Zoning Board of Appeals

Board of Appeals 4/5/17 46 BOARD OF APPEALS RUTHERFORD HALL VILLAGE HALL SCARSDALE, NY April 5, 2017 A regular meeting of the Board of Appeals of the Village of Scarsdale was held in Rutherford Hall in Village Hall on Wednesday, April 5, 2017, at 8:00 p.m. Those members present were Jeffrey Watiker, Chair, Justin Arest, Anil Ferris 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. Justin Arest was absent. ****** 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 Cameron McLeod at Village Hall tomorrow at 722-1131. Also, tomorrow the decisions will be posted on the web at www.scarsdale.com in the Agenda Center. 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. Tonight is Ms. Koch’s last evening sitting as a member of the Board of Appeals. She will be staying on as an alternate. The Chair thanked Mary Kaye for her hard work and thoughtful participation. He said she will be missed. ******  Board of Appeals 4/5/17 47 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, April 5, 2017, at 8:00 p.m. at which time and place the Board of Appeals will consider the following: 1. The application of Seth Dymond for a variance from Chapter 310-51 of the Village Code to construct an addition which would intrude into the required side yard setback 1 Corell Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 19, Blk. 1, Lot 105. 2. The application of Copper Beech Tree LLC for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 3 Sherbrooke Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 13, Blk. 3, Lot 2. 3. The application of 28 Garden LLC for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 28 Garden Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 16, Blk. 1, Lot 21A2. 4. The application of Melissa and Eric Berridge for an amendment to the Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to amend the required pool landscaping at 51 Garden Road, identified on the Village tax map as, Sec. 16, Blk. 3, Lot 1A.2. 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 March 21, 2017. Elizabeth Marrinan, AICP, Village Planner ****** CASE #7 OF 2017 1. The Chair declared the hearing open on the application of Seth Dymond for a variance from Chapter 310-51 of the Village Code to construct an addition which would intrude into the required side yard setback 1 Corell Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 19, Blk. 1, Lot 105.  Board of Appeals 4/5/17 48 Luigi Demasi, architect, Seth Dymond and Jisha Dymond were present. Mr. Demasi said the applicant proposes to extend the existing garage from a one car to two car garage and to add a mudroom for additional storage and laundry space. On the second floor, an existing closet will be expanded to create an office and music area. Mr. Demasi said the applicant selected the proposed location as the lot is a corner lot. He said this restricted potential locations, as corner lots require a front yard setback and a side on corner setback. He said that the proposed location is the least intrusive option for neighbors and the surrounding environment. The Chair asked if the applicant had considered alternative options that would comply with the zoning code. Mr. Demasi said the applicant had considered adding the mudroom to other areas of the house, but all alternative locations would have required variances. The Chair said he is concerned about the proximity to the neighboring property and the size of the variance requested. Mr. Demasi said the applicant would be happy to add additional screening to reduce the impact. Mr. Dymond said locating the mudroom to the rear of the property would impact on the functionality of the dining room. He said relocating the office to the second floor would also allow the existing office on the first floor to be used as a spare bedroom for elderly visitors. The Chair asked whether the applicant could achieve a similar outcome without requiring a variance. Mr. Dymond said the mudroom and a full two car garage would not be possible without the variance. The Chair said the applicant may be able to partially expand the garage and add a mudroom without encroaching into the setback. Mr. Demasi said the variance is necessary due to hardship resulting from the lot being a corner lot. Ms. Marrinan said corner lots are not unusual in Scarsdale, and are not automatically considered hardship lots. Mr. Dymond said the neighborhood has predominantly two car garages and therefore adding a two car garage would be in keeping with the character. Mr. Demasi said they had spoken with the neighbors at 5 Corell Road who did not object to the proposal. 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 #8 OF 2017 2. The Chair declared the hearing open on the application of Copper Beech Tree LLC for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 3 Sherbrooke Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 13, Blk. 3, Lot 2.  Board of Appeals 4/5/17 49 Diana Bunin Kolev, attorney, Rosalia Sanni, landscape architect and Mahdad Saniee, architect, were present. Ms. Bunin Kolev described the application. The applicant has cleared the site except for the existing tennis court. Ms. Bunin Kolev submitted an amended lot coverage form, as the original incorrectly identified the maximum allowable lot coverage as higher than permitted. The amendment does not affect the application. The Chair asked if a Special Use Permit is required for the existing tennis court. Ms. Diodati said no, as the applicant does not propose to move or significantly alter the court. Ms. Green asked whether the existing asphalt tennis court is included in the proposed lot coverage calculation. Ms. Marrinan said no, as the applicant proposes to reseal the court with a Har-Tru surface, which is considered pervious for lot coverage purposes. Ms. Green said they need to ensure that the current impervious court is replaced with Har-Tru. Ms. Marrinan said this will need to be verified before a building permit is issued. The Chair asked the applicant to describe the pool fence. Ms. Sanni said a five foot tall iron fence encloses the pool area and is screened by a five foot tall holly hedge that runs alongside it. The fence ties into the house, pool house and tennis court fence. The Chair asked whether the tennis court fence that will be relied on for the pool enclosure fence will meet the pool enclosure requirements. Ms. Sanni said yes. The Chair said that the pool equipment must have independent screening. The applicant said the equipment will be inside a building. Ms. Marrinan said this negates the need for screening. Mr. Diodati asked if there is a retaining wall around the enclosure. Mr. Saniee said it is not a retaining wall but a fence that then connects to the pool equipment structure, which will be 13 feet high. It mimics the structure of the pool house. Ms. Marrinan said that it should be identified on the plan that the pool equipment will be in a structure. Mr. Saniee said the engineering plan identifies that the details of the structure will be provided on the BAR application. Mr. Diodati said the engineering plan identifies a pool equipment ‘pad’ but does not provide any more information. Mr. Saniee said this will be amended. The Chair asked why the detail on the pool house was shown as a 13 foot wall. Architect said there will be a three foot retaining wall platform then the 10 foot pool house will be on top. The Chair asked for clarification as to the topography of the site and the heights of the structures. Mr. Saniee said the pool equipment structure is 10 foot high and sits on top of the three foot pool enclosure fence, therefore the structure appears to be 13 foot  Board of Appeals 4/5/17 50 high. The Chair asked how tall the tennis court fence is. The applicant said the existing fence will be repaired and retained. Ms. Marrinan said the requirement is 10 ft. Carol Parlato, the owner of 1 Sherbrooke Road, was present. Ms. Parlato said their house is orientated towards the area where the pool will be. She asked that the Board consider the impact of the noise and activity and try to reduce the impact on their property. The Chair asked whether the pool equipment will have noise insulation. The architect said the pool equipment pad will be insulated within the enclosure. The Chair noted that the pool is separated from 1 Sherbrooke Road by the pool house which should provide some additional noise insulation. Ron Parlato, the owner of 1 Sherbrooke Road, was present. Mr. Parlato said there are deed restrictions on the house that may prevent the construction of the pool it its proposed location. Mr. Gardella said that deed restrictions are not considered by the Board, but are instead enforced by the courts. The Chair said that whatever decision the Board makes tonight should not be interpreted as them giving consideration to any deed restrictions. Mr. Parlato asked why the application does not show elevations. Ms. Marrinan said that it is not a requirement of swimming pool Special Use Permit applications to submit elevations. Mr. Parlato said he is concerned about the 13 foot wall close to his property and the proposed deck. 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 #9 OF 2017 3. The Chair declared the hearing open on the application of 28 Garden LLC for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 28 Garden Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 16, Blk. 1, Lot 21A2. Dan Sherman, landscape architect and David Fenton, developer, were present. Mr. Sherman said the property is already extensively screened and is proposed to be supplemented with Skip Laurel where insufficient. The proposed enclosure fence is both metal and chain link. The pool was originally proposed to have a negative edge, as shown on the stormwater plan, to accommodate the existing contours. This has been replaced with a four foot retaining wall. The pool equipment will be housed in a vault in the surrounding patio with access via the retaining wall.  Board of Appeals 4/5/17 51 The Chair asked what the differences are between the original and revised versions of the plan. Mr. Sherman said the existing screening was labelled and the contour lines are identified. The Chair said some of the existing screening is sparse at from ground level to five feet above ground level and would be insufficient to comply with the requirements. These areas are not where supplementary screening is proposed. Mr. Sherman said they can fill those gaps in. The Chair asked what would be relied on for screening from the northwest boundary of the property adjoining Garden Road. Mr. Sherman said the house will screen the pool from this direction. The Chair said he felt this would be insufficient and the pool might be visible from Garden Road. Mr. Sherman said there is an existing Beech tree with proposed Skip Laurel located on the root system. Mr. Sherman asked whether these could be relocated or removed so as not the impact on the Beech tree. The Chair said he felt there are enough outstanding issues that the application may have to be held over for revisions. Mr. Diodati said the pool fence is four inches on center for the verticals, where Scarsdale requires two inches on center. This will be required for the building permit. Curtis Parker, the owner of 23 Cushman Road, was present. Mr. Parker said the house is currently unoccupied and he is concerned that the pool will not be maintained. Mr. Diodati said the construction site will have to be fenced and the owner proposes to use an automatic pool cover. This should prevent any wildlife or improper access to the site. The owner will be responsible for pool maintenance. 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 #10 OF 2017 1. The Chair declared the hearing open on the application of Melissa and Eric Berridge for an amendment to the Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to amend the required pool landscaping at 51 Garden Road, identified on the Village tax map as, Sec. 16, Blk. 3, Lot 1A.2. Justin Quinn, landscape architect, was present. Mr. Quinn described the application. The applicant seeks to modify the landscaping, including the screening, surrounding the existing swimming pool. 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 4/5/17 52 CASE #7 OF 2017 1. Seth Dymond 1 Corell Road Sec. 19, Blk. 1 Lot 105. Variance to construct an addition which would intrude into the side yard setback The Board considered the application of Seth Dymond, Case #7 of 2017, and, upon motion duly made and seconded, unanimously adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS: The property, located in the A-3 (10,000 sq. ft.) zoning district at the corner of Secor Road and Corell Road, is shown in the Assessor’s records as .27 acres and is improved with a house built in 1937; and WHEREAS: Chapter 310-51 of the Village Code regulates the required side yard setback in the A-3 district to 10 ft.; and WHEREAS: The plans show the proposed construction of a two story addition on the eastern (right) side of the house for an expanded garage and mudroom on the first floor and an office above, walk-in closet and music niche; and WHEREAS: The addition would be set back 6.2 ft. where 10 ft. are permitted for a requested variance of 3.8 ft. or 38%; and WHEREAS: The existing house and garage are set back 20 ft. where 10 ft. are required; and WHEREAS: The Board members have visited the site and are familiar with the materials in the application; and WHEREAS: The Board members considered the criteria for granting area variances pursuant to New York State Village Law Section 7-712 (b) and conducted the appropriate balancing test as required therein, weighing the benefit to the applicant against the detriment to the neighborhood or the community; now therefore be it RESOLVED: That the application of Seth Dymon for a variance from Chapter 310-51 of the Village Code to construct an addition which would intrude into the side yard setback at 1 Corell Road, as shown on SP-1, Plans 1-5 dated 2/14/2017 be denied based on the following findings: 1. The requested variance will create an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood as the two story addition would be noticeably close to the adjacent property. Board of Appeals 4/5/17 53 2. The benefit sought, namely to enlarge the garage and provide a mudroom and a second floor office, can be achieved by another feasible method other than an area variance. 3. The requested variance is substantial. 4. The requested variance will have an adverse physical or environmental impact on the neighborhood. 5. The alleged hardship is self-created. ******  Board of Appeals 4/5/17 54 CASE #8 OF 2017 2. Copper Beech Tree LLC 3 Sherbrooke Road Sec. 13, Blk. 3 Lot 2. Special Use Permit to construct a swimming pool The Board considered the application of Copper Beech Tree LLC, Case #8 of 2017 and, upon motion duly made and seconded, held the application over to a future meeting pending receipt and review of the following: 1. Elevations of the proposed pool house and equipment enclosure structure. 2. Proposed topography and a more detailed site plan of the pool area including the pool house and equipment enclosure structure. 3. The location of the pool house and equipment structure should be staked in the field. ******  Board of Appeals 4/5/17 55 CASE #9 OF 2017 3. 28 Garden LLC 28 Garden Road Sec. 16, Blk. 1 Lot 21A2. Special Use Permit to construct a swimming pool The Board considered the application of 28 Garden Road, Case #9 of 2017, and, upon motion duly made and seconded, held the application over to a future meeting pending receipt and review of the following: 1. Revised landscaping plan which addresses the Board’s concerns about the adequacy of the screening where the existing evergreens have grown up, leaving some open areas below. In addition, the Beech tree should be located on the plan. If it is an American Beech it should be protected as required by Chapter 281 of the Village Code. In addition, the applicant should demonstrate that the entire pool will not be visible from the street. The plans should also reflect the re-grading and should conform to the plans submitted for the SWEC. ******  Board of Appeals 4/5/17 56 CASE #10 OF 2017 4. Melissa and Eric Berridge 51 Garden Road Sec. 16, Blk. 3 Lot 1A.2. Amendment to the Special Use Permit to construct a swimming pool in order to revise the landscaping plan The Board considered the application of Melissa and Eric Berridge, Case #10 of 2017 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 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 is located in the A-1 (1 acre) zoning district, is listed on the lot coverage form as 48,384 sq. ft. and is the result of a two lot subdivision approved by the Planning Board in 2011; and WHEREAS: The property is located in a Sensitive Drainage Area, pursuant to Chapter 254 of the Village Code; and WHEREAS: A new house was completed in 2015; and WHEREAS: Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code gives the Board of Appeals the authority to grant special use permits for swimming pools; and WHEREAS: The Board of Appeals approved a Special use permit for the construction of the swimming pool in September 2012; and WHEREAS: The plans show the proposed new pool landscaping which includes transplanting some existing trees and the addition of new plantings as well as revisions to the walkways and terraces and results in a slight decrease in lot coverage; 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 Melissa and Eric Berridge for an amendment to the Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to  Board of Appeals 4/5/17 57 change the required pool landscaping as shown Plans LP-1.0, 2.0, 3.0 and 4.0 dated March 13, 2017 be approved; and be it further RESOLVED: All of the conditions of the September 12, 2012 resolution approving the Special Use Permit for the construction of the swimming pool remain in full force and effect. ******  Board of Appeals 4/5/17 58 Upon motion duly made and seconded, the minutes of the March 8, 2017 meeting were approved as amended. ****** The Chair announced that the next meeting of the Board of Appeals would be held on Wednesday, May 10, 2017, at 8 p.m. ****** The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. ****** __________________ Elizabeth Marrinan, Village Planner Village Planner