Zoning Board of Appeals
Regular Meeting
August 7, 2012
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 August 2012 commencing at 7:30 p.m.
Present
Ronald Alenstein, Chairman
Michael Gioscia, Member
Hillary Messer, Member
Nicholas Moraglia, Member
Also Present
David Turiano, Building Inspector
Absent
Christopher Bogart, Member
Chairman Alenstein welcomed Member Gioscia to the Board. He thanked former Member John O’Leary for his many invaluable contributions to the Board from 1996-2012.
V-2-2012 - Ginsburg 70 Law Road
A variance was requested because an application for a building permit to construct two additions, one being two stories at the rear of the premises and the other a one story addition at the front of an existing single family dwelling was denied due to nonconformity with Footnote 3B, Maximum Gross Floor Area 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 June 19, 2012
- Application for a variance to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Samuel Ginsburg
- Code of Ethics signed by Samuel Ginsburg dated June 15, 2012
- Affidavit of Publication dated July 19, 2012
- Survey of Property dated August 1, 2012
- Letter from Village Clerk to Samuel Ginsburg dated July 18, 2012
- Building Department letter of denial to Samuel Ginsburg dated June 20, 2012
- Architectural Plans dated June 22, 2012
- Photographs of the home and property
- 14 Certified Mailing Receipts
- Tax Map
- Property Card
DISCUSSION:
Mr. Sam Ginsburg, Owner of the property, submitted the certified mailing receipts.
Mr. Stuart Lachx, Architect for the Applicant, stated he was available for any questions the Board or public might have.
Mr. Ginsburg stated he showed some of the Board Members around his property and where the proposed additions would be located. He stated there was a lot of existing screening and a nature preserve to the rear of his home. He stated the house and the additions were all within the required setbacks but the gross floor area would be exceeded. He stated the drawings and photos showed how dense the trees were surrounding his home and the additions would have little to no impact on his neighbors. He stated he sent a letter to his neighbors and heard nothing negative back. He stated he loved living in his home and in Briarcliff Manor and rather than moving they wanted to make their home more comfortable to them and their family. He stated the ground floor bedroom would serve as the master bedroom in the
future.
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 she had an opportunity to visit the home and from what she observed the property is very densely screened and she was happy to see residents stay in the Village as opposed to moving. She stated the design is within the character of the neighborhood and would have very little impact. She stated she supported the application.
Member Moraglia stated he wasn’t able to get access to the property but he walked the perimeter and agreed there was plenty of screening. He stated the character was in line with the neighborhood and too would vote in approval of the application.
Member Gioscia stated he didn’t walk the property but thought it was an improvement to the home. He stated the screening was sufficient and he was okay with their reasoning for wanting to make the home more comfortable for themselves. He stated he too would be in favor of the application.
Chairman Alenstein stated he visited the property with Mr. Ginsburg and looked carefully at all sides. He stated the rear (west) had no neighbors at all, the south had very dense screening, the Law Road frontage had a superfluity of trees and while there was a break in the shrubbery to the North the neighboring home was a far distance away. He stated the reasons for seeking the variance were valid and made perfect sense. He stated the variance was not insubstantial but there would be little to no impact on the neighbors and he too would vote in favor.
Upon motion by Member Messer, seconded by Member Moraglia, the Board voted unanimously to approve the application as submitted.
V-3-2012 - Islam 184 Sleepy Hollow Road
A variance was requested because an application to construct one and two story additions to an existing single family dwelling was denied due to nonconformity with Column 9A, One Side Yard Minimum Yard Dimensions and Column 10A, Two Side Yard Minimum Combined Yard Dimensions of the Code of the Village of Briarcliff Manor.
The following items were marked as Board Exhibits:
- Code Compliance Worksheet dated June 21, 2012
- Application for a variance to the Zoning Board of Appeals by David Graham
- Code of Ethics signed by David Graham dated June 22, 2012
- Affidavit of Publication dated July 19, 2012
- Survey of Property dated March 18, 2011
- Letter from Village Clerk to Saqib Islam dated July 18, 2012
- Building Department letter of denial to Mr. Islam dated June 28, 2012
- Architectural Plans dated June 21, 2012
DISCUSSION:
Chairman Alenstein stated the Board did not know how to get access to the property and the gate was locked. He proposed a site walk that would be convenient to all.
Mr. Islam apologized and stated it was not their primary home. He stated he’d be happy to accommodate a site walk.
Mr. David Graham, Architect for the Applicant, stated the existing house was built in the 1930’s and they proposed to take down 900 square feet and add 5,000 square feet. He stated they would turn the existing garage into an open porch and the home was existing nonconforming. He stated they were going to vacate the need for the second variance and would be in compliance for that area’s required setbacks.
Building Inspector Turiano stated because the house would be over 3,500 square feet the side yard setbacks would need to be 40 feet each.
Mr. Graham stated they would remove the first bay of the garage, take out the walls and put in a porch that allowed access to a mudroom. He stated the other bay would be moved 2 feet forward and they would build 2 more bays and the current mudroom would be converted into a bathroom. He stated there was currently a pitched roof on the second floor and they’d install new rafters to give it a nicer pitch. He stated he proposed a setback of 40 feet in that area.
Member Messer stated it was a much different application with only the one variance.
Chairman Alenstein stated he didn’t think he was in a position to make a ruling on the application.
Member Moraglia asked where the neighbor’s house was located.
Mr. Graham showed a Google earth map for clarification.
Chairman Alenstein stated although they weren’t getting any closer it was still a preexisting nonconforming home.
Member Moraglia asked if they were proposing a setback of 14 feet.
Mr. Graham stated they were reducing the intensity of the use.
Chairman Alenstein stated he was uncomfortable with a large structure being that close to a property line.
Mr. Graham stated the roof line would remain the same for the first 11 feet and because they were removing the walls it would be more transparent and less bulky.
Chairman Alenstein stated the height of the structure gave him pause and asked what the total acreage of the site was.
Mr. Graham stated it was 3 acres and 360 feet back from the street. He stated they were allowed a maximum lot coverage of 11% and they proposed 4%.
Mr. Islam stated they were trying to keep as much of the existing frame as possible.
Chairman Alenstein stated he appreciated the fact that they were keeping a 40 foot setback on the left but it was a large structure that would only be 14.5 feet away from the next lot. He stated he didn’t feel comfortable voting without visiting the site.
Member Moraglia stated he generally like to visit a property to get a sense of the variance.
Member Gioscia asked that the future application be labeled with elevations and directions.
Member Messer stated she was much more relieved that only one variance was being requested and that she would like to visit the site as well.
Upon motion by Member Moraglia, seconded by Member Messer, the Board voted unanimously to schedule a site walk on September 8, 2012 at 9:30am.
MINUTES
Upon motion by Member Messer, seconded by Member Moraglia, with one abstention by Member Gioscia, the Board voted to approve the minutes of February 7, 2012.
ADJOURNMENT
The Board requested contact information for Applicants or how to make arrangements for access be added to the application.
Upon motion by Member Messer, seconded by Member Gioscia the Board voted unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 8:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Christine Dennett
| 