Zoning Board of Appeals
Regular Meeting
October 7, 2008
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 Village Hall, at 1111 Pleasantville Road, Briarcliff Manor, New York on the 7th of October 2008 commencing at 8:00 p.m.
Present
Ronald Alenstein, Chairman
Christopher Bogart, Member
Hillary Messer, Member
John O’ Leary, Member
Stephen Smalley, Member
Also Present
David Turiano P.E., Building Inspector
V-12-2008 – Mr. Michael Pahk – 140 Larch Road
A variance is requested for an application for a building permit to construct a second story addition and portico to an existing single family dwelling is denied due to nonconformity with Column 8A, Front Yard Minimum Yard Dimensions of Schedule 220:A5 and Column 9A, One Side Yard Minimum Yard Dimensions of Schedule 220:A5 of the Code of the Village of Briarcliff Manor for Lots with Buildings with Gross Floor Area Less Than 3,500 Square Feet.
The following items were marked as Board Exhibits:
- Code Compliance Worksheet dated August 9, 2008
- Application for a variance to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Michael Pahk
- Code of Ethics dated August 9, 2008 signed by Michael Pahk
- Affidavit of Publication dated September 12, 2008
- Letter from Village Clerk to Michael Pahk dated September 12, 2008
- Building Department letter of denial to Michael Pahk dated August 1, 2008
- 20 Certified Mailing Receipts
Discussion:
Mr. Michael Pahk, applicant, explained the application and stated they needed the variance to accommodate their expanding family and to add protection during inclement weather.
Member Smalley asked if the applicant sought other means to alleviate their situation.
Mr. Pahk stated they did but it wasn’t aesthetically pleasing.
Public Comments
No public comments.
Upon motion by Member Smalley, seconded by Member O’Leary, the Board voted unanimously to close the public hearing.
Decision:
Member Bogart stated he was in favor of the variance and the sideyard was a pre-existing condition.
Member Messer agreed and stated the addition was in keeping with the neighborhood.
Member O’Leary stated he thought the plans would improve the applicant’s home and solve their needs.
Member Smalley stated because the applicant wasn’t encroaching further into the sideyard and there were several other porticos in the neighborhood he supported the application.
Chairman Alenstein stated he agreed with all the comments and the application was granted.
V-14-2008 - Briarcliff Congregational Church 25 South State Road
A variance was requested for an application to modify variance V-3-1995 to eliminate condition number three (3) which states the nursery school operating within the Church must obtain and maintain a Not for Profit status.
The following items were marked as Board Exhibits:
- Application for a variance to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Marsha Rubin Goldstein, Attorney
- Code of Ethics dated August 25, 2008 signed by Marsha Rubin Goldstein, Attorney
- Local Law 2 of 2008 to Amend Chapter 220-6
- Planning Board resolution dated August 12, 2008 to amend the site plan
- Letter from the Planning Board to the Board of Trustees regarding a Zoning Text Amendment Referral
- Letter from the Planning Board to the Board of Trustees regarding the Special Use Permit Review and Recommendations
- Petition to the Board of Trustees to rezone the property
Discussion:
Chairman Alenstein and Member O’Leary recused themselves from the application.
Ms. Marsha Rubin Goldstein, Attorney for the Applicant, explained the application.
Member Smalley asked how the for profit status affected the church.
Ms. Rubin Goldstein stated as part of the text amendment, the applicant had to inform the tax assessor of the status change and it would affect the taxes to some degree but a determination hadn’t been made yet.
Member Messer stated it should be put on the tax rolls and she appreciated the input of the Planning Board.
Member Bogart asked why the variance was needed if the law had been changed.
Ms. Rubin Goldstein explained two acres were needed under the zoning requirements and the property was two parcels rather than one contiguous piece.
Public Comments
No public comments.
Upon motion by Member Messer, seconded by Member Bogart, the Board voted to close the public hearing.
Decision:
Member Messer stated she supported the application.
Member Bogart stated he didn’t object to the application but it seemed peculiar the application was before the Board when the law had been amended.
Member Smalley stated his preference was to keep the facility Not-For-Profit but since it was approved by the Board of Trustees he would vote in favor.
Upon motion by Member Messer, seconded by Member Bogart, the Board voted to approve the requested variance.
V-13-2008 - Barry & Linda Schwartz 140 Central Drive
A variance is requested for an application for a building permit to construct a single family dwelling on a proposed lot is denied due to nonconformity with Column 5, Minimum Lot Width of Schedule 220:A5 of the Code of the Village of Briarcliff Manor.
The following items were marked as Board Exhibits:
- Code Compliance Worksheet dated August 19, 2008
- Application for a variance to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Barry Schwartz
- Code of Ethics dated August 18, 2008 signed by Barry Schwartz
- Affidavit of Publication dated September 12, 2008
- Letter from Village Clerk to Zarin & Steinmetz dated September 12, 2008
- Letter from Zarin & Steinmetz to Village Clerk dated September 25, 2008
- Letter from Planning Board to Zoning Board of Appeals dated September 9, 2008
- Petition favoring application signed by Hillary and Richard Landau
- Petition favoring application signed by Natalie and Bill Gorlin
- 24 Certified Mailing Receipts
Discussion:
Ms. Susan Sarch, Attorney for the Applicant, explained the application. She stated some of the issues in the Planning Board’s letter had already been addressed. She stated they moved the location of the driveway to have better visibility and a more sufficient buffer. She noted in BFJ’s memorandum they stated the lot size and arrangement was generally compatible with the intended use. She stated they were seeking a variance 60 feet for lot width where 120 feet was required and the house would be setback over 300 feet from the road. She stated the house would be positioned in the flattest area of the property.
Chairman Alenstein asked if the property had steep slopes.
Ms. Sarch stated it did on all sides, one of the many constrictions for the 3.5 acre lot. She stated her client lived in the community for the last 25 years and wanted build a ranch style home to allow for an aging relative to be more mobile in the home. She submitted a petition signed by two adjoining neighbors stating they had no objection to the variance. She further stated her client proposed to extend a sewer line giving others a potential to join in.
Mr. Michael Dolber, Engineer for the Applicant, explained the location of the proposed sewer line.
Chairman Alenstein asked the status of the Planning Board application.
Ms. Sarch stated it was still before them and depending on the Zoning Board of Appeals decision they would go back before the Planning Board.
Chairman Alenstein stated the Planning Board seemed to be bothered by what they called the flag lot aspect.
Ms. Sarch stated there was no legislation prohibiting flag lots and they had been granted and approved in the past.
Member Messer stated the driveway was in the other lot and asked if an easement would be needed.
Mr. Dobler stated the lot line could be adjusted in many ways but they were trying to have the least impact to the site.
Member Messer stated the placement of the house felt forced.
Ms. Sarch stated the as of right drawing would be zoning compliant and would have far greater impacts on the environment.
Member Smalley asked if the applicant’s would live in the new house.
Ms. Sarch stated they would move to the new home and sell the old one. She noted the other flag lots in the surrounding area numbers 51, 243 and 255 on Central Drive.
Public Comments:
Mr. Larry Gillet of 103 Cherry Hill Court stated the land behind him was very steep and it would be bizarre to build there.
Ms. Dotty Crecenza of 218 Dalmeny Road stated she was directly behind the current house and was the recipient of all of the runoff from their property. She stated she spent over $12,000 to try to alleviate some of the flooding and she was concerned that building an additional home would create more runoff.
Ms. Debbie Taylor of 106 Cherry Hill Court stated she already had tons of water and flooding in her basement and was concerned if trees and vegetation were removed her property would be further affected.
Mr. Dolber, Engineer for the Applicant, reviewed the potential drainage plan.
Member O’Leary asked Mr. Dolber to address drainage plans for the existing house as well.
Member Smalley requested a storm sewer line be installed in addition to the sewer line to alleviate some of the downhill runoff.
Ms. Sarch stated they could supply the Board with a more detailed proposal and study Mr. Smalley’s suggestion.
Member Smalley requested an adjournment to the next meeting and a site walk of the property, giving the applicant time to address the drainage issues and find out the status of the steep slopes application.
Mr. Zen Eidel of 7 Lodge Road stated he had a few concerns he hoped the Board would consider during their site walk. He was concerned with increase traffic, privacy, noise and safety.
Decision:
Member Messer stated she didn’t see any need demonstrated for a variance and asked what the motivation was. She stated the existing home could be renovated and the entire variance could be avoided. She further stated it was a self created hardship, a detriment to the neighborhood, that it would create more impervious surfaces and would result in the removal of many trees. She stated granting the variance would set a terrible precedent and it should be strongly discouraged.
Member Bogart stated he somewhat differed in respect to the application and the current zoning regulations in the Village were inadequate but that was a matter for the Board of Trustees. He stated the Zoning hadn’t caught up with the community and the “as of right” alternative would be much worse. He asked if the “as of right” was actually permissible and if it was he’d be more likely to grant the variance.
Chairman Alenstein stated historically the Board found it more preferable to defer to the Planning Board before dealing with the variance aspect.
Member O’Leary stated they’ve done joint site visits in the past with the Planning Board.
Member Messer stated she’d like the Planning Board’s input on the drawing.
Ms. Sarch stated a site visit would be helpful and welcomed.
Chairman Alenstein requested the topographical lines be supplied.
Member Messer requested markers be put down for the site walk. She stated she wanted to see if the as of right drawing was feasible and if the Planning Board would approve it.
Member Smalley stated the Board needed a lot more information and would like to schedule a site walk.
The Board scheduled a site walk for November 15, 2008 at 9:00am and adjourned the public hearing to December 2, 2008 at 8:00pm.
ADJOURNMENT
Upon motion by Member O’Leary, seconded by Member Messer, the Board voted unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 10:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Christine Dennett
| 