Zoning Board of Appeals
Regular Meeting
December 7, 2010
7:30 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 7th of December 2010 commencing at 7:30 p.m.
Present
Ronald Alenstein, Chairman
Christopher Bogart, Member
Nicholas Moraglia, Member
John O’ Leary, Member
Also Present
Christine Dennett, Village Clerk
David Turiano, Village Engineer
Absent
Hillary Messer, Member
V-11-2010 - Raj Dhanda 224 Central Drive
A variance was requested because an application to construct a new in-ground swimming pool to 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 Michele Dhanda
- Code of Ethics signed by Jan Johnsen dated October 15, 2010
- Affidavit of Publication dated November 11, 2010
- Property Site Plan revised October 15, 2010
- Survey of Property dated November 9, 2004
Letter from Village Clerk to Jan Johnsen dated November 9, 2010
Building Department letter of denial to Raj Dhanda dated September 17, 2010
13 Certified Mailing Receipts
Tax Map
Property Card
DISCUSSION:
Ms. Jan Johnsen, Landscape Architect, presented on behalf of the Applicant. She stated a variance of 44 feet was requested for an in-ground spa. She stated the requirement was 100 feet because it was a corner lot. She stated they managed to fit the pool within the required setback but there was no other reasonable place for the spa. She stated they did not want to be a hindrance to the neighbors and wanted to place the spa in a low lying area that would be screened with evergreen trees and a retaining wall.
Chairman Alenstein stated the drawing was not very clear as to where the dwelling was. He stated he visited the site and nobody was home. He asked if the 100 yard setback was only required if the pool was not in the rear yard.
Village Engineer Turiano stated the pool was located in the rear yard but the entire property is considered front yard because of having all road frontage. He further stated the spa is considered a pool because it had a depth greater than 20 inches.
Member Bogart asked if the spa was part of the original plan or if it was added midway.
Ms. Johnsen stated it was suggested during the planning of the project but they didn’t want to postpone the construction of the pool.
Chairman Alenstein asked if any other location was considered for the spa.
Ms. Johnsen stated there was a magnificent sugar maple that they wanted to retain and the roots prevented them from putting it near it. She showed an area that was all rock and stated the location they chose was essentially the only place.
Chairman Alenstein asked why the spa wasn’t located at the end of the pool.
Ms. Johnsen stated that would mean they would have to close the pool and spa at the same time.
Member Moraglia asked if the applicant tried to minimize the variance.
Member Bogart asked about placing it in the southwest corner of the lot.
Ms. Johnsen stated there is a common area enjoyed by all of the neighbors and they didn’t want to place it in that area to impede the view. She stated they tried to keep it contained so it didn’t impose on the neighbors and they nestled it in so it didn’t interfere.
Member Bogart stated there was a substantial amount of unused space and further stated he didn’t believe the Applicant met the burden. He stated he understood why they put it there and didn’t know if it would be intrinsically bothersome to neighbors.
Ms. Johnsen stated they looked at all other options and stated she thought the retaining wall would address any interference.
Chairman Alenstein stating tucking it under the retaining wall made it less intrusive.
Ms. Johnsen stated the setback line touched the corner of the pool area because of the corner lot location.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Mr. Ed Payne of 211 Central Drive stated he lived there for 12 years and he was probably the closest neighbor impacted by the proposal. He stated he strongly supported the variance and he had known them for years and it would not interfere with the enjoyment of his property. He stated he watched the construction over the last year and it was virtually invisible to him. He stated the location was down low with a lot of trees in between and they’re proposing to plant 12 more. He stated from his perspective it was meticulously planned and constructed well and would add value to their home and the rest of the neighborhood. He stated putting the spa in the common area would impact the Gullo’s and would detract from the neighborhood.
Upon motion by Member Moraglia, seconded by Member O’Leary, the Board voted unanimously to close the public hearing.
DECISION:
Member O’Leary stated it was a substantial variance but he thought the approach the Applicant took was in consideration to the neighbors and was commendable. He stated it was a spectacular piece of property and he was glad they wanted to retain the sugar maple. He stated it was not obtrusive to the neighbors and he supported the application.
Member Bogart stated he supported it as well given Mr. Payne’s reaction to the project. He stated he was troubled by the pool ordinance because there were a number of lots that were considered front yards leading the Board to grant substantial variances. He stated it wouldn’t interfere with the enjoyment of the common area and because the Board had granted 3 large variances in the last year it would make it difficult to turn down this one. He requested feedback from Counsel.
Member Moraglia echoed the comments of the other Members and stated because it was nestled on the side of a slope and the given the size of the property he too supported the application.
Chairman Alenstein stated he doubted Clarence Darrow ever gave a more compelling argument than Mr. Payne. He stated he too was in favor, but perhaps would not be if it weren’t for the topography of the property. He stated he didn’t think he’d quibble with moving it closer to the pool. He stated he heard enough good reasoning to support the application.
Upon motion by Member Bogart, seconded by Member O’Leary, the Board voted unanimously to approve the variance as requested.
MINUTES:
The minutes of August 3, 2010 and October 5, 2010 were approved as presented.
ADJOURNMENT:
Chairman Alenstein noted that all meetings in 2011 would begin at 7:30pm.
Upon motion by Member Moraglia, seconded by Member O’Leary the Board voted unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 8:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Christine Dennett
| 