Zoning Board of Appeals

122 Board of Appeals September 13, 2017 BOARD OF APPEALS RUTHERFORD HALL VILLAGE HALL SCARSDALE, NY September 13, 2017 A regular meeting of the Board of Appeals of the Village of Scarsdale was held in Rutherford Hall in Village Hall on Wednesday, September 13, 2017, at 8:00 p.m. Those members present were Jeffrey Watiker, Chair, Justin Arest and Anil Ferris, Jeremy Gans and Mary Lou Green. Also present were Counsel Richard Gardella and Village Planner Elizabeth Marrinan and Assistant to the Planner, Garreton Smith and Building Inspector Frank Diodati. ****** 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. 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to construct a swimming pool at 32 Fenimore Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 4, Blk. 7, Lot 16 had been withdrawn at the request of the applicant. 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. ******  123 Board of Appeals September 13, 2017 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 Rutherford Hall in Village Hall, 1001 Post Road, Scarsdale NY 10583 on Wednesday, September 13, 2017 at 8:00 p.m. at which time and place the Board of Appeals will consider the following: 1. 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. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. The application of Dara and Jon Gruenberg for a variance from Chapter 310-51 of the Village Code to construct a second story addition which would continue the exiting intrusion into the required side yard setback at 24 Hampton Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 4, Blk. 4, Lot 516. 5. The application of Sheldrake Realty LLC for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 72 Sheldrake Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 17, Blk. 1, Lot 109. 6. The application of Hillview Realty LLC for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 9 Hillview Drive, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 22, Blk. 11, Lot 22. 7. The application of Jennifer and Eric Premisler for a variance from Chapter 310-43 of the Village Code to construct an addition that would expand the existing intrusion into the rear yard at 238 Rock Creek Lane, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 19, Blk. 1, Lot 379.  124 Board of Appeals September 13, 2017 8. The application of Caren Jacobs and Joseph Sitt for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 12A Cooper Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 14, Blk. 3, Lot 5A. 9. The application of Scarsdale Congregational Church for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to provide temporary off-street parking at 2 Heathcote Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 13, Blk. 1, Lot 1. 10. The application of 1 Burgess Rd. LLC for variances from Chapters 158 and 310-53 of the Village Code to install a fence that would exceed the maximum permitted height in the front yard and to legalize the construction of a house which intrudes into the required side on corner setback at 1 Burgess Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 14, Blk. 6. Lot 4. 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 August 29, 2017. Elizabeth Marrinan, AICP, Village Planner ****** CASE #20 OF 2017 1. 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 described the application to the Board. She noted they had been before them at the last meeting in July and have no further revisions to the plans as they feel the proposed plan is the least intrusive on the neighboring properties. The applicant is seeking a variance to construct a garage. The house is currently set back from the brook and over 80 ft. from the street which does not leave much room in the backyard. The applicant looked into building the garage in the front yard, which would have required a 40 foot setback and would have been located in the flood plain. Ms. Beyer said they are proposing a garage in the rear yard attached to the house by a breezeway. The plan would keep the A/C unit next to the house. She said they felt the breezeway would help block the noise from the A/C units from the neighboring  125 Board of Appeals September 13, 2017 property. She said the proposed garage design allows for an outdoor fireplace. The Chair asked about the purpose of the fireplace. Ms. Beyer said it is for personal pleasure. Mr. Cramer described the custom-designed fireplace. He said the proposed garage would not impact anyone. The Chair asked if there was ever a garage on the lot. Mr. Cramer answered yes, when the house was built, there was a small one car garage. When the house was renovated in the 1980’s, it was converted to living space. The Chair asked if it is possible to build a code compliant garage. Ms. Beyer answered yes, the garage could be pushed back 10 feet to be code compliant. The Chair asked the applicant, do you have any other design options. Ms. Beyer said no. No members of the Board desired to speak, and with no comments from the audience, the Chair closed the hearing. ****** CASE #22 OF 2017 2. 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. Frank Giuliano landscape architect was present. Mr. Giuliano explained the case to the board. He said the proposed pool will be a vanishing-edge pool. He described the landscaping plan, noting the existing and proposed evergreens. He said the screening is very extensive. He said the SWEC was done as part of the house renovation project. The Chair asked if they are relying on the existing hedge row as part of your screening. Mr. Giuliano said no, they are only relaying on the spruces. The Chair asked if the retaining wall at the rear is on the neighbor’s property. Mr. Giuliano answered yes, the retaining wall is 3 feet onto the neighboring property. The Chair asked if that wall would provide screening. Mr. Giuliano said, no, they will be filling in existing evergreens to properly fill the empty spaces and screen the pool in that location. Mr. Arest asked if the existing shrubs are staying. Mr. Giuliano said yes, all shrubs are staying. He adds the existing spruces provide additional screening. Mr. Gans expressed concerns about being able to see straight through the property from the front. Mr. Gans asked if there is a plan to supplement the screening. Mr. Giuliano said there are evergreens that will screen it. The Chair said he noted there was a large hole in between the three trees. Mr. Giuliano said all holes will be filled in with evergreens.  126 Board of Appeals September 13, 2017 No members of the Board desired to speak, and with no comment from the audience, the Chair closed the hearing. ****** 3. The Chair noted 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 had been withdrawn at the request of the applicant. ****** CASE #26 OF 2017 4. The Chair declared the hearing open on the application of Dara and Jon Gruenberg for a variance from Chapter 310-51 of the Village Code to construct a second story addition which would continue the exiting intrusion into the required side yard setback at 24 Hampton Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 4, Blk. 4, Lot 516. Vincent Fazio, architect and Dara Gruenberg, owner were present. Mr. Fazio said he was here representing Arnold Wile, the architect, and explained the case to the board. The applicant is proposing a second story addition which would continue the intrusion into the required side yard setback. He said 27 sq. ft. would be the extent of the intrusion. The Chair asked what is purposed of the second story space. Ms. Gruenberg explained that she does volunteer work for the Village of Scarsdale and wants to build a home office on the second floor. No members of the Board desired to speak, and with no comment from the audience, the Chair closed the hearing. ****** CASE #27 OF 2017 5. The Chair declared the hearing open on the application of Sheldrake Realty LLC for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 72 Sheldrake Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 17, Blk. 1, Lot 109. Frank Giuliano landscape architect was present. Mr. Giuliano explained the proposal to the board. He said the proposal meets all zoning code requirements. He said the lot has extensive existing planting. Mr. Giuliano said the SWEC was approved.  127 Board of Appeals September 13, 2017 Mr. Arest asked if there are any trees being removed. Mr. Giuliano answered no, the applicant took out a tree permit to remove trees already. Mr. Diodati asked if there will be a future cabana. Mr. Giuliano answered no, the applicant just wanted enough lot coverage in case they want one in the future. No members of the Board desired to speak, and with no comment from the audience, the Chair closed the hearing. ****** CASE #28 OF 2017 6. The Chair declared the hearing open on the application of Hillview Realty LLC for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 9 Hillview Drive, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 22, Blk. 11, Lot 22 Frank Giuliano landscape architect was present. Mr. Giuliano explained the case to the board. He said there was an existing pool that has been removed and the applicant is proposing to replace the pool parallel to the house currently under construction. Mr. Giuliano said there is extensive amount of evergreen screening proposed. The Chair raised concerns about screening on the plans and existing trees. Mr. Giuliano said all of the trees will be new. No members of the Board desired to speak, and with no comment from the audience, the Chair closed the hearing. ****** CASE #29 OF 2017 7. The Chair declared the hearing open on the application of Jennifer and Eric Premisler for a variance from Chapter 310-43 of the Village Code to construct an addition that would expand the existing intrusion into the rear yard at 238 Rock Creek Lane, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 19, Blk. 1, Lot 379. Bill Witt, architect and Jennifer Premisler, homeowner were present. Mr. Witt explained the case. The applicant is proposing to expand an existing undersized garage attached to the house. The applicant is also proposing to rebuild a nonconforming deck which they are pulling further away from the street.  128 Board of Appeals September 13, 2017 Ms. Green asked for further clarification. Mr. Witt showed the existing garage and explained that it has two doors. Mr. Witt said they will not be building closer to the house. Ms. Green asked if they will have to expand the driveway for this addition. Mr. Witt said yes the driveway will be expanded 4 feet. No members of the Board desired to speak, and with no further comment from the audience, the Chair closed the hearing. ****** CASE #30 OF 2017 8. The Chair declared the hearing open on the application of Caren Jacobs and Joseph Sitt for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 12A Cooper Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 14, Blk. 3, Lot 5A. Sid Schloman, architect was present. Mr. Schloman explained the case to the board. The applicant is proposing to build an in-ground pool. He said the proposal meets all zoning requirements. This property is in a sensitive drainage area and the applicant is installing drainage system as required. Mr. Schloman explained new evergreens will be fill in existing gaps around the house. Mr. Schloman said there is an existing chain link fence on the perimeter. The Chair asked if the pool enclosure fence follows the edge of the driveway. Mr. Schloman answered yes. The Chair asked what planting will screen the pool equipment. Mr. Schloman referred to the plan, saying it would a taxus hedge. No members of the Board desired to speak, and with no further comment from the audience, the Chair closed the hearing. ****** CASE #31 OF 2017 9. The Chair declared the hearing open on the application of Scarsdale Congregational Church for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to provide temporary off-street parking at 2 Heathcote Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 13, Blk. 1, Lot 1. Mr. Geoffrey Parker, Trustee of the church, was present. Mr. Parker explained the application to the board. The applicant is seeking to renew a special use permit to allow Scarsdale Taxi to continue to park in the church parking lot. The Chair asked the applicant why the last renewal was 4 years ago. Mr. Parker explained that his predecessor left without proper briefing and certain administrative matters lapsed.  129 Board of Appeals September 13, 2017 Mr. Arest asked the staff about lot coverage. Ms. Marrinan said there are no lot coverage regulations for non-residential properties. No members of the Board desired to speak, and with no comment from the audience, the Chair closed the hearing. ****** CASE #32 OF 2017 10. The Chair declared the hearing open on the application of 1 Burgess Rd. LLC for variances from Chapters 158 and 310-53 of the Village Code to install a fence that would exceed the maximum permitted height in the front yard and to legalize the construction of a house which intrudes into the required side on corner setback at 1 Burgess Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 14, Blk. 6. Lot 4. John Cotugno, architect and Eliot Senor, engineer were present. Mr. Cotugno said he is here in an embarrassing situation. He said when he was doing the survey and the plan, he mistakenly indicated the side yard setback as 15 ft., not 20 ft., as required. He said the side of the attached garage is now set back 15.8 ft. at its closest point. He noted it is 1 ½ stories high and is heavily landscaped. The Chair asked if the applicant is also looking for a fence height variance. Mr. Senor said they are proposing a solid fence along the Post Road side for a sound barrier. The Chair asked how high the fence is. Mr. Senor answered 6 ft. The Chair said the neighbor has a 5 ft. fence, why do they need 6 ft.? Mr. Cotugno said they need it for noise barrier. The Chair asked the why they need 6 ft. along the Burgess Road side. Mr. Senor said to be consistent. The Chair asked what the consequences would be if the Board doesn’t approve the side on corner setback variance. Mr. Cotugno answered because the house is already finished, they would have to tear a portion down and rebuild it. A lot of money would be lost. The Chair asked if the board denies this proposal, would you be able to make it a two car garage by taking a parking space away and removing the space on top of the garage. Mr. Cotugno said yes they would have to take it down and reconstruct the garage. Ms. Green asked if there will be any more vegetation along Post Road. Mr. Senor said there are no plans for additional vegetation along Post Road. Mr. Arest asked the applicant to confirm the location of the fence on the survey, noting that the property sloped upwards from Post Road. He was concerned about the elevation of the property in relation to the placement of the fence.  130 Board of Appeals September 13, 2017 The Chair asked if it would be acceptable to the applicant to separate the variance requests should the board ask for additional information about the fence. Mr. Cotugno and Mr. Senor indicated that would be fine. Mr. Diodati said there was an oversight in the building department with regard to the side on corner setback. He said he issued a building permit in error as the setback was not picked up during plan review. Mr. Gardella noted that mistakes do happen and once, when he was a newspaper editor, the paper went out. No members of the Board desired to speak, and with no comment from the audience, the Chair closed the hearing. ******  131 Board of Appeals September 13, 2017 CASE #20 OF 2017 1. 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, 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 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-3 (10,000 sq. ft.) zoning district, is shown in the Assessor’s records as .36 acres or 15,682 sq. ft. and is improved with a house built in 1931; and WHEREAS: Much of the property is located in the area of the 100 year flood, according to FEMA, and the South Fox Meadow Brook runs across the front yard; and WHEREAS: The house is located at the rear of the property, set back over 83 ft. from the front property line and behind the brook; and WHEREAS: The house is currently under renovation; and WHEREAS: Chapter 310-43 regulates the required rear yard setback in Residence A zoning districts to 30 ft. for a two story building and 25 ft. for a one story building; and WHEREAS: The plans show the proposed construction of a garage above an existing driveway turnaround area and attached to the rear of the house by a breezeway; and WHEREAS: The attached garage is shown to be set back 6 ft. from the rear property line, where 25 ft. are required, for a requested variance of 19 ft. or 76%; and WHEREAS: The Board considered the application at its July 26, 2017 meeting and held the application over to a future meeting to allow the application to be considered by the full Board and to give the applicant an opportunity to present a revised plan which might minimize the requested variance; and WHEREAS: The applicant presented correspondence in support of the original plan;  132 Board of Appeals September 13, 2017 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 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, as shown on Plans 1 and 2 dated 6/8/17, be approved based on the following findings: 1. The requested variance will not create an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood as the property to the rear slopes up substantially with the adjacent house located quite a distance from the proposed garage. 2. The benefit sought, namely to provide a garage, might be achieved by another feasible method such as the construction of a detached garage; however, given the applicant’s desire for an attached garage and the constraints of the property, the area variance is required. 3. The requested variance may seem numerically large at 76%; however it is due to the site constraints including the flood plain and stream in the front yard precluding the construction of a garage there and the location of the existing house. 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 applicant purchased the home in its current condition without the garage, but the applicant did nothing to worsen the situation. Thus, this finding is not dispositive and does not preclude the granting of the variance. ******  133 Board of Appeals September 13, 2017 CASE #22 OF 2017 2. Pallavi and Vikram Mehta 41 Olmsted 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, 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; 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 .75 acres or 32,944 sq., ft. and is improved with a house built in 1931 which is currently being renovated; 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 and lot coverage 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 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, as shown on the Pool Area Site Plan dated revised 7/12/17, 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.  134 Board of Appeals September 13, 2017 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 plan submitted for the building permit shall include the existing evergreen shrubs which are to remain and any additional plantings necessary to fill the “gap” between the existing trees on the western side of the property. 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 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  135 Board of Appeals September 13, 2017 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. ******  136 Board of Appeals September 13, 2017 CASE #23 OF 2017 3. 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 the Chair noted the application had been withdrawn at the request of the applicant. ******  137 Board of Appeals September 13, 2017 CASE #26 OF 2017 4. Dara and John Gruenberg 24 Hampton Road Sec. 4, Blk. 4, Lot 516 Variance to construct a second story addition which would intrude into the required side yard setback The Board considered the application of Dara and John Gruenberg, Case #26 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 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-2 (20,000 sq. ft.) zoning district, is listed in the Assessor’s records as 22,258 sq. ft. and is improved with a house built in 1940 with additions and alterations made since; and WHEREAS: The property is located in a Sensitive Drainage Area, pursuant to Chapter 254 of the Village Code; and WHEREAS: The property was rezoned in 2001 from A-3 to A-2 which changed the required side yard setback from 10 ft. to 15 ft. and made the existing house’s side yard setback nonconforming; and WHEREAS: In September 2010, the Board of Appeals approved variances to construct an addition to the front of the garage which expanded the existing encroachment into the side yard; and WHEREAS: The plans show a proposed second story addition above the garage which would continue the existing side yard encroachment vertically and also show the area of encroachment which, according to the correspondence, totals 27 sq. ft.; and WHEREAS: At its closest point, the second story addition is shown to be set back 12.7 ft. where 15 ft. are required for a requested variance of 2.3 ft. or 15%; and WHEREAS: The Board members have visited the site and are familiar with the materials in the application; and  138 Board of Appeals September 13, 2017 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 Dara and John Gruenberg for a variance from Chapter 310-51 of the Village Code to construct a second story addition which would intrude into the required side yard setback at 24 Hampton Road, as shown on Plans A1 through A5 dated 7/19/17, be approved based on the following findings: 1. The requested variance will not create an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood as the house has been in this location since it was built in 1940 and was conforming until the property was rezoned in 2001. 2. The benefit sought, namely to construct a second story addition above the garage cannot be achieved by another feasible method. 3. The requested variance may seem numerically large at 15%; however just 27 sq. ft. would intrude into the setback and this intrusion is deminimus. 4. The requested variance will not have an adverse physical or environmental impact on the neighborhood; in fact, the Board members agreed the addition would be an improvement to the house. 5. The alleged hardship may be self-created, as the applicant purchased the home in its current condition without the addition, but the applicant did nothing to worsen the situation. Thus, this finding is not dispositive and does not preclude the granting of the variance. ******  139 Board of Appeals September 13, 2017 CASE #27 OF 2017 5. Sheldrake Realty LLC 72 Sheldrake Road Sec. 17, Blk. 1, Lot 109 Special Use Permit to construct a swimming pool The Board considered the application of Sheldrake Realty LLC, Case #27 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; 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 (1 acre) zoning district, is shown in the Assessor’s records as 1.0 acre and is improved with a house built in 1938 which is currently under renovation; 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 terraces, landscaping and fencing as well as the location of a future pool cabana; and WHEREAS: The location of the proposed pool and pool equipment appear to meet the setback and lot coverage requirements; and WHEREAS: The fencing is shown to be a Jerith aluminum fence in the front and side yards and a chain link fence along the rear property line; 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 Sheldrake Realty LLC for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 72 Sheldrake Road, as shown on the Pool Area Master Plan dated 8/9/17, be approved based on the following findings and conditions:  140 Board of Appeals September 13, 2017 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. 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  141 Board of Appeals September 13, 2017 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. ******  142 Board of Appeals September 13, 2017 CASE #28 OF 2017 6. Hillview Realty LLC 9 Hillview Drive Sec. 17, Blk. 1, Lot 109 Special Use Permit to construct a swimming pool The Board considered the application of Hillview Realty LLC, Case #28 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; 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 .46 acres or 20,100 sq. ft.; and WHEREAS: The original house was built in 1949; however it was demolished in 2017 and a new house is under construction; and WHEREAS: A pool was built in 1975 and is to be removed; 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 in the same location as the existing pool, but angled differently, and the associated landscaping and fencing; and WHEREAS: The proposed pool and pool equipment appear to meet the setback and lot coverage requirements; and WHEREAS: The fencing is shown to be a Jerith aluminum fence along the eastern side yard and a chain link fence along the rear property line; 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 Hillview Realty LLC for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 9 Hillview Drive, as shown on the Pool Area Master Plan dated 8/13/17, be approved based on the following findings and conditions:  143 Board of Appeals September 13, 2017 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. 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  144 Board of Appeals September 13, 2017 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. ******  145 Board of Appeals September 13, 2017 CASE #29 OF 2017 7. Jennifer and Eric Premisler 238 Rock Creek Lane Sec. 19, Blk. 1, Lot 379 Variance to construct an addition that would expand the existing intrusion into rear yard The Board considered the application of Jennifer and Eric Premisler, Case #29 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 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-4 (7,500 sq. ft.) zoning district, is listed in the Assessor’s records as .20 acres and is improved with a house built in 1951; and WHEREAS: The irregularly shaped property is at the intersection of Rock Creek Lane and Black Birch Lane; and WHEREAS: In November 1986 the Board of Appeals approved a variance to legalize the garage encroachment into the required rear yard setback; and WHEREAS: Chapter 310-43 of the Village Code regulates the rear yard setback in the A-4 zoning district to 25 ft. for a one story structure and 30 ft. for a two story structure; and WHEREAS: The plans show the proposed expansion of the garage and the reconstruction of the deck in the rear yard and appears to meet the lot coverage and FAR requirements; and WHEREAS: The proposed garage is set back 18.9 ft. where the existing garage as approved by the 1986 variance is set back 21.6 ft. and 25 ft. is required for a requested variance is 6.1 ft. (from the 25 ft. required) or 24% and the requested variance from the variance granted in 1986 to permit a setback of 21.6 ft. is 2.1 ft. or 10%; and WHEREAS: The proposed deck will be set back 21 ft. where the existing deck is set back 18.4 ft.; and  146 Board of Appeals September 13, 2017 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 Jennifer and Eric Premisler for a variance from Chapter 310-43 of the Village Code to construct an addition which would intrude into the required rear yard setback at 238 Rock Creek Lane, as shown on Plans A-100 through A-102, A-201, A-202, X-101 dated 8/2/17, 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 construct a usable garage cannot be achieved by another feasible method given the unusual shape of the lot and the existing location of the house. 3. The requested variance may seem numerically substantial but is offset by the reduction in size of the deck. 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 applicant purchased the home in its current condition, but the applicant did nothing to worsen the situation. Thus, this finding is not dispositive and does not preclude the granting of the variance. ******  147 Board of Appeals September 13, 2017 CASE #30 OF 2017 8. Caren Jacobs and Joseph Sitt 12A Cooper Road Sec. 14, Blk. 3, Lot 5A Special Use Permit to construct a swimming pool The Board considered the application of Caren Jacobs and Joseph Sitt, Case #30 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; 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 (1 acre) zoning district, is listed in the Assessor’s records as 1.46 acres and is considered a lot at a distance from the street which was created prior to 1985; and WHEREAS: The Planning Board approved a Site Plan for the development of a house on this lot at a distance from the street in 1985 and the house was built in 1986; and WHEREAS: The Planning Board approved a Site Plan for the construction of the swimming pool at its August 9, 2017 meeting; 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 the associated landscaping and fencing; and WHEREAS: The proposed pool and pool equipment appear to meet the setback and lot coverage requirements; and WHEREAS: The fencing is shown to be an aluminum picket and chain link fencing; and WHEREAS: The Board members have visited the site and are familiar with the materials in the application; now therefore be it  148 Board of Appeals September 13, 2017 RESOLVED: That the application of Caren Jacobs and Joseph Sitt for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 12A Cooper Road, as shown on the Site Plan A-101 dated July 17, 2017, 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  149 Board of Appeals September 13, 2017 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. ******  150 Board of Appeals September 13, 2017 CASE #31 OF 2017 9. Scarsdale Congregational Church 2 Heathcote Road Sec. 13, Blk. 1, Lot 1 Special Use Permit to provide temporary off-street parking The Board considered the application of the Scarsdale Congregational Church, Case #31 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 Board determined that such application, a minor temporary use of land having negligible or no permanent impact on the environment is a Type II action pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617.5(c) (15), and therefore is not subject to further environmental consideration under said regulations; and WHEREAS: The property, the parking lot located across the street from the Scarsdale Congregational Church (SCC) on Heathcote Road, is in the A-1 (1 acre) zoning district and is listed in the Assessor’s records as 2.66 acres; and WHEREAS: Chapter 310-88 of the Village code authorizes the Zoning Board of Appeals to: “Grant temporary and conditional special use permits for a period of two years or less for uses and buildings which, but for such permission, would not comply with the requirements of this chapter”; and WHEREAS: In 2006 the Board of Appeals approved a temporary special use permit to provide parking for construction workers and commuters during the Christie Place construction project; and WHEREAS: In 2008, the permit was renewed to provide off street parking for construction workers and tenants of 7 Popham Road project until the Christie Place garage was opened; and WHEREAS: In 2009, after the Christie Place project was completed and the taxi drop off and pick up area was completed, the permit was renewed for one year to provide off-street parking for some of Central Taxi’s vehicles as well as the taxi driver’s private vehicles; and WHEREAS: The permit was renewed in 2010 and 2011 for one year each and in 2013  151 Board of Appeals September 13, 2017 for a period of two years; and WHEREAS: At its August 2017 meeting, the Planning Board approved a Site plan for the reconfiguration of the parking lot and the construction of a house for the minister; and WHEREAS: The Scarsdale Congregational Church is seeking permission to continue to provide up to 15 parking spaces in the back section of its parking lot for Central Taxi’s drivers’ private cars during the day and for the taxis after hours; and WHEREAS: The applicant is seeking approval for a period of two years; and WHEREAS: This request would help alleviate traffic congestion and continue to free up parking spaces in the Village Center; and WHEREAS: The application materials include a letter summarizing the application and an agreement with Central Taxi which agreement specifies, among other things, that all cars must enter and exit from the Drake Road driveway and park facing Heathcote Road and that Central Taxi is responsible for snow removal and keeping the area clean; and WHEREAS: The parking will not interfere with the Church’s normal operations as the lot has approximately 107 spaces, with additional parking across the street, and the tentative agreement also provides for the SCC to use the spaces up to seven times per year for special events; and WHEREAS: The Board members have visited the site and are familiar with the materials in the application; and RESOLVED: The application of the Scarsdale Congregational Church for a Special Use Permit pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code to provide temporary off street parking in a Residence A zoning district at 2 Heathcote Road, as shown on the site plan and application materials dated September 13, 2019, be approved for a period of two years conditioned on the following: 1. All of the cars using the parking spaces shall enter and exit from the Drake Road driveway. ****** CASE #32 OF 2017  152 Board of Appeals September 13, 2017 10. 1 Burgess Road LLC 1 Burgess Road Sec. 14, Blk. 6, Lot 4 Variances to install fence that would exceed the maximum permitted height and to legalize the construction of a house which intrudes into the required side on corner setback The Board considered the application of 1 Burgess Road LLC, Case #29 of 2017, and, upon motion duly made and seconded, adopted the following resolution with Mr. Arest abstaining and Mr. Ferris, Mr. Gans, Ms. Green and Mr. Watiker in favor: 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) and granting of setback or area variances are Type II actions pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617.5(c) (10, 12) 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 158-6 of the Village Code regulates fence heights in the front yard stating … “no fences or walls within the limits of a front yard, other than a retaining wall, shall be more than five feet high, and no fence or wall with more than one-fourth (1/4) solid material when viewed from a position which is at a right angle to the fence or wall shall be more than four feet high…”; and WHEREAS: Chapter 310-53 of the Village Code regulates the side on corner setback in the A-3 zoning district to 20 ft.; and WHEREAS: The Stormwater Plan and the Foundation survey show that the attached garage, as built, is set back 15.8 ft. on the Burgess Road side of the property which is considered the side on corner for zoning purposes where 20 ft. is required, for a requested variance is for 4.2 ft. or 21%; and WHEREAS: The plans filed for the construction of the house mistakenly showed that the required side on corner setback in the A-3 zoning district is 15 ft., not 20 ft. and this error was not discovered by the owner, design professionals, contractors or Village staff until the construction was nearly complete; and  153 Board of Appeals September 13, 2017 WHEREAS: The applicant is also seeking a variance to construct a 6 ft. high solid stockade fence along the Post Road which is considered the front yard for zoning purposes where a 4 ft. solid fence is permitted for a requested variance of 2 ft. or 33%; and WHEREAS: During the hearing, the applicant elected to hold over the request for the fence variance to a future meeting pending submission of revised plans; 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 1 Burgess Road LLC for a variance from Chapter 310-53 of the Village Code to legalize the construction of a house with an attached garage which intrudes into the required side on corner setback at 1 Burgess Road, as shown on the Stormwater and Erosion Control Plan dated 8/18/17 approved based on the following findings: 1. The requested variance will not create an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood as the side of the attached garage intrudes, not the entire house and it is screened. 2. The benefit sought, namely to legalize the garage in its current location, cannot be achieved by another feasible method as the house and garage are complete. 3. The requested variance may seem numerically substantial, but is limited to the side of the garage. 4. The requested variance will not have an adverse physical or environmental impact on the neighborhood. 5. The alleged hardship is self-created; however this finding is not dispositive and does not preclude the granting of the variance; and be it further RESOLVED: That the application of 1 Burgess Road LLC for a variance from Chapter 158-6 of the Village Code to install fence that would exceed the maximum permitted height at 1 Burgess Road, as shown on the Stormwater and Erosion Control Plan dated 8/18/17 be held over to a future meeting pending receipt and review of revised plans which clarify the fence location and variance request.  154 Board of Appeals September 13, 2017 ****** Upon motion duly made and seconded, the minutes of the July 26, 2017 meeting were approved as amended. ****** The Chair announced that the next meeting of the Board of Appeals would be held on Wednesday, October 11, 2017, at 8 p.m. ****** The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. ****** __________________ Garreton Smith Assistant Village Planner