Village Zoning Board of Appeals
Special Meeting
January 9, 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 9th day of January 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 M. White, Village Counsel
David Turiano, Building Inspector
CASE #V-27-2001: MICHELLE COPPOLA, 57 Becker Lane
Chairman Lerner called Case #V-27-2001 and he announced that it was a continuation of a Public Hearing adjourned from December 10, 2001. David Steinmetz, attorney, and Richardson Robertson, architect, represented the applicants. Michelle and Shane Coppola 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 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. Receipts of 11 certified mailings of Public Notice to neighbors located within 200 feet of subject property stamped November 28, 2001.
18. 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
Discussion:
Chairman Lerner: He asked Building Inspector Turiano to clarify the issue concerning the notification.
Building Inspector Turiano: He stated that it was a continuation of a Public Hearing originally adjourned from the December 10, 2001 Regular Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Zoning Board subsequently conducted two separate field visits at the property wherein all Board Members attended at least one of the two meetings. He stated that the date for this special meeting was not agreed upon until several weeks ago. The applicants sent certified mailings to all of the property owners located within 200 feet of subject property and provided the required affidavit of publication for the record. The notification was not published in the newspaper.
Chairman Lerner: He stated that there was also an issue concerning the amount of notice given from the date of the certified mailings.
Attorney David Steinmetz: He stated that at the first site walk he was requested by Chairman Lerner to send out a subsequent notice to the neighbors as a courtesy. He stated that he did not believe the Village Code required that subsequent notification be given for case adjournments. He indicated that Barbara Gilbert and Linda Edelstein were present at the initial site walks and they were informed of the continued meeting.
Chairman Lerner: He stated that he received the impression that certain residents were not aware of the special meeting and he requested the date of the certified mailings.
Attorney David Steinmetz: He stated that the certified letters were mailed on Friday, January 4th.
Village Counsel White: He recommended to the Board that they do not close the Public Hearing or make any decisions until proper notification has been given.
Attorney David Steinmetz: He stated that the application relates to a six-acre parcel on Becker Road. He stated that the owner, Jerry Marr, and the applicants, Michelle and Shane Coppola, were present. The applicants were contract vendees on the property and they propose to develop a single-family residence with accessory structures, a tennis court, a pool, a garden area, fencing and a gate. He stated that he has reviewed the variances required with the Board at the preliminary presentation and during the site visits. He stated the variances relate in general to the height of the principal residence, the height of the accessory structures, the distance of the pool and tennis court from the side-yard, excavation associated with the tennis court, and the height of the gate. He stated that at the request of
the Board, the applicants had a surveyor stake the corners of the main residence, the outer corners of the accessory structures, the corners of the pool, and the out of bound corners of the tennis court. He maintained that each and every member of the Zoning Board was present at one of the two site visits, wherein the purpose was to physically show the Board Members what the applicants propose to do. He stated that at the request of Member Smalley, he confirmed with the surveyor that it was the out of bound corners that were staked on the tennis court; the outer perimeter was not staked. He indicated that Mastromonaco Engineers have submitted a revised site plan with specific measurements. He stated the architect, Richardson Robertson, was also present to answer any questions that may arise with respect to the design and the use of the property. He asserted that the applicants were clearly aware of the drainage and agricultural issues that needed to be
addressed and they have retained the engineering firm to design a storm water management system. In addition, they were also aware of the existing conditions on Becker Road that needed to be addressed and they were confident that their proposal would benefit the neighbors since they would be able to reduce some of the water currently running off the Marr property. He maintained that the existing culvert was not being maintained and it was not functioning properly. He also stated that the three neighboring property owners that would be most impacted by the proposal were present; Barbara Gilbert, resides to the southeast of the property, Linda Edelstein, resides to the north and west of the property and Ingrid Lombardi resides immediately to the west.
Chairman Lerner: He requested that the attorney address the issue concerning the easement.
Attorney David Steinmetz: He submitted a letter dated January 9, 2002 to the Board, which included a copy of the letter sent to the adjacent property owners and a copy of the letter received from the title insurance company concerning the 50-foot access to Law Road. It read that Thomas Shearman was the developer who owned all of the land described in Filed Map #18716. On April 3, 1973 Mr. Shearman conveyed to Brooke Russel Astor the majority of Lot 46 as set forth on Filed Map #18716. The deed however did not reference the Lot on the filed map and did not include, in its metes and bounds description, that piece of Lot 46 which is the 50-foot wide access to Law Road. Ownership of this 50-foot strip still remains with Thomas Shearman. Other than the grant of an easement to Clair T. Hertz, there are no other
easements created over the strip of land. He also submitted a copy of the actual deed dated March 15, 1976 from Thomas Shearman to Clair Hertz, who owned the property before she conveyed it to Jerry Marr. He stated that Mrs. Hertz acquired the triangle because it's immediately adjacent and contiguous to the 50-foot strip. Mr. Shearman was giving Mrs. Hertz 25 feet of frontage along the 50-foot strip out to Law Road two years after the filed map had been created and the conveyance had been effectuated to Mrs. Astor. The document grants a perpetual easement and rights-of-way over the premises for ingress and egress for water, power, telephone, gas, sewer, storm drains and other utilities over, along, and across said premises for the benefit of land of the party of the second part and her successors and assigns. He summarized that Thomas Shearman owns the parcel and Jerry Marr and his successors appear to be the only party who have an expressed easement
over that strip but Mrs. Astor continues to own at least the 20-acre parcel. He asserted that the applicants were very interested in purchasing this parcel for their protection. He indicated that Mr. Shearman stated to Mrs. Gilbert that he does not believe he owns it, although the title company states he does. He asserted that if Mr. Shearman owns it, the applicants want to purchase the parcel to prevent it from being opened up.
Member Smalley: He questioned who was paying the taxes on the parcel.
Building Inspector Turiano: He informed the Board that there was no tax lot on the parcel.
Attorney David Steinmetz: He asserted that if the applicants do not consummate the transaction to purchase the property, Mr. Marr was in discussion to convey the property to a developer, who intends to subdivide the property and open the road in order to have access off of Law Road. He stated that the applicants share a common bond with Mrs. Gilbert, which is to control access and prevent development. He stated with respect to a question raised by Member Smalley concerning adequate water pressure and fire safety, the applicants are prepared to install a sprinkler system, although not required by Village Code, and they intend to demonstrate that there will be adequate water pressure. He maintained that in the event there was still a concern, they would still have the benefit of the utility easement in order to have a
water line brought out.
Member Smalley: He asked if the attorney received a letter from the Village Water Engineer.
Building Inspector Turiano: He stated that at the last meeting there were numerous discussions relating to the gate and fire access. He met with the Fire Department Site Plan Review Committee to discuss these issues. The Village's Water Consultant also had a number of questions regarding the water pressure and hydrant locations. He stated that these aspects would normally be discussed at the site planning stage but they decided to address the concerns now. He also stated that it appeared the proposed house could not be built without a variance from the New York State Building Codes due to its height and fire area requirements at a minimum. He stated that while he could not determine the outcome, normally the state requires the need for a fire sprinkler system. He stated that the Fire Department Site
Plan Review Committee has issued a list of concerns regarding the water issues, how they pertain to the building code and the turning movement for the fire trucks.
Attorney David Steinmetz: He stated that he mentioned the water issue because he wanted everyone to know how it related to the easement. He asserted that they were prepared to deal with any state building code issues, but in his opinion those concerns were not before the Zoning Board.
Member Smalley: He stated that the letter received from Water Consultant Lackowitz only addressed the six inch main, but they also needed to determine where they were going to put the pump house and water storage.
Attorney David Steinmetz: He stated that the applicants were prepared to handle all of the technical issues with Building Inspector Turiano when they were at the building permit stage. He asserted that they first needed to secure the required variances from the Zoning Board and the necessary approval from the Planning Board as to the storm water and tree removal.
Chairman Lerner: He asserted that the applicants have a host of issues that needed to be addressed and the only way to deal with all of them was one at a time. He stated that the Board needed to address the specific variances before them. He questioned the ownership of the easements and he pointed out that the relinquishment by the applicants did not matter if the applicants do not acquire the right of the easement from Mr. Shearman.
Member Alenstein: He stated that it would help the Board to understand if Mr. Marr was the successor of Mrs. Hertz.
Attorney David Steinmetz: He stated that he previously indicated that Mr. Marr owns the property and he has the right of the Hertz easement over the Shearman property. He stated the title report was run on the Marr/formerly known as Hertz property.
Member Alenstein: He pointed out that Thomas Shearman still owns the strip and he could grant an easement to someone else.
Attorney David Steinmetz: He stated that was the exact reason why it was clearly in the applicants' interest to try and secure the right to the property. He stated for the purpose of what was in front of them, they are advising the Board that they do not want to open it, they have no intent of opening it and they will do whatever they can to protect themselves and the neighbors to close it permanently. He felt it was important to also let the Board know that as a backup Mr. Marr was in discussions with potential builders who would want to open that access.
Jerry Marr: He indicated that the statement was true.
Member Alenstein: He recommended that there be a condition for any variance granted that the applicants would not be allowed to open up the access.
Chairman Lerner: He indicated that he did not know if the Board had the power to do that.
Member O'Connell: He stated that it was not an exclusive easement.
Chairman Lerner: He stated that the attorney's argument was that the applicants would be the most motivated to keep the access closed since they would be the primary victim.
Attorney David Steinmetz: He indicated that all private property owners have rights within their property. He stated that they were not here to play the speculation game, but they were trying to deal with the reality that Thomas Shearman owns the strip without even realizing it and the applicants wanted to purchase that parcel. He pointed out that the alternative was not good for Mr. Marr, Mrs. Gilbert or the applicants.
Chairman Lerner: He questioned why Mr. Marr would decide to sell the parcel to a developer and have the access opened up.
Attorney David Steinmetz: He stated that he had a financial incentive to do that.
Jerry Marr: He stated that from a builder's point of view it would not be practical to keep the access road closed. The parcel was adaptable for a three-house subdivision. He stated that in 1991 there was an application by a local builder to construct three houses on this property. The only way to have access was through the rights-of-way. He indicated that the original plan was not favorable to him or the surrounding neighbors, so he purchased the property at that time to protect the neighborhood from this three-house subdivision. He stated that he has received prior offers from builders, but he felt that the applicants' proposal was the best of both worlds since there would only be one house and that house would enhance the value of his property.
Chairman Lerner: He questioned why there was no other access off Becker Lane into the subdivision.
Attorney David Steinmetz: He stated that the builder told Mr. Marr that if they constructed a three-house subdivision, they would want to have access off of Law Road. He maintained that if there were a subdivision, the front yards would all face Law Road and all of the zoning requirements would change with respect to front yard and side yard setbacks, wherein each house could rightfully install a pool and tennis court in their back yards. He asserted that the surrounding neighbors would clearly be more impacted by a subdivision than what the applicants were proposing.
Member Alenstein: He questioned the need to open the strip if the applicants were permitted to build what they propose.
Attorney David Steinmetz: He referenced map #18716 and pointed out that the strip would give access to Mrs. Astor's property.
Member Smalley: He stated that the applicants have an option to buy and he requested if there was a specific expiration date in the contract.
Attorney David Steinmetz: He stated that the applicants have some time pressure based upon how Mr. Marr structured the transaction. He stated that there was an out clause in the agreement, but the applicants would lose a substantial amount of money already invested. He confirmed that the sale was contingent upon the variances and the permits required from the Planning Board.
Member Smalley: He indicated that there were so many issues that were still up in the air that needed to be worked out.
Attorney David Steinmetz: He agreed that there were numerous items that needed to be addressed, but he did not think there was anything in the record that was unanswered. He asserted that if the Zoning Board granted the variances, they did not feel there was any issue they could not handle.
Member Smalley: He requested that the attorney discuss the easement on the west side of the property.
Attorney David Steinmetz: He stated that there was a little feed that comes out to Becker Road, which was designed to service one lot. According to the information they have obtained from the title company, Clair Hertz owns the main piece and she brought the feed from a party named Whiting. A party named Davis recently purchased the lot and they currently own the feed out to Becker Road. The applicants have the right to purchase the main piece and the feed. He stated that the documents from the title company included some covenants and restrictions that relate to the feed. The restrictions were enacted because when Whiting conveyed the feed to Mrs. Hertz, she did not want any structures to be erected. He pointed out that the applicants did not want any structures going up on the feed as well.
He stated that he also submitted information on the rights-of-way pertaining to the access on the top of Becker Road. There were a series of rights-of-way documents that were signed since Mrs. Astor owned the feed to that property. He stated that Lot 20 fronts on Becker Road and Mrs. Astor also owns frontage straight across the top of Becker Road. Mr. Marr has access rights over that little strip of Mrs. Astor's property in order to get to the entryway. He asserted that his firm has worked with the title company at length to guarantee that there were no title impediments for developing the property.
Barbara Gilbert, 121 Law Road: She stated that there appeared to be difficulty in understanding the deed and she questioned if all the information was correct.
Member O'Connell: He stated that the essence of the deed was that a party who has the ability to grant further easements owns the piece of property in question. He stated that the applicants could not guarantee the Board that the road will not be used unless they could buy that piece of property.
Attorney David Steinmetz: He stated that all indications are Mrs. Astor has no intent to subdivide and develop her property, as she was not a developer. He asserted that if they were going to speculate, they should speculate properly.
Member O'Connell: He indicated that he was only suggesting that it was not the end of the issue despite the applicants' best intentions. The applicants were powerless to guarantee anything because they do not own that piece of property.
Chairman Lerner: He recommended that they move to a discussion on each specific variance. He requested that the attorney explain the need for each variance and why the applicants' goals could not be achieved in any lesser way.
Member Smalley: He questioned the previous discussions concerning the height variance.
Building Inspector Turiano: He stated that they have reviewed the definition for stories and a determination was made that the proposal is for a 2½-story house, which is permitted under the Zoning Ordinance. He stated the structure was not a 3-story house as originally indicated and the first variance under Column 16 of the Zoning Ordinance Schedule was not necessary. He stated it was important to differentiate stories from height, which was the next variance to be discussed.
Attorney David Steinmetz: He stated that the applicants were seeking two height variances, one for the principal structure and one for the accessory structures. The proposed height for the principal residence was 38.5 feet and 30 feet was required. The proposed height on the accessory building was 15.9 feet and 15 feet was required. He indicated that the height was reduced from the original proposal of 16.8 feet.
Chairman Lerner: He requested the need for a 15.9 feet variance.
Architect Richardson Robertson: He stated that they needed the height in order to have small rooms above the garage.
Attorney David Steinmetz: He stated that the benefit for the applicants was that they would get usable space consistent with their goals and objectives and there was no detriment to the surrounding community by having a 9-inch height difference at that location.
Member Smalley: He pointed out that as previously discussed in the field, the height requirement was due to the fact that they were taking it off the grade on the south side of the building.
Building Inspector Turiano: He stated that it would be an average grade to the absolute height or mid-height of the roof.
Member O'Connell: He inquired of the usage for the structure.
Architect Richardson Robertson: He stated the usage would be a garage and recreation room.
Attorney David Steinmetz: He indicated that the proposed landscape plan consisted of mature evergreen trees. The intention was to plant as much screening as possible around the perimeter of the property in order to create privacy for the applicants and minimize the impact to the neighbors. He stated that they informed Mrs. Gilbert of their plans to heavily screen the southerly property.
Chairman Lerner: He requested if there were any comments from the public concerning the height variances, wherein there were none.
Chairman Lerner: He requested the distance from the property line to the accessory structure.
Attorney David Steinmetz: He stated that the accessory structure was 33.2 feet from the Gilbert property and 20 feet from the Astor property.
Building Inspector Turiano: He indicated that for accessory structures the minimum requirement was 12 feet and in the rear they currently have 20 feet. The side requirement was 25 feet and they currently have 30 feet.
Chairman Lerner: He expressed concern about setting a precedent for future applications that were seeking a height variance for an accessory structure.
Attorney David Steinmetz: He stated that if an applicant was prepared to fully screen the proposed structure, if the design was consistent with the surrounding uses and if the neighbor most impacted by the structure was not opposed, then it was the purpose of the Zoning Board to grant that variance.
Chairman Lerner: He stated that residents move in and out, but the land would be burdened for a lifetime - the Board was expected to look beyond the existing neighbors. He indicated that the attorney was basically stating that the Board should give a variance to anyone who wants to put up a few trees.
Attorney David Steinmetz: He asserted that was an unfair statement.
Member Alenstein: He requested a ballpark estimate of how far away the Gilbert residence was from the accessory structure.
Attorney David Steinmetz: He stated that the accessory structure was approximately 120-150 feet from the Gilbert residence. He asserted that there were substantial trees and natural screening behind the Gilbert house and that the applicants intend to add to that buffer.
Member Smalley: He questioned the location of the maid quarters.
Michelle Coppola: She stated that they have not prepared a floor plan so she does not know where the maid quarters would be located.
Building Inspector Turiano: He stated that when he reviewed the plans with Village Counsel White, the majority of the rooms were generically labeled recreation rooms. He asserted that it needed to be made clear that no second housekeeping units were permitted under the Zoning Ordinance although that was not before this Board right now.
Chairman Lerner: He requested why they could not have domestic quarters in the enclosed part of the main building.
Building Inspector Turiano: He stated that they could have domestic quarters, but it could not be a separate housekeeping unit. He stated that the property was in a single-family district where only one housekeeping unit was permitted. He stated that it doesn't preclude having bedrooms with bathrooms isolated in a basement or above the garage.
Attorney David Steinmetz: He stated that issue was discussed with Building Inspector Turiano early on and they were well aware of that matter.
Board Members: The Board members indicated that they would all be in favor of granting the height variance for the accessory structures.
Chairman Lerner: He requested that they move onto the principal residence.
Attorney David Steinmetz: He stated that the proposed height of the principal residence was 38.5 feet. He stated that the applicants propose to design a grand home with a turn of the century style. The residence would include rooms and walkways with 15 feet ceilings and interior finishings that were consistent with homes that were built in the 1900s. He stated that they were attempting to design a home that would give the applicants what they wanted, with minimum impact to the neighboring property owners. He maintained that they previously showed the Board the potential impacts that could occur if someone constructed a home at the lower portion of the property. He maintained that the Gilbert house was the closest property to the principal residence and their house was literally 250-260 feet away from the
portion of the residence that was 38.5 feet in height. He stated that the applicants were prepared to do everything they could to buffer the views of that particular dwelling.
Chairman Lerner: He questioned how the applicants were prepared to screen 38.5 feet.
Attorney David Steinmetz: He stated that they would screen the height by planting mature trees of approximately 15-20 feet in height, which is the tallest height that is available. He also stated that the applicants were proposing to immediately landscape the perimeter of the property before any construction starts and the Board could make that a condition of any variance granted. He stated the purpose was to allow the trees to be as full grown, mature and healthy before the applicants occupy the dwelling, which the architect estimated to be a minimum of 1½ to 2 years. They also wanted the neighbors to realize the benefits of the screening before any construction begins on the house. He stated that their position for the height requirement was that this application deals with a unique piece of property.
Building Inspector Turiano: He stated that at the request of Chairman Lerner, he determined that the surrounding dwellings were between 25 to 30 feet in height, which was the absolute height or to the ridge. He stated that with respect to elevation, it appeared that the first floor of the proposed house was equivalent to the first floor of the Marr's house, which was the highest house on Law Road. He stated that none of the four houses reviewed were built to the maximum height allowed, but they were all lower type 1½-story houses.
Member Alenstein: He clarified that the 38.5 feet was not to the ridge of the roof.
Building Inspector Turiano: He stated that the height definition in the Zoning Ordinance was to the mid-height of the roof.
Attorney David Steinmetz: He stated that from his experience throughout Westchester County, 30 feet was a low single-family residential height, wherein most codes were 35 feet. He asserted that the Gilbert house looks out to the side elevation of the proposed structure and there was no direct view of the full-length bulk of the house.
Resident, 135 Law Road: He stated that he lived next to Mrs. Gilbert and that he belonged to the same country club as the applicants. He indicated that he would support any proposal that would keep the access road closed while achieving the applicants' goals. He maintained that there was a large number of school aged children that reside on Law Road and they actively play on the streets. He asserted that he was very concerned about the traffic conditions that would result from the access road being opened and he wanted to protect his children.
Member Alenstein: He stated that it should be made clear that although the applicants promise not to open the road, there was no guarantee that would not happen. He questioned if the attorney was stating that the scale dictated the height of the principal dwelling in order to achieve the proper proportions and that the only way to reduce the height without creating a disproportionate structure would be to scale down the whole building.
Chairman Lerner: He referenced the house located on Sleepy Hollow Road that was disproportionately built.
Attorney David Steinmetz: He stated that during the preliminary discussions, Architect Richardson Robertson stated his argument for the requested height was that they have a six-acre parcel and they were trying to build a desired concept.
Architect Richardson Robertson: He stated that they reduced the variance from their original plan. He asserted that in order to be historically proportioned, the height of the house should be 45 feet with 18 feet ceilings.
Attorney David Steinmetz: He asserted that there was a significant benefit to the applicant without a recognizable or discernable detriment to the surrounding community.
Member O'Leary: He questioned if the architect would propose to build the house at 45 feet if there were no height requirements.
Architect Richardson Robertson: He stated that was what he originally had drawn.
Chairman Lerner: He requested that the attorney move onto the tennis court variance.
Attorney David Steinmetz: He stated that the applicants were requesting permission to build a tennis court in the front yard. They were also proposing to do 100 cubic yards of grading and excavation. He stated that the tennis court was the structure closest to the Lombardi property. He indicated that the tennis court was originally designed to be 30 feet from the property line, but they revised the distance as per the instructions received from the Board wherein the proposed tennis court was 40.7 feet from the outer perimeter of the court and 48.8 feet at the furthest point from the southerly direction. The measurement from the Lombardi property was 53.2 feet. He stated that their argument was they have an additional 25 feet from the access strip and an additional 26 feet from the feed, resulting in over
100 feet from the Lombardi's closest property line to the tennis court. He stated that the only reason why they needed a variance for the tennis court was because it is considered to be located in the front yard, which brings them back to the argument that this would not be considered a typical front yard. He stated that it was technically the back of the house since the front of the house faced the Astor property to the east. He pointed out again that the impacts created by a three-house subdivision would be greater to the neighbors since a tennis court could conceivably be much closer.
Chairman Lerner: He requested the distance from the Lombardi house to the tennis court.
Attorney David Steinmetz: He stated that Mr. Marr measured 230 feet to the closest point of the tennis court.
Member O'Connell: He questioned the height requirements for the fencing around the tennis court.
Attorney David Steinmetz: He stated that the fence itself was 12 feet and that there was a retaining wall around a portion of the tennis court.
Architect Richardson Robertson: He stated that the fence on grade was 12 feet, the fence that sits on top of the retaining wall was approximately 3 feet and the wall and fence totaled 12 feet.
Member Alenstein: He questioned if the tennis court was carved into a hillside.
Architect Richardson Robertson: He stated that was exactly correct.
Member Smalley: He questioned the amount of soil to be removed from the site.
Attorney David Steinmetz: He stated that there would be 1,000 cubic yards associated with the excavation of the tennis court, but Village Code required a maximum of 200 yards. He maintained that the design concept was to minimize the overall cut and fill.
Architect Richardson Robertson: He indicated that there would be no export of dirt.
Member Smalley: He stated that he wanted to confirm there would be a minimum of any exportation of excavation materials, including rock, since it would impose upon the community.
Architect Richardson Robertson: He stated that all excavation materials would be used on the property.
Member Smalley: He stated that in the deed between Whiting and Hertz there was a requirement pertaining to the development of the property, wherein it stated that certain shrubs could not be planted due to obstruction of view. He stated it was very difficult to read the deed because the copy was illegible, but it was important to review the requirements contained within the deed.
Attorney David Steinmetz: He stated that it was his understanding that portion of the deed dealt with not obstructing the Whiting's continued access along that roadway.
Building Inspector Turiano: He clarified that one of the dimensions for the wall totaled 12.6 feet and they discussed keeping the dimensions within the 12 feet. He requested if the applicants wanted to eliminate that variance and keep within the required perimeters.
Architect Richardson Robertson: He stated that he could keep within the required limits.
Attorney David Steinmetz: He agreed that they would eliminate the variance for the wall closest to the tennis court. He questioned the architect if there were any other walls on the property that required a variance
Architect Richardson Robertson: He stated that he was not aware of any wall that exceeded 12 feet.
Building Inspector Turiano: He confirmed that the 12 feet requirement dealt with tennis courts, but there was a 6 feet requirement that dealt with retaining walls. He indicated that in his quick review of the plans he did not see any problems.
Member Smalley: He pointed out that there were other walls that required a variance.
Building Inspector Turiano: He stated that was addressed in another variance to be discussed.
Chairman Lerner: He requested questions from the public.
Ingrid Lombardi, 432 Scarborough Road: She stated that she currently rents the house situated at 432 Scarborough Road and she was the corporate officer of the corporation that owns the house. She questioned why they could not move the tennis court since they had so much property. She indicated that they spend a lot of time in their backyard and the tennis court would impact them. She also questioned the amount of variance being requested.
Attorney David Steinmetz: He stated the reason for the location of the tennis court was because the applicants' design concept was to have a house at the top, recreation at the bottom and a lawn area in the middle. He stated that the requested variance was between 5 and 10 feet.
Architect Richardson Robertson: He indicated that the applicants were also trying to achieve the view.
Ingrid Lombardi, 432 Scarborough Road: She questioned why they could not move the tennis court over the few feet so that no variance would be required.
Member Smalley: He indicated that it also had to do with the grade. The higher the tennis court was moved up on the property, the more difficult the excavation.
Attorney David Steinmetz: He pointed out that they do not actually need the variance on the side of Lombardi; it was required for the side that goes to the south.
Ingrid Lombardi, 432 Scarborough Road: She asserted that the tennis court and a pool were considered a package.
Member O'Connell: He questioned the location of the property for which the 5 to 10 feet variance was being requested since he thought that they eliminated the variance.
Attorney David Steinmetz: He stated that the variance was eliminated because they now conform within the 40 feet. However, since the tennis court was located in the front yard opposed to the rear yard and since the tennis court was closer to another principal residence other than the property's principal residence, they were required to be located within a minimum of 50 feet. He stated that this brings them back to the argument of whether it would be considered the front yard, since if it were considered the back yard no variance would be required.
Member O'Leary: He questioned the dimensions.
Attorney David Steinmetz: He stated the measurements he had was that the pool was currently 80 feet from the westerly property line and 54 feet from the northerly property line. He asked the architect if the tennis court could be moved in 10 feet in order to eliminate a variance.
Architect Richardson Robertson: He stated that if they needed to eliminate the variance, he would redesign the amenities in order to make it work.
Attorney David Steinmetz: He confirmed that they would eliminate the Section 4(D)B(b) variance that was previously requested. He discussed with the Board and architect how they needed to move the tennis court and pool in order to meet the setback requirements. He questioned the architect on what he planned to do.
Architect Richardson Robertson: He stated that he would move the pool forward 4 feet toward the cul-de-sac area and reduce the other sides.
Attorney David Steinmetz: He stated that they would then be requesting a 50 feet variance to the north rather than a 46 feet variance for the pool.
Architect Richardson Robertson: He asserted that there would be less impact caused by the tennis court and pool if they remained where they were originally proposed. He asserted that they were moving the amenities away from where it doesn't matter, towards where it did matter.
Jerry Marr, 113 Law Road: He stated that he agreed with the architect that it would be better to shift the tennis court and pool towards the other side, which was a totally wooded area that would never be developed.
Member Smalley: He pointed out that they were trying to reduce the number of variances that needed to be granted.
Chairman Lerner: He stated that he personally felt they should not have to move the tennis court and pool to a less desirable place just to eliminate a variance.
Building Inspector Turiano: He stated that Davis, 40 Becker Road, has submitted an application to the Board and the application was on the calendar for the February meeting.
Member Alenstein: He stated that Mrs. Lombardi was requesting why the applicants could not move the tennis court, pool and garden area to the right on the drawing. He pointed out that the neighbor could not expect the applicants to put the tennis court and pool in the middle of the lawn since it would be at a much higher elevation.
Ingrid Lombardi, 432 Scarborough Road: She stated that she was only requesting that they keep it as far back from the property line as possible.
Attorney David Steinmetz: He stated that this issue was irrelevant for code purposes. The Village Code stated that if a tennis court was built in the front yard, it needed to be 100 feet from a property line. He stated that the tennis court was over 100 feet from the Lombardi's property line and that the applicants were being penalized because there were two property lines and they were taking the measurements from the interior property line.
Chairman Lerner: He stated that the attorney was arguing that the real property line was the property line after the driveway and feed.
Attorney David Steinmetz: He stated that the actual property line was absolutely there and that this was a unique situation due to the circumstances of the 51 feet in question.
Member Adelstein: He advised Mrs. Lombardi that it was being stated that the fence surrounding the tennis court and pool was going to be more visible if the amenities were moved back because it would be higher.
Ingrid Lombardi, 432 Scarborough Road: She also questioned the drainage and retention issues.
Building Inspector Turiano: He stated that the drainage issues would be addressed during the Planning Board process.
Attorney David Steinmetz: He stated that the engineer has indicated that there were a number of improvements that could be done concerning the drainage.
Chairman Lerner: He requested that they move onto the variance for the gate.
Attorney David Steinmetz: He stated that they reduced the height of the gate from the original proposal of 24 feet to 19.7 feet. They also widened the opening of the gate to 12.7 feet to address the fire safety concerns. He stated the pillars were 19.7 feet and the height of the metal gate was 10 feet.
Architect Richardson Robertson: He stated that the gate was also recessed into the ground.
Attorney David Steinmetz: He stated that the concept of the gate was to locate the gate after the curb inside the property line.
Member Alenstein: He questioned if the gate could be seen by any of the neighbors.
Attorney David Steinmetz: He stated that the gate would only be visible to Mrs. Astor if she went to the southerly line of her property.
Ingrid Lombardi, 432 Scarborough Road: She requested if the entire property would be fenced and connected to the gate.
Attorney David Steinmetz: He stated that there would be a 6-foot chain-link fence surrounding the entire perimeter of the property. He maintained that there was an existing fence already surrounding the property and they would just be replacing what already existed.
Chairman Lerner: He questioned if there was any variance that any Board Member was opposed to granting.
Member O'Connell: He questioned why the applicants were not arguing that this was a backyard. He maintained that they were asking the Board to consider it a backyard, but they were not arguing that it was a backyard.
Attorney David Steinmetz: He stated that although they were requesting the Board to consider it a backyard, they were not requesting a backyard variance since they did not believe that the Board could deem it a backyard under the Village Code. He stated analytically the Board could decide it was a backyard in order to justify the variances that were being requested.
Member O'Connell: He questioned if the applicants would still consider it a backyard if they accessed the property through the access road.
Attorney David Steinmetz: He stated they would still have a problem by definition because they would then have two front yards. He maintained that they did not believe it was the right way to frame their requests.
Member O'Connell: He stated that there was a problem area with the pool and tennis court, but overall the height variance was probably the largest variance being requested. He asserted that it was substantial in view of the fact that the Village just reduced the requirements from 35 feet to 30 feet. He stated that there were benefits to the Village with the type of project being proposed, avoiding developing three separate lots and doing away with the easement for Law Road.
Chairman Lerner: He stated that he felt the proposal was the best use of the property and it would enhance the value of the neighborhood. He also did not see any detriment at all. He stated that the location of the pool and tennis court was far away from all the surrounding properties and he indicated that his own property was much closer to his neighbor's tennis court. He stated that the situation was unique and it would not have much precedent on any other application. He stated that the applicants were spending a tremendous amount of money for the project and that the applicants had the biggest investment. He stated that the sense of the Board was that they could address the variances formally at the next meeting to be held on Tuesday, February 5th. The public hearing would remain open until the
next meeting so that proper notice could be given.
Attorney David Steinmetz: He requested if the Board wanted the applicants to remail the certified letters or if they just wanted to publish a public notice in the newspaper.
Village Counsel White: He stated that it would only protect the applicants to mail the letters again.
Building Inspector Turiano: He stated that the Board could have a resolution prepared for the next meeting. He suggested that the applicants submit a continued application to the Planning Board for the steep slopes permit since the next Zoning Board of Appeals meeting was before the next Planning Board Meeting.
Member Smalley: He stated that he also thought the proposal was the best use of the property, but he still had concerns about certain matters that needed to be in concrete such as the exact location of the gate. He maintained that the Planning Board would probably address the drainage issues, but they needed to discuss the icing issue at the bottom of Becker and Scarborough Road, the drainage off the property and the pitches on the side of the road that needed to be repaired. He indicated that he felt the application would be approved at the next meeting with conditions.
Chairman Lerner: He requested that Village Counsel White prepare a resolution for the next meeting.
Adjournment
Chairman Lerner stated that a Regular Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals would be held on February 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 9:50 p.m.
Gina Tomaino
Recording Secretary
| 
