Zoning Board of Appeals
Regular Meeting
October 6, 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 6th of October 2009 commencing at 8:00 p.m.
Present
Ronald Alenstein, Chairman
Hillary Messer, Member
Nicholas Moraglia, Member
John O’ Leary, Member
Also Present
Gerald Quartucio, Zoning Inspector
Christine Dennett, Village Clerk
Absent
Christopher Bogart, Member
Chairman Alenstein welcomed the newest member Nicholas Moraglia to the Board and paid tribute to former Board Member Stephen Smalley who served on the Board for 17 years. He further stated Mr. Smalley was the Board’s institutional memory, was an extraordinary member and would be missed.
MINUTES
Upon motion by Member Messer, seconded by Member O’Leary, the Board voted unanimously to approve the minutes of June 2, 2009.
V-2-2009 – Frank and Joan Lacoparra – 31 Willow Drive
A variance is requested, because a building permit to construct an accessory two-car garage at an existing single family dwelling was denied due to nonconformity with Column 8, Front Yard Minimum Yard Dimensions 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 18, 2009
- Application for a variance to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Joan Lacoparra
- Code of Ethics dated August 24, 2009 signed by Joan Lacoparra
- Affidavit of Publication dated September 21, 2009
- Village Tax Map indicating parcel in question
- Survey of Property dated October 9, 1958
- Letter from Village Clerk to Frank and Joan Lacoparra dated September 11, 2009
- Building Department letter of denial to Frank and Joan Lacoparra dated August 17, 2009
- Architectural Plans from William Sharman dated August 12, 2009
- 14 Certified Mailing Receipts
Discussion:
Mr. Bill Sharman, Architect for applicant, stated his client would like to convert the present garage because Mr. Lacoparra was in a wheel chair and they would like to make it more accessible. He stated they would like to put a new detached two-car garage closer to the rear yard because the back was not obtrusive to the next door neighbor and would only be visible to Pleasantville Road if there weren’t any trees.
Chairman Alenstein stated a good deal of the proposed garage would be obscured by the fence in the rear yard.
Upon motion by Member O’Leary, seconded by Member Messer, the Board voted unanimously to close the public hearing.
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Decision:
Member Messer stated she had no concerns about the application and she was glad they took the location into consideration. She further stated she supported the application.
Member O’Leary stated the applicant mitigated the storm water and the application didn’t impact any of the neighbors. He further stated he supported the application.
Member Moraglia stated the reasoning made sense and he didn’t see any concerns and agreed with the rest of the Board.
Chairman Alenstein stated they could’ve complied with the code and not requested the variance but in an effort to lessen the impact on the neighbors, they moved the garage further back. He stated he too would vote in favor.
Upon motion by Member Messer, seconded by Member O’Leary, the Board voted unanimously to grant the requested variance.
V-3-2009 – Roger and Kathy Battacharia – 16 Holbrook Road
A variance is requested, because a building permit to construct an accessory three-car garage at an existing single family dwelling was denied due to nonconformity with Column 8a, Front Yard Minimum Yard Dimensions 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 18, 2009
- Application for a variance to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Roger Battacharia
- Code of Ethics dated August 18, 2009 signed by Roger Battacharia
- Affidavit of Publication dated September 21, 2009
- Village Tax Map indicating parcel in question
- Survey of Property dated April 9, 2009
- Letter from Village Clerk to Roger and Kathy Battacharia dated September 11, 2009
- Building Department letter of denial to Roger and Kathy Battacharia dated August 17, 2009
- Architectural Plans from Luigi DeMasi dated August 16, 2009
- 7 Certified Mailing Receipts
Discussion:
Mr. Luigi DeMasi, Architect for the Applicant, stated the Applicant was requesting a variance for a three-car garage and the way the land sloped made it hard to put it beyond. He stated the placement of the garage would limit the blacktop and they wouldn’t increase the current amount because the area was already paved. He further stated the current location of the garage made it difficult to access. He stated the foundation would go in the yard and the location would limit the number of trees to be removed. He stated the high brick wall would hide the garage from the street and the building would be 1.5 stories to the peak.
Chairman Alenstein asked what need would be filled by the peak.
Mr. DeMasi stated it would allow for extra storage.
Member Moraglia asked if there was any consideration of a two-car garage.
Mr. DeMasi stated the third bay would be for storing equipment.
Member O’Leary stated the front yard setback was already non-compliant.
Member Messer stated she wasn’t sure why the garage couldn’t be put in the back because the grade didn’t look to be significantly different.
Mr. DeMasi stated they couldn’t turn in from that angle easily and that would also elongate the house.
Chairman Alenstein stated he found the drawing confusing and he couldn’t tell where the existing house was.
Mr. DeMasi stated the existing garage would become the master bedroom suite and a media room.
Chairman Alenstein stated Member Messer was correct and the Applicant could build on the slope. He stated he visited the site and there was a lot of land to the south. He asked if it was possible to make more room by turning the garage.
Mr. DeMasi stated that would create more impervious surface and would necessitate cutting down more trees.
Mrs. Kathy Battacharia stated one of the main reasons they didn’t extend the garage straight out was there were beautiful 100 year old trees and they wanted to avoid cutting them down.
Chairman Alenstein asked what the size of each bay was.
Mr. DeMasi stated the standard size of 12 feet by 24 feet.
Chairman Alenstein stated if they reduced the garage to two-cars they could have a storage space behind the building.
Mr. DeMasi stated if his client was willing to sacrifice one bay they could extend the depth to 26 feet.
Member O’Leary asked why the maple tree needed to be removed.
Mr. DeMasi stated the tree would die if they didn’t remove it.
Member O’Leary asked why they wouldn’t just let it die naturally.
Mr. DeMasi stated they could leave the tree in.
Chairman Alenstein stated it looked like the sycamore could be saved too.
Mr. DeMasi stated there was a 10 foot requirement for detached garages.
Member Messer stated they could save the sycamore and lose the oak. She stated the applicant really had the space to flip the garage the other way.
Mr. Roger Battacharia stated they considered flipping the garage but it would defeat the purpose of building the three-car garage. He stated they would still have to turn in the same way and it was difficult to maneuver. He stated they would be recreating the same condition.
Member O’Leary stated there would be more impervious surface if the garage was flipped.
Mr. Battacharia stated their proposal would not add any more blacktop.
Member O’Leary asked how long the Applicant lived in the home.
Mr. Battacharia stated they lived there for three years.
Chairman Alenstein stated he appreciated the point about impervious surface and if they re-oriented the garage there would be more paving.
Mr. Battacharia stated they would also have to remove more trees and stated it was too difficult to get into the garage currently.
Member Moraglia suggested angling the garage, reducing it to two bays and put in a shed type structure for storage.
Mr. Battacharia stated they were trying to make it aesthetically pleasing.
Member O’Leary asked what the width of the house would be with the three-car garage.
Mr. DeMasi stated it would be over 100 feet long.
Member Messer asked how far above the brick wall the garage would stand.
Mr. DeMasi stated it would be six feet above.
Member O’Leary asked if the height of the house would be increased.
Mr. DeMasi stated it would be increased by approximately five feet.
Chairman Alenstein stated it sounded like the Applicant knew they were requesting a substantial variance and that it wouldn’t have as much of an impact behind the brick wall. He further stated the Applicant stated they couldn’t switch the orientation because it would increase the visual impact. He asked why the wall wouldn’t ameliorate the visual impact of the length of the home too. He stated a grand house ought to have a three-car garage but the property had constraints due to the placement of the house.
Mrs. Battacharia stated the garage was too hard to get in and out of.
Chairman Alenstein stated he could see the difficulty but if the garage was reoriented to face the street the turn wouldn’t be as difficult.
Member Messer stated the driveway could be widened.
Mrs. Battacharia stated the driveway would have to be right up against the wall.
Mr. Battacharia stated it would make it dangerous for their kids and asked if it wouldn’t be more logical to drive straight in and straight out.
Mrs. Battacharia asked about reducing it to a two-car garage.
Member O’Leary stated it would be less of a variance.
Mr. DeMasi stated it would be 12 feet less.
Member Moraglia stated if they made the curve less pronounced they might still get the 12 feet. He stated he understood their concept but if they slanted it and moved it back the curve would be less of an issue.
Mr. Battacharia stated three-car garages were quite common and it was more logical to drive straight in.
Member O’Leary asked if the area where the curve would be removed would be paved.
Mr. DeMasi stated it would be paved.
Member Messer stated they would still have to maneuver.
Mr. Battacharia stated the property fell in line with other homes in the area. He stated they looked at the other options and they would not create a better condition but instead a suboptimal one. He stated winter conditions worsened it.
Member Moraglia asked if there was any consideration of moving it further away from the home and back.
Mr. DeMasi stated they would encroach on the roots of the trees.
Member Alenstein asked if the garage were reduced to two bays, whether the roof peak could be lowered.
Mr. DeMasi stated it would not be lowered.
Zoning Inspector Quartucio stated it was very important to protect the drip line of the trees.
Mr. Battacharia stated all four trees would be lost if they curved the driveway out more.
Mrs. Battacharia stated the design was done in consideration of the trees.
Mr. Battacharia stated they would be clear cutting their property.
Member Messer stated she didn’t want them to lose all of the trees and she was sensitive to the three-car garage but the lot was challenging.
Mr. Battacharia stated that they were trying to keep the natural state of the property and wanted to retain the park like look.
Chairman Alenstein stated he gathered the Applicant had serious resistance to reorienting the garage and he didn’t want to endanger the trees or the pond. He stated the Board was in favor of saving the trees but the Applicant was requesting a drastic variance very close to the wall and the wall might not be there forever.
Mr. Battacharia stated they had fixed the wall several times and the wall was part of the character of the area.
Chairman Alenstein stated the Board might condition the application to eliminate one of the bays.
Mrs. Battacharia stated they looked at all of the other options and the current option was the best. She stated if the Board approved two bays they’d be happy with that.
Public Comments:
Mr. Peter Glass of 450 Chappaqua Road stated it was a relatively midsize home and the renovations would make it match the rest of the neighborhood. He stated if the garage was perpendicular to the house it would have the least impact from the street. He stated it would look like a trailer if you lengthened the house and it would be the same impact whether it was two or three bays. He stated perhaps they could drop the pitch to encroach less over the wall. He stated they were all concerned about the look and the feel and the application was well within the scope of the neighborhood’s character.
Member O’Leary stated if it was a two-car garage, two of the trees could be saved and that would screen the house from the street.
Mr. Glass stated they could relocate the trees.
Mrs. Battacharia stated they would replant the trees if they died.
Chairman Alenstein stated the Board could condition the variance to remove one bay and accommodate the storage by deepening it a bit. He stated they could drop the roof peak by three feet as well.
Mr. Glass stated his client was making a substantial investment.
Chairman Alenstein asked if the driveway was lower than street level.
Mr. Glass stated it was swallowed up by grade change and only the gable would be visible.
Zoning Inspector Quartucio stated he visited the site and drove right past it. He stated he didn’t know how much would be visible from the street.
Member Messer stated the house would only be five feet taller and didn’t feel that had an impact. She stated lowering the pitch of the garage made the application more palatable.
Chairman Alenstein stated reducing the bays would move the garage 12 feet further from the road.
Mr. Glass stated three feet over the wall wasn’t significant.
Upon motion by Member O’Leary, seconded by Member Messer, the Board voted unanimously to close the Public Hearing, there being no further comment.
Decision:
Member O’Leary stated it was a challenging application and the Board had dealt with extremes in the past. He stated eliminating the bay reduced the variance and if they dropped the pitch and saved the trees he would be in support of the application.
Chairman Alenstein stated they could vote tonight or table it. He asked the Applicant if they’d like it to be held over to next meeting.
Mr. Battacharia stated if they eliminated the third bay they didn’t want to lower the pitch because that created less storage.
Chairman Alenstein asked what the standing room would be.
Mr. Glass stated it would be less than six feet.
Member Moraglia stated what made it difficult was that the wall was there and if it wasn’t he would openly say no to the application. He stated he would be okay with a two-car garage and lowering the pitch.
Member Messer stated she understood the need for three bays and she could live with the two-car option and keeping the pitch as is. She stated the wall was historic and it was a concern to keep it in character.
Chairman Alenstein asked if the other Members would be okay with eliminating one bay and leaving the pitch.
Member O’Leary stated he would be.
Chairman Alenstein stated the Applicant was stuck with preexisting constraints and they were requesting a substantial variance. He stated the Board could grant with the condition of reducing the garage to two bays.
Member Messer stated some of the trees required by the Mandatory Tree Planting Plan should be used for screening.
Chairman Alenstein stated the sense of the Board was to grant the variance with the condition of reducing the variance by 12 feet by eliminating a bay and recommending to the Planning Board some of the trees in the MTPP be used for screening.
Mrs. Battacharia stated they were okay with the conditions.
Upon motion by Member O’Leary, seconded by Member Messer, the Board voted unanimously to grant the variance with the following conditions:
- 12 feet reduction of the variance by eliminating one garage bay.
- Recommend to the Planning Board the trees to be planted for screening the garage from the street.
V-4-2009 – Edward Jusko – 139 Willow Drive
A variance is requested, because a building permit to install a roof over an existing porch at an existing single family dwelling was denied due to nonconformity with Column 8, Front Yard Minimum Yard Dimensions 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 September 4, 2009
- Application for a variance to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Edward Jusko
- Code of Ethics dated September 4, 2009 signed by Edward Jusko
- Affidavit of Publication dated September 21, 2009
- Village Tax Map indicating parcel in question
- Survey of Property dated December 1, 1961
- Letter from Village Clerk to Edward Jusko dated September 11, 2009
- Building Department letter of denial to Edward Jusko dated September 4, 2009
- Architectural Plans from William Sharman dated September 3, 2009
- 16 Certified Mailing Receipts
Discussion:
Mr. Bill Sharman, Architect for the Applicant, state the water dripped and it was deteriorating the present porch.
Chairman Alenstein asked if the roof would go over the existing porch.
Mr. Sharman stated it would.
Public Comments:
There were no public comments
Upon motion by Member Messer, seconded by Member Moraglia, the Board voted unanimously to close the Public Hearing.
Decision:
Members, Moraglia, Messer and O’Leary stated they didn’t have a problem with application.
Chairman Alenstein stated the variance was not substantial or intrusive and wouldn’t damage the environment or the character of the neighborhood.
Upon motion by Member Messer, seconded by Member O’Leary, the Board voted unanimously to grant the variance as requested.
Member Messer requested the Building Department give the Board information on previous variances for future applications.
Zoning Inspector Quartucio stated they could include a copy of the property card with the application.
ADJOURNMENT
Upon motion by Member O’Leary, seconded by Member Messer, the Board voted unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 9:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Christine Dennett
| 