Zoning Board of Appeals
Regular Meeting
October 2, 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 2nd of October 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
Minutes
Upon motion by Member Moraglia, seconded by Member Gioscia, the Board voted unanimously to approve the minutes of August 7, 2012.
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
- Affidavit of Publication dated September 20, 2012
- Survey of Property dated March 18, 2011
- Letter from Village Clerk to Saqib Islam dated July 18, 2012
- Letter from Village Clerk to David Graham dated September 14, 2012
- Building Department letter of denial to Mr. Islam dated June 28, 2012
- Architectural Plans dated September 10, 2012
- 11 Certified Mailing Receipts
DISCUSSION:
Chairman Alenstein stated there was a prior hearing on the application that the Board kept open and the Board elected to have a site walk on September 8, 2012. He stated the Applicant requested the site walk be adjourned due to a date conflict and the Board would schedule a new date.
Mr. David Graham, Architect for the Applicant stated they eliminated the need for one of the variances and submitted revised plans for the Board’s review.
Building Inspector Turiano stated the west elevation now complied with the setback requirements.
Mr. Graham stated he simplified the drawings but there was still an existing nonconformity on the front right side of the house. He stated he made the rear an octagon shape instead of a rectangle.
Chairman Alenstein stated he would still like a site walk scheduled.
Mr. Graham stated they intended to reduce the massive look of the building by putting a porch in where the garage currently existed. He stated the existing roof would remain the same until the center line and then they would extend the garage.
Chairman Alenstein asked if the new garage complied with the setback.
Mr. Graham stated they did and showed renderings of the proposed structure.
Member Moraglia stated he was able to go to the site and speak with Mr. Islam. He asked how large the variance was.
Mr. Graham stated the garage was 19 feet deep and they were hoping to pull it forward. He stated they were turning the current garage into an open porch and preserving half of the roof to the left.
Member Moraglia asked how far the ridge line of the roof would be extended.
Mr. Graham stated they would extend it to the apex of the existing ridge, 14 feet.
Chairman Alenstein stated he wanted the renderings to be marked as an exhibit.
Member Messer asked what would be in the second floor over the garage.
Mr. Graham stated it would be an exercise room.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
There were no public comments.
The Board scheduled a site walk on Saturday, November 10th at 9am.
V-4-2012 - Holzman 104 Long Hill Road
A variance was requested because an application to construct a carport at an existing single family dwelling was denied due to nonconformity with Column 8, Front Yard Dimension of the Code of the Village of Briarcliff Manor.
The following items were marked as Board Exhibits:
- Code Compliance Worksheet dated August 17, 2012
- Application for a variance to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Jane Mackillop
- Code of Ethics signed by Jane Mackillop dated August 21, 2012
- Affidavit of Publication dated September 20, 2012
- Survey of Property dated July 12, 2012
- Letter from Village Clerk to Mr. Holzman dated September 14, 2012
- Building Department letter of denial to Mr. Holzman dated August 20, 2012
- Architectural Plans dated July 12, 2012
- 14 Certified Mailing Receipts
- Tax Map
- Property Card
DISCUSSION:
Ms. Mary Scott, Architect for the Applicant stated they were requesting a variance to install a carport. She stated the driveway was a very difficult turn in from Long Hill Road and there was currently enough space to pull in for 2 cars causing them to have to back out onto the road, which was very dangerous. She stated they wanted to install the carport to give the owners a place to park and give space to turn around on the site and to also protect the cars from the elements. She stated they looked into other locations for the carport but the site had very steep slopes making it very difficult.
Chairman Alenstein stated Ms. Scott was the architect for a project at his son’s home but he had no involvement.
Ms. Scott stated the plan gave the appearance of solid walls in the structure but they were retaining walls and they were building into the hill. She stated from the road you’d see a bit of the wall.
Chairman Alenstein asked why they didn’t build a garage.
Ms. Scott stated the carport was less imposing and more cost effective.
Dr. Jane Mackillop stated a garage would draw the eye away from the house and it was also a much more expensive undertaking.
Chairman Alenstein asked what the previous variance was for at the house.
Building Inspector Turiano stated they did an addition in 1993.
Chairman Alenstein stated he had trouble understanding the front elevation label.
Ms. Scott stated it was wall of the shed he was seeing.
Member Messer stated the retaining walls were rather large on the sides.
Ms. Scott stated they were following the contours of the slope and there was a fence that is an elevation of 11 feet off of the driveway level. She stated the peak of the structure was 10 feet and the fence was higher. She stated there wouldn’t be any more obstruction than the current fence and there wouldn’t be any obstruction to visibility on the street.
Chairman Alenstein stated he agreed it was dangerous to back out onto the road and asked if in lieu of adding a structure if the driveway could be extended.
Ms. Scott stated they would still have to build retaining walls.
Building Inspector Turiano stated a variance would not be required to extend the driveway.
Member Messer asked if the carport could be moved back 20 feet if the current driveway was abandoned.
Ms. Scott stated the retaining walls would be more evident from the road if they moved in back.
Building Inspector Turiano stated the grading and drainage would need to be reviewed.
Ms. Scott stated there was a lot of existing foliage and the proposed carport would be nestled into the slope and would be the least obstructive option to build.
Member Moraglia asked if the fence was in the Village right of way.
Building Inspector Turiano stated there wasn’t any encroachment.
Chairman Alenstein stated he agreed it wouldn’t be intrusive or obtrusive and would be lower than the fence and wouldn’t be an eyesore. He stated it was right at the property line and he had trouble granting a variance for it because it ate up the entire setback.
Ms. Scott stated she understood that and her first approach was to put it further back in the site but it had proven to be very difficult.
Chairman Alenstein stated the safety issue could be alleviated without installing a carport.
Ms. Scott stated it could be but they’d still have to install a large retaining wall.
Member Messer stated the Board understood how some lots were constrained but the safety issue could be mitigated by extending the driveway. She stated it was nice to have a covered space but it was hard to approve the variance and would set a scary precedent.
Ms. Scott stated it was a really tough site and they were looking for a protective place for their cars. She stated the roof was such a small area beyond the wall. She stated it all blended into the site.
Member Gioscia stated he was familiar with the area and understood the magnitude of the request but the area was very sloped. He stated he looked at the wall and thought it would be totally unobtrusive and didn’t see an issue and thought it would fit in nicely. He stated there was a huge discrepancy between the reality of the site and what was on paper. He stated an open building would appear completely different than a closed structure and would compliment the area.
Chairman Alenstein stated he didn’t think the neighbor would be impacted by the carport.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Mr. Russell Primack of 101 Long Hill Road stated he was the neighbor and asked for a description of the plan. He stated he had no objections.
Upon motion by Member Messer, seconded by Member Moraglia, the Board voted unanimously to close the public hearing.
DECISION
Member Gioscia stated on paper the request didn’t coincide with the reality of the site and the terrain. He stated the request would be totally unobtrusive and almost absent in appearance from the road. He stated he would vote in favor.
Member Moraglia stated he agreed with Member Gioscia but granting a 100% variance was difficult. He stated he appreciated them not installing a 2 story garage and with a bit of trepidation he too would approve the request.
Member Messer stated she was grappling with the same concerns and the village had a lot of unusual lots. She stated she worried approving it would set a precedent.
Ms. Scott stated there was quite a bit of foliage between the proposed carport and the road but they’d be happy to do screening.
Chairman Alenstein stated it was quite obvious the Board was concerned with the 100% variance but moving it back a couple of feet wouldn’t really make a difference and the application in all other respects wasn’t bad. He stated the request was highly substantial but he was in the same mind as the other members and didn’t think it would be intrusive. He stated nobody would see the carport except for across the street and the neighbor didn’t have an issue with it. He stated there was a safety issue that needed to be addressed on way or another. He stated the house had a unique history because it was formerly part of a much larger parcel and even though he had a lot of reluctance regarding the variance he too was in favor.
Member Messer stated she agreed and would make the approval unanimous.
Upon motion by Member Moraglia, seconded by Member Gioscia, the Board voted unanimously to approve the variance as requested.
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 Moraglia the Board voted unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 8:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Christine Dennett
| 