Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
 
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes 12/2009

 Zoning Board of Appeals
Regular Meeting
December 1, 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 1st of December 2009 commencing at 8:00 p.m.

Present
Ronald Alenstein, Chairman
Christopher Bogart, Member
Hillary Messer, Member
Nicholas Moraglia, Member

Also Present
Gerald Quartucio, Zoning Inspector
Christine Dennett, Village Clerk

Absent
John O’ Leary, Member

V-5-2009 – Jason & Dara Mirsky – 83 South State Road

A variance was requested, because a building permit to rebuild an existing wood framed garage and expansion of the roof structure of an existing stone storage shed at an existing single family dwelling was denied due to nonconformity with Column 8, Front Yard Minimum Yard Dimensions and Column 9, Side Yard Minimum Dimensions of Schedule 220:A5of Schedule 220:A5 of the Code of the Village of Briarcliff Manor.  

The following items were marked as Board Exhibits:
  • Code Compliance Worksheet dated October 17, 2009
  • Application for a variance to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Jason Mirsky
  • Code of Ethics dated October 17, 2009 signed by Jason Mirsky
  • Affidavit of Publication dated November 6, 2009
  • Village Tax Map indicating parcel in question
  • Survey of Property dated July 8, 2009
  • Letter from Village Clerk to Jason and Dara Mirsky dated November 6, 2009
  • Building Department letter of denial to Jason and Dara Mirsky dated October 19, 2009
  • Architectural Plans from Bond Street dated October 15, 2009
  • 15 Certified Mailing Receipts
  • Letter of Support from Liz and Cos LaCosta
  • Letter of Support from Maureen Fee
  • Letter of Support from Stephanie Guarino
  • Letter of Support from JC and Sharon Mazzola
Discussion:

Chairman Alenstein asked the Applicant to explain their application and why they thought they should receive a variance.  

Mr. Jason Mirsky stated they purchased their home seven years prior and the home had two outer buildings that have fallen into disrepair.  He stated the buildings were a hazard to their two children and their home was small, with no attic or full basement and repairing the buildings would be very useful to them.  He stated they’d like to use the garage as a storage area for gardening supplies, bikes etc and they currently had no place to store items like that.  He further stated they wanted to make the stone building into a play area for their children.  He stated they simply wanted to repair the existing structures and make them safe and functional and restore them back to the character they already had.  

Ms. Joanne Tall, Architect for the Applicant, stated they were proposing to rebuild the structures to their original state with the exception of increasing the roof on the stone building to be sloped.  She stated the building was a retaining wall in itself and was formerly a meeting room for the Congregational Church in the 1800’s.  

Chairman Alenstein asked what the floor area of the stone building was.  

Ms. Tall stated they were decreasing the size because it had a little room attached that the foundation was too far gone.  She stated it would be 402 square feet.  She further stated the buildings would remain located on the existing footprints.  

Chairman Alenstein stated he visited the site and the buildings are almost nonexistent.  He stated the buildings didn’t seem to have any historical significance.  

Mrs. Dara Mirsky stated the barn was a traditional wood red structure and they had letters of support from their neighbors, including the ones directly behind them.  She stated they were the first homeowners to follow through with renovation plans and they wanted it to be safe.  

Chairman Alenstein stated no one could quarrel with safety and asked if rebuilding or tearing down was the answer.  He stated it struck him that the stone building could serve as both storage and a play area.  

Ms. Tall stated once you had a ping pong table and bicycles in there it wouldn’t be big enough.  She stated the house had a small mechanical room in the cellar and the 2nd floor was directly under the roof.  She stated it was a small 1500 square foot cottage like home.                 

Chairman Alenstein stated he understood they had a side yard and front yard setback issue and asked if their backyard was classified as a front yard.  

Mrs. Mirsky stated the thought was that they could connect to Route 9a when they clearly could not.  

Member Messer stated neither structure met the setback requirements.  

Member Bogart stated the application indicated trees needed to be removed.  He asked which trees and why.  

Ms. Tall stated one leaned into the building and the other had roots that grew into the wall.  She stated they were trying to leave the 3rd tree in.  

Mrs. Mirsky stated they wanted to keep as many trees as possible and they would replace any trees they had to take down.  She stated their yard was surrounded by trees and that was why they loved it.  

Member Bogart stated the buildings were right beside Route 9a and he didn’t see any physical barrier blocking the buildings from the road.  

Mrs. Mirsky stated there was a large berm there.  

Mr. Mirsky stated in addition to the berm there was the North County Trailway and no point of access to Route 9a.  

Member Bogart asked if they had any safety anxiety and asked if they built two new structures would that draw their children to Route 9a.  

Mrs. Mirsky stated their neighbors play gym was right behind the barn and they also kept bikes back there.  She stated she didn’t think it would increase the traffic in the area and she didn’t allow them to play alone.  

Member Messer asked if the garage would be used for cars.  

Mrs. Mirsky stated it would not be used for cars.  

Member Moraglia asked if there would be HVAC or plumbing.  

Mrs. Mirsky stated there would only be electric.  

Public Comments:

There were no public comments.  

Upon motion by Member Bogart, seconded by Member Messer, the Board voted unanimously to close the public hearing.  

Zoning Inspector Quartucio stated there were four letters of support for the application.  

Decision:

Member Messer stated she was initially concerned due to the size of the variance but she believed the buildings had been there for a long time and it was really just rebuilding what already existed and it was probably before the property lines were drawn.  She stated it was a significant safety hazard and for that reason she would support the application.  

Member Bogart stated he agreed with Member Messer that it was a significant variance and he would certainly not support new construction.  He stated the buildings existed and were a safety hazard and he was fully supportive of recreating them but his only reservation was the presence of the buildings would draw the children towards the roadway.  He stated he simply urged the parents to watch them carefully and consider fencing.  

Member Moraglia stated he echoed the other Board Members and the buildings were clearly pre-existing and didn’t know why the repairs hadn’t been done before.  He stated he was concerned with safety and he didn’t believe the repairs would be a detriment but would be an improvement to the area.  He stated he was in support of the variance.  

Chairman Alenstein stated he agreed and because the existing structures were being rebuilt he didn’t have any issue with the nonconformity.  

Upon motion by Member Messer, seconded by Member Moraglia, the Board voted unanimously to approve the variance as requested.  

V-6-2009 – Paul & Kimberly Huchro – 100 Tower Hill Road

A variance was requested, because a building permit to construct a new pool house with a cupola at an existing single family dwelling was denied due to nonconformity with Column 18, Maximum Height of an Accessory Building of Schedule 220:A5of Schedule 220:A5 of the Code of the Village of Briarcliff Manor.  

The following items were marked as Board Exhibits:
  • Code Compliance Worksheet dated October 16, 2009
  • Application for a variance to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Kimberly Huchro
  • Code of Ethics dated October 19, 2009 signed by Kimberly Huchro
  • Affidavit of Publication dated November 6, 2009
  • Village Tax Map indicating parcel in question
  • Survey of Property dated October 19, 2009
  • Letter from Village Clerk to Paul and Kimberly Huchro dated November 6, 2009
  • Building Department letter of denial to Paul and Kimberly Huchro dated October 20, 2009
  • Architectural Plans from David Graham dated October 19, 2009
  • 6 Certified Mailing Receipts
  • Letter of Support signed by Jean and John Ervasti, Sanja and Stephen Frank, Maureen and Thomas Wright, Elizabeth and John Simons, Theresa and James Kilman and William Nitschke
Discussion:

Mr. David Graham, Architect for the Applicant, stated he was there because his client was building a pool house with a cupola and only the height of the cupola required a variance.  He stated the rest of the structure was fully compliant.  He stated in the Village’s Zoning Code cupolas were allowed on primary structures but was silent about accessory buildings.  He stated the cupola was 142 feet from the street and there were 11 or 12 very mature evergreens in the side yard that provided screening.  He showed photographs of the site to the Board.  

Chairman Alenstein stated a significant view was missing in the pictures.  He stated in most cases any work done in that area couldn’t be seen but in this instance the cupola would be right in the face of the neighbors.  

Mrs. Kimberly Huchro stated she reviewed the plans with the neighbors and they didn’t have any concerns.  

Chairman Alenstein stated the neighbors would most likely look out their windows towards the river.  He asked if the Huchros could see the neighbor’s house.  

Mrs. Huchro stated they could see the back of their house but the majority of their living space faced down river.  

Mr. Graham stated the cupola was 72 feet from the property line on that side and there was a plateau that the building sat on the edge of.  He stated they were trying to work with the neighbor.  

Mrs. Huchro stated her neighbors lived in the City and used the home on weekends only.

Chairman Alenstein stated the owners might sell the house some day.  

Mr. Graham stated the building would coordinate with the main house.  

Chairman Alenstein asked what the maximum height allowance was.    

Zoning Inspector Quartucio stated it was 15 feet to the slope.  

Mr. Graham stated the flat part of the cupola was two feet higher but calculating it from another point it was actually four feet to the average grade.  

Member Bogart stated the Applicant wouldn’t need a variance at all without the cupola.  

Member Moraglia asked if they gave any thought to lowering the cupola.  

Mr. Graham stated they looked at lowering it but it looked completely out of keeping with the structure.  

Member Messer stated if the cupola was on the main house it wouldn’t require a variance at all.  

Member Moraglia stated he had concerns about the neighbor’s views and went to the site to see what they would look at.  He stated their view was on an angle.  

Mr. Graham stated the neighbor didn’t meet the 40 yard setback but they moved the pool house closer to the Huchros home to compensate for that.  He stated it was 72 feet back and had a wall of evergreens in front of it.  He further stated the neighbors thought it was very attractive.  

Chairman Alenstein asked how far the cupola was from the Franks house.  

Mr. Graham stated it was 72 feet to the property line and then another 20 feet approximately to the Franks house.  

Member Bogart stated the Applicant could theoretically subdivide the property and put a house up with a cupola and still be code compliant.  

Mr. Graham stated building the pool house would prevent that and reduce the potential development.  

Chairman Alenstein asked if there would be a kitchen in the pool house.  

Mr. Graham stated it was solely an accessory building.  

Mrs. Huchro stated the pool house would be on their second parcel and that it wasn’t a subdivision but two tax lots.  

Public Comments:

There were no public comments.  

Upon motion by Member Bogart, seconded by Member Messer, the Board voted unanimously to close the public hearing.  

Decision:

Member Moraglia stated that given his biggest concern was the neighbor and the affect it would have on their prized view and since the pool house didn’t impact the view he would be in support.  

Member Bogart stated he was similarly supportive and it was an example of the one size fits all zoning.  He stated the fact that the cupola could be built on the main house he was perfectly content with granting the variance and there was no meaningful detriment.  

Member Messer stated she was in agreement with her fellow members, there was no detriment and the impacted neighbor signed a letter in favor.  She stated she supported the application.  

Chairman Alenstein stated he agreed with all that had been said and he felt less uneasy about it because it could be done another way with a far greater impact.  

Upon motion by Member Messer, seconded by Member Bogart, the Board voted unanimously to grant the variance as requested.  

V-7-2009 – B and J Car Wash of Westchester – 199 South Highland Avenue

A variance was requested, because a building permit to renovate and modify an existing car wash was denied due to nonconformity with Column 6, Maximum Percent of Lot to be Occupied by a Principal Building of Schedule 220:A11 of the Code of the Village of Briarcliff Manor.  

The following items were marked as Board Exhibits:
  • Code Compliance Worksheet dated October 19, 2009
  • Application for a variance to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Robert Guerrerio
  • Code of Ethics dated October 13, 2009 signed by Robert Guerrerio
  • Affidavit of Publication dated November 6, 2009
  • Village Tax Map indicating parcel in question
  • Survey of Property dated September 29, 2009
  • Letter from Village Clerk to B & J Car Wash of Westchester dated November 6, 2009
  • Building Department letter of denial to B & J Car Wash of Westchester dated October 7, 2009
  • Architectural Plans from John Meyer Consulting dated October 15, 2009
  • 12 Certified Mailing Receipts
Discussion:

Chairman Alenstein stated he always thought the car wash was in Ossining.  

Mr. Jim Ryan, representing the Applicant, stated the car wash was a permitted use of the property and they were seeking to do a complete renovation and it would be a significant impact to the site.  He stated the existing structure was nonconforming and one of the nonconformities was for the front yard setback.  He stated the existing building was four feet from the property line and they weren’t seeking any variances for the side or rear yards.  He stated the square footage was also compliant.  He stated they were reducing the footprint of the enclosed building by 400 square feet and were creating the design to meet the needs of the client to incorporate open canopies.  He stated they were taking the building further back from the road.  He stated the current site was pretty much self serve and it would be changed to a full service site.  He stated the cars would come around the back of the building and go through state of the art wash tunnels.  He stated the customers would then enter a small retail area and waiting room while their car was being serviced.  He stated one canopy was to cover the vacuuming area and the other was to balance out the architectural look.  He stated overall it was a great enhancement to the site and they would be adding landscaping, new utilities, correcting the water lines, sanitary sewer and the curb cuts.  

Chairman Alenstein asked what landscaping they proposed.  

Mr. Ryan stated the site was currently 100% paved but they would add what they could.  

Chairman Alenstein stated that wouldn’t really reduce the impervious surface.  

Mr. Ryan stated they were installing proper storm water drainage.  

Chairman Alenstein asked what material the canopies would be.  

Mr. Neil Carnow, Architect for the Applicant, stated they would have two types, and would be an extension of the building.  He stated they’d be open with lighting underneath.  He stated one canopy would be a steel structure with the continued appearance of the main structure and would extend upward to the wall.  

Chairman Alenstein asked if the canopy would connect to the retaining wall.  

Mr. Carnow stated they would not connect and there would be sky lights to let the natural light come through.  

Member Bogart stated it was basically a roof with no walls.  

Chairman Alenstein stated with the canopies the reconfiguration sounded like it would have the same lot coverage.  

Member Bogart stated the trade off was that it was being pulled back from the street.  

Mr. Ryan stated it was currently four feet from the road but would be moved back to 26 feet.  

Chairman Alenstein stated the application was attractive.  

Mr. Ryan stated the situation was unique to this use and when they first filed the application they weren’t of the opinion that canopies fell into lot coverage.  He stated they scaled them back as a result of the conversation with the Planning Board.  He stated they still had to go back to the Planning Board for site plan approval.  

Public Comments:

There were no public comments.  

Zoning Inspector Quartucio stated the site was identified as part of the commercial revitalization and the Village was enthusiastic about fixing it up.  

Upon motion by Member Messer, seconded by Member Bogart, the Board voted unanimously to close the public hearing.  

Discussion:

Member Bogart stated the current building was terrible and the level of improvement would be a significant benefit that outweighed the zoning drawbacks.  He stated the coverage would expand by creating the roof but it wouldn’t be able to be seen.  He stated pulling it back from the street was well worth the trade off and was a substantial advantage and he would be in favor of it.  

Member Moraglia stated he agreed and it would beautify the area.  He stated he too would be in support.  

Member Messer stated the Applicant put a lot of thought into the design and it benefited the neighborhood.  She stated she was in favor and it would be a great improvement pulling it back from the road.  

Chairman Alenstein stated the proposal was an improvement and aesthetically pleasing.  He stated his only concern was that it might be expanding a nonconforming use but the unsightly bulk would be reduced.  He stated he felt all the purposes satisfied the law and he would vote in favor.  

Upon motion by Member Messer, seconded by Member Moraglia, the Board voted unanimously to approve the variance as requested.  

V-8-2009 – James Casey – 160 South State Road

A variance was requested, because a building permit to construct a two story addition of a two-car garage and family room at an existing single family dwelling was denied due to nonconformity with Column 10, Two Side Yards Combined 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 November 13, 2009
  • Application for a variance to the Zoning Board of Appeals by James Casey
  • Code of Ethics dated November 12, 2009 signed by James Casey
  • Affidavit of Publication dated November 13, 2009
  • Village Tax Map indicating parcel in question
  • Survey of Property dated November 12, 2009
  • Letter from Village Clerk to James Casey dated November 13, 2009
  • Building Department letter of denial to James Casey dated November 12, 2009
  • Architectural Plans from William Sharman dated November 9, 2009
  • 14 Certified Mailing Receipts
Discussion:

Mr. William Sharman, Architect for the Applicant, stated it was a small Cape Cod style home with a small garage addition built in 1963.  He stated the garage was very small and the plan was to take down that addition and expand to a two-car garage and expand the kitchen and the family room.  He stated they would use the same materials as the house and the variance was for one side yard.  

Member Messer asked if the side yard was existing nonconforming.  

Mr. Sharman stated they weren’t touching the already existing nonconformity and there were neighbors present to speak in favor of the application.  He stated it was in character with the neighborhood.  

Member Bogart stated he thought the large maple tree would not survive.  

Mr. Bill Welsh of 170 South State Road stated he lived there for 16 years and was in favor of the addition.  He stated it would be an enhancement and he helped with the drawings and the survey.  He stated he thought the tree would survive and the root system would not be overly disrupted.  

Member Bogart asked if the addition could be built behind the house.  

Mr. Sharman stated there was too much of a grade.  

Member Bogart stated when you combine both houses with the addition it would appear too wide.  

Mr. Welsh stated a variance was received for his home about 20 years ago bringing his home within five feet of the property line.  

Member Bogart stated he thought it wasn’t in keeping with the neighborhood.  

Mrs. Terry Casey stated the addition really couldn’t be seen from the street and their garage wasn’t usable as is.  

Member Moraglia stated with the addition there would be 21 feet to the neighbor’s garage.  

Mr. Sharman stated they would be closer together but there was a steep bank in the rear.  

Member Messer stated the lot was constrained.  

Member Bogart stated the small street frontage troubled him and the house seemed to be closer than the others on the street.  He stated perhaps this was a reason for zoning.  

Mr. Sharman stated the house was 60 feet back when 40 feet was required.  

Member Messer stated many homes in that area were nonconforming and it was not out of character with the neighborhood.  

Member Moraglia stated further down the street the slope lessened a bit and allowed for centering.  

Mr. Jim Casey stated the other homes were very similar to what they were proposing.

Public Comments:

There were no public comments.

Upon motion by Member Moraglia, seconded by Member Bogart, the Board voted unanimously to close the public hearing.  

Decision:

Member Messer stated she appreciated the concerns, it was a constraining lot and it was not an unreasonable request to expand to a two-car garage.  She stated it wouldn’t be a detriment to the neighborhood and she would vote in favor.  

Member Bogart stated the reality was there were a number of nonconforming homes on the street already but it was a self created variance.  He stated he did believe it was likely to be detrimental in that regard however the variance wasn’t substantial and he wouldn’t stand in the way.  

Member Moraglia stated the perceived detriment was outweighed by the benefits of the improvement to the home and having the neighbor in favor helped his decision.  He stated he would be in favor.  

Chairman Alenstein stated detriment might be in the eye of the beholder and the request was reasonable.  

Upon motion by Member Messer, seconded by Member Moraglia, the Board voted unanimously to grant the variance as requested.  

Minutes

The Board voted unanimously to approve the minutes of the October 6, 2009 meeting.  

ADJOURNMENT

Upon motion by Member Messer, seconded by Member Bogart, the Board voted unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 9:30 p.m.


Respectfully submitted by,

Christine Dennett