicants would own everything in the end making the rights-of-way totally irrelevant.
Member Smalley: He stated that in order for the Board to grant the variances, it might be necessary to obtain a document giving conveyance from Mr. Sherman to Mrs. Gilbert and at the same time a document from the applicants abandoning their rights to the easement.
Attorney Mark Reilly: He expressed concern about completely relinquishing the rights to the easement in case they needed to put utilities in there at some point.
Chairman Lerner: He stated that it could be subject to the right of utilities.
Attorney Mark Reilly: He stated that he did not see a problem, but he would want to discuss the issue with Attorney Steinmetz. He submitted to the Board corrections to the draft resolution. He stated that with respect to the landscaping plan listed under item three of page six, the applicants would be appearing before the Planning Board next week to discuss the tree removal permit. He questioned if the permit and the landscaping plan could be fused together.
Building Inspector Turiano: He stated that the Planning Board would be issuing a tree permit, but the Zoning Board has the right to review screening issues.
Member Smalley: He stated that both Boards have issues concerning the trees. The Planning Board would need to deal with the tree removal, but the Zoning Board has already assured Mrs. Gilbert that they would require plantings before any construction begins.
Attorney Mark Reilly: He stated that with respect to the distance of the tennis court, the distance is currently 40.7 feet in the site plan.
Building Inspector Turiano: He stated that there was a discrepancy with the dimensions and he questioned if all portions of the tennis court would be 40 feet away.
Member Smalley: He stated that the discrepancy concerned the south end of the tennis court and the applicants agreed to move the tennis court further north so they did not have to worry about a tennis court variance for a side lot setback. They would only have to deal with the pool variance.
Village Counsel White: He stated that when he reviewed the minutes he saw that there was a discussion about moving it. He then called Attorney Steinmetz to clarify the situation and Attorney Steinmetz stated that they talked about it but they weren't actually going to move it unless the Board required it to be moved.
Chairman Lerner: He stated that there were two different variances, one from the south and one from the west. It was his understanding that the applicants would move it to the west and the southern variance would remain.
Attorney Mark Reilly: He stated that the provision in the Code stated that if it was closer to an adjoining house it has to be 50 feet away from the property line.
Building Inspector Turiano: He stated that during the last discussion, the applicants agreed to move the tennis court and take ten feet from the garden area.
Chairman Lerner: He stated that it was always the Board's assumption that the applicant would not need a setback variance for the tennis court.
Member Smalley: He stated that during the site visit, the tennis court was staked to be more than 40 feet requiring no southern variance. He stated that it was also indicated that some footage would be removed in the garden area between the pool and the tennis court.
Attorney Mark Reilly: He stated that it was reflected in the revised proposal.
Building Inspector Turiano: He stated that it was also reflected in the minutes and resolution.
Chairman Lerner: He stated that the setback information would be changed. He also stated that he wanted to make it clear that the height variance was not de minimus.
Village Counsel White: He indicated that he changed the wording in the next draft.
Member Smalley: He requested that there be a condition to the variance which states that as much fill as possible remain on the site.
Attorney Mark Reilly: He stated that the architect previously indicated that he intended to use the fill onsite for grading.
Building Inspector Turiano: He stated that the Planning Board routinely requires that it remains balanced in order for the fill to remain on site.
Attorney Mark Reilly: He maintained that in paragraph eight it stated that the proposed height was 30 feet, but they were proposing 38.5 feet.
Building Inspector Turiano: He indicated that some of the permits listed under Condition #4 may not be necessary and he suggested that it state, "as required".
Chairman Lerner: He maintained that the wording already stated "all necessary".
Member O'Leary: He questioned the height of 16.8 feet for the accessory building and he stated that the applicant agreed to lower the height to 15.9 feet.
Attorney Mark Reilly: He stated that in the motor court there was a proposed building part of the principal building that was at 15.9 feet. He stated that the garage with the recreation room was 16.8 feet.
Member Alenstein: He questioned if the attorney had doubts to the measurements.
Attorney Mark Reilly: He stated that since there were two buildings, he would want to confirm the information with Attorney Steinmetz.
Member Smalley: He stated that the conditions for the entrance gate needed to be more specific. He indicated that it should state that the gate would be sited as such that emergency vehicles would be able to make the swing from Becker Lane onto the property without interference from the gate.
Attorney Mark Reilly: He stated that the proposed plan was not site specific as to the exact location of the gate.
Member Alenstein: He stated that he thought there was an understanding that the applicant would move the gate back.
Member Smalley: He agreed that the applicants did state they would move the gate, but it was not contained in the draft.
Attorney Mark Reilly: He stated that the gate was moved from the original site plan.
Building Inspector Turiano: He stated that the Planning Board would review the turning movement as part of the process and the applicants would need to demonstrate turning movements for all apparatus.
Village Counsel White: He stated that he could make that a condition.
Member Smalley: He stated that it was important to make that a condition since the road; the driveway and the opening were all so narrow. He also requested that the wording for the strip of land be changed.
Upon motion by Member O'Leary, seconded by Member Smalley, the Board voted unanimously to close the Public Hearing.
Member Alenstein: He stated that he was in favor of all the variances sought as modified throughout the numerous discussions on the application. He stated that the property was very secluded and it would impact only a few neighbors, principally Mrs. Gilbert who has extracted certain promises, understandings and conditions and appears to be satisfied. He also stated that Muriel Bogdanoff did not provide any specific reasons or arguments as to why she objected to the application; she only requested that the Zoning Board enforce the laws. He indicated that the applicant's proposal was an excellent use of the parcel. He stated that if the applicants did not receive what they needed and they abandoned their plans as a result, the Village could wind up with more housing on that property. He stated that they
should not be under any illusions about the easement, that although Mr. Marr and the applicants appear to be willing to give up their rights except for the utility issue, the problem would not be resolved until someone obtains title. He stated that since the matter was out of the applicants' control, it was difficult to make it a condition.
Member O'Leary: He agreed with Member Alenstein's comments. He stated that the applicants have been very cooperative, they allowed the Board to reduce the application and they agreed to essentially ever request that has been made. He stated that a positive aspect to the application was the fact that the easement would go away and the potential development of that 20-acre parcel would be hampered. He stated that the grand nature of the project would be a benefit to the community. He maintained that there could be a condition, which stated that it was the intent of the parties involved to eliminate the easement.
Member Smalley: He stated that he had reservations about certain issues that were before the Planning Board, such as the water systems and drainage. He stated that during all of the meetings, the applicants have been more than willing to change their application and they have made a wholehearted effort to accommodate all of the requests. He stated that the applicants wanted a grand home with a turn of the century style. He felt it was a good use of the property in the fact that it was a single-family home. He stated that the variances were necessary because of the topography of the land. He also stated that there would be a minimum detriment to the neighborhood as long as the applicants were a good neighbor and they did the things they promised to do in the application process, such as working on the road,
keeping the drainage and fill on the property. He stated the number of variances and the size of the variances have been reduced. He recommended that the Board grant the variances.
Chairman Lerner: He stated that he sympathized with Mrs. Bogdanoff's letter because it was always sad to see trees knocked down and property developed. He stated that when you considered the alternatives, as the other Board Members have expressed, the proposal was the best use of the property. He agreed that the applicants have every incentive to protect their investment. He stated that the property could end up with three or four houses, which would create visibility, traffic, and unsightliness conditions. He did not see any detriment to the neighborhood as long as the drainage issues were taken care of. He felt that the variances would have no adverse effect. He stated that he would support the application and the actual resolution, with conditions, would be subject to editing.
Decision:
SEE ATTACHED RESOLUTION
CASE #V-14-2002: RICHARD & BARBARA GOODMAN, 38 Aspinwall Road
Chairman Lerner called Case #V-1-2002. Richard and Barbara Goodman were present.
A reading of the Public Notice from Building Inspector Turiano stated the Zoning Board of Appeals would hold a Public Hearing on February 5, 2002, wherein Richard and Barbara Goodman, located at 38 Aspinwall Road, were seeking a variance to construct an addition to a deck on an existing single family dwelling. Survey indicates 34.5-foot setback. Column 11 of the Zoning Ordinance Schedule requires a 40-foot rear yard setback. Lot size by survey indicates 43,560 square feet. Column 4 of the Zoning Ordinance Schedule requires a minimum lot size of 60,000 square feet. Proposed lot coverage is 5.42%. Column 6 of the Zoning Ordinance Schedule permits 5% maximum lot coverage.
The following items were marked as Board Exhibits:
1. A letter dated December 13, 2001 to the applicants from the Building Inspector advising the Building Permit Application has been denied.
2. Application to the Zoning Board of Appeals dated December 27, 2001.
3. Code of Ethics Certification signed December 27, 2001.
4. Notification of the Public Hearing dated January 21, 2002 to the applicants from the Village Clerk.
5. Affidavit of publication of the Public Notice dated January 29, 2002.
6. A letter of opposition dated February 5, 2002 to the Zoning Board of Appeals from Myron Solin, 599 Long Hill Road West.
7. A survey prepared by W.A. Slater dated March 11, 1957.
8. Architectural plans prepared by John G. Scarlato, Jr.; and
9. Receipts of 8 certified mailings of Public Notice to neighbors located within 200 feet of subject property.
Discussion:
The applicants stated that they were proposing to extend an existing wooden deck in the rear of their property. They asserted that they when they purchased the property in April 1990, they were not informed that the rear yard setback and lot size were not in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. They indicated that the proposed deck extension would bring the rear yard setback to 31 feet and the total lot coverage would be increased to 5.42 percent, including the deck. They pointed out that in the R40A and R40B zone districts, one-acre parcels are allowed 6 percent coverage. They also stated that at the time of the sale, there were four parcels along Aspinwall Road that were one-acre lots.
Chairman Lerner asked if the applicants obtained a title report when they purchased the property. The applicants stated that they submitted the survey received.
The applicants provided photographs to the Board, which showed that their parcel was completely wooded and that it abuts Village property. They stated that since the deck addition would be in the rear of the property and situated low to the ground, it would not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor create any detriment to nearby properties. They also stated that the proposal would have no adverse effect on the environment.
Building Inspector Turiano stated that the majority of the property behind the applicants was park land and the other portion was general municipal land.
Member Alenstein stated that a considerable portion of the existing deck was flush with the ground level and he questioned if it was necessary to count the deck as part of the lot coverage. Building Inspector Turiano stated that if the construction were a structurally supported assembly, such as beams constructed on a foundation, it would be applied towards the lot coverage. If it were an on-grade construction, similar to a driveway, a patio or walkway, it would not be applied towards the lot coverage. He indicated that in this instance, it was a structurally supported assembly and the deck would need to be counted towards the lot coverage.
Member Smalley stated that the survey performed in 1957 showed a flagstone patio. Building Inspector Turiano reported that a permit was granted in 1994 to covert the patio to a deck.
Member Smalley stated that the present drainage system runs off to the side of the house and he questioned the need to install retaining walls when they build. The applicants indicated that there were drywells on the two corners of the house and they did not have any drainage issues at the present time.
Member Smalley also requested if provisions were made to redirect the drainage so the footings did not go into the drain. The applicants stated that they would review the matter.
Building Inspector Turiano read a letter dated February 5, 2002 received from Myron Solin, 599 Long Hill Road, opposing the application. He stated that Mr. Solin was the neighbor located immediately to the west of the subject property. The applicants stated that Mr. Solin's house was located substantially higher and they did not believe the deck could be seen from his property. Building Inspector Turiano indicated that the deck was 100 feet from the applicant's property line and Mr. Solin's house was approximately an additional 200 feet away.
Chairman Lerner requested comments from the public, in which there were none.
Upon motion by Member Smalley, seconded by Member O'Leary, the Board voted unanimously to close the Public Hearing, as there were no comments from the public.
Member Alenstein stated that the deck addition was insubstantial and that it would have little or no impact to any of the surrounding properties since it was situated low to the ground. He also indicated that the extended deck would enhance the quality of life for the applicants. He voted to support the application.
Member O'Leary agreed with the comments made by Member Alenstein and he voted to support the application.
Member Smalley stated that the applicants' arguments all came down to "let the buyer beware." He indicated that the deck addition was located in the back of the house and would not be visible from the street. He stated that when he visited the property, it was evident that the requested variance would create a minimum detriment to any of the surrounding properties. He pointed out that the Board has previously granted variances for the requested setback distance and he felt they should be consistent. He voted to grant the variance.
Chairman Lerner agreed with the comments made by the other Board Members. He voted to grant the variance.
Decision:
WHEREAS, the Board has examined the application by Richard and Barbara Goodman and their petition for a variance and the Board has considered, among other applicable legal standards, if the benefit of the Appellants upon granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; and
WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the requested area variance was not substantial; and
WHEREAS, the Board concluded that no undesirable change would be produced in the character of the neighborhood since the deck was located in the rear of the property; and
WHEREAS, the Board agreed that no detriment to nearby properties would be created since the deck was situated low to the ground level; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, upon motion by Member Alenstein, seconded by Member O'Leary, the Board voted unanimously to approve the variance.
CASE #V-2-2002: FRANK & LORRAINE CAMPO, 744 Sleepy Hollow Road
Chairman Lerner called Case #V-2-2002. Frank and Lorraine Campo were present.
A reading of the Public Notice from Building Inspector Turiano stated the Zoning Board of Appeals would hold a Public Hearing on February 5, 2002, wherein Frank and Lorraine Campo, located at 744 Sleepy Hollow Road, were seeking a variance to construct an addition to an existing single family dwelling. The proposed addition with a front yard setback of 32 feet 11 inches would be non-conforming with regard to minimum front yard setback. Column 8 of the Zoning Ordinance Schedule requires a 40-foot setback for the zone district.
The following items were marked as Board Exhibits:
1. A letter dated December 4, 2001 to the applicants from the Building Inspector advising the Building Permit Application has been denied.
2. Application to the Zoning Board of Appeals dated January 3, 2002.
3. Code of Ethics Certification signed January 3, 2002.
4. Notification of the Public Hearing dated January 21, 2002 to the applicants from the Village Clerk.
5. Affidavit of publication of the Public Notice dated January 29, 2002.
6. A survey prepared by Ward Carpenter Engineers, dated April 28, 1948.
7. A letter of support dated February 1, 2002 to the Zoning Board of Appeals from Patricia Cockren, 746 Sleepy Hollow Road.
8. A survey prepared by Aristotle Bournazos, P.C. dated June 27, 2001
9. Architectural plans prepared by Gibbons Engineering, revised January 2, 2002.
10. Receipts of 11 certified mailings of Public Notice to neighbors located within 200 feet of subject property.
Discussion:
Building Inspector Turiano reported that the property was actually situated on a private road off of Sleepy Hollow Road. He read a letter dated February 1, 2002 received from Patricia Cockren, 746 Sleepy Hollow Road, supporting the application.
Member Smalley referenced a letter dated December 4th from the Building Inspector and he asked if any watershed or wetlands permits would be required. Building Inspector Turiano stated that they would not perform a complete review until after a variance was granted.
The applicants stated that they purchased the home in September 2001 and they were proposing to construct a portico to the existing front entrance and redirect the stairs to ascend from the front, opposed to the right, as it currently existed. They stated that the landing was presently 32 feet 11 inches from the road and they would not be extending it any closer to the street.
The applicants presented alternative proposals and they indicated that version three, the submitted proposal, would be the most beneficial with respect to drainage. They stated that the addition would not create a detriment to the neighborhood since there was a large evergreen tree in front of the stairs and there were no houses on the other side of the road. They also felt that the overall design would enhance the appearance of the house.
Member Alenstein requested the distance from the road to the stairs. Member Smalley stated that the plans indicated 23 feet 9 inches.
Member Smalley asked if they needed to count the stairs. Building Inspector Turiano stated that any structure, including stairs, 18 inches above the ground must be applied towards the setback.
Member Smalley stated that in 1947 there was a 35-foot right-of-way that eventually was changed to 50 feet. He pointed out that when the Village took the property, they changed the setback.
The applicants stated that there was an existing sidewalk that cut across their front lawn and that they would not be going beyond that sidewalk. They also felt the sidewalk would help to visually maintain the setback of the stairs.
Member Alenstein requested if they would build a walkway from the end of the stairs to the street. The applicants replied that they would not.
Member Alenstein also questioned if a variance was still needed if the portico were eliminated. Building Inspector Turiano indicated that they would still need a variance to redirect the stairs due to the distance of the stairs from the ground.
Chairman Lerner requested comments from the public, in which there were none.
Upon motion by Member O'Leary, seconded by Member Smalley, the Board voted unanimously to close the Public Hearing, as there were no comments from the public.
Member Smalley stated that the Board has previously granted variances for porticos. He indicated that the character of the neighborhood was rural and he felt that the proposal would improve the appearance of the house. He also pointed out that the applicants were affected when the right-of-way was changed. He voted to grant the variance.
Member Alenstein stated that he also felt the proposal would improve the appearance of the house, but he was concerned about the close distance to the street. He voted to support the application.
Member O'Leary voted in favor of the application.
Chairman Lerner agreed with the comments made by the other Board Members and he voted to support the application.
Decision:
WHEREAS, the Board has examined the application by Richard and Barbara Goodman and their petition for a variance and the Board has considered, among other applicable legal standards, if the benefit of the Appellants upon granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; and
WHEREAS, the Board determined that the proposal would not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood; and
WHEREAS, the Board concluded that there would be no adverse effect on the physical or environmental condition in the neighborhood and that the requested variance would improve the existing drainage conditions on the property; and
WHEREAS, the Board agreed that no detriment to nearby properties would be created since there were no houses located on the opposite side of the road; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, upon motion by Member Smalley, seconded by Member Alenstein, the Board voted unanimously to approve the variance.
CASE #V-3-2002: MICHAEL & EILEEN MADDEN, 28 Simpson Road
Chairman Lerner called Case #V-3-2002. Mary Faithorn Scott, architect, represented the applicants. Michael and Eileen Madden were also present.
A reading of the Public Notice from Building Inspector Turiano stated the Zoning Board of Appeals would hold a Public Hearing on February 5, 2002, wherein Michael and Eileen Madden, located at 28 Simpson Road, were seeking a variance to construct an alteration to an existing single family dwelling. Column 6 of the Zoning Ordinance Schedule permits a maximum percentage of 14% lot coverage. Proposed lot coverage is 15.4%. Column 9 of the Zoning Ordinance Schedule requires a minimum 12-foot setback. Proposed construction indicates a 5.1-foot setback. Column 10 of the Zoning Ordinance Schedule requires a minimum 25-foot setback. Proposed construction indicates a 17.5-foot setback.
The following items were marked as Board Exhibits:
1. Application to the Zoning Board of Appeals dated December 16, 2001
2. Code of Ethics Certification signed December 16, 2001.
3. A letter dated December 24, 2001 to the applicants from the Building Inspector advising the Building Permit Application has been denied.
4. Notification of the Public Hearing dated January 21, 2002 to the applicants from the Village Clerk.
5. Site Plan prepared by Mary Faithorn Scott, architect.
6. Architectural plans prepared by Mary Faithorn Scott, dated December 21, 2001.
7. Affidavit of publication of the Public Notice dated January 29, 2002.
8. Receipts of 20 certified mailings of Public Notice to neighbors located within 200 feet of subject property.
Discussion:
Mary Faithorn Scott, architect, stated that the house was located in the Tree streets area of the Village and it was originally built with a detached garage connected by an open breezeway. She indicated that a previous owner enclosed the breezeway, but they did not heat it. The structure does not have a Certificate of Occupancy. She stated that the applicants were proposing to insulate and heat the breezeway space and replace the windows and doors, thus making the garage a part of the principal structure. She indicated that the applicants were seeking variances for 5.1 foot one side yard setback where 12 feet was required, 17.5 foot two side yards combined setback where 25 feet was required and 15.4 percent total lot coverage where 14 percent was allowed.
Member Smalley requested when the previous owner enclosed the breezeway. The applicants stated that based upon information received from the surrounding neighbors, it was completed approximately thirty years ago.
Chairman Lerner asked how the situation was brought to their attention. The applicants replied that it was determined during the application process that there was no Certificate of Occupancy for the breezeway.
Member Alenstein questioned how the Board could determine whether the current version of the breezeway was completed by the previous owner or by the applicants. Trudy Daly, 32 Simpson Road, informed the Board that the breezeway has not changed since the previous ownership.
Member Smalley stated that the majority of the homes in the neighborhood had garages located within five feet of the property line, since that distance was permitted under the Zoning Code when the houses were built.
Chairman Lerner requested comments from the public, in which there were none.
Upon motion by Member Smalley, seconded by Member O'Leary, the Board voted unanimously to close the Public Hearing, as there were no comments from the public.
Member Smalley stated that he had no objections to granting a variance, but the resolution should be very specific since several properties in the area have similar issues. He indicated that the applicants were not changing the structure, other than replacing the windows and doors. He stated that the structure was architecturally pleasing and it would be inappropriate to instruct the applicants to remove the breezeway. He indicated that the 15.4 percent total lot coverage already existed and the applicants were not seeking to increase the lot coverage. He pointed out that there was no steep slope issue pertaining to this application and he also stated that the benefit to the applicant outweighs the detriment to the neighborhood. He voted in favor of the application.
Member Alenstein agreed with Member Smalley's recommendation, however he did not want to give the message that everyone with a detached garage in the Tree streets area was entitled to an enclosed breezeway. He voted to support the application.
Member O'Leary agreed with the comments and stated that it would be a hardship to force the applicants to tear the breezeway down. He voted to support the application.
Chairman Lerner stated that the only negative factor was that the Board needed to grant the variance retroactive. He stated that the building permit should have been applied for initially and that the matter should have been brought to the applicants' attention when they purchased the property. He voted to grant the variances.
Decision:
WHEREAS, the Board has examined the application by Michael and Eileen Madden and their petition for a variance and the Board has considered, among other applicable legal standards, if the benefit of the Appellants upon granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; and
WHEREAS, the Board concluded that the requested variance would not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighbor since the connected breezeway already existed and the applicants were not increasing the lot coverage; and
WHEREAS, the Board agreed that the alleged difficulty was not self-created, although the lack of a Certificate of Occupancy for the breezeway should have been identified at the time of purchase; and
WHEREAS, the Board determined that the variance would not have an adverse effect on the physical or environmental condition in the neighborhood since the breezeway already existed; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, upon motion by Member Smalley, seconded by Member Alenstein, the Board voted unanimously to approve the variances.
CASE #V-4-2002: JEFFREY JONES & JOANN LUEHRING, 38 Walnut Place
Chairman Lerner called Case #V-4-2002. Jeffrey Jones and JoAnn Luehring were present.
A reading of the Public Notice from Building Inspector Turiano stated the Zoning Board of Appeals would hold a Public Hearing on February 5, 2002, wherein Jeffrey E. Jones and JoAnn Luehring, located at 38 Walnut Place, were seeking a variance to construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling. The existing lot coverage is currently 7.51%. Column 6 of the Zoning Ordinance Schedule allows maximum lot coverage of 6%. The proposed increase will result in lot coverage of 8.41%. The current lot size is 30,320 square feet. Column 4 of the Zoning Ordinance Schedule requires 40,000 square feet, an existing non-conformance for this zone district.
The following items were marked as Board Exhibits:
1. Application to the Zoning Board of Appeals with attached statement dated December 27, 2001.
2. Code of Ethics Certification signed December 28, 2001.
3. A letter dated January 4, 2002 to the applicants from the Building Inspector advising the Building Permit Application has been denied.
4. Notification of the Public Hearing dated January 21, 2002 to the applicants from the Village Clerk.
5. Survey prepared by W.A. Slater, updated September 21, 1963.
6. Architectural plans prepared by Tancredi Spano Architects with Coverage Calculations Worksheet dated December 28, 2001.
7. Affidavit of publication of the Public Notice dated January 26, 2002.
8. Receipts of 11 certified mailings of Public Notice to neighbors located within 200 feet of subject property.
Discussion:
The applicants stated that they were proposing to add a lower deck on the back of their house and to add a roof over the front porch. They stated that the property sits below street level. The existing deck was considerably off the ground and they wanted to connect a lower deck in order to make the backyard more accessible. The existing lot was 30,320 square feet and was currently non-conforming. They indicated that the deck would only be visible from the back of the house. The applicants also stated that they wanted to add a roof over the front stoop in order to protect visitors from the rain and to improve the appearance of the front.
Member Smalley stated that the proposed plans indicated a second-story addition. Building Inspector Turiano replied that the second story would be above the existing footprint and the increase in the non-conformity would be a result of the deck and the porch covering.
The Board discussed the Zoning regulations and the necessity for a variance with respect to a second-story addition on a non-conforming lot.
Member Alenstein expressed concern on whether the Public Notice should have included the second-story addition. The Board agreed that no variance would be required when a second-story addition was added onto an existing footprint on a non-conforming lot. They stated that if the applicants were not adding a deck or porch covering, they could do the second-story addition as of right.
Chairman Lerner requested comments from the public, in which there were none.
Upon motion by Member O'Leary, seconded by Member Smalley, the Board voted unanimously to close the Public Hearing, as there were no comments from the public.
Member Alenstein stated that the variances being requested by the applicants were reasonable and he felt that no detriment would be created to nearby properties. He voted in favor of the application.
Member O'Leary voted to support the application.
Member Smalley stated that the rear property was very wet and the proposed additions would be a good use of the property. He maintained that if the applicant's property were 40,000 square feet, as most of the homes in the area were, the additions would not require a variance. He also stated that the requested variance would not be a detriment to the neighborhood as the abutting property was Pocantico Park. He voted to support the application.
Chairman Lerner agreed with the comments made by the other Board Members. He voted in favor of the application.
Decision:
WHEREAS, the Board has examined the application by Jeffrey and Joann Luehring and their petition for a variance and the Board has considered, among other applicable legal standards, if the benefit of the Appellants upon granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; and
WHEREAS, the Board agreed that the requested variances would not create a detriment to nearby properties; and
WHEREAS, the Board concluded that the benefits sought by the applicants, to have outdoor living space adjacent to the indoor living space, could not be achieved by some other method; and
WHEREAS, the Board determined that the proposed plan was a good use of the property and it would not have an adverse effect on the physical or environmental condition in the neighborhood; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, upon motion by Member Alenstein, seconded by Member O'Leary, the Board voted unanimously to approve the variances.
CASE #V-5-2002: NEIL DAVIS, 45 Becker Lane
Chairman Lerner called Case #V-5-2002. David Gura, architect, represented the applicant and Neil Davis was also present.
A reading of the Public Notice from Building Inspector Turiano stated the Zoning Board of Appeals would hold a Public Hearing on February 5, 2002, wherein Neil Davis, located at 45 Becker Lane, was seeking a variance to construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling. Minimum yard dimensions in feet from lot lines to principal building require a 40-foot front yard setback with 34.6 feet existing, in violation of Column 8 of the Zoning Ordinance Schedule. The requested one-story increase on two stories in this area proposes no further change in setbacks. The proposed construction further extends the existing three-story structure vertically, increasing the non-conformity. Column 16 of the Zoning Ordinance Schedule limits maximum height of a principal building to two and one-half
stories.
The following items were marked as Board Exhibits:
1. A letter dated January 4, 2002 to the applicant from the Building Inspector advising the Building Permit Application has been denied.
2. Application to the Zoning Board of Appeals with attached letter from the architect dated J January 14, 2002.
3. Code of Ethics Certification signed December 15, 2001.
4. Notification of the Public Hearing dated January 21, 2002 to the architect from the Village Clerk.
5. A letter of opposition dated January 28, 2002 from Muriel Bogdanoff, 150 Law Road.
6. Architectural Drawings prepared by David Gura Architects dated January 10, 2002; and
7. Affidavit of publication of the Public Notice dated January 29, 2002.
8. Receipts of 9 certified mailings of Public Notice to neighbors located within 200 feet of subject property.
Discussion:
Building Inspector Turiano reported that it was initially determined two variances would be required; front yard set back and stories in height. He indicated that upon further review of the application, it was determined that a third variance was needed. The proposed height of the building was 34.3 feet and Column 17 of the Zoning Ordinance Schedule limits the height to 30 feet. He issued a revision to the original denial letter dated January 4, 2002, wherein he informed the applicant that a third variance would be required. He stated that the Public Notice published in the newspaper did not reflect the third variance necessary.
Village Counsel White recommended that the Board keep the Public Hearing open in order to give proper notification.
David Gura, architect, presented photographs of the existing lot to the Board. He stated that the house was originally built in 1979 and was located on an irregular 2.653-acre site, severely limited to expansion. The house consisted of seven different levels due to the topography of the land. He stated that he has spoken with Building Inspector Turiano to ascertain what was considered to be the front, rear and side of the house.
Architect Gura stated that the applicant was proposing to expand the master bedroom and create a master bath and closet. He indicated that they could legally build above the area that was not within the encroachment and he asserted that only a 37 square foot section of the closet was in non-compliance of the Zoning Code. He also stated that they would be removing an encroaching chimney on both floors, which would reduce the non-compliance to 23 square feet. He stated that the average front yard setback along the length of the existing house was 53.17 feet.
Member Smalley stated that the proposed plans indicated a former lot line and he asked if there was any history tied into the property. The applicant stated that they researched all the past records and they did not find any issues. The Board recommended that they bring a copy of the older survey to the next meeting.
Architect Gura, stated that the applicant was also proposing to extend the existing living room and to add a mezzanine completely open to the living room below. He pointed out that the existing non-complying third floor was at an elevation lower than the existing second floor. He stated that the proposed mezzanine would be 13¼ inches higher than the existing second floor and 13.3½ feet above the front entry level.
Chairman Lerner asked if they would still require a height variance if they did not have the mezzanine. Architect Gura stated that they would not require a height variance, but he asserted that the mezzanine was part of the living room area.
Architect Gura stated that the State Building Code defines a mezzanine as an intermediate floor between the floor and ceiling of any space that is completely open or provides adequate visibility. He also stated that the Building Code states that a mezzanine with a floor area less than one third of the floor area immediately below shall not be deemed as a story. He indicated that the area of the first floor levels total 2,842 square feet supporting a mezzanine of 947 square feet.
Building Inspector Turiano stated that there was a difference of interpretation. He stated that he calculated the structure as three stories based upon the Village's standard of what was defined as a story.
Architect Gura stated that the Zoning Ordinance Schedule permits a maximum height of 30 feet for the principal building. He indicated that the proposed height of 29.59 feet was calculated based upon the highest point of the roof beams as defined in the Building Code. He also stated that it was their interpretation that the portion of the roof above the two-story living room would be exempt under Section 25 of the Building Code. He stated that if the roof was not interpreted by the Board to be an exception, then they calculated the proposed height to be 33.09 feet based upon the top of the parapet walls.
Building Inspector Turiano stated that this was another difference of interpretation. He indicated that he calculated the proposed height to be 34 feet based upon the Village's standard of building height.
Architect Gura asserted that the height of the proposed house, whether to the roof beams or proposed parapet, are lower than that of the highest ridgeline of the existing house. He indicated that the ridge beam and mass of the house could be significantly greater if they used a pitched roof opposed to a flat roof.
Member Smalley questioned the significant structural members for the decking on the rear west side and he asked if the applicant was overbuilding. Architect Gura stated that it was based upon the height of the structures and that they were building to code.
Chairman Lerner requested comments from the public. Suzanne Bogdanoff and her mother Muriel Bogdanoff, 150 Law Road, stated that there appeared to be many discrepancies concerning the application and that they were very confused on exactly what was being proposed. They requested the distance of the structure from the lot line. Architect Gura replied that the closet point was 34.6 feet and the average distance was 53 feet.
Suzanne Bogdanoff asserted that it was inaccurate to state the non-conformity was not being increased when you build up.
Member Smalley agreed that the architectural plans were very confusing and he recommended that the architect bring a model of the proposal to the next meeting. He stated that as viewed from Mrs. Bogdanoff's property, the existing peak of the applicant's roof was lower than the shoreline of the Hudson River and that he did not believe Mrs. Bogdanoff's view of the water would be impacted. Mrs. Bogdanoff stated that her view would be blocked when they increased the height. Architect Gura replied that they were actually reducing the height.
Bobbi Mullins, 135 Law Road, stated that they were also concerned the proposed construction would impact their view. Member O'Leary indicated that they would view the applicant's house from the Mullin's property prior to the next meeting.
Chairman Lerner requested the total gross square footage. Architect Gura stated that it would be approximately 7,000 square feet, including the basement. He asserted that they were only adding 214 square feet to the footprint of the house.
The Board agreed to adjourn the application to a Special Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals to be held on March 5, 2002 at 8:00 p.m. The Board also agreed to visit the site prior to the next meeting and view the applicant's house from the neighbors' properties.
Adjournment
Chairman Lerner stated that the Special Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals would be held on March 5, 2002 at 8:00 p.m. There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was duly adjourned by Chairman Lerner with a unanimous vote of the Board at 10:40 p.m.
Gina Tomaino
Recording Secretary
| 