Zoning Board of Appeals
Regular Meeting
December 2, 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 2nd of December 2008 commencing at 8:00 p.m.
Present
Ronald Alenstein, Chairman
Christopher Bogart, Member
Stephen Smalley, Member
Absent
Hillary Messer, Member
John O’ Leary, Member
Also Present
Gerald Quartucio, Assistant Building Inspector
V-13-2008 CONTINUATION - 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:
Mr. David Steinmetz, Attorney for the Applicant, thanked the Board for conducting the site walk and thought it was very productive. He stated it was an unusually shaped property and it was larger than imagined from the road. He stated the new lot didn’t meet the lot width requirements with a proposed width of 62.28 feet where 128 feet are required. He stated the proposed house sits on the lot where it has sufficient width and the benefits vastly outweigh the negatives. He stated the main impact is a benefit to the drainage conditions. He stated there was no need for a common driveway. He stated he hoped the Village would ensure “The Club at Briarcliff Manor” would be buffered from his client’s property.
Mr. Michael Dobler, Engineer for the Applicant, stated the proposed application would be required to supply a comprehensive drainage plan to the Planning Board and the entire watershed on the property would be analyzed to see where the water flows off the property. He further stated the Applicant would be required to capture all of the stormwater runoff onsite and handle the water quality as well. He stated a series of infiltration trenches would be installed to collect the runoff as a step further to address the neighbor’s current concerns. He stated he believed the approach was advantageous to all of the adjoining property owners.
Mr. Steinmetz stated at the end of the site walk the Applicant spent time with a number of the neighbors and talked about what kind of runoff they were experiencing and offered them the ability to come onto the lower portion of their property and do their own improvements. He stated none of the neighbors were opposed to the application and another potential benefit is the Applicant is willing to install a sewer line the neighbors can tap into as well.
Member Smalley asked where the septic fields were located.
Mr. Dobler explained the location of the fields and further stated up to seven homes could connect to the sewer including the two on the Applicant’s property. He stated they met the width at the proposed location of the home but not with the setback. He stated the driveway configuration that was proposed was two single driveways at 12 feet each and they considered a common driveway to reduce it from 24 feet to 16 feet. He stated both were legal and both would be shifted to the right for better site distance.
Chairman Alenstein asked if there would be any significant increase in runoff with 24 feet or 16 feet of impervious surface.
Mr. Dobler stated there would be some increase but it wouldn’t be significant and it could be handled with the proper drainage.
Member Smalley asked why the Applicant would want to create two driveways if one was sufficient.
Mr. Dobler stated creating two driveways would minimize tree disturbance and follow the natural contours of the land. He stated they would attempt to preserve a 12 foot buffer from the base of the tree to give it a good chance of survival.
Mr. Steinmetz stated if they expanded the existing house the tree in question would be removed. He stated he felt they addressed the Board’s and the neighbor’s concerns and requested the variance be approved.
Mr. Dobler stated a comment was made by the Planning Board regarding an irregular lot line configuration and if you start with an irregular lot you’ll end up with one too. He stated they moved the lot line to make it more conforming and to reduce the size of the variance.
Member Smalley asked how many catch basins there were on Cherry Hill Court.
Assistant Building Inspector Quartucio stated he thought there were two.
Member Smalley asked if there would be legal easements to allow the neighbors to do drainage work.
Mr. Dobler stated the Applicant would grant them the right but it would depend on what work needed to be done. He stated the Applicant was very willing to cooperate.
Public Comments:
Mr. Barry Schwartz, Applicant, stated they talked to the neighbors about not having catch basins on the road and asked Village Engineer Turiano if the Village would consider installing them. He stated the Village would take it under advisement and they’d have no problem with the Village installing them straight across their property.
Mrs. Crecenzo of 218 Dalmeny Road stated she supported the Schwartz’s application and the commitment they made regarding drainage.
Upon motion by Member Smalley, seconded by Member Bogart, the Board voted unanimously to close the public hearing.
Decision:
Member Bogart stated he spoke about his views at the prior hearing and they remain essentially unchanged. He stated there were policy issues regarding whether flag lots were appropriate or not, and he was opposed to them but the current state of the zoning law didn’t prohibit them and that wasn’t a matter for the Zoning Board of Appeals to decide. He further stated the area was not zoned properly and if it were zoned higher they wouldn’t be hearing the application. He stated the single variance was a benefit to the applicant, had little detriment to the neighbors and he supported granting the variance and deferred the policy issues to the Planning Board.
Member Smalley stated he was concerned with the flag lot as well and frowned upon them. He stated he understood the applicant’s need to address their family situation. He stated he weighed the benefits verses the detriments and if everything was done as proposed, the applicant would be bettering their neighborhood regardless of the configuration of the lot.
Chairman Alenstein stated he agreed with both members and there was not a statutory prohibition on flag lots. He stated they were undesirable in many cases but not all and in the applicant’s case the shape didn’t harm anybody. He stated there was virtually no visual impact and although the variance sought is substantial that wasn’t determinative for him. He stated the variance should be granted, and there were no undesirable changes to the neighborhood and would probably be a net benefit to the neighbors.
Upon motion by Member Smalley, seconded by Member Bogart, the Board voted unanimously to grant a variance to the Applicant and they should follow through with the Planning Board and the Building Department regarding the driveway and drainage.
Minutes
The Board requested the minutes include more detail and for them to be redistributed for the next meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
Upon motion by Member Smalley, the Board voted unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 9:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Christine Dennett
| 