Zoning Board of Appeals
Regular Meeting
October 4, 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 4th of October 2011 commencing at 7:30 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
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. William Sharman, Architect for the Applicant stated he was here last month when only three Board members were in attendance. He stated at last month’s presentation he stated several hardships and that the house had been there a long time and had no garage. He further stated there was no room for storage either or any place to turn around resulting in having to back into Elm Road which was very busy. He stated they were requesting a variance to build a garage with doors at each end to drive straight through and allow for more pavement so guests can turn around. He stated they would build into the hill but the more they dug back, the worse it would be for drainage in that area. He stated there were natural springs in the hill.
Mr. David Wiltenburg, Owner, stated there was lot of water coming down the hill and runoff in the area.
Mr. Sharman further stated their first proposal was 20 feet back from the road where 55 feet was required but he heeded the Board’s suggestion and moved the proposed garage back an additional 10 feet to be parallel with the front of the house resulting in less of a variance request.
Chairman Alenstein stated another concern was the proposed height of the garage to allow for a work room on the second floor. He asked if it could be scaled back to create less of a monolithic appearance.
Mr. Sharman stated it was not two full stories and was built into the grade and would not really be seen from the roadway.
Member Messer stated they were building up the grade and asked how high the retaining wall would be in the front.
Mr. Sharman stated they would not be much different from the previous proposal.
Chairman Alenstein stated the addition of the garage increased the GFA and required an additional setback from 40 feet to 55 feet.
Mr. Sharman stated the house was legal nonconforming at 30 feet and other homes in the area have even less of a setback and the addition wouldn’t be seen from the street.
Member Messer stated there was a sewer easement and asked if the retaining wall crossed over it and if it was ok to put it there.
Village Engineer Turiano stated it was not a Village easement and would be a private matter between property owners and they would just have to maintain the right to access.
Member Bogart asked if there was any opposition from neighbors.
Mr. Wiltenburg stated they hadn’t heard any.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
There were no public comments.
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 visited the home and understood the need for a garage and that the benefits to the homeowners clearly outweighed any detriment. He stated he felt it was in conformity with the neighborhood and the current proposal was more modest than the first proposal. He stated he did have concerns with runoff in the area but he would support the application.
Member Messer stated she appreciated them moving it further back but her main concern was that the Zoning Laws were in place to prevent too much mass from being too close to the street. She stated their home was magnificent and done very tastefully but from a personal standpoint she felt it was out of place and while she could appreciate their need for a garage she didn’t feel it was in keeping with the neighborhood.
Mr. David Wiltenburg stated in preparation for their application they surveyed their neighborhood and there were bigger structures even closer to the road than what they were proposing and this was not unprecedented on Elm Road. He stated with the age of their home it would not have been unusual to have a Carriage House right at the roadway and one of their goals during their renovation was to make it look like it had been there all along with the same cross gabled affect.
Ms. Messer asked if they examined whether or not they could do a turnaround as opposed to a drive through garage with two curb cuts.
Mr. Sharman stated there would not be enough room and they would still have to back out onto the street.
Member Moraglia stated it spoke loudly that no one was there against the application and he appreciated them moving it further back. He stated he agreed with Member Messer regarding its bulk but felt it was in keeping with other structures in the neighborhood and he would support the application.
Member Bogart stated he was candidly torn as well but understood the desire and need for a garage. He stated he visited the property and saw the amount of traffic in the area. He stated he echoed Member Messer’s view on the home’s renovations and they did a lovely job but he didn’t share her concern with the mass of the building. He stated they purchased the home knowing it didn’t have a garage and they were seeking a large variance. He stated this was wholly a self-created desire but the safety concerns outweighed that and he would vote to grant the variance. He stated while Mr. Sharman did lovely designs his application was not complete and in the future would not support any application without it being complete.
Chairman Alenstein stated he could quarrel about lowering the roof but it would ruin the architecture and would not result in much of a difference overall. He stated he was torn for several reasons one of which was the mass but he appreciated that it would look like it had been there all along. He stated the current laws were designed to eliminate undue mass but having said that he ultimately would come out in favor of the application because it was clearly needed.
Member Messer stated her gut told her she was not comfortable with the application and she would not vote in favor.
Member O’Leary asked if there was a landscaping plan.
Mr. Wiltenburg stated they would continue with their current landscaping and thanked the Board for their careful consideration and public service.
V-5-2011 - Mitchell Dennis 50 Ridgecrest Road
A variance was requested because an application for a building permit to construct additions and interior alterations to an existing single family dwelling was denied due to nonconformity with Column 8A, Front Yard Dimension of Schedule 220 Attachment 2:1 of the Code of the Village of Briarcliff Manor.
The following items were marked as Board Exhibits:
- Code Compliance Worksheet dated August 23, 2011
- Application for a variance to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Mitchell Dennis
- Code of Ethics signed by Mitchell Dennis dated August 24, 2011
- Affidavit of Publication dated September 15, 2011
- Survey of Property dated November 29, 1998
- Letter from Village Clerk to Mitchell Dennis dated September 9, 2011
- Building Department letter of denial to Mr. and Mrs. Dennis dated August 24, 2011
- Architectural Plans from Stephan Thimme dated August 24, 2011
- Tax Map
- Property Card
- Letter from Lawrence Lenihan
- Email from Henry Harnischfeger
DISCUSSION:
Mr. Stephan Thimme, Architect for the Applicant, stated they were here 13 months ago for a variance on 2 sides because it was a triangular lot. He showed the existing house was currently nonconforming. He stated their previous proposal encroached further than what was currently proposed. He stated that after the client moved into the home they tweaked the plan and redesigned it to accommodate their needs. He stated the new design kept the existing ridge and stayed within the footprint and was scaled down.
Member Moraglia asked for clarification on what was previously proposed, what existed and what was now being proposed. He stated they were seeking less of a variance.
Chairman Alenstein stated the application’s narrative stated they were encroaching further.
Mr. Thimme stated that was a mistake and they had a letter of support from the only affected neighbor Mr. Lenihan. He stated the aesthetics of the previous proposal would remain.
Member Bogart asked how much of the current home would be retained.
Mr. Thimme stated the entire foundation would be saved but they would be stripping the home down.
Village Engineer Turiano noted the application was on the next Planning Board agenda for a Steep Slopes Permit, Mandatory Tree Planting Plan and Stormwater Management Control. He stated he had a communication from a neighbor that would be submitted into the record.
Mr. Thimme stated the handrail on the proposed deck was designed to look out at the spectacular views, not down into a neighbor’s home and there would not be a fire pit.
Mr. Dennis Mitchell, Owner, stated the neighbor in question was significantly lower than their home and was very screened in with very mature trees and they couldn’t see the home. He further stated he spoke to Mr. McVeigh and he too was supportive of the application.
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 O’Leary stated in light of the fact that the Board approved a previous application for this and this request was less than what was approved, it led him to support it. He stated in regard to the neighbors concern he hoped it could be addressed with additional screening. He further stated there was a covenant with Mr. Lenihan and the proposal was less so there shouldn’t be any issues with him either.
Member Messer stated she had no issues with the application.
Member Moraglia stated he too was in support.
Member Bogart stated he would also support the application and suggested a friendly meeting with the neighbors to mitigate their concerns.
Chairman Alenstein stated he was in support, he didn’t feel there were any concerns and the application was granted.
MINUTES:
The Board approved the minutes of August 2011 as amended.
ADJOURNMENT
Upon motion by Member Messer, seconded by Member O’Leary the Board voted unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 8:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Christine Dennett
| 