Zoning Board of Appeals

Board of Appeals 12/7/16 209 BOARD OF APPEALS RUTHERFORD HALL VILLAGE HALL SCARSDALE, NY December 7, 2016 A regular meeting of the Board of Appeals of the Village of Scarsdale was held in Rutherford Hall in Village Hall on Wednesday, December 7, 2016, at 8:00 p.m. Those members present were Jeffrey Watiker, Chair, Justin Arest, Marylou Green and Mary Kaye Koch. Also present were Counsel Richard Gardella, Building Inspector Frank Diodati, Village Planner Elizabeth Marrinan and Assistant to the Village Planner Cameron McLeod. ****** The Chair said please allow me to take a few moments of your time to explain the Board's procedures. We hear each application in the order in which it is noticed -- we hear first from the applicant and then from any persons speaking in favor of or in opposition to the application. After all of the evening's hearings, the Board will deliberate. Deliberations are open to the public. You are free to leave at the conclusion of your hearing or to stay for the deliberations. Some applicants choose to leave once their hearings have been concluded, while others choose to remain here. Should you decide to leave before the Board's deliberations you may obtain the Board's decision by calling Elizabeth Marrinan at Village Hall tomorrow at 722-1132. Also, tomorrow the decisions will be posted on the web at www.scarsdale.com under Planning. Whether you stay or go has no bearing on the Board's deliberations or decision. At the conclusion of deliberations on each application, the Board attempts to reach a consensus. For an application to be granted, at least three of the Board's five members must vote in favor of that application. The Board's decision is memorialized in a written resolution. The resolutions are filed at Village Hall and are available to the public. This evening we have only four members of the Board in attendance. An application requires three positive votes to pass, however if you wish, therefore, to postpone your hearing until the next meeting of the Board, you may do so. ****** The Chair noted that the agenda would be rearranged in order to accommodate an applicant. Item number two was heard first, followed by item one, three and four.  Board of Appeals 12/7/16 210 The reading of the following legal notice was waived pursuant to a continuing resolution adopted by unanimous vote of the Board. LEGAL NOTICE PUBLIC HEARING BOARD OF APPEALS VILLAGE OF SCARSDALE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held by the Board of Appeals of the Village of Scarsdale in the Rutherford Hall in Village Hall, 1001 Post Road, Scarsdale NY 10583, on Wednesday, December 7, 2016, at 8:00 p.m. at which time and place the Board of Appeals will consider the following: 1. The application of 26 Hampton Road LLC, as contract vendee, for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 26 Hampton Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 4, Blk. 4, Lot 517. 2. The application of Dove’s Nest IV, LLC for a variance from Chapter 310-47(C) of the Village Code, a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool within the front yard and a variance from Chapter 158-6 of the Village Code to construct stone walls which would exceed the maximum permitted height at 5 Sherbrooke Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 13, Blk. 3, Lot 3. 3. The application of Clark Gettinger for an amendment to the Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to legalize the pool enclosure fencing at 50 Sheldrake Road identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 17, Blk. 1, Lot 102. 4. The application of Julian Wise and Gabrielle Reiffel for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 9 Mayflower Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 23, Blk. 2, Lot 46. Copies of the above applications are on file in the Coordinating Office at Village Hall and may be viewed by interested parties at any time during usual business hours. To receive meeting agendas by e-mail, visit www.scarsdale.com and click on “Notify Me” to subscribe. By Order of the Board of Appeals, Scarsdale, New York, dated November 22, 2016. Elizabeth Marrinan, AICP, Village Planner ****** CASE # 31 of 2016 1. The Chair declared the hearing open on the application of 26 Hampton Road LLC, as contract vendee, for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 26 Hampton Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 4, Blk. 4, Lot 517.  Board of Appeals 12/7/16 211 Geoff Ringler, architect, was present. Mr. Ringler said that the Board’s concerns regarding the application have been resolved. The site plan now identifies the height of the proposed screening and additional screening has been added around the pool, which will consist of Norway spruce, hydrangea, and rhododendron. Also, the height of the top and bottom of the proposed retaining walls has been clarified. The Chair asked if the boxwoods that will be used for pool equipment screening are five foot high. Mr. Ringler said yes. Ms. Green asked if the rhododendron in the center of the rear yard will be removed. Mr. Ringler said no, the existing landscaping that acts as screening for the pool will be retained, and additional landscaping will be added. He said that some of the existing landscaping may need to be removed in order to achieve the proposed grading. Ms. Green asked if the separate lawn space in the rear of the property will be retained. Mr. Ringler said yes. Mr. Arest said that there is a patch of landscaping behind the proposed pool location which seems as if it will have to be removed. Mr. Ringler said yes. Mr. Arest asked whether the screening for the rear of the pool will only be the proposed planting. Mr. Ringler said no, that there is also significant screening provided by the existing vegetation at the rear of the property. The Chair asked if there was anyone who wished to be heard with respect to this application, either in favor or in opposition. No persons desiring to be heard, the Chair declared the hearing closed. ****** CASE #42 OF 2016 2. The Chair declared the hearing open on the application of Dove’s Nest IV, LLC for a variance from Chapter 310-47(C) of the Village Code, a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool within the front yard and a variance from Chapter 158-6 of the Village Code to construct stone walls which would exceed the maximum permitted height at 5 Sherbrooke Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 13, Blk. 3, Lot 3. Lucia Chiocchio, attorney, Eric Groft, landscape architect, Lili Herrera, landscape architect, Diego Villareale. Ms. Chiocchio described the application. She said the application is driven by the unusual layout of the site, which means the front of the house from a practical and design perspective is classified as the rear of the house by the Village Code. The applicant requests  Board of Appeals 12/7/16 212 an amendment to the Special Use Permit to relocate the pool from the rear yard, to the front yard, to better align with the existing design of the building. The pool will be located between two existing cottage structures, with an adjoining outdoor patio area. Ms. Chiocchio said that the current location of the pool is approximately 43 feet from the neighbor to the north at 7 Birch Lane. After the pool was installed, a new house was built at 9 Birch Lane. Relocating the pool would provide more privacy for both the applicant and the occupant of 9 Birch Lane. Ms. Chiocchio said that the relocation of the pool will not result in any additional impacts, as there will be no change in stormwater, site coverage or wetlands impacts. The proposal has been designed in order to protect the existing landscaping. Ms. Chiocchio said that the proposed stone walls vary in height from six and a half feet to 12 feet. They are designed to create an outdoor living area, and will offer the type of privacy that you would normally have in a rear yard. She said that the stone walls will also help to mitigate noise from Sherbrooke and Heathcote Roads. Ms. Chiocchio said that the stone walls will not be a detriment to nearby properties or the character of the neighborhood. The topography of the site, existing vegetation, and the distance it will be set back mean the wall will not be visible from Sherbrooke Road. Mr. Groft described the landscape design of the application. He said that the application intends to create private garden space, which the site currently lacks. The plan also includes numerous fountains, to act as both design features and as a source of white noise, to muffle traffic noise from Sherbrooke Road and Heathcote Road. The walls will contain the sightline from within the house, provide visual interest and will match the façade of the house, constructed of materials characteristic of the Scarsdale area. Mr. Groft said that additional evergreens will be planted along the boundary line with Sherbrooke Road to supplement the existing landscaping, which will ensure screening during winter. The screening closer to the house will also be supplemented. The Chair asked Ms. Marrinan to explain the Village regulations regarding walls and fences in front yards. Ms. Marrinan said that solid walls are allowed to be four feet high in the front yard, with a one foot ‘topper’, which must be at least 75% open. The Chair said he is concerned about the wall heights, which are extraordinary for a front yard. He said he would like more information about what the need is for a wall of that height and what the appearance from the street would be. He said that based on his site visit it appeared that the walls would be visible from Sherbrooke Road during the wintertime, but noted that the applicant had said they would enhance the screening with evergreens. The Chair referred to the criteria regarding whether the benefit sought can be achieved by some other feasible method. He said the shorter walls with landscaping might achieve the same result.  Board of Appeals 12/7/16 213 Mr. Arest agreed with the Chair. He said that he recognizes the relocation of the pool is not self-created, but is due to the layout of the site. However, in seeking the relocation, the applicant is also asking that the board grant a substantial variance for the wall, which is therefore self-created. Mr. Groft said there will be extensive planting along and on the walls. The Chair asked whether the applicant had submitted a landscape plan. Mr. Groft said that no actual landscape plan had been submitted, but that a planting palette had been submitted, which identified the range of plants the landscaping would consist of. Mr. Groft said the height of the wall offers privacy for the house occupants. They also act as retaining walls for the proposed terraces, which are approximately three feet high. Ms. Green asked whether the landscaping and fencing would comply with the screening and fencing requirements without the proposed walls. Mr. Groft said that partial sections of the proposed walls will be used as pool fencing. As for the landscaping, Mr. Groft said that is the intention, but they do not currently have a landscaping plan. Mr. Villareale said that the existing pool is compliant with all requirements. The screening installed for this pool is around the exterior of the property, and would therefore also screen the proposed pool as required. Ms. Marrinan said that the screening along Sherbrooke Road may need enhancement in order to screen the proposed pool, as the existing pool is not visible from that angle. Ms. Green asked which sections of the pool enclosure are walls. Mr. Groft said the sections parallel to the house and Sherbrooke Road are walls. Ms. Green asked where access to the pool enclosure would be located and whether the gates are self-closing. Mr. Groft said there will be a total of six self-closing gates. The main entrances will be on the section of wall closest to the house, and also on the section of fence farthest away from the house, in order to provide access to a gym in the former spring house. Mr. Diodati said that the legend shows the maximum top of wall height as 12 feet, whereas the plan shows 10 feet. Ms. Herrera said that the wall has to follow the natural grade in an attempt to preserve existing large trees. This means the outside face of the wall is 12 feet in small sections. The Chair asked if the wall is required for other reasons, as well as aesthetics, privacy and noise reduction. Mr. Groft said they create microclimates, allowing for greater plant diversity. The Chair said that due to the size of the property, and the intention to install white noise generators, he does not think the board would normally approve a request for the wall as large as proposed for noise reduction. He asked whether there were other necessitating factors. Ms. Chiocchio said that it is intended to dampen noise from Heathcote Road as well, which is a busy road. The Chair agreed that Heathcote Road is busy, particularly around peak traffic times.  Board of Appeals 12/7/16 214 The Chair asked if there was anyone who wished to be heard with respect to this application, either in favor or in opposition. No persons desiring to be heard, the Chair declared the hearing closed. ****** CASE #43 OF 2016 3. The Chair declared the hearing open on the application of Clark Gettinger for an amendment to the Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to legalize the pool enclosure fencing at 50 Sheldrake Road identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 17, Blk. 1, Lot 102. Frank Giuliano, architect and Clark Gettinger, owner, were present. Mr. Giuliano described the application. Mr. Giuliano said that the existing pool was recently approved as a replacement for an old pool, which was non-compliant. He said that the applicant had originally intended to rely on the existing pool fence as the enclosure for the new pool. However, following construction of the new pool, grading and drainage work, the fence was removed. The applicant consequently installed a new code compliant Jerith aluminum fence around the property perimeter, and is now seeking an amendment to the Special Use Permit to reflect this, in order to legalize the fence. Mr. Giuliano said that more landscaping is proposed to be added in addition to what was approved for the new pool, which had now been planted. Mr. Gettinger requested that the board approve the application based on the existing landscaping, without the additional proposed landscaping. He said that as the existing landscaping had only recently been planted, it had not had the opportunity to mature. The Chair said that based on his site visit, it appeared that the existing landscaping was inadequate. Mr. Arest and Mr. Diodati agreed, saying there were multiple sections of insufficient screening. The Chair said that the applicant is welcome to amend the application to remove the proposed screening, but that he felt the application would then not be approved. Mr. Gettinger rescinded his request. The Chair asked if there was anyone who wished to be heard with respect to this application, either in favor or in opposition. No persons desiring to be heard, the Chair declared the hearing closed. ****** CASE #44 OF 2016  Board of Appeals 12/7/16 215 4. The Chair declared the hearing open on the application of Julian Wise and Gabrielle Reiffel for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 9 Mayflower Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 23, Blk. 2, Lot 46. Gregory McWilliams, architect, was present. Mr. McWilliams described the application. He said the landscaping is already significant, and that Colorado spruce and green giant arborvitae will be added where the screening is insufficient. The existing wooden deck will be removed, and replaced with an at grade blue stone patio as pool coping. The application complies with all setback requirements. Mr. McWilliams said an existing generator will be relocated. The Chair said that the generator will need to be addressed as part of a separate building permit. The Chair asked if there was anyone who wished to be heard with respect to this application, either in favor or in opposition. No persons desiring to be heard, the Chair declared the hearing closed. ******  Board of Appeals 12/7/16 216 CASE #31 OF 2016 1. 26 Hampton Road LLC 26 Hampton Road Sec. 4, Blk. 4 Lot 517. Special Use Permit to construct a swimming pool The Board considered the application of 26 Hampton Road LLC, Case #31 of 2016 and, upon motion duly made and seconded, with Ms. Green, Ms. Koch and Mr. Watiker in favor, Mr. Arest abstaining, 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 of the 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), is a Type II action pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617.5 (c) (10) and no further environmental review is required pursuant to said regulations; and WHEREAS: The property, located in the A-2 (20,000 sq. ft.) zoning district, is shown in the Assessor’s records as 23,595 sq. ft. and is improved with a house built in 1934; and WHEREAS: Chapter 310-88(A) of the Village Code authorizes the Board of Appeals to consider Special Use Permits for the construction of swimming pools; and WHEREAS: The plans show the proposed construction of the swimming pool and associated patio, landscaping, retaining walls and fencing; and WHEREAS: The location of the proposed pool and pool equipment appear to meet the setback requirements; and WHEREAS: The Board considered the application at its July 20, 2016 meeting and held the matter over pending receipt and review of revised plans; and WHEREAS: The applicant revised the plans and provided additional information regarding the proposed landscaping, retaining walls and re-grading which the Board discussed at its October 5, 2016 meeting and held the application over for further clarification; and WHEREAS: The applicant revised the plans and provided additional clarification; and WHEREAS: The Board members have visited the site and are familiar with the materials in the application; now therefore be it  Board of Appeals 12/7/16 217 RESOLVED: That the application of 26 Hampton Road LLC for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 26 Hampton Road as shown on Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan dated revised November 3, 2016, be approved based on the following findings and conditions: 1. The proposed swimming pool is consistent with the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community. 2. There shall be installed and maintained on the lot upon which the pool is located, and completely enclosing the pool, a fence or wall not less than 5 feet in height, with all gates and doors equipped with self-closing and self- latching devices designed to keep and capable of keeping such gates and doors securely closed at all times when not in actual use. The fence shall be constructed as represented to the Board at the meeting and on the approved plans. The fencing detail shall be provided with the application for a building permit. 3. Evergreen screening shall be planted as represented on the plans but in any event, at a minimum of 5 feet in height, and spaced so as to completely screen the pool from the view of all persons occupying adjoining properties and from the street, subject to the approval of the Building Inspector, and the applicant shall assure that these features be installed and maintained on the applicant's property as long as said pool is in existence. 4. A 24-hour filter circulating system shall be installed and maintained above ground, and said filter (and heater, if any) shall be enclosed with a fence 5 feet in height with a self-closing and self-latching gate and landscaped screening. 5. Lighting of the pool and adjacent premises shall be limited to underwater lighting. 6. Drainage and sanitary facilities, conforming to the requirements of the Scarsdale Village Code, shall be installed and maintained. Measures must be taken to insure that water containing chemicals, such as acids or detergents resulting from lowering the water level of the pool or from pool cleaning, will be pumped directly into the sanitary sewer system, and not drained onto any land or into any stream or storm drain. 7. The use of the swimming pool shall be limited to the occupants of the principal building and their guests. 8. No excavation or removal of additional soil or rock shall be permitted except to construct the pool and any related stormwater management Board of Appeals 12/7/16 218 facilities. 9. A Stormwater Management and Erosion Control permit is required and shall include methods and plans for tree conservation and preservation. The soil erosion control and tree protection measures shall be in place prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. A tree removal permit may be required. 10. The applicant shall submit an "as built" survey and certified lot coverage form to the Building Inspector prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, showing the final location of the pool, associated improvements, fencing and the as-built lot coverage. 11. The swimming pool shall be completed within 18 months and shall not be used prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 12. The Certificate of Occupancy shall not be issued until the applicant complies with all conditions set down by the Board. 13. Failure to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy for the swimming pool within a period of 18 months from the date of this resolution shall cause the Special Use Permit to become null and void. ******  Board of Appeals 12/7/16 219 CASE #42 OF 2016 2. Dove’s Nest IV, LLC 5 Sherbrooke Road Sec. 13, Blk. 3 Lot 3. Special Use Permit to construct a swimming pool and a variance to construct stone walls which would exceed the maximum permitted height The Board considered the application of Dove’s Nest IV, LLC, Case #42 of 2016 and, upon motion duly made and seconded, held the application over to a future meeting pending receipt and review of the following: 1. Revised plans which reduce the wall height variance request to diminish the potential for an undesirable change to character of the neighborhood. 2. Section(s) running from the street through to the house showing the wall heights and proposed landscaping. 3. Landscaping details including a plant list for the required pool screening. ******  Board of Appeals 12/7/16 220 CASE #43 OF 2016 3. Clark Gettinger 50 Sheldrake Road Sec. 17, Blk. 1 Lot 102. Amendment to the Special Use Permit to legalize the pool enclosure fencing The Board considered the application of Clark Gettinger, Case #43 of 2016 and, upon motion duly made and seconded, held the application over to a future meeting pending receipt and review of the following: 1. Revised plans which show in clearer detail how the proposed screening will satisfy the Village Code requirement that evergreen screening shall be planted at a minimum of 5 feet in height, and spaced so as to completely screen the pool from the view of all persons occupying adjoining properties and from the street. Satisfying this requirement might require that the applicant to provide additional or larger plantings, particularly on the eastern and western sides, that that go beyond what was shown in the plans submitted to the Board for its December 7, 2016 meeting. ******  Board of Appeals 12/7/16 221 CASE #44 OF 2016 4. Julian Wise and Gabrielle Reiffel 9 Mayflower Road Sec. 23, Blk. 2 Lot 46. Special Use Permit to construct a swimming pool The Board considered the application of Julian Wise and Gabrielle Reiffel, Case #44 of 2016 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 of the 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), is a Type II action pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617.5 (c) (10) and no further environmental review is required pursuant to said regulations; and WHEREAS: The property, located in the A-2 (20,000 sq. ft.) zoning district, is shown in the Assessor’s records as 20,000 sq. ft.; and WHEREAS: The original house, built in 1947, was demolished in 2005 and a new house was completed in 2006; and WHEREAS: Chapter 310-88(A) of the Village Code authorizes the Board of Appeals to consider Special Use Permits for the construction of swimming pools; and WHEREAS: The plans show the proposed construction of the swimming pool and associated patio, landscaping and fencing; and WHEREAS: The location of the proposed pool and pool equipment appear to meet the setback requirements; and WHEREAS: The Board members have visited the site and are familiar with the materials in the application; now therefore be it RESOLVED: That the application of Julian Wise and Gabrielle Reiffel for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 9 Mayflower Road as shown on the Site Plan revised November 28, 2016, be approved based on the following findings and conditions: 1. The proposed swimming pool is consistent with the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community. Board of Appeals 12/7/16 222 2. There shall be installed and maintained on the lot upon which the pool is located, and completely enclosing the pool, a fence or wall not less than 5 feet in height, with all gates and doors equipped with self-closing and self- latching devices designed to keep and capable of keeping such gates and doors securely closed at all times when not in actual use. The fence shall be constructed as represented to the Board at the meeting and on the approved plans. The fencing detail shall be provided with the application for a building permit. 3. Evergreen screening shall be planted as represented on the plans but in any event, at a minimum of 5 feet in height, and spaced so as to completely screen the pool from the view of all persons occupying adjoining properties and from the street, subject to the approval of the Building Inspector, and the applicant shall assure that these features be installed and maintained on the applicant's property as long as said pool is in existence. 4. A 24-hour filter circulating system shall be installed and maintained above ground, and said filter (and heater, if any) shall be enclosed with a fence 5 feet in height with a self-closing and self-latching gate and landscaped screening. 5. Lighting of the pool and adjacent premises shall be limited to underwater lighting. 6. Drainage and sanitary facilities, conforming to the requirements of the Scarsdale Village Code, shall be installed and maintained. Measures must be taken to insure that water containing chemicals, such as acids or detergents resulting from lowering the water level of the pool or from pool cleaning, will be pumped directly into the sanitary sewer system, and not drained onto any land or into any stream or storm drain. 7. The use of the swimming pool shall be limited to the occupants of the principal building and their guests. 8. No excavation or removal of additional soil or rock shall be permitted except to construct the pool and any related stormwater management facilities. 9. A Stormwater Management and Erosion Control permit is required and shall include methods and plans for tree conservation and preservation. The soil erosion control and tree protection measures shall be in place prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. A tree removal permit may be required. 10. The applicant shall submit an "as built" survey and certified lot coverage Board of Appeals 12/7/16 223 form to the Building Inspector prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, showing the final location of the pool, associated improvements, fencing and the as-built lot coverage. 11. The swimming pool shall be completed within 18 months and shall not be used prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 12. The Certificate of Occupancy shall not be issued until the applicant complies with all conditions set down by the Board. 13. Failure to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy for the swimming pool within a period of 18 months from the date of this resolution shall cause the Special Use Permit to become null and void. ******  Board of Appeals 12/7/16 224 Approval of the minutes of the November 9, 2016, meeting was held over, as there were not enough members present that had attended the meeting to form a quorum. ****** The Chair announced that the next meeting of the Board of Appeals would be held on Wednesday, January 11, 2016, at 8 p.m. ****** The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. ****** __________________ Cameron McLeod Secretary to the Board