Village Zoning Board of Appeals
Regular Meeting
October 1, 2002
8:00 p.m.
The 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 1st day of October 2002, commencing at 8:00 p.m.
Present
Jonathan J. Lerner, Chairman
Stephen H. Smalley, Member
Stephen W. O'Connell, Member
David White, Village Counsel
David Turiano, Building Inspector
Absent
Ronald H. Alenstein, Member
John O'Leary, Member
CASE #V-16-2002: COMMUNITY BASED SERVICES, 129 Willow Drive
Chairman Lerner called Case #V-16-2002. He announced that it was a continuation of a Public Hearing adjourned from July 2, 2002. Mark Harmon, attorney, and William A. Sharman, architect, represented the applicant. Roger Hoff was also present.
A reading of the Public Notice from Building Inspector Turiano at a previous meeting stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals would hold a Public Hearing on June 4, 2002, wherein Community Based Services, located at 129 Willow Drive, was seeking a variance to construct a front deck and ramp to an existing single-family residence. Plans indicate excess lot coverage in violation of Column 6 of the Zoning Ordinance Schedule.
The following items were marked as Board Exhibits:
1. A letter dated April 22, 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 April 12, 2002.
4. Notification of the Public Hearing dated April 22, 2002 from the Village Clerk to the applicant.
5. Architectural drawings prepared by William A. Sharman, Architect, dated March 26, 2002.
6. Affidavit of Publication of the Public Notice dated May 25, 2002.
7. Receipts of 13 certified mailings of Public Notice to neighbors located within 200 feet of subject property.
8. A letter dated June 21, 2002 to the Zoning Board of Appeals from Bondy & Schloss, attorneys representing Community Based Services.
9. A letter dated June 24, 2002 to Mr. & Mrs. Edward Jusko, 116 Willow Drive, from the applicant.
10. A fax dated July 15, 2002 to Stuart Berman, White Plains Bus Company, from the applicant.
11. A handwritten reply to the applicant from Stuart Berman, White Plains Bus Company.
12. A letter dated July 26, 2002 to Edward Jusko, 116 Willow Drive, from the applicant.
Discussion:
Roger Hoff, a representative for Community Based Services (CBS), stated that they revised the plans to show there would be no parking in the back area and they also reduced the size of the proposed wooden deck and ramp.
Member Smalley referenced a letter sent to Edward Jusko, 116 Willow Drive, by the applicant and he stated that CBS has not been a good neighbor in the past. He affirmed the importance for the facility manager to ensure that the buses do not arrive any earlier than necessary. He pointed out that there were many places in the area for the drivers to waste some time.
Representation Hoff stated that he videotaped the bus arrivals at the facility between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. on two separate occasions. He indicated that a large school bus arrives at 7:30 a.m. The driver stops the bus, turns off the engine, loads the passengers, restarts the bus and leaves promptly. He stated that the smaller bus arrives between 8:30 a.m. to 8:45 a.m., but the driver needs to leave the bus running because it is equipped with a lift gate to load those passengers.
Member Smalley indicated that Mr. Jusko previously stated that the first bus occasionally arrives as early as 6:30 a.m., in addition to some employees that arrive that early and sit in their cars. Representative Hoff replied that the first bus arrives no earlier than 7:30 a.m. and he has addressed the issue with the employees. He indicated that he would continue to monitor the situation to make sure that they abide by these times.
Chairman Lerner stated that although the disabled were entitled to these services, the applicant must be respectful to their neighbors and the source of the problem must be addressed. He recommended that any variance be conditioned upon maintaining these assurances.
Mark Harmon, attorney representing the applicant, asserted that CBS does not have absolute control over the bus company and he did not feel it would be appropriate to condition the variance upon a situation that the applicant did not control. He stated that the requested lot coverage variance was insubstantial and it would not impact the bus situation. He also asserted that the requested variance was a completely separate situation from the problem the Board was addressing.
Chairman Lerner asked who was accountable for the bus company. Representative Hoff stated that the day program hired the bus company. Attorney Harmon added that they would continue to keep pressure on the bus company.
Member O'Connell asked if the problem concerning the transition of employee shifts was rectified. Representative Hoff stated that he held a meeting at the facility to address the situation and the matter has been resolved.
Chairman Lerner requested comments from the public, in which there were none.
Upon motion by Member Smalley, seconded by Member O'Connell, the Board voted unanimously to close the Public Hearing.
Member Smalley felt that the Board was constrained by law to grant the application. He stated that the applicant has attempted to mitigate the Board's concerns with how CBS has imposed upon the neighborhood in the past. He voted to grant the diminished application.
Chairman Lerner agreed with the comments made by Member Smalley. He stated that the applicant has addressed the problem with the neighbor, Edward Jusko, and based upon Representative Hoff's representations, he believes the applicant will continue to monitor the situation. He voted to support the variance.
Decision:
WHEREAS, the Board has examined the application by Community Based Services and their petition for a variance and the Board has considered, among other applicable legal standards, if the benefit to 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 reduced application was not substantial; and
WHEREAS, the Board concluded that the applicant has addressed any detriment to nearby properties. In addition, assurances have been made to the Board that the applicant would continue to monitor the situation; and
WHEREAS, the Board determined that the Village was obligated by law to approve the requested variance; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, upon motion by Member Smalley, seconded by Member O'Connell, the Board voted 3-0 to approve the requested variance.
CASE #V-27-2002: JEFFREY JONES & JOANN LUEHRING, 38 Walnut Place
Chairman Lerner called Case #V-27-2002. Jeffrey Jones and JoAnn Luehring were present.
A reading of the Public Notice from Building Inspector Turiano stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals would hold a Public Hearing on October 1, 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 residence. Plans indicate excess lot coverage in nonconformance with Column 6 of the Zoning Ordinance Schedule and an existing lot size nonconformance in violation of Column 4 of the Zoning Ordinance Schedule.
The following items were marked as Board Exhibits:
1. A letter dated August 27, 2002 to the applicants from the Building Inspector advising the Building Permit Application has been denied.
2. Application to the Zoning Board of Appeals with attached statement dated August 29, 2002.
3. Code of Ethics Certification signed August 29, 2002.
4. Notification of the Public Hearing dated September 13, 2002 to the applicants from the Village Clerk.
5. Survey prepared by W.A. Slater, updated September 21, 1963.
6. Affidavit of publication of the Public Notice dated September 21, 2002.
7. Receipts of 12 certified mailings of Public Notice to neighbors located within 200 feet of subject property.
Discussion:
The applicants stated that they abandoned their original plan to add a second story over the main level of their house that was approved by the Board at the February 5, 2002 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. They indicated that they were currently seeking a variance to add a "great room" to the rear of their split-level house, create a recreation room below it on the basement level, add a new deck with stairs, and construct a roof over the front stoop.
Member Smalley requested the amount of additional lot coverage the applicants were seeking over and above the previous variance granted by the Board. The applicants stated that the Board originally granted a variance for 8.41 percent and they were currently seeking 9.34 percent. They asserted that 65 percent of the additional footage was new deck, which would not add any three-dimensional bulk to the house.
Member O'Connell requested the total square footage of living area. The applicants replied that the existing square footage was 2,750 square feet and the proposed square footage would be 3,650 square feet.
Member Smalley pointed out that under the old variance for the second-story addition, the applicants were permitted to add 800 square feet. He also felt that consideration needed to be given to the fact that the new proposal would add the majority of bulk behind the house.
The applicants stated that the proposed addition would not be visible from the front of the house and their property was completely surrounded by trees, creating very little impact to the surrounding neighborhood.
Member O'Connell questioned the proposed drainage. Building Inspector Turiano stated that the applicants would be required to install two new drywells.
Member Smalley requested if the addition would impact the existing septic tank. The applicants replied that they have received approval from the Westchester County Health Department to relocate the septic tank.
Member O'Connell asked if the applicants reviewed the proposed plans with the surrounding neighbors. The applicants stated that they have shown the plans to the majority of their neighbors and there have been no objections.
Chairman Lerner requested comments from the public, in which there were none.
Upon motion by Member Smalley, seconded by Member O'Connell, the Board voted unanimously to close the Public Hearing, as there were no comments from the public.
Member O'Connell pointed out that the Board was usually more sympathetic to applicants with split-level homes. He stated that he was favorably moved by the fact that the addition would be in the rear of the house and not visible from the street, that the applicants have taken extra precautions with respect to drainage and other adverse consequences created by the addition, and that a large percentage of the addition would be deck opposed to outright bulk. He stated that although it was a substantial variance, he voted in favor of the application.
Member Smalley stated that he was moved by the fact that the new application did not require another story on the structure, as he felt a second-story addition would be out of character with the neighborhood. He also stated that all of the construction would be in the rear of the house with the exception of the front stoop, which was a necessity. He indicated that the applicants have lived in their home since 1988 and he did not feel it was an unreasonable request considering the type of structure, the size of the lot and how the lot was isolated from the majority of the neighbors. He voted to grant the variance.
Chairman Lerner agreed with the other Board Members. He voted in favor of the application.
Decision:
WHEREAS, the Board has examined the application by Jeffrey Jones and Joann Luehring and their petition for a variance and the Board has considered, among other applicable legal standards, if the benefit to 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 determined that the no detriment to nearby properties would be created since the addition would be located in the rear of the house and not visible from the street; and
WHEREAS, the Board concluded that an undesirable change would not be produced in the character of the neighborhood since the second-story addition would not be added to the structure as originally proposed; and
WHEREAS, the Board determined that the proposed variance would not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental condition in the neighborhood as the applicants have addressed drainage and other adverse consequences that would be created by the addition; and
WHEREAS, the Board agreed that the alleged difficulty was not self-created; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, upon motion by Member O'Connell, seconded by Member Smalley, the Board voted 3-0 to approve the requested variance.
CASE #V-28-2002: BRETT & CAROLYN KULMAN, 24 Juniper Place
Chairman Lerner called Case #V-28-2002. Terence P. Lennon, architect, represented the applicants and Brett Kulman was also present.
A reading of the Public Notice from Building Inspector Turiano stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals would hold a Public Hearing on October 1, 2002, wherein Brett and Carolyn Kulman, located at 24 Juniper Place, were seeking a variance to amend a building permit No. 7921 for construction. Plans indicate excess lot coverage in nonconformance with Column 6 of the Zoning Ordinance Schedule and an existing lot size nonconformance in violation of Column 4 of the Zoning Ordinance Schedule.
The following items were marked as Board Exhibits:
1. A letter dated September 13, 2002 to the applicants from the Building Inspector advising the amendment to Building Permit No. 7921 issued May 20, 2002 has been denied.
2. Application submitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals, undated.
3. Notification of the Public Hearing dated September 13, 2002 to the applicants from the Village Clerk.
4. Receipts of 12 certified mailings of Public Notice to neighbors located within 200 feet of subject property.
Discussion:
The architect, Terence Lennon, stated that the applicants originally submitted a proposed plan to the Board at the April 2, 2002 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting. The Board expressed concerns about the substantial variance being requested and adjourned the application. He stated that the applicants then revised the plans and placed the addition in the rear of the house, eliminating the variance request for excess lot coverage. The Board approved the reduced application at the May 7th meeting.
Architect Lennon stated that the applicants were presently requesting to enlarge the proposed deck in order to make it more functional for their family. He asserted that the deck would be low in height and not visible from the street. He also indicated that the surrounding neighbors have voiced no objections.
Member Smalley questioned the total square footage of the deck. Architect Lennon replied that the original deck proposed was 6 feet and the revised deck would be 22 feet x 22 feet. He added that there would also be a split 11-foot stairway leading up to the deck.
Member Smalley felt that the size of the new deck was substantial and he asked if the applicants could reduce the square footage of the deck. The applicants asserted that they originally had a 30-foot wraparound deck before they started the addition and the first proposal was insufficient for their family of five.
The Board discussed the location of the stairs off the driveway leading up to the deck. Member Smalley recommended that the landing between the two set of stairs end at the corner of the house.
Chairman Lerner requested comments from the public, in which there were none.
Upon motion by Member Smalley, seconded by Member of O'Connell, the Board voted unanimously to close the Public Hearing.
Member O'Connell stated that the applicants have made very effort to comply with the Board's concerns. He indicated that although the deck was large, it was not enormous. He voted to approve the requested variance.
Member Smalley was troubled by the fact that the applicants were returning for another variance after the Board approved the applicants' revised proposal in May. He indicated that the new deck was three times larger than the deck previously approved and he felt the size of the deck could be reduced. He stated that due to the fact that only three Board Members were present and the applicants needed all three votes to grant the variance, he voted in favor of the application.
Chairman Lerner stated that because the applicants have three children and since the variance was only for a deck creating very little impact, he voted to approve the application.
Decision:
WHEREAS, the Board has examined the application by Brett and Carolyn Kulman and their petition for a variance and the Board has considered, among other applicable legal standards, if the benefit to 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 determined that an undesirable change would not be produced in the character of the neighborhood since a 30-foot wraparound deck previously existed; and
WHEREAS, the Board concluded that the benefit sought by the applicants could not be achieved by some other method; and
WHEREAS, the Board agreed that the applicants have made every effort to comply with the Board's concerns; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, upon motion by Member O'Connell, seconded by Member Smalley, the Board voted 3-0 to approve the requested variance.
CASE #V-14-2001: MAUREEN CAREY, 416 Sleepy Hollow Road
Chairman Lerner called Case #V-14-2001 to review the submitted landscaping plan. Paul Rosen, attorney, represented the applicant and Maureen Carey was also present.
Attorney Rosen presented photographs of different views of the applicant's property. He stated that the applicant was looking for guidance from the Board on specific landscaping suggestions.
Member Smalley stated that when he previously requested maple trees to be planted inside the stonewall along Sleepy Hollow Road he was not looking for an entire row of blue spruce and evergreen. He pointed out that sugar maple and Norway maple trees currently line the street.
The Board discussed screening at the bottom of the brook in the rear of the property. Attorney Rosen stated that due to wetland requirements, there were problems planting in the area of the brook. The applicant added that there was also an issue planting near the existing willow tree due to its large root system.
Member Smalley stated that it was the intent of the Board to have screening fill the visual gap between the applicant's property and the property of Jon Kass, 404 Sleepy Hollow Road. He recommended that the applicant trim the willow tree down to 25 feet to allow the tree to resprout and fill a part of that hole.
Chairman Lerner stated that the Board requested the landscaping plan several months ago and he asked why it took so long for the applicant to submit the plan. He indicated that the Board needed to direct the Building Inspector to stop the construction back in June until the applicant complied with their request. He affirmed that when the applicant elected to move into the house, she disregarded the Board's wishes.
The applicant replied that the order to stop construction was lifted one day later because no time deadline was conditioned in the variance. She asserted that she was running the entire construction project herself and she did not have time to prepare the landscaping plan. Attorney Rosen added that it was his understanding that the Board did not require the landscaping plan until after the construction was completed.
Mr. Kass presented a picture of the view from his property. He also submitted a letter dated September 30, 2002 from Richard Zaton, a certified arborist from Sav-A-Tree, recommending that a different species of willow be planted near the brook to fill the visual gap between the properties.
Member O'Connell stated that the role of the Zoning Board was to determine a reasonable balance between providing screening to the neighborhood and the associated costs to the applicant. He further stated that it was not the role of the Board to provide Mr. Kass with a guarantee of screening from all his neighbors.
Member Smalley asked if the applicant had any objections to Mr. Kass' recommendation concerning the foundation screening. Attorney Rosen stated that he needed to understand the entire landscaping requirements before they could decide whether the foundation screening was objectionable.
Mr. Kass asked if he was entitled to any evergreen screening near the property line to bolster the existing screening that was only good for five months out of the year.
Member O'Connell recommended that a professional landscape architect prepare a landscaping proposal in order for the Board to understand the proper plantings needed to address Mr. Kass' concerns and the related costs to the applicant.
Attorney Rosen requested if the Board was willing to allow the Building Inspector to oversee the project using the Board's suggestions as a guideline. The Board agreed and directed Building Inspector Turiano to meet with the landscape architect. Chairman Lerner recommended that both parties attempt to reach a compromise in order to avoid a solution that might not be desirable.
Building Inspector Turiano reviewed the suggestions given by the Board, including maple trees inside the stonewall along Sleepy Hollow Road; low plantings to screen the foundation and mitigate some of the concrete; willow trees and evergreens to fill the visual gap area by the brook.
Adjournment
Chairman Lerner stated that the next Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals would be held on December 3, 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.
Gina Tomaino
Recording Secretary
| 