Zoning Board of Appeals

('"\~...,...peal 14, 2021 126 £C£1V£0 BOARD OF APPEALS \.11~'1 \ 1 lQl\ RUTHERFORD HALL GcCLcRK VILLAGE HALL so~LE VlL~oRIZ 10SS3 SCARSDALE, NY o~LE, NEW April 14, 2021 A regular meeting ofthe Board of Appeals ofthe Village of Scarsdale was held in via Zoom videoconference, on Wednesday, April14, 2021 at 7:00p.m. Those members present were Chair, Jeffrey Watiker, Amy Cooper, Jeremy Gans, Barry Meiselman and Meredith Millen. Also present were Village Attorney, Daniel Pozin, Building Inspector, Frank Diodati, Village Planner, Greg Cutler, and Assistant to the Village Planner, Rosy Doud. * ** * * * The Chair said good evening. Welcome to the April 14, 2021 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting, which is being conducted by Zoom Videoconference, pursuant to the Governor's Executive Order 202. Instructions for joining the meeting and accessing the application materials are available at www.scarsdale.com on the Calendar page under the Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting. Members of the public can view this meeting live and provide comments as directed. As we begin this evening's meeting I'd like 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. When I ask for public comment, please click "Raise Hand" or dial *9 to participate by phone. After all of the evening's hearings, the Board will deliberate. Deliberations are open to the public. 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 fi led at Village Hall and are available to the public. Should you decide to leave the meeting before the vote, you may obtain the Board's decision by calling the Planning Department at Village Hall tomorrow at 722-1 131. Also, tomorrow the decisions will be posted on the web at www.scarsdale.com in the Agenda Center under Zoning Board of Appeals. ****** 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 o f Appe als April 14 , 2 0 21 127 BOARD OF APPEALS VILLAGE OF SCARSDALE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held by remotely by the Board of Appeals of the Village of Scarsdale via Zoom videoconference, pursuant to Executive Order 202, on Wednesday, April14, 2021 at 7:00p.m. at which time the Board of Appeals will consider the following: 1. The application of EJK 4 Kingston LLC for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 4 Kingston Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 5, Blk. 8, Lot 17. 2. The application of Eric Coburn for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 33 Murray Hill Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 14 Blk. 04 Lot 05. 3. The application of Raj Mirchandani for a Variance from Chapter 310-22 of the Village Code, to construct a roof structure for a patio at 7 Shaw Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 13 Blk. 1 Lot 9. 4. The application of Daniel and Hillary Pasternak for a Variance from Chapter 31 0-51, to construct a first-floor addition at 11 Oak Lane, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 4 Blk. 1 Lot 375. 5. The application of Stephen Sage for a Variance from Chapter 158 ofthe Village Code, to construct a fence at 1 Hutchinson A venue, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 23 Blk. 1 Lot 25. 6. The application of Nathan Eisler for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, and setback Variance requests to construct a swimming pool at 16 Gate House Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 23 Blk. I Lot 324. 7. The application of Shawn and Marisa Kodes for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 3I0-88 ofthe Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at I27 Cushman Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. I 6 Blk. 4 Lot 7A. 8. The application of Harry and Kelly Mamaysky for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 3I 0-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 6 Mohican Trail, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. I7 Blk. I Lot Sg. 9. The application of Christoph Kollatz for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 3I 0-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 9 Seneca Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 17 Blk. 1 Lot 328. Board of Appeals April 14, 2021 128 Members of the public wishing to present comments may do so online by accessing the meeting at https://scarsdale.zoom.us/j/92090704423 or by calling 1-929-436-2866 and entering the meeting ID: 920 9070 4423. Copies of the above applications may be viewed by interested parties at this Drop box link: https:/ /www.dropbox.com/sh/yn2r 1cxcovhwerl/ AAAJyJ3 uRU8Fpux3 WfJh3ZpMa?dl=O Please email planning@scarsdale.com or call 914-722-1131 with any comments or questions. To receive meeting agendas by e-mail, visit www.scarsdale.com and click on "Notify Me" to subscribe. By Order of the Board of Appeals, Scarsdale, New York, dated March 30, 2021. Gregory Cutler, AICP, Village Planner. ****** CASE #42 OF 2020 1. The Chair declared the hearing open on the application of EJK 4 Kingston LLC for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 3 10-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 4 Kingston Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 5, Blk. 8, Lot 17. Milot Shala, Architect, and Joseph Ciarletta, Applicant, were present. Mr. Shala presented a rendering of the plan. He explained the setbacks and said that the planting plan clarified the proposed screening. The Chair asked for more information on the fence. Mr. Shala indicated the location of the pool fence on the plan and showed a picture of the proposed fence. The Chair asked for more information on the plant materials providing the screening. Mr. Ciarletta said the BAR instructed them to avoid continuous rows of arborvitaes. He said if they need to adjust the plan, they can. The Chair asked if they are providing continuous evergreen screening of at least 5 ft. such that someone could not be able to see through it in any season. Mr. Ciarletta indicated the screening on the planting plan. He said that in some areas, they avoided evergreens at the request of the BAR. He is not sure if there is a continuous evergreen screen in every area. The Chair said that they could either create a screen along the property or along the pool. Mr. Gans asked what the plants surrounding the pool are. Mr. Ciarletta said they are low shrubs. The Chair said they could be replaced with taller evergreens to satisfy the screening requirement or they can put the screening closer to the pool, on the deck. He said Board o f Appeals Ap ril 1 4 , 2 021 129 another alternative is to make a case as to why the screening rule should not apply, though this is not usually done. Mr. Ciarletta said they will try to screen the pool more fully with evergreens. The Chair asked what is meeting the screening requirement for the pool equipment. Mr. Ciarletta said there are 4ft. tall skip laurels. The Chair said they require a 5 ft. screening. The Chair asked if they measured the closest distance from the pool to the lot line to get the setback calculation. Mr. Shala said yes and indicated the measurements on the plan, which was 31 ft. 10 inches. The Chair asked what the distance between the lot line and the pool equipment is. Mr. Shala said it is 20ft., which is the requirement. Ms. Cooper asked if the pool setback is measured from the water line or the pool deck. Mr. Cutler said the setback is measured from the lot line to the water line. Ms. Cooper asked the applicant if they had reviewed correspondence received by the Board about lot coverage concerns. She asked how they calculated their lot coverage. Mr. Shala said the lot coverage calculations included all horizontal surfaces shown on the color rendering apart from the tops of the retaining walls. He said they plan to submit a new lot coverage form that replaces pervious pavement with impervious pavement at the top of the driveway and includes the tops of the retaining walls. The Chair asked if the applicant is going to rely on a different lot coverage form than the one the Board received. Mr. Shala said that the amount of surface coverage will be the same, but the revised form will include the retaining wall calculations and impervious driveway material. The Chair said the Board typically expects the lot coverage form to be accurate at the time they make the decision. He said if the driveway is going to be pervious, the Board typically would like to know what material is being used to ensure it qualifies. Ms. Cooper asked where the stormwater management plan will be located. Mr. Shala indicated the location on the plan. Ms. Cooper asked where the water goes when it is drained. Mr. Shala said the water will be trucked in and out. Ms. Cooper asked if the trees that were removed were permitted. Mr. Ciarletta said yes. Mr. Cutler said he noticed the size of the pool being presented is different from the submission. He said that all plans must be consistent. Ms. Cooper asked where the run-off will go. Mr. Shala indicated the location of the drainage systems on the plan. Mark Nadler, 171 Brite Avenue, spoke. He said 750 people have signed a petition in opposition of the pool. They have an article 78 filing seeking to have the decision by the BAR overturned. He said that because of the topography of the property, 5 ft. evergreens will not provide screening. He said there is inadequate screening as many trees have been removed. Mr. Nadler said the lot coverage is exceeding what is permitted. He said he believes there are too many inconsistencies in the application, and it keeps changing. He said he is in opposition of what has already been done to the property and in opposition of the pool going forward. He Board of Appeals April 14, 2021 130 said he thinks pictures should have been submitted as part of the application that show the property from his perspective. The Chair asked if he would like the Board to wait for his lawyer, Clifford Davis, to present to ask questions. Mr. Nadler said yes. Clifford Davis, lawyer of Mark Nadler, spoke. He said there were no photos showing the property from Mr. Nadler's perspective. He said that the Zoning Board of Appeals should consider the retaining wall being built. He said the Board cannot segment the proposal but should consider it wholistically. Mr. Davis asked the Board to look at the expert report his client submitted to understand the project in context. He said the expert report is unopposed. Mr. Davis said the project is not zoning compliant, the applicant has exceeded the allowed impervious lot coverage, and they have not addressed issues pertaining to the Floor Area Ratio. He said he believes the Board does not have authority to address anything until the engineering department says the application is compliant with zoning. He asked that the application not be considered tonight. He requested that any new materials get submitted to his team before the matter goes before the Board. The Chair asked if the Board has the latest report that Mr. Davis had referred to. Mr. Davis said it had been sent around 3 p.m. that afternoon. The Chair said that he appreciates Mr. Davis's argument about segmenting but asked if they have specific objections to the pool. Mr. Davis said if there was no pool, there would be no retaining walls. Mr. Gans said that the applicant has the right to move forward with the approved plans for the retaining wall whether or not the pool is approved. Mr. Meiselman asked Mr. Ciarletta if he agrees with Mr. Davis's comment that there would be no need for the retaining wall without the pool. Mr. Ciarletta said that the retaining wall is not related to the pool. Ms. Cooper asked if the purpose of the retaining wall is to level the property. Mr. Davis said the retaining walls had been built to maximize every square inch of the property. He said that without a pool, there would be no economic incentive to build the retaining wall in the approved location. The Chair said that he understands Mr. Davis's argument, but this lot could be leveled with or without a pool. He said the Board does consider whether a lot is appropriate for a pool. Mr. Nadler said that the applicant said in the newspaper issue that the reason he wanted to build the retaining wall was to maximize the property. He said the area is a bad location for a pool. He said the pool will be 32ft. above his property. There will be noise pollution, light pollution, and a lack of privacy. Mr. Ciarletta said he did not say he was trying to maximize his lot but that he was trying to create usable land. He said he thinks the land could use additional evergreen screening, which they will work on. He is willing to adjust the planting buffer. Boa rd of Appeals April 1 4 , 20 21 131 Mr. Meiselman asked for more information on the survey that got 750 responses. Mr. Nadler said it was an online petition that asked about the plan that went before the BAR. Mr. Ciarletta said he saw the petition, and it included fake signatures. Mr. Nadler said that he believes at least 3/4 of the people who signed the petition were local. Lauren Bruder, 9 Kingston Road, spoke. She asked if trees will be planted where the large trees in the front were removed. The Chair said that this question is not relevant to the Board's decision. Mr. Ciarletta said they have a detailed planting plan, and there are many plants being added to the front of the property. Peter Gelfrnan, 106 Brite Avenue, spoke. He said he has lived in the area for 40 years. He said most people who signed the petition were from Green Acres. He said that this property is not appropriate for a pool. He asked that the Board walk the site and hold the application over. He asked that they consider the site in context. Joan Weissman, 3 Kingston Road, spoke. She said there are not enough trees being planted in the front yard. She said she is concerned about the impervious surfaces creating runoff down the hill. Mr. Ciarletta said that if she has specific trees she wants him to plant, he would be amenable to doing so. Mr. Ciarletta said that if the Board holds them over, they will make improvements to the evergreen screening. The Chair said the applicant can request to be held over. Mr. Ciarletta said they would like to be held over. Ms. Cooper said she is concerned about parking during construction. Mr. Pozin said he thinks it is a building department issue. Ms. Millen asked that Mr. Ciarletta think carefully about the screening and make sure the application is complete for the next meeting. The Chair asked that the lot coverage calculation be done correctly. Ms. Cooper made a motion to adjourn until May 12 at the applicant's request. Mr. Meiselman seconded. All were in favor. The Chair asked if there was anyone else who wished to be heard with respect to this application, either in favor or in opposition. No persons desiring to be heard, the Chair ended the discussion on the application. ****** CASE #14 of2021 2. The Chair declared the hearing open on the application of Eric Coburn for a Special Use Petmit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 33 Murray Hill Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 14 Blk. 04 Lot 05. Robert Sherwood, Landscape Architect, was present.  Board of Appeals April 14 , 2 02 1 132 Mr. Sherwood said there were questions about pool and site screening last time he came before the Board. He said he has revised the plan to show the location of the pool and .• equipment screening in greater detail. The Chair asked if all the existing plantings that they are relying on are on the applicant's property. Mr. Sherwood said yes. The Chair asked if there was anyone else who wished to be heard with respect to this application, either in favor or in opposition. No persons desiring to be heard, the Chair ended the discussion on the application. ** **** CASE #15 of2021 3. The Chair declared the hearing open on the application of Raj Mirchandani for a Variance from Chapter 310-22 of the Village Code, to construct a roof structure for a patio at 7 Shaw Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 13 Blk. 1 Lot 9. Sid Schlomann, Architect, was present. Mr. Schlomann said at the request of the Board, they reduced the requested variance. They omitted the portion of the application for a roof over the patio and replaced it with a slotted pergola. The pool bar is the only building coverage being requested. He said they have reduced the requested variance from 8% to 2%. The Chair asked if there was anyone else who wished to be heard with respect to this application, either in favor or in opposition. No persons desiring to be heard, the Chair ended the discussion on the application. * ***** CASE #23 of 202 1 4. The Chair declared the hearing open on the application of Daniel and Hillary Postemak for a Variance from Chapter 310-5 1, to construct a first-floor addition at 11 Oak Lane, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 4 Blk. 1 Lot 375. Arnold Wile, Architect, was present. Mr. Wile said they are adding additional area to create a dining room. Currently, the dining room is a small room with no clear purpose. He said there is a bathroom right next to it that they hope to tum into a bar. They would like to use the back of the house as a great room and create a dining room from the space in the comer of the existing house by adding about 5 ft. to the small, existing room. There is an existing 1 story addition. He said they are proposing to extend this addition, and they are not increasing the degree of nonconformity. He said he does not think it will have any impact on the neighborhood. There is a letter from the neighbors on record in support of the application. Board of Appeals April 14 , 2021 133 The Chair asked if the letter is from the neighbor on the side of the addition or the other side. Mr. Wile said it is on the side of the addition and they are the immediate neighbor. Ms. Cooper asked where the air conditioner unit that needs to be moved will go. Mr. Wile said that he does not know, but it will be moved in accordance with the rules. Mr. Wile showed a photo of the house and indicated where the addition would go. He said they are proposing to line up with the existing addition behind it, and they will not increase the degree of non-conformity at all. The Chair said that the Applicant is saying he will not require more of an encroachment in distance from the lot line than currently exists, but the Board considers that this is making the encroachment larger because more of the side of the house is now over the line. Ms. Cooper asked if the tree located close to the plans will remain. Mr. Wile said yes. The Chair asked if there was anyone else who wished to be heard with respect to this application, either in favor or in opposition. No persons desiring to be heard, the Chair ended the discussion on the application. ****** CASE #24 of 202 1 5. The Chair declared the hearing open on the application of Stephen Sage for a Variance from Chapter 158 ofthe Village Code, to construct a fence at 1 Hutchinson Avenue, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 23 Blk. 1 Lot 25. Steve Sage, Applicant, is present. Mr. Sage said they are applying for a variance for a fence. The previous owners applied for a variance for the front and side of the house, and they would like to add a fence to the remaining two sides. The Chair asked if they are replacing the existing fence. Mr. Sage said yes, as it is not in good shape. The Chair asked staff if they need a new variance if they materially change the fence . Mr. Diodati said ifthe fence is replaced with one of the same style and height, the applicants would not need to get an additional variance. He said if they changed the style, they may need to go before the BAR. The Chair asked if they are replacing the wood fence with a plastic fence that resembles wood. Mr. Sage said yes. Mr. Diodati said that it is in line with the characteristics of the approved fence. The Chair asked if the BAR considers the plastic wood fence as the same as a wood fence. Mr. Diodati said they do if it looks like what was approved. Mr. Sage said that they intentionally chose a fence that resembles the old fence. Mr. Cutler said that the resolve said it is to legalize a fence that exceeds the height requirement. Board of Appeals April 14 , 2021 134 The Chair asked what is permitted by right in the location of the existing fence. Mr. Cutler said a 4 ft. fence is permitted, and the previous owners obtained a 2 ft. variance. The Chair asked staff to confirm that the applicant is permitted to have a 4 ft. fence on Weaver Street, and they are proposing a 6 ft. fence . Mr. Diodati confirmed. The Chair said they can have a 4ft. fence within 50 ft. of Weaver Street and beyond 50 ft. they can have a 6 ft. fence by right. Mr. Diodati confirmed. The Chair asked if there is anything unique about the property that they should consider reason to allow a 6 ft. fence. Mr. Sage said that his property is abutting the school. Every day there are lines of cars at the comer of their property. He said many people walk on their property when walking their children to and from school. There is a bus stop on the comer. He said there is a heavily trafficked sidewalk on Weaver Street. They do not have much privacy on the comer lot since one street is a state route and the other is an entrance and exit to a county parkway. The Chair asked if there was anyone else who wished to be heard with respect to this application, either in favor or in opposition. No persons desiring to be heard, the Chair ended the discussion on the application. ****** CASE #25 of 2021 6. The Chair declared the hearing open on the application of Nathan Eisler for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 3 10-88 ofthe Village Code, and setback Variance requests to construct a swimming pool at 16 Gate House Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 23 Blk. 1 Lot 324. Dan Sherman, Landscape Architect, was present. Mr. Sherman said they are requesting two variances for a small, prefabricated pool. He said the property is unique because the yard is small, and they are overlooking an embankment. They are requesting an eight-foot variance and a 16.77 ft. variance. 5 ft. evergreen planting. Mr. Gans asked if it is possible to tum the pool and fit it almost entirely behind the house to reduce the side yard setback. Mr. Sherman said they would still need a side yard setback, and if the pool were in the back of the house, it would be in the shade. He said they tried many different options by rearranging a tarp of the same dimensions as the proposed pool. The Chair asked if they considered narrowing the pool. Mr. Sherman said that he does not have his clients on the line to ask them, but there are smaller pool options. The Chair asked if Mr. Sherman had submitted the letter of support. Mr. Sherman said that he did not know about it. Board of Appeals Apri l 14, 2021 135 Ms. Cooper said she is less bothered by the rear setback than side yard setback. She asked if they had explored other locations. Mr. Sherman said that they dragged the tarp around to the back, and it seemed crowded. The Chair asked if there would be hardship in holding it over. Mr. Sherman said no. The Chair said they got an email from 12 Gate house Road in suppmt of the application. The Chair asked if there was anyone else who wished to be heard with respect to this application, either in favor or in opposition. No persons desiring to be heard, the Chair ended the discussion on the application. ****** CASE #26 of 2021 7. The Chair declared the hearing open on the application of Shawn and Marisa Kodes for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 127 Cushman Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 16 Blk. 4 Lot 7A. Kathy Zalantis, Attorney, Stephen Anderson, Engineer, and Shawn Kodes, Applicant, were present. Ms. Zalantis said they are seeking an amended special use permit for a pool. The Board approved a pool in 2019. The pool was constructed 5 ft. further away from the house than was indicated on the approved plan to allow a greater distance between the house and the pool. The pool is still within the setback area and is heavily screened. She said the pool was constructed at a slightly higher elevation than what was approved because the as-built elevation of the patio and the area surrounding the patio were higher, and had they built it at the approved elevation, there would be run-off into the pool. There are no adverse impacts from the changes, and there is no run-off from the property. She said the neighbors support the application, and drainage has been improved. The Chair asked how the pool got built differently than what was approved and whether the applicant was aware they were not building according to the plans that were approved. Ms. Zalantis said the builder was supposed to build the pool, but the client had to take over because of covid restrictions. She said the client relied on what the design professionals advised and assumed the professionals would proceed properly. Mr. Kodes said he had to act as the general contractor, which he had not expected. They went to the building department and the Board of Architectural Review (BAR). Plans were approved by BAR, and he did not know he had to go before the Board of Appeals as well. He relied on the design professionals to know the proper proceedings. Board of Appeals April 14, 202 1 136 Mr. Gans asked when they purchased the home. Mr. Kodes said they moved in March 2020 with the condition to closing that the pool permit be in hand. He said that was obtained in January 2020. Mr. Gans asked when they signed on the property. Mr. Kodes said they signed in the beginning of January of2020. Mr. Gans said that after the applicant went to the Board of Appeals, they went before the Planning Board asking for the right to regrade the property and remove trees in the rear of the property. He said this request was denied. Mr. Gans said his concern was that permission was sought to do what was actually done and was denied. Ms. Zalantis said that was a completely different plan than what is before them tonight. Mr. Kodes said the submission to the Planning Board predated his purchase of the property. He said there is a limit of disturbance line in the back third of their property. The request before the Planning Board was to push the pool beyond the limit of disturbance line. He said they have not done work beyond the limit of disturbance line. Ms. Zalantis said the plan proposed to the Planning Board showed the pool equipment within the limit of disturbance. She said that plan was completely different from the one the Board of Appeals approved and are presenting tonight, and this plan respects the limit of disturbance line. Mr. Gans asked if retaining walls were built inside ofthe wetlands buffer. Ms. Zalantis said that the retaining walls were existing in the wetlands buffer. Mr. Kodes said the "retaining wall" was scattered rock not a true retaining wall. He said the rocks had been removed, as they were not natural to wetlands. The Chair asked if the pool was knowingly built not in conformance with the plan that had been approved. Ms. Zalantis said it was built in response to the BAR approval. Mr. Kodes said he was relying on the pool company to understand the permit process. Ms. Millen asked if the applicant realized the pool had not been built in compliance when they asked to get the certificate of occupancy. Mr. Kodes said he realized before then because the Village came out and identified that they were not conforming. Mr. Diodati said the pool was already completed when he came out and discovered it had not been built in conformance. The Chair noted that the plan previously approved by the Board of Appeals in 2019 had landscaping in the easement. He said there is nothing in the minutes to show that the Board discussed this issue at that time. The plan before them still has landscaping in the easement. The Chair asked what would happen next in respect to the issue of planting in the easement if the Board of Appeals were to approve this plan. Ms. Zalantis said the plan that was previously approved by this Board depicted planting in the easement area. She said it had already been planted and the fence had already been installed. She said it would be onerous to make the applicant remove something that the Board already approved. Ms. Zalantis said they could come to an amended easement agreement if the Village needs to access the easement. Board of Appeals April 14 , 2021 137 Mr. Pozin asked if the plantings being discussed are germane to this application. Mr. Kodes said they are because the application relies on the plantings to meet the screening requirement, and the trees had already been approved and planted at the time he moved in. The Chair asked Mr. Pozin if approving this application would interfere with other deliberations respecting the easement. Mr. Pozin said if the Board of Appeals approves it, they are sending a message to the Board of Trustees that they are relying on the trees for screening. Mr. Pozin asked what is in the easement. Ms. Zalantis said it is a sewer line. Mr. Cutler said the easement was mentioned in the review notes in the initial Board of Appeals application. He said there was language about it potentially posing a problem if roots got into the sewer system. The Chair asked if the applicant would be amenable to an agreement stipulating that if the Board of Trustees rules that the applicant is not permitted to have plantings in the easement, the applicant would replace the screening and locate it off the easement. Mr. Kodes said that moving the screening 5 ft. off the easement would cause multiple code violations because the fence and trees would be against the house and blocking the basement egress. He said it would also incur an expense of close to 20,000 dollars. Mr. Pozin said that the Zoning Board of Appeals cannot rely on the fact that the Board of Trustees would approve plantings in the easement. Ms. Zalantis said that while the policy is not to allow plantings in the easement, there is currently no easement agreement. She said she is suggesting they remedy the problem by creating an easement agreement laying out the rights of the parties. She said the land discussed is not a Village right-of-way. This is the property owner's land under which the village maintains an easement, and this Board already approved the location of the plantings in 2019. Ms. Zalantis said they are here regarding the change in the location of the pool. Mr. Pozin asked ifthey previously went to the Board of Trustees for an easement agreement. Ms. Zalantis said they did not because the plan was approved by the Board of Appeals. Mr. Pozin said the Board of Appeals could consider granting an approval conditioned upon the trustees granting the agreement, or the applicant could go to the trustees first and come back with the approval. Ms. Zalantis asked that the approval be granted as soon as possible by the Board of Appeals with a condition that she and her client seek approval from the Board of Trustees and work out an easement agreement. Mr. Diodati asked what the applicant would do if the Board of Trustees denies them the agreement to plant in the easement. He said he cannot issue a certificate of occupancy for them to use the pool. He said they used pool last summer and got complaints from neighbors. Mr. Kodes said that if Board of Trustees denies the agreement, they will honor the ruling and move the trees. Mr. Gans said he thought the existing screening was inadequate. Mr. Kodes said they could adjust it. The Chair said if the applicant adds evergreen screening in the easement, they Board of Appeals April 14 , 2021 138 would be doing extra work that may need to be undone. The Chair said he had not noticed . . gaps m screemng. The Chair asked if granting a conditional approval would send the view to the Board of Trustees that they approve of planting in the easement. Mr. Pozin said if the Board grants the conditional approval, they should add a note from staff to Board of Trustees saying it is not within the Board of Appeals' purview to determine if trees can stay in the easement. Mr. Gans said that they must make sure that where there are restrictions put in place they are followed. He said he thinks there was work done within the wetlands buffer. He asked who is checking to see if work that was not authorized was done. Mr. Kodes said the staff has been diligent in enforcing plans. Ms. Zalantis asked that the Board does not conflate her client with the previous developer, as her client has not done work within the limit of disturbance. Mr. Gans asked if work had been done in the limit of disturbance line, whether it had done by a previous owner or not, what should be done. He said he does not think she is suggesting that nothing be done. Ms. Zalantis said the Village has not done nothing. She has been on calls where she has showed them elevations to prove that there was not work done within the limit of disturbance. The Chair asked if Mr. Gans had comments regarding the pool. Mr. Gans said he thinks his questions were germane, but he does not have any other questions regarding the pool. The Chair asked Ms. Zalantis if she could explain if there are any circumstances that mean the Board should not be particularly concerned about the easement. Ms. Zalantis said there is no legal basis to preclude people planting in an easement area. A policy is not a legal right to impose on a property owner. This can be dealt with through an agreement between the Village and her client in the event work needs to be done, but it would be onerous to require her client to remove the trees when there may not be a need for work. Mr. Kodes said that the Board noted the easement in 20 19 and approved it with the easement. Ms. Cooper asked if the Building Department would issue a certificate of occupancy if there were gaps in the screening. Mr. Diodati said they would not, and a licensed professional would also have to confirm that there are no gaps. Chair asked if would be amenable to approval with condition that they come to understanding with Board of Trustees. The Chair asked if there was anyone else who wished to be heard with respect to this application, either in favor or in opposition. No persons desiring to be heard, the Chair ended the discussion on the application. ****** CASE #27 of2021 Board o f Appeals April 1 4 , 2021 139 8. The Chair declared the hearing open on the application of Harry and Kelly Marnaysky for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 6 Mohican Trail, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 17 Blk. 1 Lot 5g. Dan Sherman, Landscape Architect, was present. Mr. Sherman showed his plan and said there is a 20 ft. wide Village easement. The house and porch are right against the easement, and they are proposing a 4 ft. retaining wall to make a level pool deck. The pool meets the setback and lot coverage requirements. requirements. Mr. Sherman showed a rendering of the proposed pool. He said there is a 4 ft. retaining wall with a 1 ft. parapet. There is a 5 ft. fence where there is no retaining wall. There is 2 ft. wide and 5 ft. wide evergreen screening tight to the wall that is in the easement. The Chair asked if the 5 ft. screening requirement can be satisfied by screening the retaining wall such that someone on the deck would be above the screening. He said to his knowledge, they have never clarified whether this would satisfy the requirements. Mr. Sherman said he has done the same thing in two other applications at Archer Lane and Harvest Drive. The Chair said other applicants have opted to put the screening on top of the wall to avoid running into this issue or have moved the screening to the lot line and done a perimeter screening. The Chair said there are two challenges; there are plantings in the easement, and plantings in front of the retaining wall will not screen the pool unless they rise 5 ft. above the surface of the pool deck. He said he is surprised Mr. Sherman said he has done this before because he is usually on the lookout for this type of application. Mr. Sherman said that for the project on Archer Lane, the screening is right up against the wall. The Chair said it is okay to have the screening against the wall, but the question is whether it creates a problem when the pool is elevated behind the wall. Mr. Sherman said this was the case for the Archer Lane property. Mr. Sherman said the plantings could be taller. He said it would be hard to put the screening at the edge of the property because there is a lot of shade from deciduous trees. Mr. Diodati said they do not permit plantings on an easement. Mr. Sherman said that he could move the plantings 2 or 3 ft. so that they would be off the easement. Mr. Pozin said this application is different than the application for 127 Cushman as the plantings in the easement in the other application are existing. Mr. Cutler added that at the time of the previous application, the trees were already existing when the board approved them. Mr. Gans asked if the Board has the power to grant land rights. Mr. Pozin said no. The Chair said it would remove an issue if the screening went 5 ft. above the pool deck. Board of Appeals April 14, 2021 140 Ms. Cooper said the purpose of the screening is not being met because it is not protecting the view of the pool. Mr. Sherman said his proposal screens the pool but not people near the pool. The Chair said they might consider moving the screening to the edge of the property. Mr. Sherman said that screening would not grow out there because of the existing trees. Ms. Millen said that because the property slopes, and the surrounding houses are at lower elevations, they would still see people at the pool if the screening was at the edge of the property. The Chair asked if there was anyone else who wished to be heard with respect to this application, either in favor or in opposition. No persons desiring to be heard, the Chair ended the discussion on the application. ****** CASE #28 of 2021 9. The Chair declared the hearing open on the application of Christoph Kollatz for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 ofthe Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 9 Seneca Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 17 Blk. 1 Lot 328. Eliot Senor, Engineer, is present in place of John Cotugno, Architect, who is absent due to illness. Mr. Senor said there are existing arborvitaes on two sides that are more than 5 ft. tall and provide a continuous screen. There is a golf course to the rear and a retaining wall with a drainage ditch. He said they propose to put evergreen screening in the rear, and the buyer of the property is prepared to add additional arborvitae to what is on the plan. The proposed pool is 18 ft. by 34ft. It was placed to retain play area to the left of the pool. The house was recently constructed with a full stormwater system. The Chair said the plan is hard to read and not specific. He said he is concerned that the plan may not be specific enough for the Village to verify that what they build conforms to the plan. Mr. Senor said the plan shows a mix of 5 ft. high rhododendrons and azaleas and a black chain-link fence surrounding it. The buyer is willing to add additional arborvitaes if the proposed plantings do not provide sufficient screening. Ms. Cooper said they often ask for a quantity of proposed plantings. Mr. Senor said the plan specifies 22 plantings. Ms. Cooper says it looks like there are more than 22 plantings. Mr. Senor said they are committed to putting the screening in as required by the code. The Chair asked for more information about the landscaping surrounding the pool pad. Mr. Senor said they need to add that information to the plan. Board of Appeals April 14, 2021 141 Mr. Cutler said the proposed pool is within the watercourse buffer area so it will require Planning Board approval. Mr. Senor said they can avoid the 25 ft. buffer by turning the pool 90 degrees. He said when they resubmit with an upgraded landscape plan they can see if the client would like them to rotate it. Cindy True, 28 Mount Joy, spoke. She said she is the buyer of9 Seneca. She said There are exactly 22 circles on the plan, and they are willing to install the plants as proposed on the plan. She said the proposed pool is not in the wetlands. They would like to keep it in this location, but if they thought it would be denied because of the distance to the watercourse, they would be open to switching the orientation of the pool. The Chair said that the Board would not deny the application based on the wetlands buffer, but the applicant would have to go before an additional board. Mr. Cutler said there is a 25 ft. water course and wetlands buffer and a 100 ft. wetlands-controlled area. The 100 ft. buffer is from wetlands, and the 25 ft. buffer is for both watercourses and wetlands. They would have to go to the Planning Board if the proposed pool is within 25 ft. of a water course even if it is not in wetlands. Ms. True asked if they would be permitted to come back to the Board of Appeals with a new plan if they went before the Planning Board and the plan was denied. The Chair said yes. Ms. Cooper asked about pool equipment screening. Ms. True said they were also a mix of 5 ft. azaleas and rhododendrons. Mr. Senor said they are asking for the Board of Appeals to review as submitted. The Chair asked if there was anyone else who wished to be heard with respect to this application, either in favor or in opposition. No persons desiring to be heard, the Chair ended the discussion on the application. ****** Board of Appeals April 14 , 2021 142 CASE #42 OF 2020 1. EJK 4 Kingston LLC 4 Kingston Road Sec. 5, Blk. 8,Lot17 Special Use Permit to construct a swimming pool The Board considered the application ofEJK 4 Kingston LLC, Case #42 of2020, for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 4 Kingston Road, and, upon motion duly made and seconded, unanimously held the matter over to the May 12, 2021 meeting for the following reason: 1. The applicant has requested adjournment in order to provide revised plans and lot coverage form in advance of the May 12, 2021 meeting. ****** Board of Appeal s April 1 4, 2021 143 CASE #14 OF 2021 2. Eric Coburn 33 Murray Hill Road Sec. 5, Blk. 8, Lot 17 Special Use Permit to construct a swimming pool The Board considered the application ofEric Coburn, Case #14 of2021 , for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 ofthe Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 33 Murray Hill Road, and, and, upon motion duly made and seconded, unanimously adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS: The Board has considered the subject application pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act and Chapter 152 ofthe Village Code; now therefore be it RESOLVED: That after careful examination ofthe site and evaluation ofthe information submitted with the application, the Board determined that such application, the construction of minor accessory structures (such as driveways, fences or pools) is a Type II action pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617.5(c) (12) 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 acre and 43 ,412 sq. ft. on the lot coverage form; and WHEREAS: The property is improved with a home built in 1923 with additions built in 1966 and 20 12; and WHEREAS: Chapter 310-88(A) ofthe Village Code authorizes the Board of Appeals to consider Special Use Permits for the construction of swimming pools; and WHEREAS: The plans show the proposed construction of a swimming pool and associated equipment, landscaping and fencing; and WHEREAS: The pool and pool equipment appear to meet the required setbacks and the project appears to meet the lot coverage; and WHEREAS: The application appeared before the Board of Appeals on March 10, 2021 and was held over to provide an opportunity for the applicant to submit revised plans; and WHEREAS: The applicant submitted revised plans in advance of the April 14, 2021 meeting; 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 Eric Coburn, Case # 14 of2021 , for a Special Use Permit, Board o f Appeals April 14, 2021 144 pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 33 Murray Hill Road, as shown on the Pool Site Plan dated revised March 18, 2021, 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. 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, 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 as represented on the plans. 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. The soil erosion control measures shall be in place prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. 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 Board of Appeals April 14 , 2021 145 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 24 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 24 months from the date of this resolution shall cause the Special Use Permit to become null and void. ****** Board of Appeals April 1 4, 2021 146 CASE # 15 OF 2021 3. Raj Mirchandani 7 Shaw Road Sec. 13,Blk. 1, Lot9 Variance- Building Coverage The Board considered the application of Mirchandani, Case # 15 of 2021, for a variance from Chapter 310-22 of the Village Code, to construct a gazebo structure that exceeds the maximum building coverage at 7 Shaw Road, 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 granting of area variances for a single family home is a Type II action pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617.5(c) (17) and no further environmental review is required pursuant to said regulations; and WHEREAS: The property, located in the A-2a (15,000) zoning district, is shown in the Assessor's records as .47 acres and 19,938 sq. ft. on the lot coverage form; and WHEREAS: Chapter 31 0-22 of the Village Code regulates building and lot coverage in residential zones; and WHEREAS: The application appeared before the Board of Appeals on March 10, 2021 and was held over to provide the applicant an opportunity to consider alternatives and reduce the size of the variance request; and WHEREAS: The applicant submitted revised plans that reduced the size of the building coverage variance request from 493 sq. ft. or 7% to 124 sq. ft. or 2%; 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 Raj Mirchandani, Case # 15 of 2021 , for a variance from Chapter 310-22 of the Village Code, to construct a gazebo structure that exceeds the maximum building coverage at 7 Shaw Road, be approved based on the following findings: 1. The requested variances will not create an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by another feasible Board of Appeals April 14 , 202 1 147 method. 3. The requested 2% building coverage variance is not substantial. 4. The requested variances will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 5. The requested variance is self-created but in consideration of the other factors it does not preclude the granting of the area variance. ****** Board of Appea ls April 14 , 202 1 148 CASE #23 OF 2021 4. Daniel and Hillary Pasternak 11 Oak Lane Sec. 4, Blk. 1, Lot 375 Variance- Side Yard Setback The Board considered the application of Daniel and Hillary Pasternak, Case #23 of 2021 , for a variance from Chapter 310-51 of the Village Code, to construct a first floor addition at 11 Oak Lane, and, upon motion duly made and seconded, unanimously adopted the following resolution: RESOLVED: That after careful examination of the site and evaluation of the information submitted with the application, the granting of area variances for a single family home is a Type II action pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617.5(c) (17) 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 .41 acres and 17,859 sq. ft. on the lot coverage form; and WHEREAS: The property is improved with a home built in 1926; and WHEREAS : Chapter 310-51 of the Village Code regulates building and lot coverage in residential zones; and WHEREAS: The side yard setback variance request is for 10.1 feet where 15 feet is required, representing a 4 .9 foot variance or 33%; 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 Daniel and Hillary Pasternak, Case #23 of 2021, for a variance from Chapter 310-51 of the Village Code, to construct a first floor addition at 11 Oak Lane, as shown on the Dining Room Addition Plan dated February 18, 2021 , be approved based on the following findings: 1. The requested variances will not create an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by another feasible method in consideration of the intended use of the home. 3. The requested 33% building coverage variance is substantial however the proposed addition does not further encroach perpendicularly into the side Board of Appeals April 14 , 2021 149 yard setback. 4. The requested variances will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 5. The requested variance is self-created but in consideration of the other factors it does not preclude the granting of the area variance. ****** Board of Appea l s Ap r i l 1 4 , 2 02 1 150 CASE #23 OF 2021 5. Stephen Sage 1 Hutchinson Ave Sec. 23, Blk. 1, Lot 25 Variance to construct a fence which exceeds the maximum permitted height The Board considered the application of Stephen Sage, Case #23 of 2021 , for a Variance from Chapter 158 of the Village Code, to construct a fence at 1 Hutchinson Ave, and, upon motion duly made and seconded, unanimously adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS: The Board has considered the subject application pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act and Chapter 152 of the Village Code; now therefore be it RESOLVED: That after careful examination ofthe site and evaluation ofthe information submitted with the application, the Board determined that such application, the construction of minor accessory structures (such as driveways, fences or pools) is a Type II action pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617.5(c) (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 shown in the Assessor' s records as .67 acres and 34,049 sq. ft . on the lot coverage form ; and WHEREAS: The property is improved with a home built in 1950; and WHEREAS: The variance request is for a 6 foot fence where 4 feet is the maximum permitted, representing a 2 foot variance or 50%; and WHEREAS: The property previously received a variance in 2005 for a 6 foot fence along the frontage and side yard of the property; and WHEREAS: Chapter 158 of the Village Code regulates the maximum permitted heigh of fences; 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 Stephen Sage, Case #23 of 2021 , for a Variance from Chapter 158 of the Village Code, to construct a fence at 1 Hutchinson Ave, as shown on the submitted plans, be approved based on the following findings: 1. The requested variances will not create an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The property received a variance for fence height in 2005, and therefore the increase of extending the fence, at the same height, will not create an undesirable change. Board of Appeals April 14 , 2021 151 2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by another feasible method. 3. The requested variance is substantial in percentage terms. 4. The requested variances will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 5. The requested variance is self-created but in consideration of the other factors it does not preclude the granting of the area variance. Board of Appeals April 14 , 2021 152 CASE #25 OF 2021 6. Nathan Eisler 16 Gate House Road Sec. 14 Blk. 5, Lot 19b Special Use Permit and setback variances to construct a swimming pool The Board considered the application ofNathan Eisler, Case #25 of2021, for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code and setback variances from Chapter 31 0-4 7, to construct a swimming pool at 16 Gate House Road, and, upon motion duly made and seconded, unanimously held the matter over to the May 12, 202 1 meeting for the following reason: 1. To provide the applicant the opportunity to research alternatives that would reduce or eliminate the size of the variances or provide justification as to why there are no feasible alternatives. Boa rd of Appe als April 1 4, 20 21 153 CASE #26 OF 2021 7. Shawn Kodes 127 Cushman Road Sec. 16 Blk. 4, Lot 7a Special Use Permit to construct a swimming pool The Board considered the application of Shawn Kodes, Case #26 of 2021, for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, for a swimming pool at 127 Cushman Road, and, upon motion duly made and seconded, unanimously adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS: The Board has considered the subject application pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act and Chapter 152 ofthe Village Code; now therefore be it RESOLVED: That after careful examination of the site and evaluation ofthe information submitted with the application, the Board determined that such application, the construction of minor accessory structures (such as driveways, fences or pools) is a Type II action pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617.5(c) (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 shown in the Assessor's records as 0.5 acres; and WHEREAS: The property was re-subdivided and four lots were created along this portion of Cushman Road where there had been two houses; and WHEREAS: The home was completed in 2019; and WHEREAS: The property is in a Sensitive Drainage Area pursuant to Chapter 254 of the Village Code; and WHEREAS: The property is located within the wetland controlled area; and WHEREAS: The applicant received a Special Use Permit to construct a swimming pool in March of20 19; and WHEREAS: The pool was constructed in a different location and at a different elevation than what was approved in the initial plan; and WHEREAS: Chapter 310-88(A) ofthe Village Code authorizes the Board of Appeals to consider Special Use Permits for the construction of swimming pools; and WHEREAS: The plans show the current location of the swimming pool and associated equipment, landscaping and fencing; and WHEREAS: The pool and pool equipment appear to meet the required setbacks and the Board of Appeal s April 14 , 2021 154 project appears to meet the lot coverage; and WHEREAS: The Board members have visited the site and are familiar with the materials in the application; now therefore be it RESOLVED: That the application Shawn Kodes, Case #26 of 2021, for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, for a swimming pool at 127 Cushman Road, as shown on the Pool Planting Plan dated revised March 8, 2021, 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. 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, 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 as represented on the plans. 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. Board of Appeals April 14 , 2021 155 9. A Stormwater Management and Erosion Control Permit is required. The soil erosion control measures shall be in place prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. 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 24 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 24 months from the date ofthis resolution shall cause the Special Use Permit to become null and void. 14. As offered by the applicant, should the Board ofTrustees require the removal of the required screening plantings within the Village Sewer Easement, the applicant must return to the Board of Appeals for a new Special Use Permit. ****** Board of Appeals April 14 , 2021 156 CASE #27 OF 2021 6. Harry and Kelly Mamaysky 6 Mohican Trail Sec. 17 Blk. 1, Lot 50 Special Use Permit to construct a swimming pool The Board considered the application ofNathan Eisler, Case #27 of2021, for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 6 Mohican Trail, and, upon motion duly made and seconded, unanimously held the matter over to the May 12, 2021 meeting for the following reason: 1. To provide the applicant the opportunity to explain the screening in front of the wall. 2. To provide the applicant the opportunity to consider removing the plantings within the easement. Board o f Appeals April 14 , 2021 157 CASE #28 OF 2021 6. Christoph Kollatz 9 Seneca Road Sec. 17 Blk. 1, Lot 328 Special Use Permit to construct a swimming pool The Board considered the application of Christoph Kollatz, Case #28 of 2021, for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 9 Seneca Road, and, upon motion duly made and seconded, unanimously held the matter over to the May 12, 2021 meeting for the following reasons: 1. To provide the applicant the opportunity to consider rotating the pool orientation. 2. To provide the applicant the opportunity to confirm the proposed screening will be satisfy the Board of Appeals policy statement' s screening requirements. **** ** Upon motion duly made and seconded, the minutes ofthe January, February, and March meetings were approved as amended. **** ** The Chair announced that the next meeting of the Board of Appeals would be held on Wednesday, May 12, 2021 , at 7 p.m. **** ** The meeting was adjourned at 11:59 PM. **** ** Assistant to the Village Planner