Zoning Board of Appeals

158 BOARD OF APPEALS RUTHERFORD HALL VILLAGE HALL SCARSDALE, NY June 9, 2021 A regular meeting of the Board of Appeals of the Village of Scarsdale was held in via Zoom videoconference, on Wednesday, June 9, 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 called the June 9, 2021 Board of Appeals meeting to order at 7:00PM. He said welcome to the June 9, 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 di'al *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 filed 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 722-1131. 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: Board of Appeals June 9 , 2021 159 LEGAL NOTICE PUBLIC HEARING BOARD OF APPEALS VILLAGE OF SCARSDALE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held by remotely by the Board of Appeals ofthe Village of Scarsdale via Zoom videoconference, pursuant to Executive Order 202, on Wednesday, June 9, 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 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. 2. The application of Tianying Xu for a Variance from Chapter 310-43 to construct a new deck at 38 Aspen Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 19 Blk. 2 Lot 408. 3. The application of24 Meadow Road Realty LLC for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, setback Variance requests, and a building coverage Variance request to construct a swimming pool at 24 Meadow Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 23 Blk. 1 Lot 110. 4. The application ofMartine Jajan for a Variance from Chapter 310-47 and a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 3 10-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 19 Berwick Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 4 Blk. 3 Lot 4 70. 5. The application of One Hickory Lane LLC for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to relocate pool equipment and generator to the front yard of 1 Hickory Lane, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 4 Blk. 8 Lot 61 OA.l. 6. The application of Greg Shalmi and Randi Matalon for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 22 Hampton Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 4 Blk. 5 Lot 515A. 7. The application of George and Phyllis Lantos for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 3 10-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 36 Franklin Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 22 Blk. 11 Lot 58. 8. ADJOURNED The application of 17 1 West LLC for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 11 Murray Hill Road (formerly 2A Cooper Road), identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 9 Blk. 10 Lot 2. 9. The application of Neville Bamji for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 12 Gate House Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 23 Blk. 1 Lot 326. Board of Appeals J u ne 9 , 202 1 160 10. The application of James and Melissa Phelan for a Variance from Chapter 310-102 of Village Code, to construct a second floor addition at 59 Brambach Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 8, Blk. 21, Lots 25. 11. The application of 11 May 10 LLC for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 45 Hampton Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 4 Blk. 2 Lot 640. 12. The application of Brian and Julie Duignan for a Variance from Chapter 310-51 of Village Code, to construct a deck at 20 Ferncliff Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 11 Blk. 10Lot67. 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 Dropbox link: https:/ /www.dropbox.com/sh/4nnrh2 11Obgnogh/AABGN8iyVVPDMMWAcA3yMrBaa?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 ofthe Board of Appeals, Scarsdale, New York, dated April27, 2021. Gregory Cutler, AICP, Village Planner. ****** CASE #42 of2020 1. The application ofEJK 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, will be held over at the request of the applicant. ** *** * CASE #29 of 2021 2. The Chair declared the hearing open on the application of Tianying Xu for a Variance from Chapter 310-43 to construct a new deck at 38 Aspen Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 19 Blk. 2 Lot 408. Bo ard of Appea l s J une 9 , 2 021 161 Arwen Dong and Tianying Xu, Applicants, and Richard Kotz, Architect, were present. Mr. Dong said they are proposing to build a deck in the rear of their home to connect with a new addition. They are requesting a zoning variance. Mr. Kotz said they would like to have the deck directly link to the ground floor space. They are asking for a 12 ft. deep deck in the back yard, which is the minimum size to comfortably accommodate a table. The rear deck will encroach into the rear yard setback. The deck is about 7ft. above the backyard because the existing house has a walk-out basement. The topography will remain the same. They are not requesting any side yard setbacks, and the rear of the property is well screened. The deck will not be visible from the street. The house to the right of 38 Aspen Road has a deck that encroaches into the setback. The Chair asked what material the deck will be and how high the railings will be. Mr. Kotz said the material will be trex, and the handrail will be 36 inches tall. The Chair asked if any efforts will be made to minimize the request for a variance. Mr. Kotz said they are building a code compliant family room addition. They would like the deck to span the entire width of the rear of the house. They are open to changing the number of feet, but their proposal keeps the deck within the perimeter of the house. Ms. Cooper asked what the depth of the current deck is. Mr. Dong said it is about 5 ft. deep and not usable. Ms. Cooper asked if there is a table on the current deck. Mr. Dong said no. Ms. Cooper said using a smaller table could reduce the size of the variance request. Mr. Kotz said the table is 3 ft. wide, the chairs on either side will require 3 ft. of space each to move in and out, and another 3 ft. is required to clear the door. This adds up to 12 ft. Ms. Cooper said they could place the table out of the way of the door and remove the 3 ft. of space entirely. Mr. Kotz said designing it that way would not be enjoyable because one chair would back up against a wall and one would back up against a handrail. They would also want a sitting area. They will consider reducing the length of the deck, but a 12 ft. depth is the minimum requirement for a comfortable space. Mr. Gans asked Mr. Kotz how he verified that one of the neighboring houses has a deck that encroaches on the rear yard setback. Mr. Kotz said he has a survey of their property. The Chair said when he went to the property last Sunday, the property was not staked. Ms. Cooper said she was there today, and it was not staked. Judy Koch, 40 Aspen Road, was present. She said she is concerned about the appearance of the property and the respect for guidelines that have already been demonstrated. She said her neighbors chopped down trees along the property line. She is Bo a rd of Appea l s J u n e 9 , 2 0 2 1 162 concerned that if the deck is built, there will be a large space underneath that could house garden materials. Mr. Koch said they could provide a lattice or some type of screening of the deck so any storage would not be visible. Mr. Meiselman said that both neighbors have decks that seem similar in size to the applicants' existing deck. He asked if Mr. Kotz knows the dimension of the decks of the neighbors to the left and to the right. Mr. Kotz said he knows the dimensions of the neighbor's deck to the right at 36 Aspen Road. The deck is approximately 24ft. long and runs into the screened-in porch, which encroaches into the rear-yard. The porch is another 24ft. long. Ms. Cooper said had the deck been staked, it would have provided more context compared to the adjacent homes. She asked if staking is required. Mr. Meiselman said the language stipulates applicants "should" stake. Mr. Pozin said if staking were required, the language would say "shall" or "must." Mr. Cutler confirmed that the language is "should." Ms. Millen said that based on one of the letters, there seemed to be some confusion about the deck extending beyond the front of the house. She asked if the addition has been communicated to neighbors. Mr. Dong said his neighbor did know about the addition because she said in the letter that the deck might be seen from the street if the addition is not built at the same time as the deck, but the front yard is significantly higher than the back yard, so the deck would not be visible from the street in any event. The Chair asked ifthere are mitigating factors for neighbors to see the deck. Mr. Dong said there is still screening in the back. They cut down some trees that were leaning against the house at the request of the insurance company. The Chair asked if the existing trees are evergreens, and Mr. Dong said they are. Ms. Xu said they also cut down trees that had termites and replaced them. The Chair said the Board sometimes requests a landscaping plan for a variance request. He asked if they would consider providing a landscaping plan. Mr. Dong said there is not room to plant new trees without taking down mature 40-50 ft. tall trees. The Chair asked if there would be a landscaping solution to screening the area below the porch in addition to or instead of the lattice. Mr. Dong said he would be happy to screen it with trees. Ms. Cooper asked if the applicant would be willing to put additional screening in the side yard. Ms. Xu said she would if her neighbor at 36 Aspen requested it, but their kids are close and play together. Mr. Dong said there is also a mature oak that might prevent them from adding other trees. Board o f Appeals June 9 , 202 1 163 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 #30 of2021 3. The Chair declared the hearing open on the application of24 Meadow Road Realty LLC for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, setback Variance requests, and a building coverage Variance request to construct a swimming pool at 24 Meadow Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 23 Blk. 1 Lot 110. Brad Schwartz, Attorney, Patricia Simone, Applicant, and Adam Maiorano, Engineer, were present. Mr. Schwartz shared the plan. He said they are requesting a special use permit for a pool and variances for the pool and a new house. The lot is irregularly shaped, which necessitates the variances. There is a 50 ft. paper street to the south ofthe property. They are requesting a side yard setback, but because of the paper street, the pool is a lot further from the neighbor than the setback. They are meeting the evergreen screening requirement. There will be additional plantings along the edge of the pool. There are two areas designated for stormwater management, and they will improve the existing drainage. The pool equipment is located underneath the patio and will be hidden. Because the property is a comer lot, there is a 40 ft. setback requirement. They are seeking a 25 ft. variance. They are requesting a 15 ft. side yard setback variance for the house. They are also requesting a building coverage variance, and a rear yard variance. Several neighbors have submitted letters of support. Ms. Simone said they have spent a lot of time on the plan and have been working with their neighbors. She thanked the Board for their time. Mr. Maiorano said the pool barrier is comprised of a stone-face wall with a railing above it. Two sides of the pool are raised up 5 ft. , and the steps to grade level will have a 5 ft. railing and a gate at the bottom. The Chair asked Mr. Maiorano to show the location of the fence on the plan. Mr. Maiorano indicated the location of the pool enclosure on the plan and showed pictures of what the fence might look like. The Chair said that in asking for the side yard setback variances for both the pool and the building, the applicant is relying on the Board being comfortable with treating the paper street as if it is basically not there. He is concerned about what would happen if it became a road. With respect to the rear yard setback, he is sympathetic to the irregular shape of the lot. He has a policy concern about having such a short distance from a golf course to the pool. In other instances, people have been concerned about having pools close to golf courses. He wants to know why the applicant thinks the Board should not be concerned about that. The third concern is for the building coverage variance. An 8.2% building coverage variance is Bo ard o f Appeal s June 9 , 2 0 21 164 significant. He wants to know why the applicant cannot build a house that is the right size for the lot or explain why it is a unique property for which the normal rules should not apply. Mr. Gans said it looks like the proposed driveway encroaches onto the paper street. Mr. Maiorano said that Mr. Gans is looking at the existing driveway, but they are moving the driveway away from the paper street. Mr. Gans asked if there is any agreement with the Village considering it appears there is a portion of the driveway on the Village owned property. Mr. Schwartz said not to his knowledge. Mr. Gans asked what concessions the applicant is making considering the property is essentially a blank slate. For instance, they see pools all the time that are substantially smaller than the one being proposed. Mr. Maiorano said they are not exceeding gross-floor area ratio. The outdoor living space counts towards the coverage calculation. They tried to shrink the pool a little bit and created an odd-shaped jog in the pool to reduce the setback variance. They tried to position things closer to the paper street. Mr. Gans said there are many people who could expand their houses and build a pool, but they are limited by the Village Code. To grant these requests on a vacant lot could set a precedent. Mr. Meiselman said that he would expect no variance requests for an empty lot, as one of the criteria for granting variances is that the need for a variance is not self-created. Ms. Millen said the applicants are starting from scratch and are proposing a very ambitious project. She said it is interesting that the applicant did not make any changes to the proposed plan once they realized it was a corner lot and would require additional variances. Ms. Cooper said she agrees with what the other Board members have said. She recalls that prior to the applicant discovering the property is a corner lot, they were still asking for all the variances. Most notably, the building coverage request stood out. She said they should also discuss whether the fencing is compliant. Mr. Schwartz said they will get rid of the building coverage variance request. The setback variance requests remain necessary because of the irregular lot lines. The pool is a standard size, and wherever the pool is located, it would require a setback variance. He thinks the lot lines make the property unique. Ms. Simone said she respects the comments of the Board, but the lot lines make the property difficult to work with. Mr. Cutler said there is a paper street study that the Village completed in 1999. The paper street adjacent to this property is among those that were reviewed as part of that report. The Village was looking at whether they should keep or sell the paper streets. The paper street in question was determined to not serve any public purpose, but the decision to develop it was reserved in case the Quaker Ridge Golf Course ever needed it. Mr. Pozin said the applicant had discussed buying the paper street with the Village, and the golf course did not want the Village to sell the paper street, but they are in support of the application. Bo ard o f Appeals June 9, 2 021 165 Ms. Millen asked if the applicants are going to care for the portion of the paper street adjacent to their property. Ms. Simone said the previous owners had planted and maintained the portion since the 1950s, and they would continue to do so. Mr. Gans asked what the Village' s policy is for people caring for Village-owned property. Mr. Pozin said the Board of Trustees is considering this question. Ms. Cooper asked if the applicants would consider reducing the setback requests. Ms. Simone said they have considered reducing the requests, but the property creates a hardship. The neighbors are comfortable with the requests. They can work on the rear yard setback, but the side yard is a challenge. The Chair said the building should be staked as well as the pool. Ms. Millen asked if the fence is to code. Mr. Cutler said he had multiple conversations with the applicant and the building inspector regarding the fence. Mr. Diodati said it is permitted. Brian Pereira, 22 Meadow Road, was present. He said the driveway was previously located on the paper street, and the new location is within 15 ft. of the downstairs bedroom that his parents use. He is concerned about this. He said that a lot of golf balls do come onto his property. The Chair asked if the rear yard of his house is one where he could have a swimming pool comfortably given the golf ball situation. Mr. Pereira said he would be nervous. Ms. Simone asked how long Mr. Pereira has not lived in the house, as it is her understanding that he has been renting it out for quite some time. Mr. Pereira said they are living in Fox Meadow, but they plan to move back into their house in a few years. The Chair said that the applicants are not requesting any setback variances on the side of the property adjacent to the Pereiras. The setback lines do not limit where they can put the driveway. Ms. Simone said they have every intention of putting screening in to make the neighbors as comfortable as possible. Ms. Cooper asked if the proposed curb cuts are permitted. Mr. Maiorano said they are using an existing curb cut and adding one. The Chair asked ifthe staff knows if the Village has any issue with the proposed curb cut. Mr. Cutler said the Village Engineer will determine if the curb cuts are permitted. 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. ****** Bo ard o f Appeals J u n e 9 , 2021 166 CASE #31 of 2021 4. The application ofMartine Jajan for a Variance from Chapter 310-47 and a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 19 Berwick Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 4 Blk. 3 Lot 470, will be held over at the request of the applicant. ****** CASE #33 of 2021 5. The Chair declared the hearing open on the application of One Hickory Lane LLC for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to relocate pool equipment and a generator to the front yard of 1 Hickory Lane, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 4 Blk. 8 Lot 6 1OA.l. Bana Choura, Architect, was present. Ms. Choura said there was a renovation to the house. The pool was existing. The equipment used to be directly behind the pool, and it was right in the middle of the back yard. The house is an interesting shape, and it limits the back yard. During the renovation, the builder planted several mature trees in the front of the property. The pool equipment and generator were relocated to that spot as it is already densely planted and screened. The Building Department noted that the location is considered the front yard rather than the side yard, so they want approval to keep the equipment in this location. This is the only feasible place they can install them. The request of the variance is not substantial and will not have an adverse effect on the neighborhood. The Chair asked what is currently in the enclosure. Ms. Choura said the generator and equipment are there, but they are not connected. The Chair asked where the pool equipment was located before. Ms. Choura indicated the previous location on the plan. The Chair asked if it had been compliant in the previous location. Ms. Choura said yes. Mr. Cutler said it was moved because a subdivision of the property had made the approved location of the pool equipment non-compliant. Ms. Cooper asked if the generator and pool equipment are in the current location because the applicant thought it was the side yard. Mr. Diodati said they did not issue a building permit to move the pool equipment or generator. The Building Department discovered the equipment was in the front yard, so they brought it to the Board. Mr. Cutler said there is nothing in the code that prevents pool equipment from being in the front yard. The applicants were remanded to the Board because they had amended the approved plan by changing the location of the pool equipment. The generator does require a variance to be in the front yard. Mr. Meiselman asked if there is a subdivision to the left of the property that was part of the original property. Ms. Choura said the property was three lots, but it became non- conforming. They merged two lots and kept this one where it is. Board of Appeals June 9, 202 1 167 Mr. Meiselman said there is insufficient screening between 1 Hickory Lane and the adjoining tax lot. It may have been contiguous at the time the pool was built, but now it is not. Mr. Cutler said the special use permit was issued quite a while ago. The requirement is that the screening be 5 ft. tall at the time that the certificate of occupancy is issued. As it has been a long time since the original special use permit was issued, it is at the Board's discretion how they want to handle the issue of screening. Mr. Pozin said he thinks that if they are reopening the approval, the screening would have to be updated. Ms. Choura asked if to consider the relocation of the equipment, the Board would need to consider the whole application. The Chair said they would discuss this question in deliberations. 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 #34 of 2021 6. The Chair declared the hearing open on the application of Greg Shalmi and Randi Matalon for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 22 Hampton Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 4 Blk. 5 Lot 515A. Frank Giuliano, Landscape Architect, was present. Mr. Giuliano said there was previously a pool on the lot, but it was removed to subdivide the property. The Board had previously approved a pool in the same location they are now proposing, but because the subdivision took so long, the pool was never built, and the permit expired. He said this application has significantly more screening than the previously approved application, and they are meeting screening and setback requirements. The equipment pad is also screened and meets setback requirements. The rear is already well screened with existing evergreens. They are adding new code-compliant fencing. They will not be doing any grading, and the property was staked. 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 #35 of2021 Board of Appeals J une 9 , 2021 168 7. The Chair declared the hearing open on the application of Greg Shalmi and Randi Matalon for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 22 Hampton Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 4 Blk. 5 Lot 515A. Frank Giuliano, Landscape Architect, was present. Mr. Giuliano said there is existing screening in the rear of the property that was added to screen the neighbor's pool, and they are proposing additional screening on the left and right sides of the property. They meet all the setback requirements and coverage requirements. Ms. Cooper asked if the existing screening is on the applicant's property. Mr. Giuliano said yes, the applicant put in their own screening to supplement the neighbor's screening because their property is at a higher grade. 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 #36 of2021 8. The application of 171 West LLC for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310- 88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 11 Murray Hill Road (formerly 2A Cooper Road), identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 9 Blk. 10 Lot 2 will be held over at the request of the Applicant. ****** CASE #3 7 of 2021 9. The Chair declared the hearing open on the application of Neville Bamji for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 12 Gate House Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 23 Blk. 1 Lot 326. Angela Loffa, Landscape Designer, was present. Ms. Loffa said they are proposing a swimming pool. They are meeting all setback requirements. There is already significant screening, but they are proposing additional screening. They are fencing the pool. The pool filter is going behind the house and will be fenced and screened. The Chair asked if they are planting additional screening in the left rear corner of the property. Ms. Loffa said if there are gaps in the screening, they will fill them in. Bo a rd o f Appeal s Jun e 9 , 2 02 1 169 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 #3 8 of 2021 10. The Chair declared the hearing open on the application of James and Melissa Phelan for a Variance from Chapter 310-102 of Village Code, to construct a second floor addition at 59 Brambach Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 8, Blk. 21 , Lots 25. James and Melissa Phelan, Applicants, and Maggy Marrone, Architect, were present. Ms. Marrone said the Phelans live in an old Victorian house on a corner lot. The house already exceeds the allowable floor area ratio (FAR), but they would like to build a second story addition over the existing family room. The house currently only has two bedrooms and one full bathroom on the second floor. The addition would be on the side of the house. There are no other variances being requested. They would use the same materials as the existing house. The addition is set back so as not to be too visible from the street. They are requesting a large variance, but the property is unusual because the third floor contributed to the FAR even though it is completely unusable due to the ceiling height. The Chair asked what the existing FAR is. Ms. Marrone said it is 2,767, and the allowed is 2,250. Chair asked if they are seeking a variance of about 250 sq. ft. Ms. Marrone said they are requesting 266 sq. ft. to create a new bedroom with a walk-in closet and to convert the existing study into a master bath. The Chair asked if they were able to use the side yard setback FAR bonus. Ms. Marrone said they were not because the street is too close to the property line. The Chair said that in this particular neighborhood, homes often cannot use the side yard setback FAR bonus because it is not available on small lots. He suggested the Board consider that the property has this constraint. Ms. Phelan said they only have two bedrooms and one full bathroom, so they would love to add another bedroom and bathroom. The Chair asked why the third floor is unusual. Ms. Marrone pulled up the plans and indicated that at the highest point, the ceiling is 7.5 ft. from the ground, and it slopes out from the middle to about 3 ft. The Chair asked how much of the third floor is included in the FAR calculation. Ms. Marrone said 437 sq. ft. of the attic space is included in the FAR. The Chair noted that this space is not usable as living space. Bo ard of Appeals June 9 , 2 02 1 170 The Chair asked Ms. Marrone to explain what they are proposing on the plan. Ms. Marrone indicated the proposed changes on the floor plan. She noted that they are proposing a master bathroom in what is now the study, which is very small and does not have a closet. The Chair asked Ms. Marrone to show the elevations from the street. Ms. Marrone pulled up the elevations and noted the proposed changes. The Chair asked what the third floor is used for. Ms. Marrone said it is used for storage. The Chair asked to see the elevations from the back of the house. Ms. Marrone pulled them up and explained that the back addition lines up with the house. The Chair said the variance request is being described as 34%, which is calculated from the permitted 2,250 sq. ft. floor area. As the existing floor area is non-conforming at 2,767 sq. ft., he asked staffifthe variance request should instead be calculated from that number, which would result in a smaller variance. Mr. Diodati said this house was a pre- existing non-conformity, as it was built before the FAR regulations were put in place. Mr. Cutler said he thinks Mr. Diodati is correct, as there is no FAR variance request on file. Mr. Phelan said they are on a corner lot, and their lot looks larger than it is as some of the land that appears to be on their property is Village-owned. Mr. Cutler asked Mr. Pozin if under the current zoning code, the percentage of requested variances granted from legal nonconformities should be taken from the existing floor area or the permitted floor area. Mr. Pozin said he thinks they should be taken from the existing. Mr. Cutler said there were subsequent additions to the home after it was built, but these must have predated the FAR regulations. Mr. Meiselman asked if the 34% variance is the appropriate number to consider. Mr. Pozin said that he thinks the calculation should be based on the existing non-conformity. Mr. Cutler said that would reduce the variance request to 9.6%. Kevin Connolly, 69 Brambach Road, was present. He said there was an addition to the home in 2005. He is concerned that another addition will not work on such a narrow lot. The Chair asked where his house is located in relation to 59 Brambach Road. Mr. Connolly said there is one house between his home and the applicants' . The Chair asked if he would be able to see the addition from his house. Mr. Connolly said he would. Ms. Cooper said she visited the house today. The house to the right of the property is taller than the addition being proposed. She is not sure how Mr. Connolly would be able to see the addition with the house that is next door sitting between his house and the applicants' house. Mr. Connolly said they can see it from their bedroom. Board of Appeals June 9, 202 1 171 Ms. Phelan said they are one of the only houses in the neighborhood that only has one full bathroom. The Chair asked the applicant how many bedrooms and bathrooms the house has. Mr. Phelan said it is technically a 3-bedroom, 1.5-bath, as the study is considered a bedroom, but it does not have a closet and is very small. Ms. Cooper asked what the actual variance request is if the prior nonconformity is grandfathered in. Mr. Cutler said it would be 9.6% or 267 sq. ft. Mr. Cutler said he had noted in his staff notes that there were inconsistencies between previous lot coverage calculations and the ones done for the application. He asked Ms. Marrone if she had a chance to look at that. Ms. Marrone said she had done the calculations several times, and she does not know where the previous calculations came from. She does not know if the previous owners had added impervious surfaces that had not been accounted for. Mr. Cutler said the application may require additional variances since the lot coverage is over what is permitted. Ms. Marrone said she does not know why the number she calculated is higher than what was calculated in the previous application. The Chair said that he is not sure if the Board can act on the application. If the home already exceeds the permitted lot coverage, building on top of it may be doubling down on that. Ms. Marrone said they are not adding to the lot coverage. She said it is possible when the previous owners built the first addition, they may not have included it in the lot coverage calculation. The Chair said the Board will have to consider this question in deliberation. 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 #39 of2021 11. The Chair declared the hearing open on the application of 11 May 10 LLC for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 45 Hampton Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 4 Blk. 2 Lot 640. Sandra Nam Cioffi, Landscape Architect, was present. Ms. Cioffi said they are seeking a special use permit for a pool. The driveway will be replaced with permeable pavers. They are realigning the walkway with a combination of permeable pavers. The pool is set within all !:>etbacks. It is heavily screened with a combination of existing and proposed evergreens. It will have an aluminum self-latching gate. Board of Appeals June 9, 2 0 21 172 The Chair said it appears from the drawing that Ms. Cioffi may be relying on plantings not on the applicants' property to meet the screening requirement. Ms. Cioffi asked the Chair to explain where he saw this. The Chair said there appears to be a gap on the West side of the property. Ms. Cioffi said it is already tightly planted, but she would be happy to add additional screening in that location. The Chair asked if the pool would have a cover. Ms. Cioffi said it will have a custom pool cover. The Chair asked Ms. Cioffi if she would be willing to amend the plan to add additional screening in the gaps. Ms. Cioffi said yes. The Chair asked what plants she would use for this. Ms. Cioffi said she would plant a mix of mountain laurels and azaleas. Ms. Cooper asked what the plantings depicted in white represent. Ms. Cioffi said they are all deciduous plantings. The Chair asked if the evergreens are all at least 5 ft. tall. Ms. Cioffi said yes. The Chair asked for the location of the pool equipment. Ms. Cioffi indicated the location on the plan. Ms. Cooper asked if the plan includes a fence around the pool equipment. Ms. Cioffi 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 #40 of 2021 12. The Chair declared the hearing open on the application of Brian and Julie Duignan for a Variance from Chapter 310-51 ofVillage Code, to construct a deck at 20 FerncliffRoad, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 11 Blk. 10 Lot 67. Brian Duignan, Applicant, and Ashley Duignan, Architect, were present. Ms. Duignan said they are looking to build an open deck in the rear of the yard with a side yard setback variance of 4.8 ft. They intend to build the deck off the existing dining room. There are existing trees that screen the property, and the deck will not be visible from the street. The Chair asked why the deck is 18 by 18 ft. Ms. Duignan said they intend the deck to come off the existing dining room. It is the right size for a sitting area and dining room table. Board of Appeals June 9 , 2021 173 The Chair asked if they considered a smaller deck or one that was not be so close to the neighbor. Ms. Duignan said if they were to meet the side yard setback requirement, the deck would not line up with the existing dining room. There is also an existing entrance to the basement, and they are trying to use that area to provide a staircase up to the deck. The Chair asked why the deck needs to be 18 ft. deep. Ms. Duignan said that is what the applicant wanted, and it is conforming. The Chair said it conforms to the rear yard setback requirement, but it is increasing the amount of deck that is encroaching into the side yard setback. The Chair noted that the applicant has a front porch. He asked what they use it for. Mr. Duignan said they have used the front porch a lot because of covid, but it is not ideal because it is small and not private. Ms. Cooper said they could build a deck of the same size by moving it away from the side yard and increasing the depth. The entry and exit could still line up with the dining room. She asked if this would work for the applicant. Mr. Duignan said they do not want to block the entrance to the basement. Ms. Cooper said she is suggesting that the deck be made narrower and longer. Ms. Duignan said that they are trying to avoid putting the usable deck space right in front of the bathroom window. Ms. Cooper asked why they cannot reduce the width of the deck from 18 ft. to 13 ft. and put a shade on the bathroom window. Ms. Duignan said it would limit usable back yard space. Ms. Cooper said they need to look at other alternatives. Ms. Duignan said doing so would make the space between the deck and the side yard unusable. Mr. Pozin asked someone to explain the nonconformity of the house. Ms. Duignan said the dwelling is already closer to the side lot line than is permitted. Mr. Pozin said adding the deck would increase the nonconformity . The Chair said that is why they are here. 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. ****** Boa rd of Ap p e als June 9 , 2021 174 CASE #42 OF 2020 1. EJK 4 Kingston LLC 4 Kingston Road Sec. S, Blk. 8, Lot17 Special Use Permit to construct a swimming pool The Board considered the application of EJK 4 Kingston LLC, Case #42 of 2020, 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 July 14, 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 July 14, 2021 meeting. ****** Bo a rd of App e als June 9 , 2021 175 CASE #29 OF 2021 2. Tianying Xu 38 Aspen Road Sec. 19 Blk. 2, Lot 48 Variance to construct a deck The Board considered the application of Tianying Xu, Case #29 of 2021 , for a setback variance from Chapter 310-43, to construct a deck at 38 Aspen Road, and, upon motion duly made and seconded, unanimously held the matter over to the July 14, 2021 meeting for the following reasons: 1. To provide the applicant an opportunity to stake the location of the deck in the field. 2. To provide the applicant an opportunity to examine alternatives that would minimize or eliminate the requested variance. Board o f Appeal s June 9 , 2021 176 CASE #30 OF 2021 3. 24 Meadow Rd Realty LLC C/0 Simone Development Co 24 Meadow Road Sec. 23 Blk. 1, Lot 110 Special Use Permit and variances to construct a swimming pool and a single-family home The Board considered the application of 24 Meadow Rd Realty LLC C/0 Simone Development Co, Case #30 of 2021, for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code and variances from Chapter 310-53 and 310-22, to construct a swimming pool and single-family home at 24 Meadow Road, and, upon motion duly made and seconded, unanimously held the matter over to the July 14, 2021 meeting for the following reasons: 1. To provide the applicant the opportunity to stake the location of the building and pool. 2. To provide the applicant the opportunity to consider withdrawing the building coverage variance request. 3. To provide the applicant the opportunity to reduce or eliminate the side yard and rear yard variance or better explain why the variance is needed. Board of Appeals June 9 , 2021 177 CASE #31 OF 2021 4. Martin Jajan 19 Berwick Road Sec. 14 Blk. 3, Lot 470 Special Use Permit and setback variances to construct a swimming pool The Board considered the application ofMartin Jajan, Case #3 1 of2021 , for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code and setback variances from Chapter 31 0-47, to construct a swimming pool at 19 Berwick Road, and, upon motion duly made and seconded, unanimously held the matter over to the July 14, 2021 meeting at the request of the applicant. Board of Appeals June 9 , 2021 178 CASE #33 OF 2021 5. One Hickory Lane LLC 1 Hickory Lane Sec. 4 Blk. 8, Lot 61 OA.1 Special Use Permit to construct a swimming pool and variance to place generator in the front yard The Board considered the application of One Hickory Lane LLC, Case #3 3 of2021 , for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool and a variance from Chapter 310-7S to place a generator in the front yard at 1 Hickory Lane, and, upon motion duly made and seconded, unanimously held the matter over to the July 14, 2021 meeting for the following reasons: 1. To provide the applicant the opportunity to revise the plans to demonstrate compliant pool screening. Board of Appea l s J une 9 , 202 1 179 CASE #34 OF 2021 6. Greg Shalmi and Randy Matalon 22 Hampton Road Sec. 4 Blk. 4, Lot 515A Special Use Permit to construct a swimming pool The Board considered the application of Greg Shalmi and Randy Matalon, Case #34 of2021, for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 22 Hampton 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 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 .66 acres and 28,895 sq. ft. on the lot coverage form; and WHEREAS: The property received a Special Use Permit for a swimming pool in 2015 that was never constructed; and WHEREAS: The property is improved with a home built in 1930; 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 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 of Greg Shalmi and Randy Matalon, Case #34 of2021, for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 ofthe Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 22 Hampton Road, as shown on the Pool Site Plan dated May 10,2021, be approved based on the following fmdings and conditions: Board o f Appe als J une 9 , 2 0 21 180 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 ofthe 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 ensure 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 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 Board of Appeals June 9 , 20 21 181 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 of24 months from the date of this resolution shall cause the Special Use Permit to become null and void. ****** Board of Appeals June 9, 2021 182 CASE #35 OF 2021 7. George and Phyllis Lantos 36 Franklin Road Sec. 22 Blk. 11, Lot 58 Special Use Permit to construct a swimming pool The Board considered the application of George and Phyllis Lantos, Case #3 5 of 2021 , for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 36 Franklin 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 of the information submitted with the application, the Board determined that such application, the construction of minor accessory structures (such as driveways, fences or pools) is a Type II action pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617.5(c) (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 .5 acres and 22,069 sq. ft. on the lot coverage form; and WHEREAS: The property is improved with a home built in 2007; 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 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 of George and Phyllis Lantos, Case #35 of2021, for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 ofthe Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 36 Franklin Road, as shown on the Pool Site Plan dated May 7, 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. Board of Appeals J une 9 , 2021 183 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 applicant1S 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 ensure 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 ofthe 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 11 as built 11 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. Board of Appeals June 9 , 202 1 184 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 of24 months from the date of this resolution shall cause the Special Use Permit to become null and void. ****** Board of Appea l s June 9 , 2021 185 CASE #3 6 OF 2021 8. 171 West LLC 11 Murray Hill Road Sec. 14 Blk. 3, Lot 470 Special Use Permit to construct a swimming pool The Board considered the application of 171 West LLC, Case #36 of 2021, for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code to construct a swimming pool at 11 Murray Hill Road, and, upon motion duly made and seconded, unanimously held the matter over to the July 14, 202 1 meeting at the request of the applicant. Board of Appeals June 9 , 2021 186 CASE #37 OF 2021 9. Neville Bamji 12 Gate House Road Sec. 22 Blk. 11 , Lot 58 Special Use Permit to construct a swimming pool The Board considered the application ofNeville Bamji, Case #37 of2021, for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 31 0-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 12 Gate House 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 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 .46 acres and 2 1,194 sq. ft. on the lot coverage form; and WHEREAS: The property is improved with a home built in 1987 with an addition completed in 2018; and WHEREAS: Chapter 310-88(A) of the Village Code authorizes the Board of Appeals to consider Special Use Permits for the construction of swimming pools; and WHEREAS: The plans show the 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 proj ect appears to meet the lot coverage; and WHEREAS: The applicant amended their application at the meeting to provide additional screening in the southeastern corner to fill in the existing hedge; 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 ofNeville Bamji, Case #37 of2021, for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 12 Gate House Road, as shown on the Pool Site Plan dated May 11 , 2021 , be approved based on the following findings and conditions: Board of Appeals June 9, 2021 187 1. The proposed swimming pool is consistent with the public health, safety, morals and general welfare ofthe 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 ensure 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 ofthe 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 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 Board of Appeals June 9 , 2021 188 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 of24 months from the date of this resolution shall cause the Special Use Permit to become null and void. ****** Board of Appeals June 9 , 2021 189 CASE #38 OF 2021 10. James and Melissa Phelan 59 Brambach Road Sec. 8 Blk. 21, Lot 25 FAR variance to construct a second floor addition The Board considered the application of James and Melissa Phelan, Case #38 of 2021 , for variances from Chapter 310-102 to construct a second floor addition at 59 Brambach Road, and, upon motion duly made and seconded, unanimously held the matter over to the July 14, 2021 meeting for the following reasons: 1. To provide the applicant the opportunity to submit a variance request for lot coverage, or submit a plan that is compliant with the lot coverage requirements. Board of Appeals June 9 , 2021 190 CASE #39 OF 2021 11. 11 May 10 LLC 45 Hampton Road Sec. 4 Blk. 11, Lot 58 Special Use Permit to construct a swimming pool The Board considered the application of 11 May 10 LLC, Case #39 of2021, for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 45 Hampton 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 of the Village Code; now therefore be it RESOLVED: That after careful examination of the site and evaluation of the information submitted with the application, the Board determined that such application, the construction of minor accessory structures (such as driveways, fences or pools) is a Type II action pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617.5(c) (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 .57 acres and 25,087 sq. ft. on the lot coverage form; and WHEREAS: The property is improved with a home built in 1952 with an addition completed in1976 and alterations in 2020; 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 project appears to meet the lot coverage; and WHEREAS: The applicant amended their application at the meeting to provide additional screening where the plan had previously relied on off-site screening trees; 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 11 May 10 LLC, Case #39 of 2021, for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 ofthe Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 45 Hampton Road, as shown on the Overall Site Plan dated May 17, 202 1, be approved based on the following findings and conditions: Board of Appeals J une 9 , 2021 191 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 ensure 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 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 Board of Appeals J une 9 , 2021 192 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 June 9 , 2021 193 CASE #40 OF 2021 12. Brian Duignan 20 FemcliffRoad Sec. 11 , Blk. 10, Lot 67 Variance to construct a deck which would intrude into the required side yard setback The Board considered the application of Brian Duignan, Case #40 of 2021, for a variance from Chapter 31 0-51 of the Village Code to construct a deck which would intrude into the required side yard setback at 20 Femcliff 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 of the Village Code; now therefore be it RESOLVED: That after careful examination of the site and evaluation of the information submitted with the application, the Board determined that such application, the granting of individual setback variances is a Type II action pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617.5(c) (16) 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 shown in the Assessor's records as .14 acres and 6,098 sq. ft. on the lot coverage form; and WHEREAS: The side yard setback variance request is for 5.2 feet where 10 feet is required, representing a 4.8 foot variance or 48%; and WHEREAS: The existing home is nonconforming with respect to the same side yard at 4.25 feet from the property line; 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 Brian Duignan, Case #40 of 2021 , for a variance from Chapter 310-51 of the Village Code to construct a deck which would intrude into the required side yard setback at 20 FemcliffRoad, as shown on plans dated revised 5/5/2021 be approved in consideration of the benefit to the applicant as weighed against the detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood. Board of Appeals June 9 , 2021 194 * ** ** * Upon motion duly made and seconded, the minutes of the May meeting were approved as amended. ****** The Chair announced that the next meeting of the Board of Appeals would be held on Wednesday, July 14,2021, at 7 p.m. ** ** ** The meeting was adjourned at 11:31 p.m. ****** Assistant to the Village Planner