Zoning Board of Appeals
Regular Meeting
February 15, 2011
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 15th of February 2011 commencing at 7:30 p.m.
Present
Ronald Alenstein, Chairman
Hillary Messer, Member
Nicholas Moraglia, Member
John O’ Leary, Member
Also Present
David Turiano, Village Engineer
Absent
Christopher Bogart, Member
Christine Dennett, Village Clerk
V-1-2011 - Richard Birnbaum 416 Elm Road
A variance was requested because an application to construct additions and interior alterations to an existing single family dwelling is denied due to nonconformity with Column 8A, Front Yard Minimum Yard Dimensions and Column 11A, Rear Yard Dimensions 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 Richard Birnbaum
- Code of Ethics signed by Richard Birnbaum dated December 16, 2010
- Code Compliance Worksheet dated December 19, 2010
- Affidavit of Publication dated January 20, 2011 and February 3, 2011
- Property Site Plan dated December 17, 2010
- Letters from Village Clerk to Richard Birnbaum dated January 14, 2011 and February 4, 2011
- Building Department letter of denial to Richard Birnbaum dated December 20, 2010
- 10 Certified Mailing Receipts
- Tax Map
- Property Card
Letter from Werner Obermeyer dated February 13, 2011
DISCUSSION:
Member O’Leary recused himself from the application.
Mr. Jay Hibbs, Architect for the Applicant, stated the Applicant had a relatively small house and showed existing drawings and existing setbacks, and further stated on the right side would be the proposed family room, enlarged kitchen, mudroom and an actual entry into the house. He stated there was evidence that showed entry on the other side of the house previously. He stated the drawings showed a small addition on the 2nd floor for their 3 children and it would align with the existing kitchen wall. He stated the additions they’re proposing added about 1000 square feet which goes beyond the 3500 square foot threshold and bumped up the setback requirements. He stated they were seeking a variance for the front and rear yard for small amounts and the proposed family room aligned with the rear wall
of the kitchen and the additions at the front did not surpass the front wall. He stated it was a relatively steep site and the rear neighbors overlook their house and one submitted a letter in support.
Member Moraglia asked if there was any way to minimize the 12 feet in the front yard.
Mr. Hibbs stated they would have to move everything significantly and it wouldn’t accomplish what the Birnbaum’s were looking for and would diminish the quality of the addition and their lifestyle.
Member Moraglia asked if that would be the only entrance.
Mr. Hibbs stated it would.
Village Engineer Turiano stated the Applicant went before the Planning Board for a steep slopes permit and they were successful in getting it.
Chairman Alenstein stated it looked as if the den had actually been pulled back a little and asked for clarification on what the gray area represented.
Mr. Hibbs stated the gray was extended a bit too far on the drawing.
Member Moraglia stated they were very close to the road and asked if there were any plans for trees or coverage by the wrought iron fence.
Village Engineer Turiano stated because the home would be over 3500 square feet they would be required to plant 3 trees as per the Mandatory Tree Planting Plan.
Chairman Alenstein asked for clarification on how far the porch would extend.
Mr. Hibbs showed where the porch would extend and stated they configured it that way for aesthetics and moved it to a more obvious location.
Member Moraglia asked if there were plans to connect the garage and the home.
Mr. Hibbs stated there weren’t.
Chairman Alenstein asked if there were any communications from the neighbor to the north.
Mr. Hibbs stated there weren’t.
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:
Member Moraglia stated that given the way the house was situated on the road and what the Applicant had to work with and in terms of keeping in line with the walls on the top level, it would be benefit to the area and give the tree requirement, he didn’t have any issues or concerns and supported the application.
Member Messer stated she agreed and that the lot was constrained, and that she believed the addition was in character and had no objections.
Chairman Alenstein stated he too was in favor.
Upon motion by Member Moraglia, seconded by Member Messer, the Board voted unanimously to approve the variance as requested.
V-2-2011 - Ladd McQuade 35 Country Club Lane
A variance was requested because an application to construct a two-story addition to an existing single family dwelling was denied due to nonconformity with Column 9A, One Side Yard Minimum Yard Dimensions 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 William Sharman
- Code of Ethics signed by William Sharman dated December 29, 2010
- Affidavit of Publication dated January 20, 2011 and February 3, 2011
- Property Site Plan revised December 11, 2010
- Survey of Property dated April 30, 1968
- Letters from Village Clerk to Ladd McQuade dated January 14, 2011 and February 4, 2011
- Building Department letter of denial to Ladd McQuade dated December 22, 2010
- 6 Certified Mailing Receipts
- Tax Map
- Property Card
Letter from Brian and Elizabeth Weinstein dated February 15, 2011
- Letter from Ken Kail and Ivy Hwang dated February 9, 2011
DISCUSSION:
Member Messer recused herself from the application.
Chairman Alenstein stated that because there were only three Members able to hear the application the vote would require unanimity.
Mr. William Sharman, Architect for the Applicant, stated the Applicant wanted to expand because they had 5 children and the house only had 3 bedrooms. He stated the house was built with a 20 yard setback with one story and a basement and they would keep the same ridgeline so it’s the same height. He stated they could have put a second story without requesting a variance or by knocking off 1 foot 10 inches it would deduct 55 square feet of needed space. He stated there was no other place to put the addition and reducing it would make for very small bedrooms.
Chairman Alenstein asked when they purchased the house.
Mr. McQuade stated April 30, 2010.
Chairman Alenstein asked if the 3500 square foot code requirement didn’t exist, would the Applicant still need a variance.
Member Moraglia asked if the ridgeline would remain the same.
Mr. Sharman stated that was correct
Chairman Alenstein asked if the expansion would remain in the same line as the existing home.
Mr. Sharman stated it would in both the front and the back and stated the addition would be in the northwest of the property.
Village Engineer Turiano stated the house ran due north/south and noted the Applicant’s driveway was in the Town of Mount Pleasant but the entire structure was in the Village of Briarcliff Manor.
Mr. Sharman noted the addition worked with the flow of the house.
Chairman Alenstein stated a neighbor suggested adding the addition to the south.
Mr. Sharman stated the addition would not work on that end and would not flow aesthetically with the house and would require the expansion of the garage.
Village Engineer Turiano stated he couldn’t speak on the setback requirements on the south because it was in the Town of Mount Pleasant.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Mr. Clifford Bass of 22 Country Club Lane stated he had no objection to the plans as is and asked if the Weinstein’s submitted a counter application.
Chairman Alenstein stated there was no counter application and that the neighbors submitted letters opposing the application and that anyone was welcome to speak for or against the application.
Mr. Bass stated his river view would be impacted if the addition was put to the south and would greatly affect his property’s value.
Chairman Alenstein asked if he objected to the current proposal.
Mr. Bass stated he did not.
Mr. Brian Weinstein of 180 River Road stated he submitted a letter to the Board and apologized for not submitting it earlier. He stated they didn’t want to be difficult and he could sympathize with needing more space, but they wanted to preserve their view of the river and that would affect the value. He stated they bought the house for that reason, and it was the key feature. He stated they recognized the variance was small but the way the houses were angled even a small difference would have a meaningful impact. He stated their house was set back and the Applicant was between them and the river to the southwest and it would affect the view of the bridge. He stated the night view across the river would be affected because of how the light reflected. He stated they spent a lot of time on the
south of their property and it would feel crowded. He stated they had concerns about erosion on the slope at the edge of the property and it could be exacerbated by this. He stated they had cordial and friendly conversations with the McQuade’s but we weren’t able to work it out. He stated this addition would impair the key asset of their property.
Chairman Alenstein stated he recalled that it was a downward slope from Route 9 to the river asked if their home was at a higher elevation than the Applicant’s.
Mr. Weinstein stated they were.
Chairman Alenstein asked for clarification on the crowding issue.
Mr. Weinstein stated he meant that they would be closer to their property line. He stated it difficult to determine how they arrived at their calculations.
Member O’Leary stated even with the proposed addition they would be under the maximum Gross Floor Area.
Village Engineer Turiano stated he double checked their numbers and they were correct.
Member O’Leary asked if a MTPP was required.
Village Engineer Turiano stated they were required to plant 10 trees.
Member O’Leary stated that might impede the neighbors view and asked if it could be waived.
Village Engineer Turiano stated it could and they were very sensitive to tree placement on the river.
Chairman Alenstein asked if there was a steep slopes issue.
Village Engineer Turiano stated there wasn’t.
Member O’Leary asked Mr. Weinstein to point out the area of concern regarding erosion.
Village Engineer Turiano stated there was a stormwater mitigation requirement as well that they’d have to comply with.
Member O’Leary stated as the water flowed toward the river he would think the applicant’s home and to the south would be most impacted by the water flow.
Village Engineer Turiano stated they would and also to the south but it was Mount Pleasant’s water system.
Mr. Weinstein stated they had no interest in getting in the way of their addition but they wanted to maintain the view and feel of their property.
Ladd McQuade stated they had 5 children and tried to minimize the impact and didn’t want to go up and further stated reconfiguring would increase the cost significantly. He stated he was trying to balance out their needs with the neighbors and they had a surveyor look at drainage and they didn’t find anything.
Upon motion by Member O’Leary, seconded by Member Moraglia, the Board voted unanimously to close the public hearing.
DECISION:
Member O’Leary stated he was very sensitive to Mr. Weinstein and Mr. Kail’s concerns about the views being impacted, and he had family that lived on River Road and any degradation of somebody’s views were a concern. He further stated, coupled with the applicant’s design, the roofline not being impacted at all and the Weinstein’s home being slightly elevated, he didn’t see any impact to the Tappan Zee Bridge view; and the applicant’s need to accommodate their large family, he could support the application and suggested the Weinstein’s touch base with Mount Pleasant for any erosion concerns. He stated they were under the GFA requirement, with very modest variance and in light of all of those points he supported the application.
Member Moraglia stated he too agreed with Member O’Leary and stated it was clear the height was not going to change and he appreciated that and trying to balance needs of family and concerns with neighbors. He stated the applicant took erosion into consideration and the fact that they were trying to minimize impact, he too was in agreement.
Chairman Alenstein stated he agreed with the other Members, and really did not want it to seem that they didn’t sympathize with the neighbors. He stated there would be an impact on the Weinstein’s view but their choices were very stark and either they say yes to this application or no because he didn’t think there was a middle ground. He further stated the smaller bedroom size or other locations didn’t make sense and he didn’t think there were any other alternatives and for that reason it was a delicate weighing job and there was a genuine hardship for a family that size and the variance was very small and that 1 foot wouldn’t make a big difference. It would remain one story and that was a tremendous factor.
Upon motion by Member O’Leary, seconded by Member Moraglia, the Board voted unanimously to approve the variance as requested.
MINUTES
Upon motion by Member Moraglia, seconded by Member O’Leary, the Board voted unanimously to approve the minutes of August 3, 2010.
ADJOURNMENT:
Upon motion by Member Moraglia, seconded by Member O’Leary the Board voted unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 8:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Christine Dennett
| 