Zoning Board of Appeals
Regular Meeting
June 2, 2009
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 June 2009 commencing at 8:00 p.m.
Present
Ronald Alenstein, Chairman
Hillary Messer, Member
Stephen Smalley, Member
Also Present
David Turiano P.E., Building Inspector
Christine Dennett, Village Clerk
Absent
Christopher Bogart, Member
John O’ Leary, Member
V-1-2009 – Ms. Maxine Olson – 17 Quinn Road
A variance is requested, because a building permit to construct a sunroom at the rear of an existing single family dwelling was denied due to nonconformity with Column 6, Maximum Percent of Lot to Be Occupied for Principal Building 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 April 15, 2009
- Application for a variance to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Maxine Olson
- Code of Ethics dated April 15, 2009 signed by Maxine Olson
- Affidavit of Publication dated May 15, 2009
- Village Tax Map indicating parcel in question
- Survey of Property dated March 18, 1987
- Letter from Village Clerk to Maxine Olson dated May 15, 2009
- Building Department letter of denial to Maxine Olson dated April 7, 2009
- Architectural Plans from John Anthony Ferraro dated February 24, 2009
- 14 Certified Mailing Receipts
Discussion:
Ms. Olson reviewed the requested variance and submitted the certified mailing receipts. She stated the variance was to build a conservatory on her L-Shaped house and it would cover the existing brick patio. She stated she was proposing 14.8% coverage and it wasn’t obtrusive because it didn’t impede anyone’s line of site and wasn’t a substantial change. She stated the conservatory wasn’t visible from the front because the roof line was lower. She stated she only had two neighbors behind her property and they were both fine with the addition and in the summer it couldn’t be seen because the area was heavily wooded. She stated it was an enhancement to her home from an energy standpoint because it was a passive solar structure and it would help to reduce heating cost.
She stated it wouldn’t increase the impervious surface because it would be an already existing patio and the gutters would be extended from the existing home for drainage.
Chairman Alenstein stated he visited the site asked if the patio would remain raised.
Ms. Olson stated the patio would be 2/3 covered by the conservatory and the existing patio would be at the same level.
Chairman Alenstein asked if there would be any usable patio left and stated if the patio was increased that would then increase the impervious surface.
Ms. Olson stated she would opt to put up a deck as opposed to extending the patio.
Chairman Alenstein asked if the variance was strictly for coverage and not for bulk.
Village Engineer Turiano stated that it was strictly for lot coverage.
Member Messer stated she visited the site as well and noted it would be virtually invisible to most of the neighbors.
Public Comments
No public comments.
Upon motion by Member Smalley, seconded by Member Messer, the Board voted unanimously to close the public hearing.
Decision:
Member Smalley stated that although the proposal was 2.8% over the permitted coverage it was a ranch style house and the perfect example of why the Zoning Code’s failure to differentiate between one-story houses and taller houses can sometimes be taken into account in granting a variance. He further stated that it was an unobtrusive addition and the variance requested was not large. He stated that at this time of year you couldn’t see the area because of the mature vegetation and even the house that looked directly into Ms. Olson’s backyard couldn’t see the addition because of the L-Shape of the home. He stated it was a good application and he would vote in favor to grant the variance.
Member Messer stated that she agreed with Member Smalley and didn’t have any problems with the application.
Chairman Alenstein stated that if there ever was an application that seemed to pose no threat of an adverse change to the neighborhood or neighboring properties this was it. He stated some might regard the change as substantial but he didn’t agree. He further stated there were no harmful environmental impacts and he too would grant the variance.
Upon motion by Member Smalley, seconded by Member Messer, the Board voted unanimously to grant the requested variance.
MINUTES
Chairman Alenstein stated that he had a firm resolve to change the format of the minutes so they would more closely reflect the actual discussion and evidence at the hearings. He further stated the record would be all the court would ever have when it comes to petitions to review, and the minutes should be as accurate as the Board can make them. He requested that Village Engineer Turiano oversee the process.
ADJOURNMENT
Upon motion by Member Smalley, seconded by Member Messer, the Board voted unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 8:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Christine Dennett
| 