Zoning Board of Appeals
Regular Meeting
April 6, 2010
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 April 2010 commencing at 8:00 p.m.
Present
Ronald Alenstein, Chairman
Christopher Bogart, Member
Hillary Messer, Member
Nicholas Moraglia, Member
John O’ Leary, Member
Also Present
Gerald Quartucio, Zoning Inspector
Christine Dennett, Village Clerk
V-2-2010 – Frank & Karen Scanga – 440 Central Drive
A variance was requested, because a building permit to construct an addition to the first and second floors of an existing single family dwelling was denied due to nonconformity with Column 8a, Front Yard Dimension 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 February 17, 2010
- Application for a variance to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Karen Scanga
- Affidavit of Publication dated March 18, 2010
- Survey of Property dated February 6, 2010
- Letter from Village Clerk to Frank and Karen Scanga dated March 12, 2010
- Building Department letter of denial to Frank and Karen Scanga dated February 12, 2010
- Architectural Plans from Mary Faithorn Scott dated February 17, 2010
- 16 Certified Mailing Receipts
- Google Earth Aerial Photograph
- Photographs of the Scanga Residence
- Email Submitted by Robert Burruss
- Email Submitted by Bruce Yeager
DISCUSSION:
Chairman Alenstein asked if the applicant received copies of the letters submitted by the neighbors.
Zoning Inspector Quartucio stated by he and Village Engineer Turiano were at the site today and met with Mrs. Yeager who requested screening be placed close to the road.
Ms. Mary Faithorn Scott, Architect for the Applicant, showed Google Earth Photos depicting the location of the applicant’s home and the surrounding area. She stated the existing home was a split level built in 1960 with no master bath and undersized living, kitchen and dining areas. She stated the site dipped more than 10 feet further from the right side to the left and by putting the living area and master bedroom over the garage it would give the home a more desirable layout and center hall colonial appearance. She stated the deck was currently 15 feet off grade and the desire was to bring it up to current standards to work better with the site. She stated they chose not to come any further forward and proposed a setback of 33.7 feet because of the curve of the road. She stated they were requesting a
significant variance but they felt the site supported it. She stated the slope made the design work better and they didn’t feel they were impinging on the neighbors.
Chairman Alenstein asked what the height of the proposed addition would be.
Ms. Faithorn Scott stated it would be about five feet higher than the existing home but wouldn’t be any higher than other homes in the neighborhood.
Member Moraglia asked for clarification on how much of a variance they were requesting.
Ms. Faithorn Scott stated they eliminated a piece of the family room to make the plan more compact.
Member Bogart asked which GFA sheet was accurate.
Ms. Faithorn Scott stated the most recent one was correct.
Member Messer asked if Ms. Faithorn Scott had a new front elevation.
Ms. Faithorn Scott stated she didn’t have time to submit one but could pencil it in on Member Messer’s drawing.
Chairman Alenstein asked if there was a way to angle the left side to bring the structure further from the street to require less of a variance.
Ms. Faithorn Scott stated it would make an awkward floor plan.
Chairman Alenstein stated it might also prevent the colonial façade the applicant was aiming for.
Member Moraglia asked if there was any consideration to making the addition smaller.
Mr. Scanga stated they did scale it back and squared it off to make it more appealing.
Member Bogart asked for clarification on the setback.
Ms. Faithorn Scott showed the proposed location.
Member Messer stated the lot was difficult and didn’t see any other option for the location of an addition. She stated even if the addition was scaled back they’d still need a variance and they conformed with all other setbacks and the maximum gross floor area requirements. She further stated she met the neighbor and it wouldn’t go past her driveway.
Ms. Faithorn Scott stated the applicant intended to put in screening.
Mr. Scanga stated they wanted their privacy as well.
Member Messer asked how many trees would need to be planted under the MTPP.
Zoning Inspector Quartucio stated they would need to plant 13 trees. He stated the neighbor wanted the trees close to the road but the salt would destroy them.
Member Moraglia stated they would still afford screening if they were planted five feet further back.
Chairman Alenstein stated if the variance was granted it should be conditioned that plans be submitted in accordance with what Ms. Faithorn Scott explained.
Member Messer asked if the driveway location would remain the same.
Ms. Faithorn Scott stated it would.
Member O’Leary asked if they intended to leave the asphalt up to the brick wall.
Mr. Scanga stated they didn’t plan on touching it.
Chairman Alenstein stated he assumed the shed and porch would disappear.
Mr. Scanga stated they would.
Member O’Leary stated there were 3 or 4 sink holes to the right of the driveway and suggested they look into it.
Member Messer stated Mrs. Yeager felt the runoff was worse from the property behind them and they had to do significant drainage.
Ms. Faithorn Scott stated they would do drainage mitigation.
Zoning Inspector Quartucio stated Chapter 184 of the Village Code addressed stormwater management.
Member Moraglia asked if the house was on septic or sewer.
Ms. Faithorn Scott stated it was on sewer.
Chairman Alenstein asked if the tree ordinance mandated where the trees had to planted.
Zoning Inspector Quartucio stated it mandated size and type only. He further stated the Village right of way was 15 feet on this property so their setback started 15 feet from the street.
Member Messer stated that reduced the variance.
Zoning Inspector Quartucio stated Central Drive had a 15 foot setback from the curb and was unique.
Member Bogart asked how that impacted the planting of the trees.
Zoning Inspector Quartucio stated the Village would not be responsible for the trees. He stated the purpose was to screen whatever improvements were made and all of the trees didn’t have to be planted at the street. He stated screening might be ineffective due to the elevation differences.
Member Messer stated it would soften the impact.
Member Alenstein stated the Board didn’t need to make the plantings a condition because that was the intent of the MTPP.
Zoning Inspector Quartucio stated if the trees were planted too close together they would die.
Member Messer requested a greater number of trees be planted in the front to soften the impact and should be monitored by the Building Department.
Mr. Scanga stated their intent was to screen as much as possible for everyone’s privacy.
Member Messer stated once construction began landscaping budgets got smaller and smaller but fortunately the Village’s code required trees.
Mr. Scanga stated they were building their dream home and intended to do everything right.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
There were no public comments.
Upon motion by Member Messer, seconded by Member O’Leary, the Board voted unanimously to close the public hearing.
DECISION:
Member Messer stated the lot made it challenging to choose another location for the addition and that she would support the application.
Member O’Leary stated he agreed with Member Messer and it would be a very nice addition. He stated as long as the sinkholes were addressed he would support the application.
Member Bogart stated he agreed and although it was a substantial variance it was not detrimental to the neighborhood. He further stated the Village’s bylaws dealt with screening and he felt it didn’t need to be a condition and he was in support of the application.
Member Moraglia stated he agreed with the prior statements and would be in support of the application.
Chairman Alenstein stated he agreed and was impressed to discover the setback might not be as extreme. He stated it was an improvement and would not be a detriment to the neighborhood. He stated he would support the application with the condition of new drawings being submitted to the Building Department as discussed.
Upon motion by Member O’Leary, seconded by Member Bogart, the Board voted unanimously to grant the variance as requested with the condition that a full set of revised drawings be submitted to the Building Department.
MINUTES
The Board voted unanimously to approve the minutes of December 1, 2009 and February 2, 1010.
ADJOURNMENT
Upon motion by Member Messer, the Board voted unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 8:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Christine Dennett
| 