Zoning Board of Appeals
Regular Meeting
December 6, 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 6th of December 2011 commencing at 7:30 p.m.
Present
Ronald Alenstein, Chairman
Hillary Messer, Member
Nicholas Moraglia, Member
John O’ Leary, Member
Also Present
Gerald Quartucio, Zoning Inspector
Absent
Christopher Bogart, Member
V-6-2011 - Glass 3 Valentine 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 8, 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 November 2, 2011
- Application for a variance to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Peter Glass
- Code of Ethics signed by Peter Glass dated October 19, 2011
- Affidavit of Publication dated November 10, 2011
- Presentation submitted by Howard Raabe
- Photographs of the existing home
- Survey of Property dated October 15, 2010
- Letter from Village Clerk to Peter Glass dated November 9, 2011
- Building Department letter of denial to Peter Glass dated October 19, 2011
- Architectural Plans from Howard Raabe
- 26 Certified Mailing Receipts
- Tax Map
- Property Card
DISCUSSION:
Mr. Howard Raabe, Architect for the Applicant, stated the home was situated on a corner lot in an R10 zone. He stated it was a legal nonconforming lot with a very small home that was built in the 1920’s. He stated the proposed additions would be modest and the home would be less than 2,000 square feet including basement and deck. He stated there was no other practical location for the addition and the proposal was fairly standard for the neighborhood. He stated they proposed expanding the kitchen and adding a family room on the ground floor and if they located it anywhere else it would expose it to corner traffic. He further stated they wanted to create a master suite on the second floor and if they located the addition anywhere else it would remove necessary closet space and move the bathroom.
He also stated the deck would then have to be on the street side creating no privacy and they were only requesting a one car garage.
Chairman Alenstein stated there currently was a garage and asked how it would be changed.
Mr. Raabe stated it would be converted into a mud room because it wasn’t even wide enough to open car doors inside. He stated it was a modest addition and the code allowed for adding 500 square feet without a variance but it wasn’t adequate. He stated the proposed addition was in keeping with the neighborhood and didn’t create any environmental issues. He stated the proposal was about 1,100 square feet divided over three floors and submitted photographs of the existing home.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Mr. Ray Sader of 15 Valentine Road asked if the front of the house facing Valentine would be changed.
Chairman Alenstein stated it would not move any closer to Valentine Road.
Mr. Patrick Ellis of 5 Simpson Road asked how far back the proposed addition would be.
Mr. Raabe stated it would move back 16 feet and would be two stories high.
Upon motion by Member O’Leary, seconded by Member Messer, the Board voted unanimously to close the public hearing.
DECISION:
Member Moraglia stated given that its preexisting nonconforming and he appreciated the need for privacy and that the design was in line with the rest of the area he would be in favor.
Mr. Peter Glass stated the entire exterior of the house will be rehabilitated.
Member O’Leary stated it was a difficult property and he thought any improvements will be beneficial to the neighbors and that it would still remain a modest home. He stated he would be in support of the application.
Member Messer stated she would support the application as well.
Chairman Alenstein stated he too would support the application and the Board had typically been sympathetic to homeowners with 2 front yards especially when it wouldn’t move any closer to the street.
Upon motion by Member O’Leary, seconded by Member Moraglia, the Board voted unanimously to grant the variance as requested.
V-7-2011 - Torres 3 Ingham Road
A variance was requested because an application for a building permit to legalize a six foot high fence in the front yard was denied due to nonconformity with Chapter 220 Attachment 1:2 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 Paul Torres
- Code of Ethics signed by Paul Torres dated October 20, 2011
- Affidavit of Publication dated November 10, 2011
- Survey of Property
- Letter from Village Clerk to Paul Torres dated November 9, 2011
- Building Department Notice of Violation to Paul Torres dated August 19, 2011
- 27Certified Mailing Receipts
- Photographs of existing fence
- Property Card
- Petition of Support from neighbors on Ingham Road
DISCUSSION:
Mr. Paul Torres, Owner, submitted signatures from neighbors in support of the fence. He stated they moved into the home in June and their home was a corner lot with frontage on Pleasantville and Ingham Road. He stated their backyard was faced Pleasantville Road and when they purchase the home it had a 6 foot high stockade style fence. He stated he didn’t do his homework and replaced the fence because it had wood rot and was leaning against a tree. He stated he replaced it with a 6 foot high cedar fence in the same location as the previous fence. He stated they had young children and for safety and privacy reasons maintaining the fence was important.
Member Messer asked if the fence was solely on their property.
Zoning Inspector Quartucio stated the fence was on the Village right of way but the he spoke to the Department of Public Works and they weren’t overly concerned about it.
Chairman Alenstein stated the side yard exposed to Pleasantville Road was the only area for children to play.
Member Messer asked if the previous fence was solid as well.
Chairman Alenstein asked if they considered a fence with holes in it.
Mr. Torres stated they submitted pictures of the previous fence which was also solid and they didn’t consider holes because they were seeking privacy and some modicum of a sound barrier.
Member O’Leary asked if they considered doing landscaping on the street side of the fence.
Zoning Inspector Quartucio stated landscaping would be difficult to maintain because of the salting of the road during the winter.
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 Messer stated they didn’t change the appearance and it was an attractive fence and would weather with time. She stated she would support the application and it was an honest mistake and no detriment to the neighborhood.
Member O’Leary stated he remembered what existed and he supported the application.
Member Moraglia stated the fence relieved the biggest concerns with the safety of the children and afforded some privacy to the home and that he too was in favor.
Chairman Alenstein stated driving past the home he noticed that nobody on the other side of Pleasantville Road had a fence and they all face the road but their backyards were private and fenced in. He stated he also noticed that their while their fence was higher than what the code allowed, it had a lot of botany draped over it and the height of it didn’t really strike you. He stated he didn’t’ think it was offensive and echoed the sentiments about the need. He stated directly across the street there was home with hedges that were 9 feet tall and dwarfed the fence. He stated it was a perfectly rational application and he voted in favor and there was nothing malicious about their mistake.
Upon motion by Member O’Leary, seconded by Member Messer, the Board voted unanimously to grant the variance as requested.
The Board had discussion regarding a letter received by Mr. Ken Malech.
Zoning Inspector stated the issue had since been corrected and he would cross check all mailings with the tax map.
ADJOURNMENT
Upon motion by Member O’Leary, seconded by Member Messer the Board voted unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 8:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Christine Dennett
| 