Planning Board

Planning Board March 24 , 2021 33 nLAN"l'liNG BOARD RECEIVED RUTHERFORD HALL VILLAGE HALL MAY 3 2021 SCARSDALE, NY March 24, 2021 SCARSDALE VILLAGE CLERK SCARSDALE, NEW YORK 10583 A regular meeting of the Planning Board ot the Village of Scarsdale was held remotely via Zoom videoconference, pursuant to Executive Order 202, on March 24, 2021 at 7:00p.m. Those members present were: John Clapp, Chair, Harold Porosoff, Deborah Pekarek, and Jack Miller. Timothy Foley was absent. Also present were Greg Cutler, Village Planner, Daniel Pozin, Village Attomey, and David Goessl, Village Engineer. ***** * The Chair explained the Board's procedures. ***** * The reading of the fo llowing legal notice was waived by unanimous vote of the Board. LEGAL NOTICE PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING BOARD VILLAGE OF SCARSDALE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held remotely by the Planning Board of the Village of Scarsdale via Zoom videoconference, pursuant to Executive Order 202, on Wednesday, March 24, 2021 at 7:00p.m. at which time and place the Planning Board will consider the following: 1. The application of 125 Cushman Lots LLC for Wetland Permit approval to construct a swimming pool in the wetland buffer at 125 Cushman Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 16, Blk. 4, Lot 6Al. 2. The application of Joshua and Cara Lamberg for Wetland Permit approval to construct a swimming pool in the wetland buffer at 4 Bethel Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 14, Blk. 5, Lot 21. 3. The application of80 Garden Road LLC, Woodland Road LLC and 2 156 2nd Avenue LLC for a nine lot subdivision with eight new houses, pursuant to Chapter 77 of the Village Code, at 80, 88 and 90 Garden Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 16, Blk. 1, Lot 8A, Sec. 16, Blk. 4, Lots 3A and 1. Planning Board Marc h 24, 202 1 34 4. The application of Westchester Reform Temple, for site plan approval to construct a playground at 255 Mamaroneck Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 19 Blk. 3 Lot 2Al. 5. The application ofNew Cingular Wireless PCS LLC d/b/a AT&T to renew the Special Use Permit to continue to operate a wireless telecommunications facility, pursuant to Chapter 310-80 of the Village Code on the Village owned smokestack at 0 Freightway, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 1, Blk. 6, Lot 3A. 6. The request from 26 Overhill Property LLC for the third extension of time to fi le the Subdivision plat approved by the Planning Board on December 18, 2019 for this two lot subdivision, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 1, Blk. 2, Lot 3. 7. The request from the Village Board of Trustees, pursuant to Chapter 77 of the Village Code, for review and recommendation on the proposed amendment of Chapters 77, 251 and 310 of the Village Code to implement the recommendations of the Bulk Review Committee Report. Members of the public wishing to present comments may do so online by accessing the meeting at https://scarsdale.zoom.us/j/96766853705 or by calling (929) 436-2866 and entering the meeting ID: 967 6685 3705. Copies of the above applications may be viewed by interested parties at this Drop box link: https://www.dropbox.com/shlmpjeld9tcrel67j/ AAA Yd500rylB-Rb9aPpgleora?dl=O Please email planning@scarsdale.com or call 914-722-1131 with any questions. To receive meeting agendas by e-mail, visit www.scarsdale.com and click on "Notify Me" to subscribe. By Order of the Planning Board, Scarsdale, New York, dated March 9, 2021. Gregory Cutler AICP, Village Planner. CASE #2 OF 2021 1. The Chair declared the hearing open on the application of 125 Cushman Lots LLC for Wetland Permit approval to construct a swimming pool in the wetland buffer at 125 Cushman Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 16, Blk. 4, Lot 6A1. Stephen Anderson, Engineer, was present. Mr. Anderson said there is no disturbance in the 25 ft. buffer, but there is in the 100 ft. buffer. There is no disturbance past the Limits of Disturbance line. He said the fence has been moved off the easement line and indicated the revised location of the fence and evergreen screen on the map. Plann i n g Bo a r d Marc h 24, 2 021 35 Mr. Miller asked ifthe CULTECs are still in the front. Mr. Anderson said yes. Mr. Porosoff said it looks like the property has no trees. He asked if there were any salvageable trees at the time that the property was acquired. Mr. Anderson said an arborist had determined the trees were unhealthy, so they were removed. Ms. Pekarek asked ifthe 9 trees that had been removed would be replaced. Mr. Anderson said there are 5 replacement trees and additional shade trees and evergreens on the plan. Mr. Pozin asked to confirm that the fence is not within the easement area, and Mr. Anderson said that is correct. Mr. Goessl said there are remaining trees in the back that were not permitted for removal, and there was a tree permit issued with 5 replacement trees. No other members of the Board desired to speak, and with no comment from the audience, the Chair ended the discussion of this application. ****** CASE #4 OF 2021 2. The Chair declared the hearing open on the application of Joshua and Cara Lamberg for Wetland Permit approval to construct a swimming pool in the wetland buffer at 4 Bethel Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 14, Blk. 5, Lot 21. Rivi Oren, Landscape Architect, Christer Lundstrom, Arborist, and Henry Lamberg, applicant, were present. Ms. Oren said at the last meeting, she was asked to obtain the opinion of a wetland expert, get additional information from an arborist, and clarify issues pertaining to coverage. Ms. Oren shared a letter from wetlands specialist, Beth Evans, that expressed support for the proposed plantings and stated that the proposed project was not within the 25ft. wetlands buffer. Ms. Oren said that according to the arborist, the large oak tree on the property is very healthy. She said the arborist determined that the optimal distance is 43.5 ft. from the edge of the trunk to the pool. She said they were only able to provide 37ft. to the comer of the pool. Mr. Lundstrom said that he believes that the proposed location will not put the tree in danger. Ms. Oren said she did a mitigation plan because the Lambergs are very interested in enjoying the wetlands. She said that there are plantings on the other side of the wall to add privacy. She named the plantings she is proposing. Ms. Oren said that they have removed the proposed fence at the neighbor's request. Mr. Lamberg said that they listened to the feedback of the neighbors and hope they can achieve the desired privacy with the plantings, so they have removed the proposed fence. The Chair asked which of the submitted plans are the most recent additions. Ms. Oren said L2 from March 15th and L4 from March 23rd are the current plans. L3 is unchanged. The Chair asked if the February 17th memorandum from Gabriel Senor's firm has been Planning Board March 24 , 2021 36 updated. Ms. Oren said it is unchanged. The Chair said that the plan references a stormwater pollution prevention plan. He asked if the plan is in the papers that have been presented to them. Ms. Oren said no, she does not think it was prepared. The Chair asked if there will be a plan. Ms. Oren said there is only the plan from when the house was built. They will submit an updated one to the Zoning Board as patt of the Special Use Permit if the Planning Board approves their application. The Chair asked if the fence has been removed in the most recent plan submitted. Ms. Oren said the fence is only mentioned once in L2, and she sent a letter and made a formal declaration of removal, but it is not represented on the drawing. The Chair asks if all fencing on that side of the stream has been removed, and Ms. Oren said yes. Mr. Porosoff asked if there are anticipated changes in the grading between the pool and the proposed wall. Ms. Oren said grading will change between the pool and the wall but not within the 25 ft. buffer. Mr. Cutler showed the proposed topography on the plan. Mr. Porosoff asked if the retaining wall is above or at ground level on the pool side. Mr. Lamberg said the top of the wall will be at ground level. Mr. Porosoff asked how tall the wall will be on the other side. Mr. Lamberg said 5 ft. Mr. Porosoff asked if a fence on top of the wall is required for security reasons. Ms. Oren said the code does not require a fence if there is a 5-foot wall. Mr. Lamberg said there are plantings added to the downhill side to screen the stone wall and plantings above the wall to screen the view of people in the pool. Ms. Pekarek asked if the old stone wall will be right against the pool. Ms. Oren said no, it will be removed. Ms. Pekarek asked how the Lambergs will access the area below the retaining wall. Ms. Oren noted the location of the stairs. Ms. Pekarek asked if the stairs were noted in the plans. Ms. Oren said that it has not been changed. Mr. Porosoff asked where the fence that has been removed from the plan is located. Ms. Oren showed the location on the plan. Mr. Porosoff asked where the pool fence meets the wall. Ms. Oren pointed out the location on the plan. Mr. Miller said he is glad the applicants are maintaining the stream area. The Chair asked Mr. Lundstrom to indicate which trees are proposed for removal. Mr. Lundstrom showed the trees on the plan and explained that they would not survive excavation. Ms. Pekarek asked Ms. Oren to indicate the location of the equipment on the map. Ms. Oren showed the proposed location of the equipment. Mr. Porosoff asked how the fill will affect the water flow on the property. Ms. Oren said she does not think the fill will affect water flow. Ms. Pekarek asked if there is a CULTEC system. Ms. Oren said yes. Mr. Goessl said the property does not have a CULTEC system but a closed-pipe detention system. Planning Board March 24 , 2021 37 Mr. Goessl asked where the rocks for the wall are coming from. Ms. Oren said they will be imported. Mr. Goessl asked how the buried stormwater system will be protected during construction. Ms. Oren said they can put special mats underneath the wheels. She said, if they are worried about the pipes, they would have to create a narrow path very close to the house. Mr. Goessl asked how many feet there are between the wall and the house. Ms. Oren said about 20ft. Mr. Goessl asked how the stream will be protected during planting. Ms. Oren said that Mr. Senor has not yet prepared the plan. Tod Cooperman, 6 Richbell Close, spoke. He said they own parts of the wetlands. He said he feels as though his concerns have not been addressed. He thinks that the pool is too close to the wetlands. He said the development would negatively impact the natural area. He said the Lambergs removed over 40 trees. He said the Board should reject proposals to plant unnatural flora. Jeff Kline, 8 Richbell Close, spoke. He said he appreciates that the fence is being removed from the plan. He asked that everyone follow the rules regarding the wetland. He said it is a very quiet street and is not dangerous. There have been 8 months of consecutive construction on the street, and the cars photographed on Richbell Close were mostly related to this project. He asked what assurances there are that the fence will not be revisited without the protection of the wetlands Planning Board. Ms. Oren said that she understands that there is a sense of loss for people who live next to what they feel is a public park, but it is a private property, and the Lambergs are entitled to do what they like if they are following the requirements. She said they are consulting Beth Evans, and they will continue to be careful about how they do the project. The Chair asked staff to address Mr. Kline ' s question about what would happen if the fence issue were later reintroduced. Mr. Cutler said the Board could add a condition about the fence in their approval. Mr. Pozin said the applicants could add a note on the plan stating that there would be no fence involved. Ms. Oren said she sent a letter to the Board stating the fence was withdrawn, and she will reissue a drawing without the fence. She said that they would not be able to build a fence without coming before the Planning Board again. Mr. Lamberg said he has had people dumping materials on the property. His wife has privacy concerns. An application has been made with a screening of plants that are natural to the Scarsdale wetlands. He said that he hopes that creating a natural barrier will address their concerns. He is not committing to never apply for a fence, and they reserve the right to ask the Board for permission to build a fence, but they hope it will not be necessary. He said the withdrawal of the fence request was put in writing. Mr. Porosoff asked for the maximum height of the wall on the stream side. Mr. Lamberg said five ft. Ms. Pekarek asked if some of the plantings in front of the stream are not on the Lambergs' property line. Mr. Lamberg said his property line does not go all the way to the Plann ing Board Mar ch 2 4, 2021 38 edge of the street, but all the proposed plantings are within their property. Mr. Cutler said he missed the letter that came in that day, but he has just uploaded to the Dropbox. Mr. Goessl asked if there are any proposed tree removals by the watercourse. Ms. Oren said no removals are being proposed, and she will protect all the existing trees. She said the pool is the only reason they are removing two trees by the wall, and they will replace them with two healthy oaks. No other members of the Board desired to speak, and with no comment from the audience, the Chair ended the discussion of this application. ****** CASE #6 OF 2018 3. The hearing on the application of 80 Garden Road LLC, Woodland Road LLC and 2156 2nd Avenue LLC for a nine lot subdivision with eight new houses, pursuant to Chapter 77 of the Village Code, at 80, 88 and 90 Garden Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 16, Blk. 1, Lot 8A, Sec. 16, Blk. 4, Lots 3A and 1 will be held over to the next meeting at the request of the applicant. No other members of the Board desired to speak, and with no comment from the audience, the Chair ended the discussion of this application. ****** CASE #8 OF 2021 4. The Chair declared the hearing open on the application of Westchester Reform Temple, for site plan approval to construct a playground at 255 Mamaroneck Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 19 Blk. 3 Lot 2Al. Eli Kornreich, Applicant, spoke. Mr. Kornreich said the Temple has an existing playground for their preschool, and they are proposing an additional playground next to it. There is an area with grass and trees. He said they are planning on keeping the trees undisturbed and incorporating them into the new playground. They are looking to add a short fence that matches the fence of the existing playground. There is minimal change in lot coverage. Mr. Miller asked if the playground is going to be closer to the elbow of the building and not further out towards the open space. Mr. Kornreich said yes, it would be inside the nook of the building, and he showed the proposed location on the map. Ms. Pekarek asked for more information on who will be using the playground. Mr. Kornreich said the temple has a preschool that runs Monday through Friday from 9 am to 1:30 pm or 2:30pm depending on the day. They typically have one classroom of children on the existing playground and one classroom on the existing grass where the playground is Planning Bo ard March 24, 20 2 1 39 proposed. There have been more children outside because of COVID. The playground would not change the number of children outside or the time of use. Ms. Pekarek asked if they would add equipment. Mr. Kornreich said they are adding equipment, which is outlined on the plan, and a woodchip fiber surface to allow for drainage. He said they are just exchanging a grassy area with a woodchip area with some additional play structures. Ms. Pekarek asked ifthey have school when they have services. Mr. Korneich said they do not have preschool during services, and the fence is there in part to deter people from using the playground without supervision. Ms. Pekarek asked if the playground would be used outside of preschool hours, and Mr. Kornreich said no. The Chair said when he was there, there was a tricycle track laid out on the pathway. He asked if it is a temporary structure. Mr. Kornreich said it is temporary and has been introduced during COVID. Mr. Goessl asked ifthere is an existing stormwater management system on the property. Mr. Kornreich shared his screen and indicated the location of the stormwater management system on a map. Dara Gruenberg, 24 Hampton Road, spoke. Ms. Gruenberg said part of the reason for constructing the second playground is to provide a space for children with learning differences to play. The Chair said there was an anonymous letter in the record. He asked staff what weight they should give to an anonymous letter. Ms. Pozin said typically commenters give their name and address. He said it is up to the Board, but personally he is inclined not to entertain the letter. Mr. Porosoff asked how long the school has been in operation. Mr. Kornreich said he is not sure, but he knows the Temple was started in 1953, and the preschool was started shortly after. No other members of the Board desired to speak, and with no comment from the audience, the Chair ended the discussion of this application. ****** CASE #7 OF 2021 5. The Chair declared the hearing open on the application of New Cingular Wireless PCS LLC d/b/a AT&T to renew the Special Use Permit to continue to operate a wireless telecommunications facility, pursuant to Chapter 310-80 of the Village Code on the Village owned smokestack at 0 Freightway, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 1, Blk. 6, Lot 3A. Planning Board March 24, 20 21 40 Alec Gladd, Attorney, was present. Mr. Gladd said they are seeking a 5-year renewal of AT&T's existing special use permit to maintain a wireless facility on the Village parking garage on Freightway Road. The facility has antenna on the roof of the garage and is screened to match the building's fa<;:ade. This site has been in operation for over 15 years. He said they are seeking their third Special Use Permit renewal. They believe they meet the requirements for renewal. Mr. Porosoff said that there are warning signs about radiation on the doorway exiting to the top deck of the roof. He saw warnings on the stairway side of the door but not the outdoor parking side. He asked what the warning sign is advising people to do and why is it only on the inner doorway. Mr. Gladd said the warning signs are generally required. Mr. Porosoff said the signs say they may exceed the government requirements. Mr. Gladd said he is not familiar with the signs, but they submitted an RF report that the facility does not exceed the permissible exposure limits as set by the FCC. Mr. Porosoff said he would like to understand the purpose of the sign. Mr. Gladd said he will follow up and asked if the signs were on the Southwestern side. Mr. Porosoff said yes. Mr. Pozin said the Village had been in discussions with AT&T for a while, and he reached out to the Village's consultants on the telecommunication services. He said there was some concern from parts of the Village that these facilities may suddenly become used for 50. He said he will reach out to the consultant and get back to the Board. Mr. Gladd said he is not involved with the lease negotiation as that is handled by AT&T in house. Mr. Pozin asked if the equipment is part of Mr. Gladd's application. Mr. Gladd said yes. Mr. Pozin said they sent the plans to the consultant, and through his conversations with council, he understands that AT&T is able to use 50 based on the equipment they already have. Mr. Goessl said the lease agreement appears to expire in April. He asked what would happen if this Board granted an approval and the lease has expired. Mr. Pozin said the applicant will need both approvals in place. The Chair asked if the application is complete. Mr. Cutler said to his knowledge, yes. Mr. Cutler said he had not heard back from the fire inspector, but he heard back from DPW that they have no comments. No other members of the Board desired to speak, and with no comment from the audience, the Chair ended the discussion of this application. ****** CASE #19 OF 2019 6. The Chair declared the hearing open on the request from 26 Overhill Property LLC for the third extension of time to file the Subdivision plat approved by the Planning Board on December 18, 20 19 for this two lot subdivision, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 1, Planning Board March 24 , 2021 41 Blk. 2, Lot 3. No one associated with the application was present. Mr. Cutler said the request would be for the third and fourth extension because it is so far past the time they should have made the request that they would require at least two extensions, as the request would have expired March 14. The Chair asked if they had any materials from the applicant other than one email. Mr. Cutler said they had nothing else in writing, but he had spoken to the applicant that day, who indicated they would expect to demolish and fini sh the subdivision by the end of July, so it might require another extension if the Board was inclined. The Chair said that the initial request was approved in December 2019, and they have not been given any explanation as to why the applicant is requesting these extensions. He asked if holding the application over to the next meeting would prejudice the applicant or subdivision process. Mr. Pozin said he does not think the timing is an issue. The Chair said that if the Board decides they want an explanation, it would not be prejudicial to the applicant to hold this over to the next meeting. Mr. Porosoff asked ifthere is any downside to granting the extension. Mr. Pozin said no other than potential aesthetic issues in delaying the project if it is an empty lot. Mr. Cutler said that until the applicant demolishes the house, it would be non-conforming, so they cannot file the plat until the house is demolished. No other members of the Board desired to speak, and with no comment from the audience, the Chair ended the discussion of this application. ****** CASE # 1 OF 2021 7. The Chair declared the hearing open on the request from the Village Board of Trustees, pursuant to Chapter 77 of the Village Code, for review and recommendation on the proposed amendments of Chapters 77, 251 and 310 of the Village Code to implement the recommendations of the Bulk Review Committee Report. Ms. Pekarek said she reviewed the memo, and she does not agree with all the comments in the draft. She does not think Board agreed that reducing the height requirement to 32 ft. would not address the perception of bulkiness. She said she wants clarification on recommendation number 3. She said she does not think there was a consensus on the appropriateness of contextual zoning. Ms. Pekarek said she does not think they should reach a decision tonight because Mr. Foley is absent. She read the definition of bulk written in the July 191h report and said she believes bulk has been adequately defined. Mr. Porosoff said he was one of the most vocal proponents for contextual zoning because it asks the questions "how does the house compare to its surroundings" rather than "how is the house designed unto itself." He said contextual zoning may not be a good solution Plann i ng Board Ma r c h 24, 202 1 42 because it is too expensive, but he does not think they should implement an improper solution because the proper solution is too expensive. Ms. Pekarek asked how one zones for context. Mr. Porosoff said one compares houses to the surroundings. Mr. Cutler said the Scarsdale code already includes some contextual zoning elements, particularly related to the front yard setback requirements. Appropriate setbacks can be calculated by averaging the setbacks of the adjacent properties, which leads to consistency along the street. He said this is particularly helpful in smaller lot areas. Mr. Cutler said one way to approach the question is to define averages within the same side of the street, which could also be applied to height and other elements. He said contextual zoning is different than form-based zoning, which is expensive and requires significantly more research. The Chair asked if other villages in the county use some form of contextual zoning. Mr. Cutler said contextual zoning relating to front yard setbacks is common. He does not know if any nearby villages use contextual zoning for height. The Chair asked if setback and height is just one example of contextual zoning. Mr. Porosoff said that applying contextual zoning to height does not sound complicated. Ms. Pekarek said to her understanding, the study aims to implement incremental change in the near term. Mr. Cutler said that Village of Larchmont uses a height-setback ratio, and the City of Rye uses FAR reductions on lots that are larger than the lot size defined by the zoning district. Mr. Cutler said he would argue that use of scaled FAR by Scarsdale is contextual zoning. Mr. Miller said the municipal zoning survey has multiple snapshots of what surrounding villages do. He said he thinks there are holes in Scarsdale's zoning code that can be filled over time. The Chair said he thinks they can address the issues discussed tonight with some re- wording of the general comments and include language about the committee' s incremental approach. They could also specify that they propose certain elements of contextual zoning rather than an entirely contextual approach. He said the report did show an increase of non- conformities resulting from the proposed changes. He agreed that it would be beneficial to have Mr. Foley's input if there is sufficient time. Ms. Pekarek said she thinks the Board should take as much time as they need. She suggested that the memo be formatted to first address the recommendations in the report and then suggest additional measures. The Chair asked if the Board could re-draft the report and bring it back in April. Mr. Cutler said that would be acceptable, and he thinks it would be helpful to have Mr. Foley provide input. Jeffrey Watiker, 8 Wynmor Road, spoke. He said he could probably answer Ms. Pekarek's questions about the third recommendation. He said the code stipulates that if people Pl anning Bo ard March 24 , 2021 43 want to build an addition to an old house, they must build the addition in the back. He said there are cases in which building an addition in a different location would be preferable, and the third recommendation would allow this. He said it could also prevent people from tearing down homes and building new ones because under the existing code, people may not be permitted to build an addition to an old house but would be permitted to build a new house with the same design. Mr. Watiker said that by reducing the side yard setback bonus, additions located on the side of the house would need to be smaller. He said that there is a perception that the recommendations are baby steps, but reducing the height requirement by three feet and reducing the average size of houses by 500 ft. is significant. He said that conducting additional studies would likely postpone the project by years. He said he thinks the Board should pass the recommendations as packaged with a comment at the end that there are other measures that could be implemented after the recommendations are adopted. He said that there are conflicting comments in the memo. Ms. Pekarek asked Mr. Watiker to specify what the Bulk Review Committee meant by bulk. Mr. Watiker said that the FAR requirement was implemented 15 years ago when people became concerned about "mini-mansions." The FAR requirement has mostly addressed the "mini-mansion" problem. Now, people are building houses that max out the FAR requirement, which is changing the character of the Village. These recommendations are intended to combat that issue by slightly decreasing the maximum house size. He said he does not recommend implementing full-fledged contextual zoning, and contextual zoning could permit people to build larger houses if the surrounding houses are larger. Mr. Porosoffasked Mr. Watiker to explain the charge ofthe Bulk Review Committee. Mr. Watiker said they started with the recommendations, and the charge was made to fit around the recommendations. Mr. Porosoff said he thinks there is a disconnect between the objectives and the recommendations. Mr. Watiker asked Ms. Pekarek if she was at the Board at the time the Bulk Review Committee was formed. Ms. Pekarek said she was on the Board when they began conversations about how to improve land use code, but she left in April2018. Mr. Cutler asked that the Board send him individual comments to revise the memo. Mr. Porosoff asked if the recommendations are about bulk or about generally improving zoning recommendations. The Chair said that if this is a package they would generally support, even if they have additional recommendations, they should not throw out the recommendations. Ms. Pekarek agreed. No other members of the Board desired to speak, and with no comment from the audience, the Chair ended the discussion of this application. ****** Planning Board March 2 4, 202 1 44 CASE #2 OF 2021 1. 125 Cushman LLC 125 Cushman Road Sec. 16, Blk. 4, Lot 6A1 Application for wetland permit approval The Board considered the application of 125 Cushman LLC to construct a pool within the wetland controlled area at 125 Cushman Road, and, upon motion duly made and seconded, unanimously adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS: The Board has considered the subject application pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act and Chapter 152 ofthe Village Code; now therefore be it RESOLVED: That after careful examination ofthe site and evaluation of the information submitted with the application, the Board determined that such application, the construction of minor accessory structures (such as driveways, fences or pools) in a freshwater wetlands controlled area is an unlisted action pursuant to Chapter 152-7 of Village Code and the Planning Board is also an involved agency as the applicant will need a Wetland Permit and, pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617 .6(b)(4) the Uncoordinated Review of an Unlisted Action, further determined at the February 24, 2021 meeting that the proposed action will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment; and WHEREAS: The property, located in the A-2 (20,000 sq. ft. ) zoning district, is shown in the Assessor's records as .57 acres; and WHEREAS: A new home was approved by the Board of Architectural Review on September 14, 2020 and is presently under construction; and WHEREAS: Chapter 171 ofthe Village Code authorizes the Planning Board to consider applications for wetlands permits; and WHEREAS: the applicant adequately addressed the review criteria outlined in Chapter 171- 7 of Village Code; and WHEREAS: The applicant received Special Use Permit approval from the Board of Appeals on January 13, 2021 to construct a swimming pool; and WHEREAS: The Board members have visited the site and are familiar with the materials in the application; and now therefore be it RESOLVED: that the application 125 Cushman LLC to construct a pool within the wetland controlled area at 125 Cushman Road as shown on the Planting Plan dated revised March 14, 2021, be approved. Pl anning Bo a r d March 24, 2021 45 CASE #4 OF 2021 2. Joshua and Cara Lamberg 4 Bethel Road Sec. 14, Blk. 5, Lot 21 Application for wetland permit approval The Board considered the application of Joshua and Cara Lamberg to construct a pool within the wetland controlled area at 4 Bethel Road, and, upon motion duly made and seconded, held the item over to the April 28,2021 Planning Board meeting pending receipt and review of the following: 1. Submission of plans with adequate time for Planning Board review. 2. Provision of an elevation drawing that portrays the view of the proposed project from Richbell Close. 3. Additional wetlands analysis that reviews the proposed plantings within the buffer, including review of the potential impacts of excavation associated with the new plantings. 4. Additional information regarding sediment and erosion control during the construction process. 5. Additional information regarding the stormwater system. 6. Additional information regarding the protection of the stormwater system during the construction process. Planning Boa r d Ma rch 24 , 20 21 46 CASE #6 OF 2018 3. 80 Garden Road LLC, Woodland Road LLC and 2156 2nd Avenue LLC 80, 88, and 90 Garden Road Sec. 16, Blk. 1, Lot 8A, Sec. 16, Blk. 4, Lots 3A and 1. Subdivision-9 Lot Subdivision with 8 new houses. The Board considered the application of 80 Garden Road LLC, Woodland Road LLC and 2156 2nd Avenue LLC, case #6 of 2018, for a nine-lot subdivision with eight new houses, pursuant to Chapter 77 of the Village Code, at 80, 88, and 90 Garden Road and, upon motion duly made and seconded, adjourned the item to the April 28, 2021 Planning Board meeting at the request of the applicant. Planning Board March 24 , 2021 47 CASE #7 OF 2021 4. New Cingular Wireless PCS LLC 0 Freightway Sec. 1, Blk. 6, Lot 3A Application for Renewal of Special Use Permit The Board considered the application of New Cingular Wireless PCS LLC to renew a Special Use Permit for a wireless facility at 0 Freightway, and, upon motion duly made and seconded, held the item over to the April 28, 2021 Planning Board meeting pending receipt and review of the following: 1. Information regarding the signage located at the site. Planni n g Boa rd March 24 , 20 2 1 48 CASE #8 OF 2021 5. Westchester Reform Temple 255 Mamaroneck Avenue Sec. 19, Blk. 3, Lot 2A1 Application for site plan approval The Board considered the application of Westchester Reform Temple for site plan approval to construct a playground at 255 Mamaroneck A venue, and, upon motion duly made and seconded, unanimously adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS: The Board has considered the subject application pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act and Chapter 152 of the Village Code; now therefore be it RESOLVED: that after careful examination ofthe site and evaluation ofthe information submitted on the plans and on the Short Environmental Assessment Form, the Board determined that such application, the construction or expansion of a non-residential structure or facility involving less than 4,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area and not involving a change in zoning or a use variance is a Type II action pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617.5(c) (9) and no further environmental review is required pursuant to these regulations; and WHEREAS: The property, located in the A-2 (20,000 sq. ft.) zoning district, is shown in the Assessor's records as 8.53 acres and 371 ,288 sq. ft. on the lot coverage form; and WHEREAS: Chapter 251 of the Village Code authorizes the Planning Board to conduct Site Plan review of non-residential buildings; and WHEREAS: Chapter 310-7(D) of the Village Code states that places of worship are permitted uses in the Residence A zoning district as are schools associated with the place of worship; and WHEREAS: The Board members have visited the site and are familiar with the materials in the application; and now therefore be it RESOLVED: that the application of Westchester Reform Temple for site plan approval to construct a playground at 255 Mamaroneck Avenue as demonstrated in the Planning Board Application as updated through February 26, 2021, be approved. Planning Board March 24 , 2021 49 CASE #19 OF 2019 6. 26 Overhill Property LLC 26 Overhill Road Sec. 1, Blk. 2, Lot 3 Third and Fourth extensions of time to file the Subdivision plat The Board considered the request from 26 Overhill Property LLC for the third and fourth extensions of time to file the Subdivision plat approved by the Planning Board on December 18, 2019 for this two lot subdivision at 26 Overhill Road and, upon motion duly made and seconded, held the item over to the April 28, 2021 Planning Board meeting pending receipt and review of the following: 1. Information explaining the need for the requested extensions. Plann ing Board March 24 , 2021 so CASE #1 OF 2021 7. Referral from Board ofTrustees Regarding Proposed Amendments to Chapters 77, 25 1 and 31 0 of the Village of Scarsdale Code. The Board considered the proposed local law, and, upon motion duly made and seconded, held the item over to a future meeting to provide additional time to prepare a recommendation memo to the Board of Trustees. *** *** The Chair announced that the next meeting of the Planning Board would be held on Wednesday, April 28 at 7:00p.m. ****** The meeting was adjourned at 12:00 a.m. *** *** / \ J\J'L Rosy Doud Assistant to the Village Planner