Zoning Board of Appeals
Regular Meeting
August 6, 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 6th of August 2013 commencing at 7:30 p.m.
Present
Ronald Alenstein, Chairman
Michael Gioscia, Member
Nicholas Moraglia, Member
Also Present
Gerald Quartucio, Zoning Inspector
Absent
Christopher Bogart, Member
Hillary Messer, Member
V-3-2013 - O’Neill 95 Old Briarcliff 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 Column 9 One Side Yard Minimum Yard Dimension of the Code of the Village of Briarcliff Manor.
DISCUSSION:
Ms. Mary Scott Faithorn, Architect for the Applicant, stated she was there to ask for a sideyard setback variance to extend the existing deck. She stated the house was one of the original Law Cottages that had been expanded over time and was preexisting/non-conforming and was in the R60 Zone. She stated the sideyard variance request was reduced from 25 feet to 22 feet. She stated the deck was undersized and would be in keeping with the architectural style of the house and would not have any negative impact.
Chairman Alenstein stated the current deck looked to be a fairly good size.
Ms. Scott stated the current deck was 327 square feet and they were looking to increase it by 224 square feet for a total of 551 square feet and it would be 21 feet by 30 feet. She stated the current deck stopped in the middle of the dining area and they wanted to extend it so there’s better access. She stated it would not extend any closer to the neighbors.
Chairman Alenstein noted there was a prior variance granted at the property.
Ms. Scott stated that variance was for the original deck and an addition.
Mr. Colin O’Neill, owner, stated they didn’t have the foresight at the time to make the deck bigger and his wife wanted to increase their outdoor living space.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
There were no public comments.
Upon motion by Member Moraglia, seconded by Member Gioscia, the Board voted unanimously to close the public hearing.
DECISION:
Member Moraglia stated he walked the site and took into account the locations of the neighbors and did not see any concerns or detriment if the deck was expanded.
Member Gioscia stated there wasn’t any opposition to the request and it would improve the aesthetics of the home and allow for more outdoor living space.
Chairman Alenstein stated he was in agreement and that the variance was granted.
V-4-2013 - Anteby 61 Old Sleepy Hollow Road
A variance was requested because an application for a building permit to legalize an existing carport at an existing single family dwelling was denied due to nonconformity with Column 9A One Side Yard Minimum Yard Dimension of the Code of the Village of Briarcliff Manor.
DISCUSSION:
Mr. Eric Anteby, Owner, stated he was there to ask for a variance for the existing carport which was built back in the 1950’s.
Member Gioscia noted the carport was built in 1964.
Chairman Alenstein stated the application was to legalize what already existed and there was an adjoining property to the north that he gathered would be developed.
Mr. Anteby stated that property was down slope.
Chairman Alenstein stated it was part of a 3 lot subdivision.
Zoning Inspector Quartucio stated the property was one of the lots in the Old Sleepy Hollow Estates subdivision and the new lot line made the carport nonconforming.
Member Moraglia asked if the applicant intended to keep the carport as is.
Mr. Anteby stated he would keep it as is.
Mr. Lynn Kenner, 60 Old Sleepy Hollow Road, stated he lived across from the property and showed the subdivision map and where the carport was. He stated that Hillary Messer was the seller of the property and owner of the adjacent properties and requested she recuse or resign.
Chairman Alenstein noted she stated she was the owner and had resigned.
Mr. Kenner stated the house was built in 1964 and the two car garage was converted into a laundry room. He stated his issue was when the other lots are developed that it would look like a townhouse development and requested the carport be left open and for a restriction to be placed on it that it could not be enclosed. He stated the carport was a clear violation of the subdivision approval and if remained open they could live with it.
Mr. Anteby stated he currently had no plans to change the carport but he couldn’t say if he would come back in the future to request additional variances. He stated the house needed a lot of work.
Chairman Alenstein asked where Mr. Kenner’s house was located.
Mr. Kenner stated his house was directly across the street from parcel 2 and would estimate it was about 75 north of Mr. Anteby’s house.
Chairman Alenstein stated the Board was tasked with looking at impacts on neighborhoods and further stated Mr. Kenner’s house seemed to be considerably higher than the property in question.
Mr. Kenner stated it was purely aesthetic and he didn’t want it to appear overcrowded.
Zoning Inspector Quartucio stated the applicant had the right to appeal for a variance.
DECISION:
Chairman Alenstein stated they could force the applicant to remove the structure and the Planning Board’s approval was based on the carport being too close the sideyard. He stated he could understand the reluctance the applicant would have regarding the future of the site and while he understood Mr. Kenner’s concerns he didn’t think it rose quite to the level of putting conditions on the variance. He stated he’d be inclined to grant the variance without any conditions.
Member Gioscia stated he agreed with Chairman Alenstein and if any changes were made to the carport it would require additional variances.
Member Moraglia stated he didn’t see any detriment to the area and would too be in favor.
Chairman Alenstein stated the variance was granted.
V-5-2013 - Saleh 22 Ridgecrest Road
A variance was requested because an application for a building permit to construct a new single family dwelling and in-ground swimming pool was denied due to nonconformity with Column 8A Front Yard Minimum Yard Dimension and Section 220.9, Regulations of Swimming Pools; paragraph B. (2) of the Code of the Village of Briarcliff Manor.
DISCUSSION:
Ms. Geraldine Tortorella, Attorney for the Applicant, stated the property was approximately 43,500 square feet in a one acre zone with two road frontages on Ridgecrest Road. She stated the property was currently vacant and they wanted to construct a residence with an attached garage and an in-ground pool. She stated there were currently before the Planning Board for a Steep Slopes Permit. She stated the slopes were in the 25% category and would also require a Mandatory Tree Planting Plan which required extensive landscaping. She stated the proposal was compliant with all zoning regulations with the exception of the port cochere which extended to 37 feet. She stated the second variance requested was for the pool which must be in a rear yard or 100 feet from the sideyard or street lines. She stated there
wasn’t a rear yard because of the two road frontages but was 100 feet from the street lines but could not meet the requirements for sideyard setbacks and the pool would be located 61 feet from one side and 68 feet from the other side.
Chairman Alenstein stated based on Ms. Tortorella’s interpretation of the Village Code they could have the pool 6 inches from the sideyard boundary.
Ms. Tortorella stated she supposed they could because they met the street line requirement.
Chairman Alenstein stated he didn’t think her interpretation was correct and he read it as saying it had to be compliant with whichever was relevant to the application.
Ms. Tortorella stated Zoning Regulations were supposed to be in favor the property owner.
Chairman Alenstein stated he didn’t have a great problem with the pool but was much more interested in the port cochere. He asked if the applicant was aware that the neighbor withdrew their support for the application.
Zoning Inspector Quartucio explained how the height of a structure was determined and stated the excavation and fill would fall under the Planning Board’s jurisdiction.
Chairman Alenstein stated the parcel had a troubled history and there was no clear way of determining how high the structure would appear from the roadway.
Zoning Inspector Quartucio stated the Code provided for them to determine the finished grade.
Chairman Alenstein stated they would need a variance for the setback but the impact of the house to the neighbors should be taken into account too.
Ms. Tortorella stated the only part of the house that needed a variance was the port cochere and stated she was not sure how the neighbors weren’t sure of the height because the plans they were shown were exactly what was before the Board. She stated the property had a controversial past but their application was very different from the prior application.
Mr. Hernandez, Engineer for the Applicant, stated he worked with the Village Engineer to determine the average grade and height of the proposed house and noted that the Code had dramatically changed since the last applicant. He stated they were in compliance with the maximum gross floor area requirements and based on the average grade the height at the midpoint of the eave was 28 feet. He stated the average grade was 191 feet and the port cochere was not factored into the calculation of the height of the building.
Ms. Tortorella stated she couldn’t reconcile Mr. Lenihan’s letter with the calculations.
Zoning Inspector Quartucio stated the Code allows them to bring in fill to set the point before the average height was calculated.
Chairman Alenstein stated he was concerned the roof height was being determined by the port cochere and asked what the elevation was on Ridgecrest Road.
Mr. Hernandez stated the average elevation was 191 feet and they were permitted to go up 30 feet from there to the midpoint of the roof. He stated the highest point of the house would be at the elevation of 223 feet.
Chairman Alenstein asked if they could move the whole plan further down the slope.
Ms. Tortorella stated they’d be trading problems and that it would require additional disturbance and impact privacy.
Mr. Hernandez stated the slope was mostly 17% but would require additional disturbance and fill.
Chairman Alenstein stated if the slope was constant wherever they chose to build the cut would be the same.
Mr. Hernandez stated in order to keep the house at that elevation if would require more fill.
Member Gioscia their views would be impacted if they moved it further down the hill.
Ms. Tortorella stated one wouldn’t buy the property to have their home sunken into the hillside and they were trying to position the home to create privacy for all.
Member Moraglia asked if the applicant considered removing the port cochere.
Ms. Tortorella stated it served a functional purpose to protect the applicant from the weather but also broke up the façade. She stated the views would change with or without the port cochere.
Mr. Hernandez stated the tree planting plan would provide screening from the street and the port cochere would not really be seen.
Member Gioscia asked how many cubic yards of fill would be needed.
Mr. Hernandez stated 2400 cubic yards.
Member Gioscia asked if the vegetation would obscure the view of the house from the street and what peak would be seen.
Mr. Hernandez stated the port cochere’s peak would be seen.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Mr. Thomas Emmeneger of 884 Long Hill Road stated his entire western border was on Ridgecrest Road and this house was between him and the river. He stated the real issue was the house rose 45 feet, was 81 feet wide and rose 28 feet above the road. He stated other neighbors homes were 10 feet above the road and 2 feet above. He stated it was a unique community and everyone was tucked into the landscape sort of equivalent to stadium seating and building this home would change that entire concept. He stated there was no doubt in his mind it would be a detriment to the neighborhood and would cause a financial hardship for him lowering the value of his property. He stated there wasn’t a bad view from the bottom of the property and it was self-interest gone wild. He stated their front door looked into
his master bedroom.
Mr. Hernandez stated the height of the house changed with the slope of the road.
Mr. Mitchell Dennis of 50 Ridgecrest Road stated he took photos to show the property in relation to his own. He stated his concern was that his house was two feet above grade and it would tower over him and he would be looking at 8 feet of retaining walls from his master bedroom. He stated Mr. Saleh did not show how high the house would be over the road and the pool was far too close to his house and he was also concerned about runoff and access to the site during construction.
Mr. Dennis asked how they could install a retaining wall without affecting his property and stated the house would not fit in with the neighborhood. He stated he was told the house would be sensitive to the neighbors and it was a quiet neighborhood and should remain that way.
Mr. Mark Duffy of 14 Ridgecrest Road stated he didn’t have an issue with the port cochere of the pool but he got a different impression of the project and appears to be significantly bigger.
Mr. Saleh, Owner, stated he showed the neighbors the plans before the Board and they designed the house to be in line with the neighbors. He stated Mr. Lenihan put a height restriction on Mr. Mitchell’s house and nobody mentioned to him any issues with his plan. He stated he was honest with all of them and tried to accommodate all of them. He stated the port cochere was to help his mother who was in a wheelchair.
Mr. Emmeneger stated the proposed house was dramatically different and there were many other types of houses that could be built that did not impact neighbors as significantly.
Ms. Linda Duran of 111 Ridgecrest Road stated they owned the home right below and were currently under construction. She stated she grew up in the Village and came back solely for the Ridgecrest Road neighborhood because she spent many nights enjoying the skyline and it was a public responsibility to maintain the iconic view and integrity of the road.
Member Gioscia stated it was a beautifully designed home but asked if they considered building on the grade as is.
Mr. Saleh stated the neighbors views would be impacted regardless and he reduced the height. He stated Mr. Dennis’ house was at a much lower grade.
Mr. Dennis stated they graded up by eight feet.
Member Gioscia stated he wanted to see the impact if the grade wasn’t changed and it was nestled into the slope.
Mr. Hernandez stated it would be 10 feet lower but would require redesigning the house.
Ms. Tortorella stated they were not before the Zoning Board for fill or grade that they were there to evaluate if the port cochere would have a detrimental impact on the neighborhood and that similar variances were granted many times before regarding the pool.
Mr. Dennis stated there was a reason for setbacks and the pool would impact his property.
Chairman Alenstein stated they could table the decision to another meeting in the hopes more Members would be in attendance.
Ms. Tortorella stated her client wanted to hear a decision.
Upon motion by Member Moraglia, seconded by Member Gioscia, the Board voted unanimously to close the public hearing.
DECISION:
Member Gioscia stated they were there to address the port cochere and the pool but also to evaluate the impact on the neighbors and neighborhood. He stated he felt responsible to limit the impact and would vote to deny the variance requests.
Member Moraglia stated the application was a difficult one but the Board needed to look at the effect to the neighborhood and he too would not vote in favor of the variances.
Chairman Alenstein stated he would grant the variance for the pool because the Board had a history of allowing less than 100 feet in appropriate circumstances and didn’t see enough of a reason to depart from previous reasoning. He stated he could not grant a variance for the port cochere and while he thought there was accuracy to the house being compliant he did think it would have a detrimental impact on the character of the neighborhood and the port cochere would add to the overall impact of the structure and would deny the request based on the adverse impact.
V-6-2013 - Allen/Gutheil 29 Argyle Place
A variance was requested because an application for a building permit to construct an in-ground swimming pool at an existing single family dwelling was denied due to nonconformity with Section 220.9, Regulations of Swimming Pools; paragraph B. (2) of the Code of the Village of Briarcliff Manor.
DISCUSSION:
Mr. Glen Teicehurst, Architect for Applicant, stated he was there to request permission to install a pool in a sideyard. He stated it was a historic home and they were trying to preserve the historic feel of the property. He stated the front door was on the back side of the house with a large porch and the back yard was toward the cul de sac. He stated the house was under major renovation and they were creating a driveway that meets today’s standards and the circle and ate up a lot of the technical rear yard. He stated the sideyard setback required 100 feet but they were restricted with the location because of the steep slopes. He stated the location was relatively low and 180 feet away from neighbor to the south. He stated the pool would be at grade with very little site disturbance and if you
took into consideration the original layout it would be fine but this puts it about 50 feet from the lot line and would be landscaped and fenced appropriately.
Chairman Alenstein asked for further clarification regarding the front and back yards.
Mr. Teicehurst stated they were preserving the historic main entrance and wanted to respect the architecture of the house.
Member Moraglia stated there was a fair amount of grading that needed to be done in the back.
Mr. Teicehurst stated that was correct and they were trying to preserve a feature tree.
Chairman Alenstein asked how far away the neighbor was.
Mr. Teicehurst stated 184 feet and it was lower in elevation and heavily vegetated.
Member Moraglia asked what would be around the pool.
Mr. Teicehurst stated there would be a retaining wall on one side with a bluestone terrace and the pool equipment would be tucked away from neighbors.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Mr. Kenneth Bookbinder of 21 Argyle Place stated he felt it would interfere with their house and pushing it further back would make a big difference. He stated they were averse to opposing it but he felt there were other alternatives that would have much less interference.
Chairman Alenstein stated the pool as requested would be 48 feet from the property line.
Mr. Bookbinder stated that made it worse.
Mr. Teicehurst stated pushing it back would put it into steeper slopes.
Mrs. Bookbinder stated she wasn’t happy about the pool at all.
Mr. Teicehurst stating moving it back 10 feet wouldn’t make difference and he didn’t think the neighbors would see it.
Chairman Alenstein stated screening hadn’t been discussed and asked if there was a plan.
Mr. Teicehurst stated they proposed Norway spruces that would absorb a good amount of sound.
Member Gioscia asked what the height of the pool from the neighbor would be.
Mr. Teicehurst stated it was 20 feet above them.
Mr. Bookbinder stated they tried to look at it in a neighborly way.
Chairman Alenstein stated moving it back would exacerbate the steep slopes problem.
Mr. Teicehurst stated the proposal currently did not affect steep slopes.
Mr. Jay Teitelbaum of 63 Holbrook Lane stated he represented himself and his neighbor at 53 Holbrook Lane and they were at the bottom of the slope. He stated his concern was the significant runoff that existed and what would be done to address drainage. He stated the entire pool area was impervious surface and there needed to some analysis of what the water impact would be. He stated he understood the law and zero runoff but that was not often the case. He stated a pool was a luxury item, not a kitchen or bedroom and he was not adverse to the pool or worried about the sound and in favor of enjoying our properties but he didn’t see any water remediation plans. He stated the Board could see trail from his yard that the water leaves coming down that hill and moving into the slope would worsen the problem.
Mr. Bob Berson of 28 Argyle Place stated he knew the prior owners and was happy a family would be moving in. He stated he could live with noise but would like to see the pool in a more private area.
Mr. Teicehurst stated stormwater could be addressed and contained. He stated the pool was far from other homes and would not disturb them. He stated they’d address screening and drainage and the pool would have a safety cover on it as well as a fence and screening surrounding it.
Chairman Alenstein asked why the pool couldn’t be put where the proposed driveway was.
Zoning Inspector Turiano reminded the Applicant that all three members needed to vote in favor to get an approval.
Mr. Teitelbaum stated it seemed the application was incomplete and it would be premature to decide on the application.
Ms. Leslie Allen, Owner, stated her son had special needs and needed a level space to play on and the pool was for him because he couldn’t play any sports. She stated they were trying to be transparent and do what was best for everyone. She stated she didn’t want to intrude on the neighbors and the runoff would be better because they would have to abate it.
Chairman Alenstein stated a site visit might be best.
Upon motion by Member Gioscia, seconded by Member Moraglia, the Board voted unanimously to adjourn the public hearing to October 1, 2013 at 7:30pm and scheduled a site walk on September 21, 2013 at 9:30am.
ADJOURNMENT
Upon motion by Member Gioscia, seconded by Member Moraglia the Board voted unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 11:00p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Christine Dennett
| 