Zoning Board of Appeals
Regular Meeting
February 11, 2013
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 11th of February 2013 commencing at 7:30 p.m.
Present
Ronald Alenstein, Chairman
Christopher Bogart, Member
Michael Gioscia, Member
Nicholas Moraglia, Member
Also Present
Gerald Quartucio, Zoning Inspector
Absent
Hillary Messer, Member
V-1-2013 - Scarsella 91 Ridgecrest Road
A variance was requested because an application for a building permit to construct a deck addition at 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.
DISCUSSION:
Ms. Mary Scott, Architect for Applicant, stated they were requesting a coverage variance to expand a deck. She stated the existing house was built in the 1960’s and was preexisting, nonconforming and the current deck was small, cantilevered and structurally unsound. She stated they wanted to replace the deck and make it more usable. She stated the existing deck was 6 feet in front of the large windows and goes to about 12 feet. She stated the request was to expand the deck by 12 feet to 18 feet by the dining room and showed the existing versus the expanded deck of 535 square feet to bring the total coverage to 9049 square feet. She stated that there wouldn’t be any neighbor disturbed by the expansion.
Chairman Alenstein asked how many feet the extension was.
Ms. Scott stated it was an additional six feet and in line with the existing house.
Member Bogart asked if any comments were received by any neighbors.
Ms. Scott stated that there was a fair amount of space in between and no comments were received.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
There were no public comments.
Upon motion by Member Bogart, seconded by Member Moraglia, the Board voted unanimously to close the public hearing.
DECISION:
Member Gioscia stated he didn’t see any negative impact on the neighbor’s views or the environment and he would vote in favor of the request.
Member Bogart stated he was in favor too given the large setbacks and lack of visual impact.
Member Moraglia stated he was in agreement with the other members and felt it added to the home.
Chairman Alenstein stated the additional deck space was minimal and he too would vote in favor.
Upon motion by Member Gioscia, seconded by Member Moraglia, the Board voted unanimously to approve the application as requested.
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:
The Board continued the previously opened public hearing.
Mr. John Marwell, Attorney for the Applicant, stated the hearing was re-noticed because of an issue with the public notice at the last meeting when the hearing was opened. He stated it was suggested that the neighbors be spoken to and they did speak to them as well as attempt to respond to the Board’s requests.
Chairman Alenstein stated that it appeared that no one was in the audience and they could assume the applicant needn’t reiterate the application. He stated the visual aids, maps and aerial views were helpful but he was personally not satisfied that the applicant was forthcoming with the intended use of the structure. He said he had asked that the applicant disclose with more specificity and instead the applicant replied with one sentence regarding residential accessory structures.
Mr. Marwell stated it was a challenge to find other similar structures because it relied mostly on the memory of Clerks in other jurisdictions. He stated attention was given to mitigate any adverse impacts on neighbors.
Chairman Alenstein stated there was a great deal they didn’t know about the structures in the other municipalities.
Mr. Marwell stated his client told him the pavilion would be used for tennis and social gatherings and there would be a motion detector so the lighting would automatically turn off if not in use.
Chairman Alenstein stated he thought the applicant might have been consenting to shutting the lights off at a certain time in the evening.
Mr. Marwell stated if the Board felt a curfew was appropriate, they’d take that back to their client but it was a difficult condition and there were no bathroom facilities there.
Chairman Alenstein stated one of the neighbors pointed out there was another building nearby with plumbing. He stated he was willing to consider that the light pollution wasn’t a problem because the lights were recessed and pointing down and screening would also help to alleviate any spillage. He further stated he was willing to accept that there might be athletic events that would occur but he suspected it would be a location for parties that could potentially involve a number of people with music that might be an issue for neighbors because of the open sides on the structure.
Zoning Inspector Quartucio stated the Village’s Noise Ordinance would deal with any noise issues that arise.
Chairman Alenstein stated he wasn’t saying people shouldn’t have outdoor parties but being close to the property line was another issue.
Mr. Marwell stated there was nothing preventing them from putting a tent up for a party in the same location.
Member Bogart stated he was slightly confounded by the operation of the code but the reality of the situation was they could build an open sided pavilion there without a variance if they reduced the height to 15 feet instead of the 26 feet they proposed. He stated the motion detector would shut off the lights when not in use and the issue was whether the code matched the community’s desire to regulate the particular provision of the code.
Member Gioscia asked what the height of the proposed trees would be.
Mr. Peretta, Engineer for the Applicant, stated the trees would be 8-10 feet when planted but would grow taller over time.
Mr. Marwell stated the topography of the site needed to be taken into account as well.
Member Gioscia asked what the primary reason for leaving the sides of the pavilion open was as opposed to closing it in.
Mr. Tom McManus, Architect for the Applicant, stated the intended use didn’t require closed sides and walls were unnecessary and would trap in heat.
Member Gioscia asked if the roof was the recommended height for tennis.
Mr. McManus stated it wasn’t regulation height but in an effort to minimize the height the owner requested they lower it to 26 feet.
Member Bogart stated he assumed the applicant wouldn’t have an issue with having a condition that the tennis court could not be used for tournaments or commercial use.
Mr. Marwell stated that was correct.
Member Moraglia stated the Board had no way of predicting what would potentially happen in the space in the future and given the size and difficulty of the site and its proposed proximity to the property line he was having a hard time balancing the needs of the area.
Chairman Alenstein asked if the pavilion needed to be located there or if it was possible to locate it elsewhere on the site that weren’t sloped and further away from neighbors.
Mr. Marwell stated they chose that location because there was an existing driveway, wasn’t sloped or in wetlands.
Chairman Alenstein stated the Board needed to factor if the detriment to the neighbors outweighed the benefit to the applicant and it would obviously be more costly to relocate it.
Mr. Marwell stated they were talking about light and noise impacts.
Chairman Alenstein stated they were dealing with those impacts as well as a looming monolithic structure overlooking neighboring yards.
Mr. Marwell stated if they built a single family home there it would be taller and showed a conceptual subdivision on the property.
Zoning Inspector Quartucio in reviewing the plans and the Village Code the wetlands shown by the applicant do not exist on the Village’s map and therefore the self-imposed buffer was not necessary.
Mr. Peretta stated they could shift the pavilion further back towards the wetland to reduce the impact but the location chosen was the most ideal because of accessibility and lot constraints.
Member Moraglia asked if it could be closer to the main house and it might be nice to have the tennis court closer to the pool where there were existing trees that would block the neighbors.
Mr. Peretta stated that location would be closer to the neighbor’s pool house and the area was steeper and would require a larger retaining wall and moving more earth. He noted there would not be any impact from the lights beyond 30 feet of the structure.
Member Bogart asked Mr. Quartucio if the absence of the wetland from the village map was an oversight.
Zoning Inspector Quartucio stated the wetland may not have existed when the map was developed.
Mr. Peretta stated they wanted to respect the wetland but could move it back.
Chairman Alenstein asked how far back they could move it.
Mr. Peretta stated they could shift it back slightly but it would require more grading.
Mr. Marwell stated they were being very conservative and taking into account the drainage impacts.
Zoning Inspector Quartucio stated they could move it back 15 feet.
Mr. Marwell stated they could certainly move it back if that was the Board’s desire.
Chairman Alenstein stated he was having a lot of trouble with the idea that there wasn’t another viable location on the 64 acres.
Mr. Marwell stated he appreciated his concern but there weren’t any neighbors present and they addressed the lighting concerns and there were ways to address any noise issues.
Chairman Alenstein stated moving it back would help with the visual impact but asked how noise would be addressed.
Mr. Marwell stated vegetative buffering.
Mr. Moraglia asked how conditions would be enforced.
Chairman Alenstein stated the screening requirement would be inspected by the Building Department.
Zoning Inspector Quartucio stated if they didn’t comply they would get a summons.
Chairman Alenstein asked what types of trees would be planted.
Mr. Peretta stated the majority would be evergreens and some ornamental.
Member Bogart stated the variety of trees could be increased because the noise would not need to be mitigated in the winter due to the seasonal nature of the structure.
Mr. Peretta stated they were proposing to plant 41 trees which was in excess of the requirement.
Chairman Alenstein stated he’d like to see if the pavilion could be located elsewhere on the property.
Mr. Peretta stated the location they chose was the most desirable on the site.
Mr. Marwell asked if the Board’s noise concerns would be satisfied if the put a curfew on athletic events.
Chairman Alenstein stated he was more interested in a curfew on parties.
Mr. Marwell stated they could put temporary plastics sides up during a party.
Member Bogart stated all the concerns being discussed were not related to the requested variance and frankly if the party was too loud the police would be called. He stated he understood and shared the concerns of the other Board members and was slightly skeptical of the use for tennis and thought it might be used for parties but wasn’t sure that was in the Board’s ability to control. He stated the alternative location seemed closer to the neighbor.
Chairman Alenstein stated he wasn’t sure he wanted to be guided by hypothetical situations.
Member Bogart stated there would be sufficient conditions if they moved it further back and did not use the structure commercially and put in significant screening and a motion detector.
Chairman Alenstein asked about requiring a curfew for parties.
Zoning Inspector Quartucio stated that was covered in the noise ordinance and the Board didn’t need to reinvent the wheel.
Member Gioscia stated after having a lot of the issues addressed in detail regarding noise, light etc. in the proposed location he asked if they could show what the impacts would be if it were closer to the main house and what type of retaining wall would need to be installed.
Mr. McManus stated the area was at a much steeper grade and closer to the adjacent property and might affect existing trees.
Mr. Peretta stated the proposed location was the most feasible and would have the least impact on the environment.
Member Gioscia requested the applicant put together a report showing the alternate location and if there were any engineering issues and the amount of fill required.
Zoning Inspector Quartucio stated Chapter 220-8, stated no excavation in excess of 200 feet was permitted for tennis courts.
Member Gioscia stated grading was the key and he wasn’t certain it was for a tennis court but for a pavilion that housed a tennis court.
Member Bogart stated he felt the information would be useful.
Member Gioscia stated it would help the Board make a more informed decision.
Chairman Alenstein stated it was the Board’s job to determine if there was a detriment to the neighborhood and one of the ways to determine that would be to see if there was an alternate location.
The Board requested a report be done on an alternate location and for the report to be submitted prior to the next meeting.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
There were no public comments.
Upon motion by Member Bogart, seconded by Member Gioscia, the Board voted unanimously to adjourn the public hearing to March 5, 2013 at 7:30pm at which time a Special Meeting would be limited to the Holly Hill application.
MINUTES
Upon motion by Member Gioscia, seconded by Member Moraglia, the Board voted unanimously to approve the minutes of October 2, 2012 and December 4, 2012.
ADJOURNMENT
Upon motion by Member Moraglia, seconded by Member Gioscia the Board voted unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 9:25p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Christine Dennett
| 