Zoning Board of Appeals

Board of Appeals April 13, 2022 117 BOARD OF APPEALS RUTHERFORD HALL VILLAGE HALL SCARSDALE, NY April 13, 2022 A regular meeting of the Board of Appeals of the Village of Scarsdale was via Zoom video conference on Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 7:00 p.m. Those members present were Chair, Jeffrey Watiker, Barry Meiselman, Amy Cooper. Also present were Village Attorney, Dan Pozin, Village Planner, Greg Cutler. * ** * * * The Chair said welcome to the April 13, 2022 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting, which is being conducted by Zoom Video conference. 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 wishing to speak. 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 filed at Village Hall and are available to the public. There are only three Board members in attendance tonight. If applicants would prefer to be heard by the full Board, they can ask to be held over without prejudice. 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 April 13, 2022 118 LEGAL NOTICE VILLAGE OF SCARSDALE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held by the Board of Appeals of the Village of Scarsdale via Zoom Video Conference on Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 7:00 p.m. at which time the Board of Appeals will consider the following: 1. The application of Melior ZD LLC for a for a Variance from chapter 310-47 (swimming pool setback) of the Village Code to legalize an existing hot tub and a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 2 Carstensen Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 3, Blk. 2, Lot 52. 2. The application of Neal and Lynne Dorf for Variances from chapters 310-43 (rear yard setback) and 310-22 (lot coverage) to construct an attached garage at 33 Vernon Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 19, Blk 1. Lot 145. 3. The application of Scott and Rachel Graulich for a Variance from chapter 310-35 (front yard setback) of the Village Code to construct a new front portico on an existing platform at 11 Normandy Lane, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 24. Blk. 1, Lot 308. 4. ADJOURNED-The application of Kenneth and Jodi Meyerson for a Variance from chapter 310-22 (lot coverage) of the Village Code at 5 Hanover Road, identified on the Village Tax map as Sec. 17, Blk. 1, Lot 248. 5. The application of Alexandra and Anthony East for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 20 Cayuga Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 17, Blk 1, Lot 354. 6. The application of Marlon and Susan Portes for a Variance from Chapter 310-35 (front yard setback) of the Village Code, construct a front porch at 6 Ardmore Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 22, Blk 5, Lot 5A. 7. ADJOURNED-The application of Stephen and Mira Hole for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 17 Oak Lane, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 4, Blk 1, Lot 192. 8. The application of Benjamin and Casey Hogan for variances from Chapters 310-35 (front yard setback) and 310-43 (rear yard setback) of the Village Code to construct a one story portico in the front yard and a mudroom addition within the rear yard at 32 Donnellan Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 5, Blk 3, Lot 31. Board of Appeals April 13, 2022 119 9. The application of Kimberly and Andrew Sagor for variances from Chapters 310-22 (building coverage) and 310-102 (FAR) to construct a pool house and covered porch, and a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 70 Morris Lane, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 18, Blk 1, Lot 29B. 10. The application of Allison and Michael Meltz for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 2 Mohican Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 17, Blk 1, Lot 5B. 11. The application of Jacqueline Friedland for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to relocate a swimming pool (hot tub) at 18 Stonewall Lane, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 21, Blk 1, Lot 29A. 12. ADJOURNED- The application of Jennifer and Alan Goldfarb for a variance from Chapter 310-22 of the Village Code to construct an addition and a special use permit to construct a swimming pool at 44 Colby Lane, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 17, Blk 1, Lot 11B. 13. The application of Erica and Dana Korsten for variance from 310-53 (side yard setback) to construct an addition construct a swimming pool at 52 Paddington Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 19, Blk 1, Lot 157. 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://tinyurl.com/2vwrcwe6 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 February 25, 2022. Gregory Cutler, AICP, Village Planner. ****** Board of Appeals April 13, 2022 120 CASE #12 of 2022 1. The Chair declared the hearing open on the application of Melior ZD LLC for a Variance from chapter 310-47 (swimming pool setback) of the Village Code to legalize an existing hot tub and a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 2 Carstensen Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 3, Blk. 2, Lot 52. Daniel Sherman, Landscape Architect, was present. Mr. Sherman said they submitted new plans and the future spa has been moved to comply with the setback requirement. Therefore, no variance will be requested to legalize the existing hot tub. The screening shown remains the same as past submittals with planted screening around the edges of the property. Since the hot tub was moved, there could be screening in its original location to screen the pool more effectively. The fence at the east end of the property is presently a 6-foot vinyl solid fence. The fence is planned to be reduced to 4 feet with a 1-foot lattice to meet 5 foot pool enclosure requirement. The Chair said there is a portion of the north yard that does not have screening and asked to explain why there is no screening in this area. Mr. Sherman said there is a ramp to the west of this area that provides access to the backyard. Any planting in the area would block access to the backyard. The Chair asked if Mr. Sherman considered alternatives ways to screen the area in question. Mr. Sherman said the ramp is tight to the property line and explained several constraints to adding screening in this area including existing pool filters. Mr. Sherman has not considered alternatives. However, there could be planting between the gate and hot tub, which is currently not proposed because there is a climbing playset with AstroTurf in that location. The new location of the hot tub will impact the location of the playset so, if it is a condition of the Board to require planting in that area, it can be done. Ms. Cooper said it is important to meet the screening requirement because the hot tub will be moved to a new location and the direct view of the hot tub in the new location will not be screened. Mr. Sherman noted a wall on an adjacent property is higher than the plantings would be therefore additional screening will not have much impact. The Chair asked Mr. Sherman to describe what the additional screening would look like. Mr. Sherman said he would put 5-foot evergreen shrubs or trees, perhaps Chesapeake Holly, on the outside of the fence, between the fence and the wall on the northern property line. The Chair asked if Mr. Sherman would like to amend the plan to include the additional screening after which the Board will consider the revised plan. Mr. Sherman agreed to amend the plan. The Chair asked if there was anyone else who wished to be heard with respect to this application. No persons desiring to be heard, the Chair ended the discussion on the application. Board of Appeals April 13, 2022 121 ****** CASE #14 of 2022 2. The Chair declared the hearing open on the application of Neal and Lynne Dorf for Variances from chapters 310-43 (rear yard setback) and 310-22 (lot coverage) to construct an attached garage at 33 Vernon Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 19, Blk 1. Lot 145. Eliot Senor, Engineer, and Denys Purdy, Architect, were present. Mr. Senor said the application was held over from the last meeting after a discussion on the proposed garage. The plan has since been revised to show a 2-car detached garage permissible by the zoning code, 5 feet from the rear property line and 10 feet from the side property line at its closest point. Therefore, the application does not require a rear yard variance. The application does require a variance from lot coverage. Currently, the property is over coverage by 6 percent. The application is requesting an increase in that overage by 2 percent, for a total of 8.3 percent over allowable coverage. Mr. Senor said that the application reduced the lot coverage overage from previous submittals by approximately 78 square feet. The Chair asked to see elevations. Mr. Senor said he did not have elevations to show and that the building height will conform with zoning requirements by burying the back of the building by 2 feet. The Chair asked if alternative ways to reduce lot coverage were considered. Mr. Senor said the application reduced lot coverage by removing two walkways in the front yard. As far as permeable pavement, the Owner did not want gravel in the front driveway which is why gravel is not considered and a variance is requested. The Chair said that in the prior application, the existing garage was going to be converted to non-garage space. The Chair asked what the plan is for the existing garage now that only a 2-car garage is being proposed. Mr. Senor said the original garage will remain a garage. Ms. Cooper said that the resolution from March requires the Applicant to submit elevations to demonstrate scale of the proposed garage. Mr. Senor said the request was made when the application included a rear yard variance that is no longer being requested. If the elevations are still required, elevations can be submitted. Mr. Meiselman agreed with Ms. Cooper that elevations should be submitted. Mr. Senor said he will submit elevations. Ms. Cooper asked if there are other non-gravel materials that could be used on a driveway for the purpose of reducing lot coverage. Mr. Meiselman suggested using permeable pavers. Mr. Senor said the FAR is more than 100 feet under maximum allowable and he will have to confer with Mr. Cutler on what constitutes permeable pavers. Mr. Cutler said permeability is based on runoff curve. Mr. Meiselman said other Applicants have presented Board of Appeals April 13, 2022 122 permeable pavers to the Board. Mr. Senor will inquire as to what those pavers are. Ms. Cooper said using permeable pavers could reduce requested coverage overage. The Chair asked Mr. Cutler if the Applicant could get the lot coverage down, would the Applicant be allowed to swap driveway coverage for garage coverage? Mr. Cutler said that the Applicant would need to demonstrate that all impervious surfaces there presently are legal nonconforming. Denys Purdy, Architect, asked if the Applicant can mitigate excess lot coverage with on-site runoff retention. Mr. Cutler said that runoff retention can be provided for stormwater purposes but not to mitigate lot coverage overages. The Chair asked if there was anyone else who wished to be heard with respect to this application. No persons desiring to be heard, the Chair ended the discussion on the application. ****** CASE #15 of 2022 3. The Chair declared the hearing open on the application of Scott and Rachel Graulich for a Variance from chapter 310-35 (front yard setback) of the Village Code to construct a new front portico on an existing platform at 11 Normandy Lane, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 24. Blk. 1, Lot 308. Arnold Wile, Architect, was present. Mr. Wile said the Applicant is proposing to build a small cover over an existing platform, the platform of which will be reduced in width. Mr. Wile described an existing roof overhang of approximately 2.5 feet. The Application proposes a design that will result in an increase of 10 to 12 inches further than the existing overhang. The Chair asked how wide the porch will be. Mr. Wile said the platform will be approximately 6 feet wide. Ms. Cooper asked whether the building is currently under construction. Mr. Wile said yes, there is interior construction that is permitted. Ms. Cooper said the front platform was removed. Mr. Wile said yes, the platform was reduced by approximately 18 inches. Ms. Cooper said there was no staking around the original platform area that is required for the Board to see the context of the Application. Ms. Cooper asked Mr. Wile to describe the dimensions of the Application. Mr. Wile said the Application is for a platform of 6 feet wide and 3 feet deep that currently exists plus a cover over the platform that is approximately 7 feet wide and 3.5 feet deep. Board of Appeals April 13, 2022 123 Ms. Cooper asked the intended use of the porch. Mr. Wile said the purpose is to protect people from the elements, it is not large enough for a seating area. The Chair said that under the code an improvement 5 feet wide is allowed within setback for a portico. Since this is greater than 5 feet wide, that is why a variance to setback is required. Mr. Meiselman asked whether 5 feet would be sufficient for this Application. Mr. Wile said it would not be sufficient because the door is 3 feet wide and the side lights are set off the door by approximately 18 inches on either side, therefore a 5-foot canopy would not cover the entire width of the door and the side lights. In addition, there are columns required to support the canopy. Mr. Meiselman said neighbors have designed porticos differently to comply with the 5 foot allowed. Mr. Wile said the requested design is preferred by the homeowners. Ms. Cooper asked whether Mr. Wile examined the characteristics of the neighborhood and said that there are no porches on the block. Ms. Cooper asked if the Application should be characterized as a porch and not a portico because the platform exceeds the 5 foot width. The Chair said it appears like a portico and recollects other applications that were approved to permit porticos with larger than 5 feet if the design fits within neighborhood character. Mr. Wile said the design fits within the neighborhood character and fits within the character of the home. Mr. Cutler asked if the average setback of homes on the street was examined to see if contextual zoning could be applied, which would negate the need for a variance. Mr. Wile did not investigate the average setback. The Chair asked if there was anyone else who wished to be heard with respect to this application. No persons desiring to be heard, the Chair ended the discussion on the application. ****** CASE #20 of 2022 5. The Chair declared the hearing open on the application of Alexandra and Anthony East for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 20 Cayuga Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 17, Blk 1, Lot 354. Eliot Senor, Engineer, and Walter Nestler, Landscape Architect, were present. Mr. Senor said since the last meeting a second wetland specialist has visited the site and submitted a second concurring report that said the property is not wetlands. The Applicant also submitted a landscape plan showing full screening and a variety of plantings. The Applicant also submitted a calculation sheet for net lot area. Mr. Nestler described existing Board of Appeals April 13, 2022 124 screening on the east property line and wooded area along the western property line. The Application proposes evergreens shrubs, evergreen trees, and deciduous shrubs along the property lines as a form of screening. The Chair asked if the 5-foot screening requirement be met. Mr. Nestler says yes. Ms. Cooper asked whether the proposed screening be sufficient if the neighbor to the east removed the existing trees along the property line. Mr. Nestler said yes. The Chair asked whether the denominator include a 90% haircut for floodplain in terms of lot coverage calculations and whether the rest of the property is considered to be wetlands. Mr. Senor responded the rest of the property is not wetlands according to two reports from recognized wetlands authorities. The Chair asked whether the pool was partially in the floodplain. Mr. Senor said yes, the pool is partially in the floodplain. However, the requirement is to offset the same area somewhere else on the property, which is done by creating an actual increase in area that flooding can occur toward the back of the property. Flow patterns have not changed. The Chair asked Mr. Senor to state whether there is a high water table or not and how this plan deals with that or not. Mr. Senor said drainage has not been fully vetted, however there is not predicted to be problems with drainage or flooding thus far. Ms. Cooper asked where the proposal anticipates the water going if the CULTEC stormwater retention system is full. Mr. Senor said if the stormwater is in the front, then it will overflow into the front yard. If in the back, then overflow will flow into the wetland at the back of the yard. Ms. Cooper asked to confirm if the pool is compliant with village code. Mr. Senor said the pool is fully compliant. Mr. Cutler said as far as the special use permit criteria, it is up to the Board to determine. With respect to the stormwater, the project has not received its stormwater permit from the Village Engineer so a statement cannot be made with respect to stormwater. In addition to stormwater, a floodplain permit from Village Engineer is required at his discretion. From a desktop point of view, it appears to be compliant. Mr. Senor said the pool meets all setback requirements. Mr. Meiselman noted an email from Mark Carter, resident of 101 Catherine Road, to Dave Goessl, Village Engineer, the day prior that the Board has not had the opportunity to react to. Mr. Carter, resident of 101 Catherine Road, was present. Mr. Carter said he is opposed to the requested special use permit, flood plain permit, or variance as outlined in an April 12 email. Submitted plans reflect bare minimum requirements, do not reflect current hydrologic conditions including Federal Floodplains Maps and recent storms. Mr. Carter would like clarity on where the overflow waters would be directed. Mr. Carter said NJ Stormwater Management Principles should provide a guidance to this project. Mr. Carter said he and his neighbors would like to meet with the Village Engineer. Mr. Senor said the team is guided by the New York State Stormwater Management Manual and that the plan does include the 2’ Board of Appeals April 13, 2022 125 separation between drywell and highwater lilne. Mr. Senor is confident in meeting the requirements as enforced by the Village Engineer. Mr. Meiselman asked whether homeowners have come to the Board after a project is installed to state the stormwater management plan was not sufficient. Mr. Cutler differed to the Village Engineer to respond and added that there could be other approaches to dealing with the stormwater besides CULTEC. The Chair asked if there was anyone else who wished to be heard with respect to this application. No persons desiring to be heard, the Chair ended the discussion on the application. ****** CASE #21 of 2022 6. The Chair declared the hearing open on the application of Marlon and Susan Portes for a Variance from Chapter 310-35 (front yard setback) of the Village Code, construct a front porch at 6 Ardmore Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 22, Blk 5, Lot 5A. Mark Mustacato, Architect, was present. Mr. Mustacato described the proposal to renovate and redesign an existing house including a 1-story roofed porch at the front of the home. The proposal includes a masonry front porch with a copper roof. The new porch requires a variance from the 30-foot front yard setback requirement and will instead provide a 25-foot front yard setback. The proposed porch is 9 foot 6 inches deep. There are support letters from neighboring homeowners at 4, 8, and 5 Ardmore Road that have been submitted. The porch will soften appearance of house, will help overall streetscape, and the colonial character will contribute to character of the neighborhood. The Chair said the Application shows a lot of mass moving to the front of the house, closer to the street, and since there are not many houses on the street similarly massed, the proposal could change the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Mustacato said only the porch will be closer to the street. The Chair said there is a code section that allows a 5-foot-wide encroachment into the front yard and the proposal significantly exceeds the code allowance. Ms. Cooper said only homes at 8 and 20 Ardmore have porches and all other houses on the street have porticos. The Application for a porch would be an exception to neighborhood character, not a similarity. Ms. Cooper asked whether the porch at 8 Ardmore is compliant with the setback requirement or not. Mr. Mustacato said he believes 8 Ardmore is compliant with the setback requirement and the Application for 6 Ardmore Road is requesting 5 feet in front of the 8 Ardmore porch. Board of Appeals April 13, 2022 126 Ms. Cooper asked what other homes on the block have a porch versus a portico. Mr. Mustacato said most homes on the street have porticos but that the colonial character would be similar to homes on the street. Ms. Cooper asked whether the home’s character could be changed to colonial without such a large porch. Mr. Mustacato said yes, it could, however the current design would soften the home’s relationship to the street. Ms. Cooper asked for the dimensions of the current portico versus the proposed porch. Mr. Mustacato said the proposed porch is 26 feet 2 inches wide whereas the existing portico is approximately 9 feet wide. In terms of porch depth, 4.5 feet of depth conforms to the front yard setback and the remaining 5 feet of depth are within the required setback. Ms. Cooper asked if a narrower porch could be considered. Mr. Mustacato said yes, however at least 3.5 feet should remain in front of the door for egress purposes. Mr. Meiselman said this project brings into question what is considered ‘out of character’ with a neighborhood. If the next-door neighbor has a similar porch, then should this Application be considered out of character. Mr. Meiselman is of the general impression that the porch is unusual to the neighborhood except for the neighboring porch. Mr. Meiselman suggested the width of the proposed porch could be adjusted to make the design more palatable. Mr. Mustacato said he will discuss reducing the width with his clients and return to the Board. Mustacato asked to be held over. The Chair asked if there was anyone else who wished to be heard with respect to this application. No persons desiring to be heard, the Chair ended the discussion on the application. ****** CASE #23 of 2022 8. The Chair declared the hearing open on the application of Benjamin and Casey Hogan for variances from Chapters 310-35 (front yard setback) and 310-43 (rear yard setback) of the Village Code to construct a one story portico in the front yard and a mudroom addition within the rear yard at 32 Donnellan Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 5, Blk 3, Lot 31. Charles Savigny, Architect, and Benjamin Hogan, homeowner, were present. Mr. Savigny said the Applicant is seeking an area variance to construct a 1-story portico in within the front yard and 1-story mud room addition within the rear yard. The house is situated on an existing nonconforming lot making it difficult to improve the residence in any direction. The addition is being requested because the homeowner’s driveway pitches into the basement of the house and in rain events, the rain flows toward the house off Brite Avenue and Donellan Road, resulting in flooding the basement. The basement garage would be abandoned and a masonry access stair would be added. Since the Owner would lose Board of Appeals April 13, 2022 127 storage in the basement, the Application is requesting a 1-story mudroom in the rear. With respect to the front yard setback, the required 30-foot front yard setback extends into the middle of the house, resulting in two-thirds of the house as existing nonconforming. The Chair asked for clarity on which dimensions require a variance. Mr. Savigny says zoning requires a 25-foot rear yard setback and the Application is requesting a 22-foot rear yard setback. There would be no impact to the side yard. There will be two column posts on the existing nonconforming masonry platform encroaching into the required front yard setback. The Chair asked if the two proposals could be considered separately. Mr. Savigny asked the Board to consider the Application as one request with two parts. The Chair asked to see a front elevation and asked how wide the portico is. Mr. Savigny said the portico is 7 feet 1 and one-quarter inches wide and 5 foot 1 inch deep. The purpose is for protection from the elements. The Chair said most homes on the street have narrower porticos and asked whether the proposed portico is required to be at the requested width. Mr. Savigny said the proposed width maintains symmetry between windows and doors, and that narrowing the distance between the columns would impact the width of the stairs. The Chair asked if the columns could be smaller posts and referred to other homes on the street with narrower porticos. Mr. Savigny said the posts could be smaller but would require a change to the pre-existing front stair. The Chair asked to see a back elevation and asked for the depth of the addition. Mr. Savigny said the addition is 7 foot 8 inches deep. The Chair said that there are homes to the rear of this building that are of concern however it is believed there is screening between the two homes. Mr. Savigny said yes, there is screening, however the screening is on the neighbor’s property. Ms. Cooper asked what the dimensions of a compliant mudroom would be. Mr. Savigny said it would be approximately 4 foot 10 inches deep. Ms. Cooper asked what the width of the proposed addition is. Mr. Savigny said the width is 10 feet wide. Ms. Cooper asked why a 4-foot 10-inch-deep mud room is not sufficient. Mr. Savigny said that such a room would not allow for space for its intended purpose. Ms. Cooper asked if pocket doors were considered or a swing to the opposite direction to reduce or eliminate the encroachment. Mr. Savigny said pocket doors should not lead to the exterior. Mr. Savigny said widening the mudroom to make up for lost depth could be considered, however he does not believe that would look good. Mr. Savigny also said there is a grade change that needs to be considered in relation to the impervious surface coverage.  Board of Appeals April 13, 2022 128 Ms. Cooper said the front yard variance request is a 32% request for the portico and asked what could be done to reduce the encroachment. Mr. Savigny said he could push the columns against the house which would offer some protection against rain, perhaps 3 feet less than what is being requested. Ms. Cooper said the property is not staked. Mr. Savigny said it was taped at one point and perhaps the rain moved the taping. The Chair asked if there was anyone else who wished to be heard with respect to this application. No persons desiring to be heard, the Chair ended the discussion on the application. ****** CASE #24 of 2022 9. The Chair declared the hearing open on the application of Kimberly and Andrew Sagor for variances from Chapters 310-22 (building coverage) and 310-102 (FAR) to construct a pool house and covered porch, and a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 70 Morris Lane, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 18, Blk 1, Lot 29B. Rosalia Sanni, Landscape Designer, and Rosamund Young, Architect, were present. Ms. Sanni said the Applicant is proposing a pool with associated equipment that meets all the setback requirements. The fencing plan encloses the entire yard and is 5 feet high except for one area that is a mix of chain-link and aluminum that connects to the home. There is one section that is higher than 5 feet due to fencing sitting atop a 2-foot retention wall. The Chair asked where the 7-foot fence is located. Ms. Sanni responded it is located between the garage and the rear property line. The Chair asked Mr. Cutler if a 7-foot fence is permitted. Mr. Cutler said the fence must be offset, within a different vertical plane, than the retaining wall. The fence cannot be directly on top of the retaining wall. The exception to this rule is if the fence is greater than 50 feet from the street, in which case the 7-foot-high fence would be permitted. Ms. Sanni said there is room to comply with the offset requirement. Ms. Sanni said evergreen trees will provide screening along the back and side property lines. At the front yard will be a 5- to 6-foot-high hedge. The pool equipment will be screened with an 8- to 9-foot-high hedge. Ms. Young said the Applicant is proposing a pool house and two covered porches. To the south of the pool is a one-story pool house structure that meets setback and height requirements. A variance is required to exceed the allowable FAR for the property by 4.2 percent. A stakeout is provided for the Board’s viewing. The pool house consists of a powder room, storage, and kitchenette. During the winter, the intention is that the pool house would store pool furniture. An additional element of the home is a roof deck over a dining terrace. Board of Appeals April 13, 2022 129 There is approval for an L-shaped open-pergola as currently designed. Due to changing climates, the Applicant is proposing a waterproofed dining area with a roof deck. The dining terrace requires a variance for building coverage. The dining terrace and roof deck is 421 square feet and represents a 9 percent overage in the allowable lot coverage. The proposed dining terrace and roof deck are hidden from both streets, not visible by the human eye. The third item on the application is a side porch at the mudroom facing Birchall Drive. Currently there is roof protection for informal entry to the home. The Applicant would like to add columns to enhance the façade. The intersection of Morris Lane and Birchall Drive is an important corner and the design would look better with columns. However, columns and a roof increase building coverage. This covered porch is 165 square feet and represents 3.5 percent overage in allowable lot coverage. The Chair asked whether the pool house provides any of the screening for the pool to meet the pool screening requirement. Ms. Young said the pool house is not being used to screen the pool, the pool will be screened at the perimeter of the property. The special use permit for the pool is a separate application from the variances for the pool house, roof deck, and covered porch. The Chair said barring unusual circumstances, the Board typically does not grant variance requests lightly on non-hardship lots for new construction. The Chair asked where the project was in the process when the allowable FAR regulations were amended. Ms. Young said the building permit had been obtained for approximately 6 months by the time the FAR rules were changed. Approximately 500 square feet of buildable area was lost. The Chair asked whether the existing house as currently being constructed in conformance with the lower FAR rule. Ms. Young said the maximum floor area allowed under the new FAR rule is 7,609 square feet. At the time of issuance of the building permit, the maximum allowable square footage was 7,969 square feet. The house is currently approved for 7,819 square feet. The Chair asked how the new, larger square footage compares to the new FAR requirements. Ms. Young said the new proposal is for a total of 8,140 square feet when only 7,609 square feet is allowed. Mr. Cutler states that the building exceeds the maximum allowable by approximately 531 square feet or 7 percent. The Chair asked whether the pool house was part of the original plan. Ms. Young said no, the original site plan had a swimming pool but no pool house. Ms. Cooper said the Board has seen similar requests with large homes on large lots and the Board needs to remain consistent with past determinations. Another application came up with a solution for a dining terrace with slats that open and close, providing rain coverage but would not count toward lot coverage. Ms. Cooper asked whether the applicant explored alternative designs that would not require additional building coverage. Ms. Young is familiar with the system but does not think it is appropriate for this traditional style home. Ms. Young said the currently approved plan is for a continuous patio where rainwater is currently mitigated via the drain system. The roof over the patio does not exacerbate runoff any more Board of Appeals April 13, 2022 130 than a patio. No matter the rain amount, from an environmental aspect, it would be the same runoff no matter a roof deck, open slots, or patio. Ms. Cooper asked whether the pool house required a building coverage and FAR variance. Ms. Young said yes. The Chair states that both building coverage and FAR regulations are concerned with the size of the structure. It is a misnomer to say the overage does not impact the area because it is not visible. Approving an overage is not a question of visibility, it is a question of size. Ms. Young appreciates the Chair’s perspective and turns attention to the porch deck. The approved pergola in the location of the proposed porch deck is the same area as the proposed porch deck, there is no proposed change in size just a change in roofing. Ms. Cooper asked why a pool house was not originally considered, whether there was any allowable coverage left to create a small storage area or is there another solution for the storage of the pool items. Ms. Young said the garage could be used for storage however, as the project evolved, so has the desire for the pool house. The family has grown in the number of people and see the home as a place for their growing family. Ms. Cooper asked if there is any coverage leftover from the home that could allow a compliant small pool house, mudroom, or dining terrace. Ms. Young said the home is already over the coverage limitation due to the new FAR regulation. Ms. Cooper asked how much square footage would have been left under the old FAR. Ms. Young said there would have been 150 square feet left. Ms. Cooper asked if the Applicant was to prioritize additional square footage, what use would be prioritized. Ms. Young said 150 square feet could not make a pool room or dining terrace, only the mudroom. Ms. Cooper said that the Owner maxed-out the allowable building with a large home and did not leave room for additions. Ms. Young said that is correct. The pool house requires a variance for building coverage and FAR whereas the mudroom and dining terrace only require a variance for building coverage. Ms. Young will have to speak with her client about what the priority would be. Steve Rakoff, next door neighbor, was present. Mr. Rakoff said the representation that there is zero impact to the neighborhood is false. If the pool house were to be considered, he would only see roofing from his property. From his second floor, he would see everything within the property line even with the provided screening. The sheer mass of the project, including steep roofs, has resulted in a view of only roofing from his property. Mr. Rakoff was previously not allowed by the Board to build a pool house and instead had to utilize a bathroom in his basement because he could not prove hardship. Although he wants his neighbors to enjoy their pool, he knows the structure is large, self-inflicted and a detriment to himself and his property. If hardship was a criterion when he went for a variance, it should be consistently applied to this property, too. The neighborhood is impacted with the large structure of the pool house. Board of Appeals April 13, 2022 131 Mr. Rackoff said there is a 1954 fence along the Sagor’s south property line. The plans correctly showed an offset to replace the existing fence with a new fence. For the record, Mr. Rakoff would like to ensure the fence will be in the same location as the existing fence due to an adverse possession issue Mr. Rakoff had with the previous owner. The area is staked by Eliot Senor for the benefit of the Board. Mr. Rakoff said the roof deck will allow occupants to view into his pool and backyard. The three suggestions in total create more bulk and coverage than allowed. The roof deck and pool house would have large impacts to his property. Mr. Rakoff is against the pool house, roof deck, and mudroom. The Chair asked whether there is a roof deck proposed in the proposal. Ms. Young said yes. A roof deck is more attractive than black EPDM membrane. The Chair asked if there was anyone else who wished to be heard with respect to this application. No persons desiring to be heard, the Chair ended the discussion on the application. ****** CASE #25 of 2022 10. The Chair declared the hearing open on the application of Allison and Michael Meltz for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 2 Mohican Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 17, Blk 1, Lot 5B. Rosamund Young, Architect, was present. Ms. Young said the Application is seeking a special use permit for a pool. There is an existing swimming pool. The home suffered a fire last year, cutting off utilities, requiring home improvements and resulting in the redesign of the pool with an electric pool cover. The proposal is for a 22-foot by 45-foot pool surrounded by a patio. The proposed pool is within the required setbacks and does not require any variances. The existing perimeter screening and fencing is also code compliant. Some trees show browning due to the irrigation system being damaged by the fire. Trees with browning will be replaced. The Chair said there are brown trees at the back property line that do not provide effective screening and asked if the plan is to fill in those gaps. Ms. Young said yes, the gaps will be filled. If the pool special use permit is approved, then the final inspection will also require the gaps be filled in. Mr. Meiselman seconded comments from the Chair. Ms. Cooper asked if there is a planting schedule. Ms. Young said she did not have a planting schedule because most of the planted screening is pre-existing, with additions as Board of Appeals April 13, 2022 132 recently as Spring 2021. The Chair said the Board will speak to whether a planting schedule is needed during deliberation. The Chair asked if there was anyone else who wished to be heard with respect to this application. No persons desiring to be heard, the Chair ended the discussion on the application. ****** CASE #26 of 2022 11. The Chair declared the hearing open on the application of Jacqueline Friedland for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to relocate a swimming pool (hot tub) at 18 Stonewall Lane, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 21, Blk 1, Lot 29A. Daniel Sherman, Landscape Architect, was present. Mr. Sherman said the Application is to relocate the existing hot tub from underneath the porch to near the pool. The hot tub is currently located within the required 30-foot setback. All the required screening and fencing for the pool is in place. It was brought to the Applicant’s attention when applying for the pool Certificate of Occupancy that the hot tub should be brought into compliance with setback requirements. Therefore, the Application has been submitted to relocate the hot tub to comply with the setback requirements. The Chair said there appeared to be gaps in the existing planted screening and asked what the plan is to fix the screening so it is compliant. Mr. Sherman said there was hope that trees planted Spring 2021 would grow to fill in the gaps. Any gaps in the screening at the time the Applicant is ready for inspection will be filled in. The Chair asked if there was anyone else who wished to be heard with respect to this application. No persons desiring to be heard, the Chair ended the discussion on the application. ****** CASE #28 of 2022 13. The Chair declared the hearing open on the application of Erica and Dana Korsten for variance from 310-53 (side yard setback) to construct an addition construct a swimming pool at 52 Paddington Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 19, Blk 1, Lot 157. Bana Choura, Architect, was present. Ms. Choura said the lot and home are currently non-conforming to the A2a zoning district’s required minimum lot size and setback requirements, respectively. The Applicant is requesting a variance to allow for an encroachment into the 30’ front yard setback for the Board of Appeals April 13, 2022 133 addition of a new ground-floor bedroom and bathroom. The addition is required for the Owner’s changing needs and is requested out of hardship. The addition will be within the footprint of an existing porch and does not change the character of the home or impact the character of the neighborhood. The Chair said he understands the reason behind the request; however, the request is significant and impactful. The Chair requests to see elevations prior to any Board approval. The Chair asked if the room proposed is larger than the existing patio. Ms. Choura said no, she does not believe it is larger. The Chair asked to see dimensions of the existing enclosed porch. Ms. Choura said the porch is 8 foot 3 inches and the addition is 6 foot 8 inches. The Chair asked how many square feet the bedroom and bathroom are in total, not just the addition. Ms. Choura said 156 square feet for the bedroom and 40 square feet for the bathroom for a total of 196 square feet. Ms. Cooper said elevations are important to see for the Board to consider the Application. The Chair asked if there was anyone else who wished to be heard with respect to this application. No persons desiring to be heard, the Chair ended the discussion on the application. ****** Board of Appeals April 13, 2022 134 CASE #12 OF 2022 1. Melior ZD LLC 2 Carstensen Road Sec. 3 Blk. 2, Lot 52 Special Use Permit to construct a swimming pool and setback variance request for an existing hot tub. The Board considered the application of Melior ZD LLC, Case #12 of 2022, for a Special Use Permit to construct a swimming pool at 2 Carstensen 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 A3 (10,000 sq. ft.) zoning district, is shown in the Assessor’s records as .45 acres and 19,771 sq. ft. on the lot coverage form; and WHEREAS: The property is improved with a home built in 1936 with significant renovations in 2019; 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 applicant amended their plan during the meeting to place evergreen screening near the gate adjacent to the relocated spa; and WHEREAS: The plans show the proposed 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 RESOLVED: That the application of Melior ZD LLC, Case #12 of 2022, for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 2 Carstensen Road, as shown on the Site Plan dated revised March 16, 2022, be approved based on the following findings and conditions: Board of Appeals April 13, 2022 135 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 April 13, 2022 136 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. Motion: Ms. Cooper Second: Mr. Meiselman Aye Nay Abstain Absent Mr. Watiker X Ms. Cooper X Mr. Lichtenstein X Mr. Meiselman X Ms. Millen X ****** Board of Appeals April 13, 2022 137 CASE #14 OF 2022 2. Neal and Lynne Dorf 33 Vernon Road Sec. 19 Blk. 1, Lot 145 Lot coverage and variance request to construct a garage addition The Board considered the application of Neal and Lynne Dorf, Case #14 of 2022, for a setback variance from Chapter 310-43 and a lot coverage variance from Chapter 310-22, to construct a three car garage at 33 Vernon Road, and, upon motion duly made and seconded, unanimously held the matter over to the May 11, 2022 meeting pending the following: 1. The provide the applicant the opportunity to reduce or eliminate variance request or explain why it is not possible to reduce or eliminate the request. 2. The applicant must submit elevation drawings. Motion: Ms. Cooper Second: Ms. Millen Aye Nay Abstain Absent Mr. Watiker X Ms. Cooper X Mr. Lichtenstein X Mr. Meiselman X Ms. Millen X ****** Board of Appeals April 13, 2022 138 CASE #15 OF 2022 3. Scott and Rachel Graulich 11 Normandy Lane Sec. 24 Blk. 1, Lot 308 Front setback variance request to construct a portico The Board considered the application of Scott and Rachel Graulich, Case #15 of 2022, for a setback variance from Chapter 310-35, to construct a portico at 11 Normandy Lane, 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, and the granting of area variances for single family homes are Type II actions pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617.5(c) (16) and (17) and no further environmental review is required pursuant to said regulations; and WHEREAS: The property, located in the A-2 (15,000 sq. ft.) zoning district, is shown in the Assessor’s records as .75 acres and 32,492 sq. ft. on the lot coverage form; and WHEREAS: The property is improved with a home built in 1956; and WHEREAS: Chapter 310-35 regulates the front yard setback in Residence A zoning districts; and WHEREAS: The proposed portico will be 36.5 feet from the front yard lot line, where 40 feet is required, representing 6.5 feet or a 26% variance; 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 Scott and Rachel Graulich, Case #15 of 2022, for a setback variance from Chapter 310-35, to construct a portico at 11 Normandy Lane, as shown on the Site Plan dated December 17, 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. Board of Appeals April 13, 2022 139 3. It is substantial but in the context of the framing it 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. Motion: Ms. Cooper Second: Mr. Meiselman Aye Nay Abstain Absent Mr. Watiker X Ms. Cooper X Mr. Lichtenstein X Mr. Meiselman X Ms. Millen X ****** Board of Appeals April 13, 2022 140 CASE #18 OF 2022 4. Kenneth and Jodi Meyerson 5 Hanover Road Sec. 17 Blk. 1, Lot 248 Lot coverage variance for an existing pool The Board considered the application of Kenneth and Jodi Meyerson, Case #18 of 2022, for a lot coverage variance from Chapter 310-22, to legalize a recently constructed swimming pool at 5 Hanover Road, and, upon motion duly made and seconded, held the matter over to the May 11, 2022 meeting at the request of the applicant. Motion: Ms. Cooper Second: Mr. Meiselman Aye Nay Abstain Absent Mr. Watiker X Ms. Cooper X Mr. Lichtenstein X Mr. Meiselman X Ms. Millen X ****** Board of Appeals April 13, 2022 141 CASE #20 OF 2022 5. Alexandra and Anthony East 20 Cayuga Road Sec. 17 Blk. 1, Lot 345 Special Use Permit to construct a swimming pool The Board considered the application of Alexandra and Anthony East, Case #20 of 2022, for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 20 Cayuga 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 .46 acres and 14,875 sq. ft. on the lot coverage form; and WHEREAS: The property is improved with a home completed in 1977 with an addition completed in 2019; and WHEREAS: The property is located within the Special Flood Hazard Area and the applicant has reduced the area of the lot in accordance with Chapter 310-14; 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 proposed 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 Board of Appeals April 13, 2022 142 RESOLVED: That the application of Alexandra and Anthony East, Case #20 of 2022, for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 20 Cayuga Road, as shown on the Landscape dated March 19, 2022, 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 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. Board of Appeals April 13, 2022 143 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 of this resolution shall cause the Special Use Permit to become null and void. Motion: Mr. Meiselman Second: Ms. Cooper Aye Nay Abstain Absent Mr. Watiker X Ms. Cooper X Mr. Lichtenstein X Mr. Meiselman X Ms. Millen X ****** Board of Appeals April 13, 2022 144 CASE #21 OF 2022 6. Marlon and Susan Portes 6 Ardmore Road Sec. 22 Blk. 5, Lot 5A Front yard setback variance The Board considered the application of Marlon and Susan Portes, Case #21 of 2022, for a front yard set back variance from Chapter 310-32, to construct a porch at 6 Ardmore Road, and, upon motion duly made and seconded, held the matter over to the May 11, 2022 meeting at the request of the applicant. Motion: Ms. Cooper Second: Mr. Meiselman Aye Nay Abstain Absent Mr. Watiker X Ms. Cooper X Mr. Lichtenstein X Mr. Meiselman X Ms. Millen X ****** Board of Appeals April 13, 2022 145 CASE #23 OF 2022 8. Benjamin and Casey Hogan 32 Donnellan Road Sec. 5 Blk. 3 Lot 31 Front yard setback and rear yard setback variances The Board considered the application of Benjamin and Casey Hogan, Case #23 of 2022, for variances from Chapters 310-25 (front yard setback) and 310-43 (rear yard setback) to construct a one story portico in the front yard and a mudroom addition in the rear yard at 32 Donnellan Road, and, upon motion duly made and seconded, held the matter over to the May 11, 2022 meeting pending receipt of the following: 1. The provide the applicant the opportunity to reduce or eliminate variance requests or explain why it is not possible to reduce or eliminate the requests. Motion: Ms. Cooper Second: Mr. Meiselman Aye Nay Abstain Absent Mr. Watiker X Ms. Cooper X Mr. Lichtenstein X Mr. Meiselman X Ms. Millen X ****** Board of Appeals April 13, 2022 146 CASE #24 OF 2022 9. Kimberly and Andrew Sagor 70 Morris Lane Sec. 18 Blk. 1, Lot 29B Special Use Permit, FAR variance request, building coverage variance requests. The Board considered the application of Kimberly and Andrew Sagor, Case #24 of 2022, for a special use permit to construct a swimming pool and building coverage and FAR variances from Chapter 310-22 and 310-102 of Village Code, to construct a pool house, dining porch, and add columns to a mudroom roof at 70 Morris Lane, 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, and the granting of area variances for single family homes are Type II actions pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617.5(c) (16) and (17) 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 43,587 sq. ft. on the lot coverage form; and WHEREAS: The home is presently being constructed on the property; and WHEREAS: Chapter 310-102 regulates the floor area ratio in Residence A zoning districts; and WHEREAS: Chapter 310-22 regulates the building coverage in Residence A zoning districts; and WHEREAS: The pool house requires 321 square feet in excess of the maximum building coverage, representing a 6.9% variance, the dining terrace requires 421 square feet in excess of the maximum building coverage, representing a 9% variance, and the mudroom requires 165 square feet in excess of the maximum building coverage, representing a 3.5% variance; and Board of Appeals April 13, 2022 147 WHEREAS: The net building coverage variance request is for 896 square feet over the maximum, representing 19.2%; and WHEREAS: The FAR variance request is for 8,140 square feet 7,609 square feet is the maximum permitted, representing a 531 square foot variance or 6.9%; 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 Kimberly and Andrew Sagor, Case #24 of 2022, for a special use permit to construct a swimming pool at 70 Morris Lane, as shown on the Planting Plan dated March 15, 2022, 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 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. Board of Appeals April 13, 2022 148 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 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. RESOLVED: That the application of Kimberly and Andrew Sagor, Case #24 of 2022, FAR and building coverage variances from Chapter 310-22 and 310-102 of Village Code, to construct a pool house at 70 Morris Lane, as shown on the ZBA Plan dated revised March 13, 2022, be denied based on the following findings and conditions: 1. It would create an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood to have the amount of floor area and building coverage proposed for the pool house. 2. The applicant could use space within the home for the same functionality as the pool house. 3. The variance request is substantial. 4. The requested variances will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood by exceeding the requisite zoning by such a substantial amount. 5. The requested variance is self-created. The applicants recently built a new house at the maximum zoning limits. RESOLVED: That the application of Kimberly and Andrew Sagor, Case #24 of 2022, FAR Board of Appeals April 13, 2022 149 variances from Chapter 310-22 of Village Code, to construct a roof over the dining porch at 70 Morris Lane, as shown on the Planting Plan dated March 15, 2022, be denied based on the following findings and conditions: 1. It would create an undesirable change to the neighborhood as a result of the amount of the change and the proposed use of the roof area as a functional deck. 2. There is not another feasible method to achieve a function deck but there are other feasible methods, such as a retractable pergola cover, to provide protection from the rain and elements. 3. The variance request is substantial. 4. The requested variances will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood by exceeding the requisite zoning by such a substantial amount. 5. The requested variance is self-created. The applicants recently built a new house at the maximum zoning limits. RESOLVED: That the application of Kimberly and Andrew Sagor, Case #24 of 2022, FAR variances from Chapter 310-22 of Village Code, to add columns to a mudroom roof at 70 Morris Lane, as shown on the Planting Plan dated March 15, 2022, be denied based on the following findings and conditions: 1. The proposed columns would not create an undesirable change in the neighborhood. 2. While there is no other feasible alternative to the benefit sought, the benefit sought does not seem all that important. 3. The requested 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. The applicants recently built a new house at the maximum zoning limits. Motion: Ms. Cooper Second: Mr. Meiselman Aye Nay Abstain Absent Mr. Watiker X Board of Appeals April 13, 2022 150 Ms. Cooper X Mr. Lichtenstein X Mr. Meiselman X Ms. Millen X ****** Board of Appeals April 13, 2022 151 CASE #25 OF 2022 10. Allison and Michael Meltz 2 Mohican Trail Sec. 17 Blk. 1, Lot 5B Special Use Permit to construct a swimming pool The Board considered the application Allison and Michael Meltz, Case #25 of 2022, for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 2 Mohican Trail, 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-1 (1 acre) zoning district, is shown in the Assessor’s records as 1.01 acres and 43,738 sq. ft. on the lot coverage form; and WHEREAS: The property is improved with a home built in 1979 with an addition completed in 2008; 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 proposed 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 RESOLVED: That the application of Allison and Michael Meltz, Case #25 of 2022, for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 2 Mohican Trail, as shown on the proposed Site Plan dated March 17, 2022, be approved based on the following findings and conditions: Board of Appeals April 13, 2022 152 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 April 13, 2022 153 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. Motion: Ms. Cooper Second: Mr. Meiselman Aye Nay Abstain Absent Mr. Watiker X Ms. Cooper X Mr. Lichtenstein X Mr. Meiselman X Ms. Millen X ****** Board of Appeals April 13, 2022 154 CASE #26 OF 2022 11. Jacqueline Friedland 18 Stonewall Lane Sec. 21 Blk. 1, Lot 29A Special Use Permit to move a spa The Board considered the application Jacqueline Friedland, Case #26 of 2022, for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to move a spa at 18 Stonewall Lane, 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 1.02 acres and 44,311 sq. ft. on the lot coverage form; and WHEREAS: The property is improved with a home built in 2013; 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 proposed location of the spa and associated equipment, landscaping and fencing; and WHEREAS: The spa appears to meet the required setbacks and the project appears to meet the lot coverage; and RESOLVED: That the application of Jacqueline Friedland, Case #26 of 2022, for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 18 Stonewall Lane, as shown on the proposed Site Plan dated March 16, 2022, be approved based on the following findings and conditions: Board of Appeals April 13, 2022 155 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 April 13, 2022 156 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. Motion: Ms. Cooper Second: Mr. Meiselman Aye Nay Abstain Absent Mr. Watiker X Ms. Cooper X Mr. Lichtenstein X Mr. Meiselman X Ms. Millen X ****** Board of Appeals April 13, 2022 157 CASE #27 OF 2022 12. Jennifer and Alan Goldfarb 44 Colby Lane Sec. 17 Blk. 1, Lot 11B Building coverage variance for addition and special use permit for swimming pool The Board considered the application of Jennifer and Alan Goldfarb, Case #27 of 2022, for a special use permit to construct a swimming pool and a building coverage variance to construct an addition 44 Colby Lane, and, upon motion duly made and seconded, held the matter over to the May 11, 2022 meeting at the request of the applicant. Motion: Mr. Meiselman Second: Ms. Cooper Aye Nay Abstain Absent Mr. Watiker X Ms. Cooper X Mr. Lichtenstein X Mr. Meiselman X Ms. Millen X ****** Board of Appeals April 13, 2022 158 CASE #28 OF 2022 13. Eric and Dana Korsten 52 Paddington Road Sec. 4 Blk. 1 Lot 633 Side yard setback variance for one story addition The Board considered the application of Eric and Dana Korsten, Case #28 of 2022, for a variance from Chapters 310-53 (side yard setback) to construct a one story addition 52 Paddington Road, and, upon motion duly made and seconded, held the matter over to the May 11, 2022 meeting pending receipt of the following: 1. The provide the applicant the opportunity to provide elevations that demonstrate the impact of the proposed addition. 2. Provide the applicant the opportunity to stake the location of the addition. Motion: Ms. Cooper Second: Mr. Meiselman Aye Nay Abstain Absent Mr. Watiker X Ms. Cooper X Mr. Lichtenstein X Mr. Meiselman X Ms. Millen X ****** Board of Appeals April 13, 2022 159 ****** On motion of Mr. Meiselman, seconded by Ms. Cooper, and carried unanimously, the Board approved the minutes of the March meeting. ****** The Chair announced that the next meeting of the Board of Appeals would be held on Wednesday, May 11, 2022, at 7 p.m. ****** The meeting was adjourned at 11:20 p.m. ****** __________________ Lindsey Marie Cohen Assistant to the Village Planner