Zoning Board of Appeals
Regular Meeting
August 2, 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 2nd of August 2011 commencing at 7:30 p.m.
Present
Ronald Alenstein, Chairman
Hillary Messer, Member
Nicholas Moraglia, Member
Also Present
Gerald Quartucio, Zoning Inspector
Christine Dennett, Village Clerk
Absent
Christopher Bogart, Member
John O’ Leary, Member
V-3-2011 - David Wiltenburg 340 Elm Road
A variance was requested because an application to construct a detached two car garage to an existing single family dwelling was denied due to nonconformity with Column 8A, Front Yard Minimum Yard Dimensions and 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 David Wiltenburg
- Code of Ethics signed by David Wiltenburg dated June 2, 2011
- Code Compliance Worksheet dated May 16, 2011
- Affidavit of Publication dated July 14, 2011
- Property Site Plan dated April 26, 2011
- Letters from Village Clerk to David Wiltenburg dated July 14, 2011
- Building Department letter of denial to David Wiltenburg dated April 20, 2011
- 8 Certified Mailing Receipts
- Tax Map
- Property Card
DISCUSSION:
Mr. Bill Sharman, Architect for the Applicant, asked if three unanimous votes were needed for approval because there were only three of five members present.
Chairman Alenstein stated yes it need to be unanimous and if it should emerge that the sentiment was not in favor of the application before voting, the Board would ask if the Applicant wanted an adjournment to the next meeting when more members may be present.
Mr. Sharman stated 340 Elm Road was one of the older houses in the Village and it never had a garage causing them to leave their cars out in the elements all year and it was very inconvenient. He stated the next hardship was they had to back out of their driveway onto Elm Road, which was very traveled and very difficult. He stated there was no other location for the garage on the property because of the property’s topography.
Chairman Alenstein stated there seemed to be a lot of land at the top of the rise.
Mr. Sharman stated it was a 14 foot height difference and dropped significantly.
Chairman Alenstein asked if the setback was from the property line or the street and if the Village’s property was added it would be less of an impact by about 10 feet.
Member Moraglia asked if the property line was at the gate.
Mr. Sharman stated it was and to overcome backing out into the roadway the two car garage would enable coming out headfirst.
Chairman Alenstein asked if there were two curb cuts.
Zoning Inspector Quartucio stated he addressed the curb cuts with the Department of Public Works and because of site distance issues; they would permit it on that site.
Member Messer asked where the rise in the property began and stated it appeared it went from flat to fast steep incline.
Mr. Sharman showed the property’s slopes.
Member Messer asked if they were excavating into the bank.
Mr. Sharman stated they would.
Chairman Alenstein asked if they extended the driveway instead of installing a garage, would there be less earth moved.
Zoning Inspector Quartucio stated there was a huge drainage issue in that area and the fewer disturbances the better off they’d be. He stated it would create more of an icing issue.
Member Messer asked what the height of the building would be from the street.
Mr. Sharman stated there would be a workshop above the garage and it wouldn’t be seen except from the driveway. He stated 4 feet of retaining wall would be visible from the street and only the second level.
Member Messer stated more of a bank would need to be created.
Chairman Alenstein stated if the same structure was built on the upper level of the lot it would be a looming omnipresence.
Member Messer asked if they could pull the garage back to be in line with the house.
Member Moraglia asked if there was any restriction as to how far back they could go.
Zoning Inspector Quartucio stated there wasn’t any restriction but it would more of a disturbance. He stated there was a massive amount of water that flowed down through the properties in the area and fewer disturbances would be better for the Village and the neighbors.
Member Moraglia asked for drainage suggestions.
Zoning Inspector Quartucio stated drainage in that area was part of the Capital Improvement Plan.
Member Messer asked if a second floor was necessary and stated she was concerned that it felt massive as proposed.
Mr. Sharman stated the same amount of roof would be seen with or without a second floor.
Chairman Alenstein stated his concern was where to put the garage, not the height.
Member Messer stated it was not in keeping with the neighborhood and there wasn’t anything else like it nearby.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Upon motion by Member Messer, seconded by Member Moraglia, the Board voted unanimously to open the public hearing.
There were no public comments.
Chairman Alenstein asked the Applicant if they would like to adjourn the hearing until the October meeting and stated they should look into moving the garage further back and to get more input on the drainage issues.
Mr. Wiltenburg requested an adjournment.
Upon motion by Member Moraglia, seconded by Member Messer, the Board voted unanimously to adjourn the public hearing to October 4, 2011.
V-4-2011 - Gullo as Contract Vendee for Cannon 382 River Road
A variance was requested because an application to construct additions and interior alterations to an existing single family dwelling was denied due to nonconformity with Column 8A, Front 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 Mary Gullo
- Code of Ethics signed by Mary Gullo dated June 16, 2011
- Code Compliance Worksheet dated June 16, 2011
- Affidavit of Publication dated July 14, 2011
- Property Site Plan dated June 8, 2011
- Letter from Village Clerk to Philip and Mary Gullo dated July 14, 2011
- Building Department letter of denial to W. Dilworth Cannon dated June 2, 2011
- 12 Certified Mailing Receipts
- Tax Map
- Property Card
- Letter from W. Dilworth and Helga Cannon
- Letter from James F. Haley, Jr.
- Letter from James and Kathleen Rittinger
DISCUSSION:
Mr. Peter Cole, Architect for the Gullo’s, stated they were purchasing the house with spectacular views of river and it was an older home with certain limitations. He stated it didn’t have large open rooms and they wanted to maintain 3 bedrooms by moving 2 of them to the second level and expand laterally to the front because there wasn’t room on the sides and the back dropped off dramatically. He stated because of that, the house was located much further forward. He stated in order to create extra space they would change the roofline to make it a story and a half and bring the height up in the center to create a more gracious entrance. He stated the portico cover provided coverage and would be in character with the design. He stated it was in scale with the neighborhood and this would open
up the views from all areas. He stated no one was directly across the street and it wouldn’t impact anyone’s views.
Mr. Philip Gullo stated they had letters from the neighbors endorsing the project.
Chairman Alenstein stated the expansion or design didn’t bother him but the portico did. He stated they were already into the setback and by enclosing the porch and adding a portico they would be increasing the impact, making it closer to the street. He stated he looked in the neighborhood for other homes that were that close to the road and he couldn’t find any.
Member Moraglia stated he had the same concerns.
Member Messer stated it looked fantastic from the back and was more understated from the front. She stated she was glad they only went up on one side by raising the pitch of the roof on the left side only.
Mr. Cole stated the ridge was to accommodate a gable to be less of a visual impact on the neighbor.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Upon motion by Member Messer, seconded by Member Moraglia, the Board voted unanimously to open the public hearing.
Ms. Kathy Rittinger of River Road stated she was the neighbor to the north and she was pleased with the plans and it would be a dramatic improvement and would tie in better with the neighborhood. She stated she didn’t have any objections and welcomed the alterations.
Ms. Carol Welsh, 370 River Road, asked what the size of the portico would be.
Mr. Cole stated it would be 4 feet deep by 8 feet wide and open on both sides.
Ms. Welsh stated she didn’t have a problem with the portico.
Upon motion by Member Messer, seconded by Member Moraglia, the Board voted unanimously to close the public hearing.
DECISION:
Member Messer stated she was in favor of the application because of the support of the neighbors and didn’t feel there would be a negative impact. She stated it was in character with the neighborhood and the portico broke up the façade.
Member Moraglia stated he agreed and given where the structure was he appreciated they didn’t go up and make it any bulkier. He stated it was in line with the other homes and the neighbor’s support was huge. He stated he too was in favor.
Chairman Alenstein stated it was a terrific design and would be an improvement for the whole block. He stated his only concern was the further intrusion into the setback but he had seen larger porticos and if the neighbors weren’t disturbed he supposed he shouldn’t be. He stated he too was in favor.
MINUTES
Upon motion by Member Moraglia, seconded by Member Messer, the Board voted unanimously to approve the minutes of December 7, 2010 and February 15, 2011 as amended.
ADJOURNMENT:
Upon motion by Member Moraglia, seconded by Member Messer the Board voted unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 8:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Christine Dennett
| 