Village Zoning Board of Appeals
Special Meeting
March 5, 2002
8:00 p.m.
A Special 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 March 2002, commencing at 8:00 p.m.
Present
Jonathan J. Lerner, Chairman
Ronald H. Alenstein, Member
Stephen H. Smalley, Member
Stephen W. O'Connell, Member
John O'Leary, Member
David Turiano, Building Inspector
CASE #V-6-2002: MAUREEN FRAIETTA, 3 Cedar Drive East
Chairman Lerner called Case #V-6-2002, wherein the applicant was present.
Reading of the Public Notice from Building Inspector Turiano stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals would hold a Public Hearing on March 5, 2002, wherein Maureen Fraietta, located at 3 Cedar Drive East, was seeking a variance to construct an open wood deck to an existing single family dwelling. Existing lot coverage is 6.7%, an existing non-conformance. Column 6 of the Zoning Ordinance Schedule permits maximum lot coverage of 6%. The proposed increase indicates lot coverage of 8.9%. Column 4 of the Zoning Ordinance Schedule requires 40,000 square feet in an R40B zone district. Current lot size is 39,204 square feet, an existing non-conformance.
The following items were marked as Board Exhibits:
1. A letter dated February 12, 2002 to the applicant from the Building Inspector advising the Building Permit Application has been denied.
2. Application submitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals, undated.
3. Code of Ethics Certification signed February 19, 2002.
4. Notification of the Public Hearing dated February 15, 2002 from the Village Clerk to the applicant.
5. Architectural drawings revised February 4, 2002.
6. Affidavit of Publication of the Public Notice dated February 23, 2002.
7. Receipts of 9 certified mailings of Public Notice to neighbors located within 200 feet of subject property.
Discussion:
The applicant stated that she was seeking a variance to construct an open wood deck in the rear of the property in order to make the outside easily accessible and to improve the quality of life for her severely impaired son. She indicated that her son was non-ambulatory, ventilator dependent and required a caretaker at all times.
Member Smalley inquired whether there would be a ramp off the deck. The applicant stated that the deck was not designed with a ramp, as there was no need for her son to go into the yard. She indicated that there was an existing ramp from the front door to the driveway for easy access.
Member Smalley also asked if an awning would be installed over the deck. The applicant stated that she did not have any plans to cover the deck.
Member Alenstein questioned if there was a setback issue. Building Inspector Turiano reported that there was no setback issue because the Zoning Code allowed an open wood deck that encroached into the setback by as much as 6 feet, as long as it remained uncovered.
Member Smalley expressed concern about the substantial increase in total lot coverage to 8.9 percent, which exceeded the permitted lot coverage by 2.9 percent. He pointed out that there was an existing nonconformity in lot coverage due to a previous addition.
Member O'Connell inquired if the applicant discussed the proposed plans with the adjacent neighbor. The applicant stated that the neighbor has been away, but she mailed the required notification.
Member Alenstein maintained that the backyard was very open and the proposed deck would be visible to both neighbors. In response, the applicant stated that she would screen the deck with plantings.
Chairman Lerner requested comments from the public, and there were none.
Upon motion by Member Smalley, seconded by Member O'Connell, the Board voted unanimously to close the Public Hearing.
Member Alenstein stated that although the requested variance was substantial, he felt it would not have an adverse effect on the neighborhood provided there would be adequate screening. He stated that he would be in favor of the application.
Member Smalley also stated that it was a substantial variance, but he felt the proposed deck was sited on the property in a way that it would be hidden from the adjacent roads. He agreed that there should be screening between the deck and the neighbor located at 15 Cedar Drive East. He also recommended that there be plantings along Long Hill Road East to screen the deck from the neighbors across the street. He stated that he would be in favor of the variance solely because of the unique circumstances concerning the family situation, as he felt the benefit to the family was greater than the detriment to the community.
Member O'Leary agreed that the Board needed to contemplate the family circumstances and he felt that any detriment to the neighbors would be resolved with proper screening. He stated that he would support the application.
Member O'Connell stated that he was favorably inclined by virtue of the fact it was a deck being requested opposed to bulk. He also asserted that the deck would get the most use during the months when the screening was in bloom.
Chairman Lerner stated that it was a very difficult application since it was a substantial variance being requested. He stated that he would also support the application because of the unique circumstances and he pointed out that the application would have most likely been denied if not for the family situation. He requested that the screening plan be submitted directly to the Zoning Board for approval.
Decision:
WHEREAS, the Board has examined the application by Maureen Fraietta and her petition of variance to determine, among other applicable legal standards, if the benefit of the Appellant 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 unique family circumstances outweighs the detriment to the nearby properties; and
WHEREAS, the Board determined that no undesirable change would be produced in the character of the neighborhood since the deck was hidden in the rear of the property; and
WHEREAS, the Board concluded that the proposed variance would not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental condition of the neighborhood as the applicant agreed to proper screening; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, upon motion by Member Smalley, seconded by Member O'Leary, the Board voted unanimously to approve the variance with the condition that the applicant would submit a landscaping plan directly to the Zoning Board of Appeals for approval.
CASE #V-7-2002: TOWN OF OSSINING, Old Route 100
Chairman Lerner called Case #V-7-2002, wherein James Vanoli, Consulting Engineer, represented the applicant.
Reading of the Public Notice from Building Inspector Turiano stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals would hold a Public Hearing on March 5, 2002, wherein the Town of Ossining, a Municipal Corporation, was seeking a variance to construct a temporary modular office building. Review of the application indicates that the proposed temporary modular office building will be in violation of Column 6 of the Zoning Ordinance Schedule, Maximum % of Lot to be Occupied, and Column 8 of the Zoning Ordinance Schedule for the Park Road and Old Route 100 frontages, Minimum Front Yard Setbacks.
The following items were marked as Board Exhibits:
1. Application submitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals, undated.
2. Code of Ethics Certification signed February 22, 2002.
3. A letter dated February 22, 2002 from James Vanoli, Consulting Engineer.
4. Notification of the Public Hearing dated February 22, 2002 from the Village Clerk to the applicant.
5. Affidavit of Publication of the Public Notice dated February 23, 2002.
6. A facsimile dated March 5, 2002 from James Vanoli, Consulting Engineer.
7. Architectural drawings revised February 9, 2002, with landscape plan.
Discussion:
James Vanoli, Consulting Engineer, stated that the Town of Ossining was seeking a variance to place a temporary modular office building at their current highway department facility to provide temporary offices for highway department personnel. He indicated that the temporary building would remain in place for a period of two years while the Town negotiates for land and builds a new police facility elsewhere.
He stated that the project has been presented to the Planning Board on two separate occasions and the applicant has refined the plans several times as a result of those meetings. He maintained that the Planning Board has referred the project to the Zoning Board of Appeals since two variances were required, one for total lot coverage and one for front yard setback.
Consulting Engineer Vanoli also indicated that the highway vehicles would be stored in the existing facility once the sand and salt was moved to the armory on Route 9A. He stated that they also developed a landscaping plan for additional trees and plantings.
Member Alenstein questioned the dimensions and location of the modular building, wherein Consulting Engineer Vanoli reviewed the proposed plans with the Board and he stated that the size of the building was dictated by the interior floor plan and the location of the building was dictated by the need to have adequate parking and vehicle access to the garage. He stated that the Highway Superintendent determined the proposed location.
Chairman Lerner asked if the applicant explored any other alternatives, wherein Consulting Engineer Vanoli stated that he was not aware of any contingency plan.
Member Smalley stated that he did not understand the need to have such a large building with dimensions of 64 feet by 24 feet and he questioned if a smaller building would be adequate. He also questioned if the Town considered locating the temporary building along State Road. Consulting Engineer Vanoli stated that they reviewed other locations with the Planning Board and they agreed that this was the best location for the temporary building.
Chairman Lerner requested if the Planning Board issued any recommendations, in which Building Inspector Turiano indicated that it was a neutral referral and that the Planning Board did not issue any recommendations on this application. He also informed the Board that the applicant was before the Planning Board on November 13th and February 12th and that a Public Hearing was scheduled for March 12, 2002 on this matter.
Member Alenstein expressed concern about the consequences created if the Board granted a variance for 42 percent total lot coverage. He questioned if the variance would cease once the temporary building was removed or if the variance would remain with the property. Consulting Engineer Vanoli stated that the Board might be able to structure the approval based on the applicant's statement that it was a temporary structure to be removed after two years.
The Board concurred that they should seek a legal opinion from Village Counsel on the consequences of a permanent variance. They also discussed the various mechanisms that could be used in lieu of granting a variance. Building Inspector Turiano stated that by definition a Special Use Permit was for use in a residential zone and that it would not be applicable in this instance.
Member Alenstein stated that he also had a problem with the setbacks and he pointed out that a smaller building would not require a setback variance. Consulting Engineer Vanoli agreed to move the trailer 4 feet in order to eliminate the variance for the front yard setback.
Chairman Lerner recommended that the Board obtain legal guidance on what action should be taken to allow the applicant to construct a temporary trailer. He maintained that if a variance were required, they should seek a legal opinion on how to issue the variance without permanent consequences. The Board also recommended that the applicant review the size of trailer required.
The Board voted unanimously to adjourn the application to the Regular Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals to be held on April 2, 2002.
CASE #V-5-2002: NEIL DAVIS, 45 Becker Lane
Chairman Lerner called Case #V-5-2002, wherein David Gura, architect, represented the applicant and Neil Davis was also present.
Reading of the revised Public Notice from Building Inspector Turiano stated the Zoning Board of Appeals would hold a Public Hearing on March 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 to 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. Review of the proposed building indicates a height of 34'3". Thirty feet is permitted from Column 17 of the Zoning Ordinance Schedule.
WHEREAS, 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. A letter dated January 8, 2002 to the applicant from the Building Inspector advising a third variance for "Principal Building Height" was required.
3. Application to the Zoning Board of Appeals with attached letter from the architect dated January 14, 2002.
4. Code of Ethics Certification signed December 15, 2001.
5. Notification of the Public Hearing dated January 21, 2002 to the architect from the Village Clerk.
6. Notification of the adjourned Public Hearing dated February 15, 2002 to the architect from the Village Clerk.
7. A letter of opposition dated January 28, 2002 from Muriel Bogdanoff, 150 Law Road.
8. A letter dated February 20, 2002 to the Zoning Board from Attorney Jeffrey Shumejda, representing Bobbi Mullins and Richard Ellson, 135 Law Road.
9. Architectural Drawings prepared by David Gura Architects dated January 10, 2002.
10. Affidavit of publication of the Public Notice dated January 29, 2002.
11. Affidavit of Publication of the Public Notice dated January 23, 2002.
12. Receipts of 9 certified mailings of both Public Notices to neighbors located within 200 feet of subject property.
Discussion:
The architect, David Gura, stated that it has been determined that three variances were required on this application, front yard setback, stories in height, and principal building height. He referenced the previous meeting at which time it was stated that the existing house was built on seven different levels due to the topography of the land. He indicated that the applicant was proposing to expand the master bedroom, extend the existing living room, add a mezzanine completely open to the living room below, and replace the existing pitched roof with a flat roof and parapet walls.
Member Smalley requested if the Public Hearing was re-noticed for the three variances, wherein Building Inspector Turiano stated that the application has been properly re-noticed.
Architect Gura maintained that there was a difference of interpretation with respect to the definition of stories and it was his analysis that the current dwelling was a two-story structure based on the egress issue. He also believed that the parapet walls, the two structures of the building and a portion of the roof were exempt under Section 25 of the Building Code as an allowable infringement on the maximum height.
He presented a model of the proposed alterations and additions, architectural drawings, site plan and topographical map to the Board. He reviewed the angle of view for both the proposed flat roof and a pitched roof that would be permitted without a variance. He also reviewed hypothetical roof pitches and how it could affect the neighbors' views. He asserted that the impact that could be created by what the applicant could do as of right, would be drastically greater than what was being proposed.
The applicant stated that based upon the issues raised at the last meeting, they have eliminated the pergola that they could do as of right since it may have obstructed some of the neighbors' views.
Member Alenstein requested the limitations in the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to parapet walls, wherein the architect stated that parapet walls were not addressed in the Zoning Ordinance. Building Inspector Turiano stated that the applicant was proposing a solid wall that served as a railing and he viewed that to be a part of the principal building.
Member O'Connell questioned the purpose for the parapet walls and if any consideration was given to making the walls transparent. The applicant stated that the intended use was for an observation deck and that they have not made a final decision on the material to be used. Member O'Connell suggested that glass or an opened railing would be more pleasing to the neighbors, wherein the applicant stated that he would agree to that, if the composition of the parapet walls was a key element to having the variance granted.
Chairman Lerner requested comments from the public; wherein Jeffrey Schmejda, attorney representing the adjoining property owners, Bobbi Mullins and Richard Ellson, 135 Law Road, stated that he addressed some of the legal issues in his letter dated February 20th. He presented photographs taken from his clients' property and he pointed out how their view would be restricted by the proposed construction. He asserted that they would also be impacted by the increased mass created by the flat roof. He maintained that they currently look down on just the ridgeline of the existing pitched roof.
Attorney Schmejda also expressed concern about the height calculations and he stated that he viewed at least four stories from the front elevation. Building Inspector Turiano stated that he calculated an average of all four sides in order to balance out the grade.
Member O'Connell requested the height from the riverside, wherein Building Inspector Turiano stated that the highest point would be approximately 40 feet.
Member Smalley questioned the structures on the roof, in which the architect stated that they were mechanical structures used to ventilate that portion of the house. Member Alenstein stated that he did not consider that to be a superstructure.
Member Alenstein requested if the applicant would need to eliminate the mezzanine if the Board did not grant the maximum height variance, wherein Architect Gura stated that if they needed to substantially reduce the height they would not be able to fit the mezzanine. He also asserted that it would destroy the architectural design of the structure since it served as a unifying element that connected the entire facade.
Member O'Leary requested the proposed depth of the observation deck, wherein Architect Gura stated that it was approximately 13 feet at its deepest.
Suzanne Bogdanoff, 150 Law Road, stated that the applicant has presented the proposal to be an addition to an existing nonconforming structure. She asserted that the interior of the house was going to be completely demolished which would result in a totally new house and she questioned if that would affect how the Board looked at the variance application. Member Smalley pointed out that even though they would be gutting the inside, the basic structure would still exist with the same floors and the same exterior walls.
Member Smalley questioned the exterior color of the dwelling, in which the applicant stated that they decided on a gray tone similar to the existing color.
Charles Toriano, 161 Law Road, stated that he was the neighbor to the south and he asserted that the proposed height of the structure would block a considerable amount of his view. He questioned if the Board gave any consideration to the existing views and what would result from the proposed construction. Member Alenstein stated that he estimated the site lines and he felt the proposal would not substantially change his northern view.
Attorney Schmejda asserted that the composition of the parapet walls was only a part of the issue since the two structures would still exist even if the parapet walls come down. He also believed that they were clearly a part of the building and should not be considered a superstructure.
Attorney Schmejda urged the Board to require the applicant to prepare a photo simulation of the visual impacts of the proposed construction from the affected neighbors' properties in order to assist the Board in weighing the benefit to the applicant versus the detriment to the nearby property owners.
Richard Ellson, 135 Law Road, indicated that he recently put a substantial addition onto his house and he was very concerned about his river view since it was a significant value to his property. He indicated that he did not want to impede on the applicant's rights, but he wanted to protect his river view that was already limited.
Muriel Bogdanoff, 150 Law Road, asserted that she also had a very limited view and she felt that it was terribly unfair since all of the neighbors pay enormous taxes and have put a great deal into their houses.
Chairman Lerner stated that it was a difficult application and he asserted the importance for the Board to have a better understanding of the impact of views. He stated that based on the presentation, he could not determine if there would be a detriment to the nearby properties. He recommended that the applicant replicate the geographical changes by running a yellow tape across the two chimneys in order to visualize the impact of the roof and ridgelines.
Architect Gura stated that he was not certain how to present the visual impacts in order to satisfy the neighbors' perspectives, wherein Attorney Schmejda recommended that they pick one point on each of the property owners' land. Member Alenstein also suggested that the neighbors could pick one location that they felt was the most representative of their view.
Member O'Leary requested the height of the ceiling in the portion of the living room with the superstructure sections, wherein Architect Gura stated that it was 23 feet to the underside of the ceiling line.
Member O'Leary also questioned if it would be possible to reconfigure the space and lower the height, in which Architect Gura indicated that they already agreed to remove the pergola based on the neighbors' concerns. He requested if a compromise could be reached by keeping a portion of the parapet walls open.
Member O'Connell stated that there were two concerns from the neighbors' perspective, the proposed height that would cut off their river views and the bulk aspect. He maintained that a pitched roof was not as imposing since it softens the visual impact. He felt that if the Board permitted the applicant to be able to view the Hudson River, it would impose on the people who already invested in their homes and paid taxes. He asserted that the existing structure was already substantial and they were proposing to add a huge deck which in effect would be a forth story. He indicated that if the applicant was willing to remove the superstructures and add only a railing so that it would not be so imposing, he might be inclined to grant the variance.
The applicant questioned if the Board would approve the variance if they level the superstructures with the main building and submit to opening a portion of the parapet wall with some sort of transparent material. Member Alenstein asserted that it should not be a negotiation process. He maintained that the Board needed to understand the visual impacts before making a decision.
Attorney Schmejda stated that the compromise did not address the sides of the parapet walls, wherein Member Alenstein pointed out that the existing chimneys were higher than the proposed parapet walls.
Bobbi Mullins, 135 Law Road, indicated that it was the mass, not so much the height, that was difficult to visualize, wherein Member Alenstein stated that there may not be a zoning law that prohibited the mass.
Member Smalley pointed out that even if there was no observation deck and parapet walls, the applicant could build almost the entire mass by right.
Attorney Schmejda asserted that the observation deck would be a detriment to the neighborhood and it would need a variance due to setback. He asserted that if the parapet walls were removed, no variance would be required and the neighbors' views would not be impacted. Member Smalley stated that it was also an architectural feature to draw the whole building together.
The applicant maintained that he was attempting to be a good neighbor by removing the pergola that he could do as of right and he hoped that all parties could meet each other part of the way.
Architect Gura also pointed out that the applicant would eventually be forced to make a decision on whether to pursue the requested variances or to proceed with what he could build as of right, which would have a greater impact to all of the neighbors.
Chairman Lerner stated that he was impressed with the applicant's willingness to try and be a good neighbor. He encouraged the parties to reach a compromise prior to the next meeting.
Upon motion by Member Smalley, seconded by Member O'Connell, the Board voted unanimously to adjourn the application to the April meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Adjournment
Chairman Lerner stated that the next Regular Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals would be held on April 2, 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 10:55 p.m.
Gina Tomaino
Recording Secretary
| 