Zoning Board of Appeals
Regular Meeting
December 4, 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 4th of December 2012 commencing at 7:30 p.m.
Present
Ronald Alenstein, Chairman
Christopher Bogart, Member
Michael Gioscia, Member
Nicholas Moraglia, Member
Also Present
David Turiano, Building Inspector
Absent
Hillary Messer, Member
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 the Board held a site walk on Saturday, November 10th at 9:00am.
Mr. David Graham, Architect for the Applicant, stated he was available to answer any questions.
Chairman Alenstein stated a letter of concern was received from a Mr. John Carolli of 120 Aspinwall Road regarding a waterline easement.
Building Inspector Turiano stated the waterline would be a concern if the construction were near it but it was the Applicant’s right as to where it was located as long it remained in working order. He asked Mr. Graham to locate the waterline.
Mr. Graham stated the issue came up at the site visit and he retrieved a copy of the deed that established the easement. He stated it was drafted in 1962 and did not specify the location but that it had to be maintained “in kind”. He stated they would flag the waterline and add it to the survey and it was believed to be located along the southerly portion of the property and not in the footprint of the proposed addition. He stated the nature of the easement was to provide for a waterline but gave no specifics as to any certain location being maintained.
Building Inspector Turiano stated if the line did need to be moved there would be standards to follow and the Village would make sure it’s protected and moved accordingly.
Chairman Alenstein asked if the variance could include a condition that if the waterline were interfered with that it would be at the Applicant’s expense to move it.
Mr. Graham stated it was Mr. Islam’s responsibility to maintain the waterline and he would submit a copy of the deed for the file.
Member Bogart stated it was a narrow issue and the Applicant was seeking a fairly small variance. He stated it seemed unlikely the addition would affect the waterline but the Applicant seemed happy to deal with that. He further stated the water delivery did not seem relevant to the Board’s decision.
Mr. Islam stated he would do what was required of him regarding the waterline easement and was amenable to any condition.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Upon motion by Member Bogart, seconded by Member Moraglia, the Board voted unanimously to close the public hearing.
DECISION:
Member Bogart stated he proposed granting the approval of the variance to the extent that the waterline was maintained and relocated appropriately if necessary under the review of the Building Department. He stated he was in favor of granting the variance because although it was self-created, it was modest and would not create a detriment to the neighbor.
Member Gioscia stated he was not certain as to what level the Zoning Board of Appeals had to do with a waterline but would vote in approval of the variance with the condition of maintaining the waterline easement.
Member Moraglia stated he too was in agreement and would vote in favor.
Chairman Alenstein stated he was also in favor for the reasons stated and while the new construction was somewhat close to the neighbor it would not be any closer as a result and would be an open porch giving the appearance of minimizing the bulk.
V-5-2012 - Holly Hill, LLC 298 Scarborough Road
A variance was requested because an application to construct an accessory building and illuminate tennis courts at an existing single family dwelling was denied due to nonconformity with Column 18, Accessory Building Maximum Height for Sloping Roof and Section 220-8, Regulation of Tennis Courts of the Code of the Village of Briarcliff Manor.
The following items were marked as Board Exhibits:
- Code Compliance Worksheet dated October 25, 2012
- Letter from Shamberg, Marwell & Hollis, P.C. dated October 26, 2012
Application for a variance to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Bill Manderville
Code of Ethics signed by Bill Manderville dated October 24, 2012
Affidavit of Publication
Short Environmental Assessment Form dated October 24, 2012
Property Cards
Site Plan dated November 21, 2012
Architectural Plans dated October 21, 2012
Lighting and Control Design Plans dated November 28, 2012
Affidavit of mailing signed by Julianne C. Lopez
Building Department letter of denial to Holly Hill, LLC dated October 25, 2012
Letter from Village Clerk to John Marwell dated November 15, 2012
Letters to the Planning Board from the Applicant dated October 26, 2012 and November 28, 2012.
Survey of Property dated November 19, 2012
Letter from the Building Inspector to the Village Clerk regarding public notice
- 29 Certified Mailing Receipts
DISCUSSION:
Mr. John Marwell, Attorney for the Applicant, stated he brought exhibits and would explain why they were seeking the variances and the desire for the proposed location.
Chairman Alenstein stated there was a site visit on December 1, 2012.
Member Bogart stated he had his own independent site visit.
Mr. Marwell stated they floated a balloon to show the proposed height of the structure.
Building Inspector Turiano stated there was an issue with the public notice mailing and some neighbors did not receive the notice that should have. The Board determined that the matter could not be decided at this meeting, and would have to be adjourned so that new notices could be sent.
Mr. Marwell stated they’d like to present their application and answer any questions. He stated his client wanted to build a pavilion for entertainment and recreational purposes. He stated they were proposing the structure be 26 feet high where 15 feet is allowed. He noted a single family home on the same site could be 30 feet high and much larger.
Chairman Alenstein asked how the height was calculated.
Mr. Marwell explained how it was calculated.
Building Inspector Turiano stated he reviewed their calculations and agreed with their numbers.
Mr. Marwell stated lighting was not permitted for traditional tennis courts in the Village but their proposal was unique. He stated they proposed tastefully designed and controlled lighting without any plumbing at the pavilion and wouldn’t encroach on any steep slopes or wetlands. He stated their request was reasonable and the benefit to the homeowner outweighed any negative impacts the surrounding neighborhood.
Mr. Charles Utschig, Engineer for the Applicant, stated they were tasked with finding a suitable location and then to deal with any site issues, drainage, grading and erosion control. He stated the location was chosen because it’s almost entirely flat, meets setback requirements and would not require any tree removal. He showed a topographical map of the site, noting the steep slope areas and stated at least 60% of the site had steep slopes. He stated when you looked at the overall property the location they chose was a flat, cleared field surrounded by a mature forest and they would install landscaping to screen the pavilion from adjacent homes that were well below because of the grade change.
Chairman Alenstein stated there seemed to be another area on the site that didn’t have steep slopes either and the applicant would be capable of building the pavilion there.
Mr. Utschig stated the other area was completely wooded and had congested contours. He stated to build there they’d have to remove a significant number of trees.
Mr. Tom McManus, Architect for the Applicant, stated the pavilion was an open air structure and from the average grade it was 26.8 feet tall but the grade surrounding it varied. He stated the design was wood post and beam structure, open on all 4 sides except for a retaining wall on 1 side. He stated it would have cedar shingled roof that would be pitched to mitigate the height. He stated the roof would conceal 6 medium wattage ceiling fixtures that would have minimal spillage outside the structure. He stated the retaining wall was to retain the earth around it and the court surface would be a hard tennis court surface with netting and a wire mesh fence to prevent balls from escaping the court.
Chairman Alenstein asked how high the fencing would be.
Mr. McManus stated it would only be as high as required for tennis and varied.
Member Bogart asked how the lights would go off.
Mr. McManus stated there was a possibility for a motion detector.
Member Bogart asked if that could be a certainty.
Member Gioscia asked if the lighting would be recessed.
Mr. McManus stated it would be concealed in the rafters.
Member Moraglia asked if the fence would be staggered.
Mr. Utschig stated it was highest in the middle and screening would act as a buffer to the neighbor.
Member Bogart asked in tennis court without a roof could be installed in that location without a variance.
Building Inspector Turiano stated it could be without lighting.
Member Bogart stated it was a large property with a number of structures and the owner could potentially build a single family dwelling in that location without a variance that would be larger and higher without constraints to lighting.
Building Inspector Turiano stated if the property was subdivided a number of new structures could be built.
Chairman Alenstein stated the fact that lighting was desired seemed like night activity might occur and possibly during inclement weather. He stated he also envisioned parties with guests and music and asked the applicant to think about potential impacts to neighbors.
Mr. Marwell stated there wasn’t any plumbing being installed.
Member Moraglia asked if there was any other discussion regarding future building on the site.
Mr. Marwell stated he was not aware of any.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Mr. Andrew Peskoe of 200 Scarborough Road stated his property had a common boundary and if the variance were granted that a motion sensor be installed.
Mr. Fred Siegel of 158 Scarborough Road stated he was concerned that some neighbors did not receive the notice and that there were lit tennis courts at Chilmark Park. He state he had concerns with the noise level at night and it would affect the enjoyment of his property.
Member Bogart stated Mr. Siegel seemed to be a far distance from the proposed site.
Mr. Utschig stated the structure would be approximately 2000 feet from Scarborough Road and with the differential in the grade and all the structures in between on the site noise would not likely be an issue.
Ms. Leslie Allen of Scarborough Road stated she wished the neighbor would have spoken to her about it and didn’t’ understand their reasoning for the pavilion. She stated she was unclear if the court was indoor or outdoor, if there would be parking there and asked if there was anything else like it in the village. She stated the upper level of her home looked right onto it and if it were lit at night it would impact her and her family. She stated their bedrooms were facing it and she had a special needs child. She stated they already cleared a ton of trees on the site and there was a rock face that would bounce noise directly towards them. She stated she could hear regular conversations from their property and couldn’t imagine how loud a party or music would be. She asked if a time
limit could be set for music and lighting. She stated the neighborhood would change drastically if the structure was built.
Chairman Alenstein stated he appreciated Ms. Allen’s comments.
Member Bogart stated the applicant could do a lot of things on the site without a variance and the questions before the Board were whether they could put a roof over the court and install lighting.
Chairman Alenstein asked if there would be parking at the site.
Mr. Marwell stated they weren’t proposing any additional parking or paving.
Member Bogart asked for the Applicant to survey other municipalities to see if they had similar structures and what their practices and policies were.
MINUTES
The minutes of October 2, 2012 were tabled to the next meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
Upon motion by Member Bogart, seconded by Member Gioscia the Board voted unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 9:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Christine Dennett
| 