Zoning Board of Appeals

88 Board of Appeals – July 26, 2017 BOARD OF APPEALS RUTHERFORD HALL VILLAGE HALL SCARSDALE, NY July 26, 2017 A regular meeting of the Board of Appeals of the Village of Scarsdale was held in Rutherford Hall in Village Hall on Wednesday, July 26, 2017, at 8:00 p.m. Those members present were Jeffrey Watiker, Chair, Justin Arest and Anil Ferris, and Mary Lou Green were absent. Also present were Counsel Richard Gardella and Village Planner Elizabeth Marrinan and Assistant to the Planner Garreton Smith. Building Inspector Frank Diodati 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 Garreton Smith 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 three 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 reading of the following legal notice was waived pursuant to a continuing resolution adopted by unanimous vote of the Board:  89 Board of Appeals – July 26, 2017 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 Rutherford Hall in Village Hall, 1001 Post Road, Scarsdale NY 10583 on Wednesday, July 26, 2017 at 8:00 p.m. at which time and place the Board of Appeals will consider the following: 1. The application of Lauren and Michael Cherny, as contract vendee, for a variance from Chapter 310-104 of the Village Code to construct an addition which would exceed the maximum permitted floor area ratio at 34 Aspen Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 19, Blk. 2, Lot 410. 2. The application of the Scarsdale Historical Society for an amendment to a variance granted in 1974 which permitted the operation of a house museum to remove the variance and allow the property to revert to residential use at 937 Post Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 8, Blk. 2, Lot 1D. 3. The application of 1 Burgess Rd. LLC for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, and variances from Chapters 158-6 and 158-9 of the Village Code to construct a swimming pool and install a fence which would exceed the maximum permitted height at 1 Burgess Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 14, Blk. 6, Lot 4. 4. The application of Elissa and Albert Benchimol for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 6 Wheelock Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 17, Blk. 1, Lot 242. 5. The application of Gregory Cramer for a variance from Chapter 310-43 of the Village Code to construct a garage which would intrude into the required rear yard setback at 1144 Post Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 14, Blk. 2, Lot 41. 6. The application of David Sarraf for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 1 Brookfield Lane, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 18, Blk. 1, Lot 15C. 7. The application of Pallavi and Vikram Mehta for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 41 Olmsted Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 4, Blk. 2, Lot 442. 8. The application of Lioncel Group LLC for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 32 Fenimore Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 4, Blk. 7, Lot 16.  90 Board of Appeals – July 26, 2017 9. The application of Randi and Brian Culang for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 7 Berwick Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 4, Blk. 3, Lot 700. 10. The application of Pamela Pekerman and Stanislav Tenebayev for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 30 Tisdale Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 7, Blk. 1, Lot 41. 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 July 11, 2017. Elizabeth Marrinan, AICP, Village Planner ****** CASE #16 OF 2017  91 Board of Appeals – July 26, 2017 1. The Chair declared the hearing open on the application of Michael Cherny, as contract vendee, for a variance from Chapter 310-104 of the Village Code to construct an addition which would exceed the maximum permitted floor area ratio at 34 Aspen Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 19, Blk. 2, Lot 410. Arnold Wile, architect, Michael Cherny property owner, were present. Mr. Wile described the application to the board. The applicant seeks to build a second story on an existing one story house. Mr. Wile explained the problem stating the proposed addition cannot take advantage of the side yard setback FAR bonus. The FAR law states that a bonus only applies if an addition is behind the existing building. Mr. Wile explains that the proposal meets the spirit and intent of the law. The bonus would have been 700 square feet. The side yard setback exceeds the requirement by 20 feet. Mr. Wile explained if the house was brand new, they would be able to build it as they propose. He said they could take the house down to the basement and build it back up. The Chair asked if the applicant double-counted (as required) the area with a ceiling height of 14 feet or higher. Mr. Wile answered yes, they included the square footage in the second floor. The Chair asked what the basement will be used for. Mr. Wile said it has a 2 car garage, a windowless storage room and there will also be a children’s playroom. He said the existing kitchen will be removed and replaced with a fitness center. The Chair asked how many bedrooms the house will have in total. Mr. Wile answered 4 bedrooms on the second floor, 1 bedroom on the first floor and one bedroom in the basement. The Chair asked how many bathrooms. Mr. Wile answered 2 bathrooms on the first floor, a master bathroom and 2 children bathrooms on the second floor. Mr. Wile explained that the first floor has a guest room and office. The guest room is for Mr. Cherny's mother who visits often. Mr. Arest asked the applicant if they considered putting the addition on the ground floor taking advantage of the large setbacks. He raised concerns about the bulk of the house which doesn't fit in with the neighborhood character. Mr. Wile said no, there was no need for additional space on the first floor, it meets the owner's requirements. Mr. Arest said the appearance of bulk is greatest in the rear. Mr. Wile said the propose height is 28 feet but the requirement is 35 feet. Steve Millman, 37 Aspen Rd., expressed support for the project. No members of the Board desired to speak, and with no further comment from the audience, the Chair closed the meeting. ****** CASE #17 OF 2017  92 Board of Appeals – July 26, 2017 2. The Chair declared the hearing open on the application of the Scarsdale Historical Society for an amendment to a variance granted in 1974 which permitted the operation of a house museum to remove the variance and allow the property to revert to residential use at 937 Post Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 8, Blk. 2, Lot 1D. Kathy Allen, attorney, was present, Ms. Allen described the application to the board. She read a prepared statement. This case is unusual because they are not before the board seeking a variance, instead asking for the variance to be removed. A variance was granted in 1974 for the house at 937 Post Road to be used as a house museum. The applicant is requesting to remove the variance to revert back to residential use. Ms. Allen described the history of the museum and the disadvantages the house has faced over the years. The Chair asked if the Board removes the variances, would the two structures remain on the land. Ms. Allen answered yes, the building will remain. The Cudner-Hyatt House will remain always as a historic preservation conservation easement will be placed on the property at the closing of the sale. The Chair asked if the house could be relocated. Ms. Allen answered yes within the property. She states that Quaker Meeting House is not a protected asset, it is not on the historic list. She is not aware of what the buyer intends after the purchase. No members of the Board desired to speak, and with no further comment from the audience, the Chair closed the hearing. ****** CASE #18 OF 2017 3. The Chair declared the hearing open on the application of 1 Burgess Rd. LLC for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, and variances from Chapters 158-6 and 158-9 of the Village Code to construct a swimming pool and install a fence which would exceed the maximum permitted height at 1 Burgess Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 14, Blk. 6, Lot 4. Eliot Senor, architect, was present. Mr. Senor requested to withdraw the variance request for the 6 foot solid fence. Mr. Senor described the application and the changes. He said the fence will be a standard 5 foot chain link fence. Ms. Marrinan advised the applicant once they withdraw the variance, they have to start the process again to submit a new one. Mr. Senor described the pool and stated the drainage system was designed for the house and includes the pool. The pool meets all the proper setbacks. The Chair asked Mr. Senor to clarify the revisions. Mr. Senor answered additional trees were added to the plan and the walls added to match the landscape architect's plans.  93 Board of Appeals – July 26, 2017 The Chair said they received t h e revised plans showing the conforming c h a i n link fence and asked if the pool enclosure fence shown on the plan now is the chain link fence. Mr. Senor answered y e s . Mr. Steve Weiser, 3 Burgess Road, expressed concerns about gaps in the landscaping when viewed from their property next door. He said the home owner promised 4-5 additional plantings to fill gaps; however the plans does not reflect the additional screening. He asked the board if they can put a condition on the application prior to approval to provide the additional screening. Further discussion was had with Mr. Senor and staff that clarified that there was additional landscaping which was required by the Board of Architectural Review but not included in the landscaping plans. No members of the Board desired to speak, and with no further comment from the audience, the Chair closed the hearing. ****** CASE #19 OF 2017 4. The Chair declared the hearing open on the application of Elissa and Albert Benchimol for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 6 Wheelock Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 17, Blk. 1, and Lot 242. Rivi Orin, landscape architect, was present. Ms. Orin described the application to the board. They propose to construct a pool which complies with the required setbacks. Ms. Orin states the screening and planting is complete. The fence will be a 5 feet high chain link all around. The Chair asked who owns the property immediately to the rear. Ms. Orin answered the Village owns the property. She stated her clients inquired about buying the property because they have been cleaning and maintaining it. The Chair asked if the pool will be screened from that part of the property. Ms. Marrinan said there have been past discussions about purchasing the property and there should be screening and fencing along the rear property line. Ms. Orin asked if that could be a condition to the application instead of revising the plan. The Chair asked if the applicant would be willing to amend the application to remove the gate, and to extend the chain link fence to cover the property. Ms. Orin answered yes. Steve Friedel, 4 Wheelock Road, said he is concerned about placement of the fence. He does not think the placement of the fence is realistic as there are plantings and boulders on the property line which make the placement of the fence impossible. He is concerned that the fence will be on his property. Ms. Orin said they will have another survey done to assure that the fence will be placed on the property line.  94 Board of Appeals – July 26, 2017 Mr. Gardella said no approval by this board gives them the right to enter or intrude onto the adjacent property. No members of the Board desired to speak, and with no further comment from the audience, the Chair closed the hearing. ****** CASE #20 OF 2017 5. The Chair declared the hearing open on the application of Gregory Cramer for a variance from Chapter 310-43 of the Village Code to construct a garage which would intrude into the required rear yard setback at 1144 Post Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 14, Blk. 2, Lot 41. Theresa Beyer, architect and Gregory Cramer, homeowner were present. Ms. Beyer explained the application to the board. The applicant is seeking a variance to construct a garage. The applicant looked into building the garage on the front yard on Post Road, which requires a 40 foot setback. The house is set back from the brook which does not leave much room in the backyard. The applicant is proposing an attached garage in the rear yard. The Chair asked if they moved the garage 10 feet closer to the house would they need a variance. Ms. Beyer answered yes a variance would still be needed. She said the attached garage that is being proposed is aesthetically pleasing. Mr. Cramer said he wants to build a garage as the same style in the house. Mr. Cramer said he is trying to make it look like it was built in 1931. The Chair said it is unusual for the board to grant a variance as large as the applicant is proposing. The Chair states if the house was closer the applicant would not need a variance this large, he asked would the garage work if it is 6 inches smaller. Ms. Beyer answered no the garage would be too small. Ms. Marrinan said she was concerned about the feasibility of the garage given the turning radius. Mr. Cramer said the turn is feasible. He has done it with a 17 foot truck and a BMW. No members of the Board desired to speak, and with no further comment from the audience, the Chair closed the hearing. ****** CASE #21 OF 2017 6. The Chair declared the hearing open on the application of David Sarraf for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a  95 Board of Appeals – July 26, 2017 swimming pool at 1 Brookfield Lane, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 18, Blk. 1, Lot 15C. Paula Tomisaki, architect and Bozena Kupinska, landscape architect, were present. Ms. Tomisaki explained the application to the board. The applicant is seeking approval for a special use permit to construct a pool. Ms. Tomisaki explained the pool will be 40 x 20 with a corner Jacuzzi. Ms. Kupinska said there were small discrepancies between the architect's drawing and her landscape drawings. She said the biggest concern is the planting trees alongside the easement. Ms. Kupinska said all of the plantings will be outside of the easements. The Chair asked if the willow trees that are currently on the property will be retained. Ms. Kupinska said no, those trees are actually in the proposed driveway, so the trees will be removed. She said the pool the pool equipment will be fenced to meet the zoning code. No members of the Board desired to speak, and with no further comment from the audience, the Chair closed the hearing. ****** CASE #22 OF 2017 7. The Chair noted that the application of Pallavi and Vikram Mehta for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 41 Olmsted Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 4, Blk. 2, Lot 442 would not be heard pending proper notification. ****** CASE #23 OF 2017 8. The Chair noted that the application of Lioncel Group LLC for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 32 Fenimore Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 4, Blk. 7, Lot 16 would not be heard pending proper notification. ****** CASE #24 OF 2017 9. The Chair declared the hearing open on the application of Randi and Brian Culang for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to  96 Board of Appeals – July 26, 2017 construct a swimming pool at 7 Berwick Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 4, Blk. 3, Lot 700. Miguel Sostre, architect, Randi Culang homeowner, were present. Mr. Sostre described the application to the board. They are proposing a 40 x 20 foot swimming pool at the rear of the house that conforms to the rear yard and side setback requirements. Ms. Sostre said they are screening the entire property. In front of the property will be decorative fence with a chain link on the side and rear property lines. Mr. Sostre said the pool equipment will be fenced. Mr. Arest said he had concerns about the existing evergreen screening. Mr. Sostre answered the existing evergreen is in bad condition and they will replace it to assure there is screening all around the property. Ms. Marrinan asked Mr. Sostre to explain the type of fences and locations. Mr. Sostre answered they are both picket and chain link, aluminum metal fence in the front of the house and chain link fence on the side and back of the house. David Lee, 3 Berwick Road, said he has two requests he proposed to the Culangs. Mr. Lee said he requested decorative fencing on the side facing his property and offered the pay up to 50% or 100% of the difference from the chain link to the picket fence. The Chair said the plan before the board shows a chain fence and that is what the board will consider unless the applicant amends their plans to address the decorative fence. Mr. Lee explained the second request which is to move the pool equipment to the other side of the house. Mr. Lee said the noise generated from the pool equipment will be a nuisance. Mr. Sostre answered that extra screening with the fence and trees will help control the noise, they are not willing to relocate the pool equipment. Further, his client is not willing to change the fencing as they believe the landscaping will grow to cover the chain link fence. No members of the Board desired to speak, and with no further comment from the audience, the Chair closed the hearing. ****** CASE #25 OF 2017  97 Board of Appeals – July 26, 2017 10. The Chair declared the hearing open on the application of Pamela Pekerman and Stanislav Tenebayev for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 30 Tisdale Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 7, Blk. 1, Lot 41. Mr. Sostre described the application to the board. They are proposing a 40 x 20 foot swimming pool at the rear of the house, that conforms to the rear and side setback requirements. Mr. Sostre said they are screening the entire property. In front of the property that faces the street, there will be decorative fence, with a chain link fence on the side and rear property lines. Mr. Sostre said they are adding a patio and terrace which all conform to code. He said they are also adding an entry gate for the pool equipment. Mr. Sostre said they are keeping all of the large trees on the property. The Chair asked about the proposed fence in the front of yard close to the street and why it cannot stop at the front edge of the house. Mr. Sostre said because they are following the contour of the land and hugging the hill that transitions up to the street level. The Chair asked how far the fence is from the curb. Is the fence right on the lot lines? Mr. Sostre said yes the fence is right on the lot line. No members of the Board desired to speak, and with no further comment from the audience, the Chair closed the hearing. ******  98 Board of Appeals – July 26, 2017 CASE #16 OF 2017 1. Lauren and Michael Cherny 34 Aspen Road Sec. 19, Blk. 2, Lot 410 FAR variance to construct an addition The Board considered the application of Lauren and Michael Cherny, Case #16 of 2017, and, upon motion duly made and seconded, 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 or expansion of a single family residence is a Type II action as is the granting of an area variance pursuant to NYCRR 617.5(9, 12) and no further environmental review is required pursuant to said regulations; and WHEREAS: The property, located in the A-2a (15,000 sq. ft.) zoning district, is shown in the Assessor’s records as 15,000 sq. ft. and is improved with a house built in 1956; and WHEREAS: Chapter 310-102 regulates the maximum permitted FAR based on lot area; and WHEREAS: Chapter 310 104 regulates the side yard setback bonus and states: “In all Residence A Zones… for each additional foot that a house is set back beyond the minimum required side yard setback, an additional 100 square feet of floor area above the maximum permitted FAR on that lot as per § 310-102 shall be permitted, provided that: (1) In the case of additions to existing homes, the additional or bonus floor area is added to the rear of the existing house; and (2) Such an addition complies with the maximum height, maximum lot coverage, and minimum setback requirements of the Scarsdale Zoning Code; and WHEREAS: The plans show the proposed construction of a second story addition above much of the first floor; and WHEREAS: The proposed project appears to meet the setback, height and building and lot coverage requirements; and WHEREAS: The FAR “side yard setback bonus” was designed to encourage houses to provide a greater side yard setback than the zoning requires and to add bulk to the rear of existing properties with the intention of minimizing the perception of bulk from the street and limiting impact on neighboring properties to the sides; and  99 Board of Appeals – July 26, 2017 WHEREAS: In the A-2a zoning district, a 15 ft. side yard setback is required; and WHEREAS: The plans and FAR form show that the existing house is set back 15.5 ft. on one side and 35.03 ft. on the other and the addition above would continue the existing setbacks; and WHEREAS: The addition is above the existing house and not “added to the rear of the house” so the side yard setback bonus of 700 ft. for properties in the A2a zoning district does not apply in this case; and WHEREAS: The applicant is seeking to construct an addition which would result in a house of 5,030 sq. ft. where 4,350 sq. ft. is permitted for a variance request of 680 sq. ft. or 16%; 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 Lauren and Michael Cherny for a variance from Chapter 310-104 of the Village Code to construct an addition to the house which would exceed the maximum permitted floor area at 34 Aspen Road, as shown on Plans A-1 through A-4 dated 6/19/17 be approved based on the following findings: 1. The requested variance will not create an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. 2. The benefit sought, namely to provide a more usable second floor, cannot be achieved by another feasible method other than the area variance. 3. The requested variance may seem numerically large at 16%; however a new house built on the same footprint would be conforming 4. The requested variance will not have an adverse physical or environmental impact on the neighborhood. 5. The alleged hardship may be self-created, as the applicants purchased the home in its current condition, but this is not dispositive and does not preclude the granting of the variances. ******  100 Board of Appeals – July 26, 2017 CASE #17 OF 2017 2. Scarsdale Historical Society 937 Post Road Sec. 8, Blk. 2, Lot 1D Amend Variance to remove museum use The Board considered the application of Scarsdale Historical Society, Case #17 of 2017, and, upon motion duly made and seconded, 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; and RESOLVED: The amendment of a variance is considered an Unlisted Action pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617.2(ak); however, given the fact that the building and property are listed on the National and State Historic Registers, the action is considered Type 1 action pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617.4(b)(9) and a Long Environmental Assessment Form has been filed; and be it further RESOLVED: The proposed change in use from a house museum to single family residential is not anticipated to have a significant adverse impact on the environment as no development is proposed at this time and any further development would be subject to environmental review as well as applicable Village codes regarding subdivision, zoning, stormwater management and tree removal; and WHEREAS: The property is located in the A-5 (5,000 sq. ft.) zoning district and is listed on the Assessor’s Records as 30,498 sq. ft.; and WHEREAS: The property is improved with the Cudner-Hyatt House which was listed on the National Historic Register in 1973 and is also listed on the New York State Historic Register and the Westchester County Inventory of Historic Places; and WHEREAS: The Quaker Meeting House is also located on the property; and WHEREAS: The Scarsdale Historical Society (SHS) operated the property as a museum after a variance permitting that use was approved by the Board of Appeals in 1974 and amended in 1975; and WHEREAS: The Planning Board approved the off-street parking and landscaping for the property in 1975 and 1977 and for a new museum building on the site in 2002 which was never constructed; and WHEREAS: In 2007, the SHS sought a two lot subdivision to allow a 7,499 sq. ft. portion of the lot to be sold for the construction of one new house, and in response, the Board of Appeals, on 12/10/08, approved an amendment to the variance granted for museum use to allow that portion of the property to be used for a single family residence and on 3/25/09, the Planning Board approved the subdivision; and WHEREAS: In 2012, the SHS sought to amend the variance to remove the house museum use from the  101 Board of Appeals – July 26, 2017 rest of the property; however an issue was raised regarding the Attorney General’s review and the SHS requested that the application be held over, pending the results of the discussions with the Attorney General’s office; and WHEREAS: Chapter 310-7 outlines the permitted uses in the Residence A zoning districts; and WHEREAS: Chapter 310-12 of the Village Code gives the Zoning Board the authority to consider variances from the provisions of Chapter 310; and WHEREAS: SHS is seeking to amend the variance to allow the property to be used for single family residential purposes; and WHEREAS: SHS has entered into an agreement to sell the property subject to a Historic Preservation and Conservation Easement; and WHEREAS: The Easement states that the Cudner Hyatt House may not be demolished or neglected but may be relocated on the property and the property may be subdivided into no more than three lots including the parcel containing the Cudner Hyatt House; and WHEREAS: The site plan shows much of the existing parking area is to be removed and, thereafter, the property will be in compliance with the zoning code’s prohibition of parking in the front yard and will conform to the lot coverage requirements; and WHEREAS: The FAR form shows that the property, as currently improved, will conform to those regulations; 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 Scarsdale Historical Society to amend the variance to remove the museum use and allow the property to revert to residential use at 937 Post Road, as shown on the materials submitted with the application be approved, based on the following findings and conditions: 1. SHS has demonstrated that the property cannot realize a reasonable return as a museum. 2. The alleged hardship is a unique circumstance which does not apply to any other property in this single family residential neighborhood. 3. Allowing the property to revert to single family residential use is in conformance with the character of the neighborhood; and be it further  102 Board of Appeals – July 26, 2017 RESOLVED: The lifting of the variance is conditioned on the following: 1. The filing of the Historic Preservation and Conservation Easement with Westchester County Land Records in a substantially similar form as submitted with the application; and 2. The removal of the parking area in the front yard and the necessary impervious surfaces to comply with the lot coverage regulations. ******  103 Board of Appeals – July 26, 2017 CASE #18 OF 2017 3. 1 Burgess Rd. LLC 1 Burgess Road Sec. 14, Blk. 6, Lot 4 Special Use Permit to construct a swimming pool The Board considered the application of 1 Burgess Rd. LLC, Case #18 of 2017, and, upon motion duly made and seconded, 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; and 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, located in the A-3 (10,000 sq. ft.) zoning district at the corner of Burgess Road and Post Road, is shown in the Assessor’s records as .54 acres; and WHEREAS: The original house was built in 1962 which was demolished in 2015 after Committee for Historic Preservation review and a new house constructed in 2016; 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 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 applicant originally sought a variance for the construction of a 6 ft. high solid fence as part of the pool enclosure, but withdrew the variance request and revised the plans to include a conforming pool enclosure fence; and WHEREAS: The pool enclosure fencing is now shown to be a 5 ft. chain link fence; and WHEREAS: The proposed pool landscaping is located around the periphery of the property; and WHEREAS: At the meeting, the Board heard about additional landscaping which was required by the Board of Architectural Review but not included on the landscaping plans; and WHEREAS: The Board members have visited the site and are familiar with the materials in the application; now therefore be it  104 Board of Appeals – July 26, 2017 RESOLVED: That the application of 1 Burgess Rd. LLC for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 1 Burgess Road as shown on the Stormwater Pollution and Prevention and Erosion Control Plan dated 7/25/17 and the Preliminary Planting plan 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. The evergreen screening shall be supplemented by the 4 additional evergreen trees (10-12 ft. high) as required by the Board of Architectural Review. 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  105 Board of Appeals – July 26, 2017 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. ******  106 Board of Appeals – July 26, 2017 CASE #19 OF 2017 4. Elissa and Albert Benchimol 6 Wheelock Road Sec. 17, Blk. 1, Lot 242 Special Use Permit to construct a swimming pool The Board considered the application of Elissa and Albert Benchimol, Case #19 of 2017, and, upon motion duly made and seconded, 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; and 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, located in the A-2 (20,000 sq. ft.) zoning district, is shown in the Assessor’s records as 0.46 acres and is improved with a house built in 2006; and WHEREAS: The property abuts vacant Village-owned property to the rear; 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 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 plans show that a portion of the asphalt driveway will be removed and replaced with gravel to conform to the lot coverage regulations; and WHEREAS: The plans show a chain link fence as the pool enclosure fencing which runs around the perimeter of the property and a wrought iron picket fence in the side yards; and WHEREAS: The required landscaping to screen the pool consists of existing and new plantings; and WHEREAS: At the meeting, the applicant’s representative agreed to revise the plan to eliminate the gate in the rear fence and to provided additional landscaping in this area; and WHEREAS: The Board members have visited the site and are familiar with the materials in the application; now therefore be it  107 Board of Appeals – July 26, 2017 RESOLVED: That the application of Elissa and Albert Benchimol for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 6 Wheelock Road as shown on Plans L-1 through L-3 dated 5/11/2017 be approved based on the following findings and conditions: 1. The plans shall be revised to eliminate the gate in the rear fence and to provide the required evergreen screening in this area. 2. The proposed swimming pool is consistent with the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community. 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. Lighting of the pool and adjacent premises shall be limited to underwater lighting. 7. 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. 8. The use of the swimming pool shall be limited to the occupants of the principal building and their guests. 9. No excavation or removal of additional soil or rock shall be permitted except to construct the pool and any related stormwater management facilities. 10. 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  108 Board of Appeals – July 26, 2017 protection measures shall be in place prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. A tree removal permit may be required. 11. 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. 12. The swimming pool shall be completed within 18 months and shall not be used prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 13. The Certificate of Occupancy shall not be issued until the applicant complies with all conditions set down by the Board. 14. 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. ******  109 Board of Appeals – July 26, 2017 CASE #20 OF 2017 5. Gregory Cramer 1144 Post Road Sec. 14, Blk. 2, Lot 41 Variance to construct a garage which would intrude into the required rear yard setback The Board considered the application of Gregory Cramer, Case #20 of 2017, and, upon motion duly made and seconded, held the application over to a future meeting to: 1. Allow the application to be considered by additional members of the Board; and 2. Give the applicant the option to present a revised plan or plans which might minimize the requested variance. ******  110 Board of Appeals – July 26, 2017 CASE #21 OF 2017 6. David Sarraf 1 Brookfield Lane Sec. 18, Blk. 1, Lot 15C Special Use Permit to construct a swimming pool The Board considered the application of David Sarraf, Case #21 of 2017, and, upon motion duly made and seconded, 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; and 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, located in the A-1 zoning district, is shown in the Assessor’s records as 1.19 acres and was the result of a 1983 subdivision which required the “siting of the houses to be approved by the Planning Board”; and WHEREAS: In 1985, the then applicant amended the original construction drawings to pipe a stream which ran through the lot and a Site Plan for a new house was approved by the Planning Board in 1986; however that house was not built; and WHEREAS: The Planning Board approved a Site Plan for the development of the property with a new house and a swimming pool at its 1/25/17 meeting; and the BAR has approved the design of a new house; and WHEREAS: There are certain drainage easements across the property; and WHEREAS: The property is located in a Sensitive Drainage Area, pursuant to Chapter 254 of the Village Code; 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 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 plans show a wrought iron picket fence as the pool enclosure fencing; and  111 Board of Appeals – July 26, 2017 WHEREAS: The required landscaping to screen the pool consists of existing and new plantings; 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 David Sarraf for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 1 Brookfield Lane as shown on Plans P-1 dated 7/18/17 and Plan SK-1 dated revised 7/18/17 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 facilities. 9. A Stormwater Management and Erosion Control permit is required and shall include  112 Board of Appeals – July 26, 2017 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. ******  113 Board of Appeals – July 26, 2017 CASE #22 OF 2017 7. Pallavi and Vikram Mehta 41Olmsted Road Sec. 4, Blk. 2, Lot 442 Special Use Permit to construct a swimming pool The Board considered the application of Pallavi and Vikram Mehta, Case #22 of 2017, and, upon motion duly made and seconded, held the application over to a future meeting pending proper neighbor notification. ******  114 Board of Appeals – July 26, 2017 CASE #23 OF 2017 8. Lioncel Group LLC 32 Fenimore Road Sec. 4, Blk. 7, Lot 16 Special Use Permit to construct a swimming pool The Board considered the application of Lioncel Group LLC, Case #23 of 2017, and, upon motion duly made and seconded, held the application over to a future meeting pending proper neighbor notification. ******  115 Board of Appeals – July 26, 2017 CASE #24 OF 2017 9. Randi and Brian Culang 7 Berwick Road Sec. 4, Blk. 3, Lot 700 Special Use Permit to construct a swimming pool The Board considered the application of Randi and Brian Culang, Case #24 of 2017, and, upon motion duly made and seconded, 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; and 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, located in the A-3 (10,000 sq. ft.) zoning district, is shown in the Assessor’s records as .96 acres or 41,965 sq. ft.; and WHEREAS: The original house was built in 1951 which was demolished in 2017 after Committee for Historic Preservation determined it was not historically significant and a new house is under construction; and WHEREAS: A sewer line runs through the center of the property; and WHEREAS: The property is located in a Sensitive Drainage Area, pursuant to Chapter 254 of the Village Code; 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 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 pool enclosure fence is shown to be an aluminum picket fence in the side yard and chain link fence around the perimeter of the property; and WHEREAS: The required landscaping to screen the pool consists of existing and new plantings; and WHEREAS: The Board members have visited the site and are familiar with the materials in the application; now therefore be it  116 Board of Appeals – July 26, 2017 RESOLVED: That the application of Randi and Brian Culang for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 7 Berwick Road as shown on Plan P-1.1 revised for the meeting and dated 6/1/17 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 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.  117 Board of Appeals – July 26, 2017 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. ******  118 Board of Appeals – July 26, 2017 CASE #25 OF 2017 10. Pamela Pekerman and Stanislav Tenebayev 30 Tisdale Road Sec. 7, Blk. 1, Lot 41 Special Use Permit to construct a swimming pool The Board considered the application of Pamela Pekerman and Stanislav Tenebayev, Case #25 of 2017, and, upon motion duly made and seconded, 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; and 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, located in the A-2 (15,000 sq. ft.) zoning district, is shown in the Assessor’s records as .75 acres or 33,014 sq., ft. and backs up to the Crane-Berkeley Ponds; and WHEREAS: The house was built in 1958 with renovations and additions made since then and a building permit has been issued recently to construct a garage addition; and WHEREAS: The property had been treated as a wetlands controlled property in the past due to its proximity to the Crane-Berkeley Ponds and associated wetlands; however a report by a wetlands specialist dated April 7, 2016 indicated there are no wetlands on site and thus the property is not a wetlands controlled parcel; 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 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 pool enclosure fence is shown to be an aluminum picket fence connecting to the house and a chain link fence around the perimeter of the property; and WHEREAS: The required landscaping to screen the pool consists of existing and new plantings; and WHEREAS: The Board members have visited the site and are familiar with the materials in the application; now therefore be it  119 Board of Appeals – July 26, 2017 RESOLVED: That the application of Pamela Pekerman and Stanislav Tenebayev for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 30 Tisdale Road as shown on Plan P-1.1 revised 7/20/17 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 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.  120 Board of Appeals – July 26, 2017 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. ****** Upon motion duly made and seconded, the minutes of the May 10, 2017 meeting were approved as amended. ****** The Chair announced that the next meeting of the Board of Appeals would be held on Wednesday, September 13, 2017, at 8 p.m. ****** The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 p.m. ****** __________________ Garreton Smith Assistant Village Planner