Zoning Board of Appeals
Regular Meeting
June 1, 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 1st of June 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
David Turiano, Village Engineer
Christine Dennett, Village Clerk
V-3-2010 – Marc & Renee Milano – 144 River Road
A variance was requested, because a building permit to construct additions, interior renovations and a new covered porch entry to an existing single family dwelling was denied due to nonconformity with Column 8, 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 March 29, 2010
- Application for a variance to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Renee & Marc Milano
- Code of Ethics signed by Marc Milano dated April 15, 2010
- Affidavit of Publication dated May 20, 2010
- Survey of Property dated January 25, 2010
- Letter from Village Clerk to Marc & Renee Milano dated May 14, 2010
- Building Department letter of denial to Marc & Renee Milano dated March 30, 2010
- Architectural Plans from Dimovski Architecture dated March 12, 2010
- 15 Certified Mailing Receipts
- Tax Map
- Property Card
DISCUSSION:
Ms. Paulette Dimovski, Architect for Applicant, stated they were seeking a front yard variance of 5 feet. She further stated the home was on the corner of River Road and Woodlea Lane, with two front lots and the red areas on the drawling illustrated the required setbacks. She stated they were proposing to add on a porch, expand the kitchen and put a master suite above the garage. She stated they would like to add a gable roof to mark the entrance and add a rotunda on the side to add a nice sitting area in the front. She further stated the old garage would be converted into living space.
Member Moraglia asked if there were plans for a new garage.
Ms. Dimovski stated the applicants rarely used the current garage and deemed a new one unnecessary.
Member Moraglia asked if they would increase the size of the driveway.
Ms. Dimovski stated they would not.
Chairman Alenstein asked for a rough idea of the height of the bluff the house was on.
Ms. Dimovski stated the survey showed the topography.
Village Engineer Turiano stated it looked to be about 124 feet on the River Road side and 114 feet on the Woodlea Lane side.
Ms. Dimovski stated the house looked larger than it actually was and they were worried about how the massing of it would look.
Member Messer stated if they had gone with another plan they would not have needed a variance. She further stated she appreciated the reasoning behind requesting the variance. She asked if they were going to change the center roofline as well.
Ms. Dimovski stated they were adding a small roof on the left for cosmetic reasons with another gable over the window.
Member O’Leary asked for the dimensions of the porch.
Ms. Dimovski stated 14 feet by 13.5 feet not including the 12 foot bumpout.
Member O’Leary asked how much higher the roof of the bumpout was compared to the roof at the front door.
Ms. Dimovski stated 2 feet.
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 Moraglia stated he thought it was a lovely way to renovate the home and it was in character with the neighborhood. He stated there was no detriment to the neighbors and he had no issue with the application.
Member Bogart stated he was content to grant the variance.
Member O’Leary stated it was a minor variance and well within the guidelines.
Member Messer stated she too would be in support.
Chairman Alenstein stated his biggest factor was the height and the changes to the home would improve the distant vista of it from neighboring homes. He stated he would vote in favor.
Upon motion by Member Moraglia, seconded by Member Messer, the Board voted unanimously to grant the variance as requested.
V-4-2010 - Michael Sokoloff 16 Austin Place
A variance was requested because a building permit to install an in-ground swimming pool at an existing single family dwelling was denied due to nonconformity with Section 220.9, Regulations of Swimming Pools; paragraph B. (2) of the Code of the Village of Briarcliff Manor.
The following items were marked as Board Exhibits:
- Application for a variance to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Dr. Michael Sokoloff
- Affidavit of Publication dated May 20, 2010
- Survey of Property dated December 1, 2005
- Letter from Village Clerk to Michael Sokoloff dated May 14, 2010
- Building Department letter of denial to Michael Sokoloff dated April 29, 2010
- Architectural Plans from Greg McWilliams dated May 6, 2010
- Tax Map
- Property Card
- Code of Ethics signed by Michael Sokoloff dated April 22, 2010
- 7 Certified Mailing Receipts
- Photographs of the Sokoloff Residence
- Email Submitted by by Stephanie Lary
- Pricing for proposed landscaping by Amodio Landscaping
DISCUSSION:
Mr. Greg McWilliams, Architect for the Applicant, stated the site plan showed the 1.2 acre site and the dark portion indicated did not have easements. He stated the lighter area was encumbered with all kinds of easements, sanitary sewer, wetlands etc. and the house was right on the buffer of the wetlands. He stated the Applicant lived there for 2 years and the rear yard was not a really a wetland area. He submitted pictures of the site and a drawing showing the surrounding homes on the street.
Member Moraglia asked if the project would require a variance from the Department of Environmental Conservation.
Village Engineer Turiano stated it would be located outside of the setback and would not need a variance from the DEC.
Mr. McWilliams stated they were proposing the pool be in the side yard because of the all the buffer restrictions in the rear yard. He stated they were requesting a 15 foot variance in the front yard and an 85 foot variance in the side yard.
Village Engineer Turiano stated if the pool was located 20 yards further back a variance would not be required.
Chairman Alenstein asked what the easements were for and if they were imposed after Dr. Sokoloff purchased the property.
Mr. McWilliams stated the easements were for wetlands, sanitary sewer, flood and pedestrian trails and the restrictions were there when he purchased the home.
Chairman Alenstein asked what the distance was from the pool to the neighbor.
Mr. McWilliams stated it was about 57 feet from the neighbor’s house.
Member Messer asked if the neighbor had any comments.
Member Moraglia asked if the fence was on the lot line.
Dr. Sokoloff stated it was a few inches in from the property line and the neighbor didn’t have any problem with the placement of the pool. He stated they would landscape with arborvitaes to adequately screen.
Member O’Leary asked what the spacing would be.
Dr. Sokoloff stated they would be 2 to 3 feet apart and would grow together.
Member Bogart asked how the variance was not self created.
Mr. McWilliams stated when Dr. Sokoloff purchased the house he inquired about installing a pool and was told he could if he got a variance.
Member Moraglia asked why they didn’t request a variance from the DEC.
Member Messer stated it was highly unlikely to be granted a variance from the DEC.
Chairman Alenstein stated the Board didn’t have to deny something just because it was self created but what was worrying him was that by granting the variance they would essentially be rewriting the zoning code. He stated if they granted the variance they would be setting a precedent for all other similar applications and it might lead to discontent and difficulty administering the law in the future.
Mr. McWilliams stated if the pool was back 15 feet further the side yard location would be legitimate.
Member Messer stated the pool would be very close the neighbor and quite visible from the street. She stated she would expect a major landscaping plan and didn’t think the pool would look right in that location.
Dr. Sokoloff stated he would landscape extensively.
Member Bogart stated he had a collection of issues and landscaping alone would not do it for him. He stated it was a new home and the zoning was clear. He stated there were great advantages to the home and there was no room for a pool.
Mr. McWilliams asked if the wetlands permit was under local jurisdiction.
Village Engineer Turiano stated they would have to go to the DEC for a permit and the applicant would no longer need a variance if the pool was moved back further to the rear yard.
Member O’Leary stated the Board generally liked applicants to explore other options.
Mr. McWilliams asked if the Planning Board had jurisdiction on the wetland permit.
Village Engineer Turiano stated he would have to review the file’s notes.
Mr. McWilliams asked the Board to table the matter until August while they pursued the DEC permit.
Member Messer stated if the application came back before the Board she would want to see a color rendering of the proposed landscaping with an attractive mix of trees.
Chairman Alenstein stated he would appreciate a landscaping plan as well but he wasn’t convinced that alone would allow the Board to grant the variance.
Member Bogart stated an 85 foot variance was enormous and the Board was giving Dr. Sokoloff candid commentary and even with beautiful landscaping he would probably not be in favor of granting the variance.
Chairman Alenstein stated the Board would adjourn the application to the August meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
Upon motion by Member Bogart, seconded by Member Messer the Board voted unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 9:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Christine Dennett
| 