Zoning Board of Appeals

Board of Appeals May 11, 2022 160 BOARD OF APPEALS RUTHERFORD HALL VILLAGE HALL SCARSDALE, NY May 11, 2022 A regular meeting of the Board of Appeals of the Village of Scarsdale was via Zoom video conference on Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 7:00 p.m. Those members present were Chair, Jeffrey Watiker, Amy Cooper, Eric Lichtenstein, and Meredith Millen. Meredith Kent was present as an alternate. Also present were Village Attorney, Dan Pozin, Village Planner, Greg Cutler, and Building Inspector, Frank Diodati. * ** * * * The Chair said welcome to the May 11, 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 four 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 May 11, 2022 161 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, May 11, 2022 at 7:00 p.m. at which time the Board of Appeals will consider the following: 1. The application of Neal and Lynne Dorf for a Variance from chapter 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. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. The application of Erica and Dana Korsten for variance from 310-53 (side yard setback) to construct an addition at 52 Paddington Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 19, Blk 1, Lot 157. 6. The application of Steven and Maria Salzinger for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 50 Greendale Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 15, Blk. 5, Lot 2. 7. The application of Cooper Lots LLC for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 2 Cooper Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 14, Blk. 2, Lot 9.10C. 8. The application of Eilon Amidor for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 69 Morris Lane, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 14, Blk. 5, Lot 26. Board of Appeals May 11, 2022 162 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 May 11, 2022 163 CASE #21 of 2022 2. 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 said following last month’s meeting, the Applicant has decided to reduce the depth of the front porch by 1 foot, reducing the encroachment into the required front yard by 4 feet for a 26-foot front yard setback. The reduction will leave 4 feet at the front door to allow for egress. Total depth of the porch is 8.5 feet. Mr. Mustacato said the Applicant believes the porch is an important aspect to the new Colonial character of the house and the Application currently reduces the encroachment as much as possible. Additional letters from neighbors in support of the porch have been submitted. The Chair said a front porch the full width of the home continues to be a concern and will change the character of the street. Ms. Cooper asked what the distance from the curb to the new porch is. Mr. Mustacato will be approximately 36 to 37 feet from the curb. The stairs will remain in approximately the same place. Ms. Cooper asked what the need of the Applicant is for the front porch. Mr. Mustacato said it accomplishes the aesthetic character they are looking to achieve with the house and the homeowners would like to sit on a front porch with views of the street. Ms. Cooper asked what other homes have a full front porch. Mr. Mustacato said the house next door has a full front porch. Ms. Cooper asked what the increase of the square footage of the house will be. Mr. Mustacato said the second floor will be increased marginally. The Chair asked if the Applicant was adding a rear porch. Mr. Mustacato said the Applicant is adding a rear patio that meets the required setback. Ms. Cooper asked if the plan is within the lot coverage requirements. Mr. Mustacato said yes. Marlon Portes, homeowner, was present. Mr. Portes said there are 9-10 letters of support submitted to the Board that state the neighbors believe the porch will be within the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Portes said a usable porch is 5 feet deep as originally proposed. If the project is supported by the neighbors, it should be supported by the Board. Part of the reason for the porch is to spend time outside Board of Appeals May 11, 2022 164 with neighbors and Scarsdale should support the neighborhood. Mr. Portes said there is a bias for garages instead of porches that he disagrees with, and he believes the residents of Scarsdale should have autonomy on what they want their block to look like. The Chair asked for clarification on the purported bias. Mr. Portes said that he had thought Scarsdale is biased against porches. 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 3. 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. Charlie Savigny, Architect, and Benjamin Hogan, homeowner, were present. Mr. Hogan said the reason for the Application is due to floodwaters filling their basement. The homeowners never intended to make the proposed changes. The homeowners have been advised by David Goessl, Village Engineer, and other engineering professionals that, to avoid future flooding, the driveway should be filled in. If we fill in the driveway, we lose value to the house and lose the way that we enter/exit the home. We have looked at alternative locations for a mudroom, however the proposed location is the only one that works, which is why we are seeking the variance. Mr. Hogan said he is worried about future flooding. Mr. Savigny said since the last meeting the Applicant has reduced the rear yard setback variance request to 2 feet. At the front, the Applicant has installed a cantilevered roof 7 feet wide and 2 foot 8 inches deep that negates the need for a front yard setback variance. Ms. Cooper asked if there was a stormwater management plan. Mr. Savigny said that once the Application is approved, Hudson Engineering will be retained to design a stormwater management plan. Mr. Lichtenstein asked for clarification on the Application. Mr. Savigny said the driveway will be at grade, no longer sloped, and the stairs will lead down to where the original driveway met the house. Mr. Hogan said the staircase is for egress purposes. 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 May 11, 2022 165 CASE #28 of 2022 5. The application of Erica and Dana Korsten for variance from 310-53 (side yard setback) to construct an addition 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 required side yard setback is 25 feet and the existing house is non-conforming currently with a 23-foot setback. The proposed addition will make the side yard 22.7 feet. The proposed addition would be an additional 99 square feet on the home and aligns with an existing porch. The addition is needed due to changing health needs of the homeowner. The property has been staked. The Chair asked if anything changed from the last meeting. Ms. Choura said no, only elevations were added. Ms. Cooper asked if it was a one-story addition. Ms. Choura said yes. Ms. Millen asked if the purpose of the addition is for a first-floor bedroom. Ms. Choura said yes. 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 #29 of 2022 6. The application of Steven and Maria Salzinger for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 50 Greendale Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 15, Blk. 5, Lot 2. Alvaro Alfonzo-Larrain, Engineer, was present. Mr. Alfonzo-Larrain said the Application consists of a 20 foot by 40 foot in ground swimming pool. The pool meets required setbacks and is below lot coverage limits. This proposal is a revision to a previous proposal that required a variance. The current application does not require any variances. The Chair asked if the planting plan shows new plants. Mr. Alfonzo-Larrain said yes, the intent is to supplement and, in part, replace existing shrubbery with what is being proposed. Board of Appeals May 11, 2022 166 The Chair asked if the planting is designed to screen at a height of 5 feet. Mr. Alfonzo- Larrain said yes. Ms. Cooper asked if there is a planting schedule. Mr. Alfonzo-Larrain said yes. Ms. Cooper said the planting schedule shows mature heights and asked what the planted heights would be. Mr. Alfonzo-Larrain said the plants would be planted close to or at the low end of the mature height. Ms. Cooper said the plants need to be at least 5 feet on day one. Mr. Alfonzo-Larrain said he understood. Ms. Cooper asked if the home has a stormwater management plan and does it accommodate the pool and deck. Mr. Alfonzo-Larrain said yes, it consists of a series of underground chambers. An assessment has not been conducted to determine if the system can handle the proposed pool, however one of the advantages of the revised plan is that it enables the Applicant to expand the system if required during the site engineering design phase. Mr. Diodati said when the Building Department comes for a final inspection, there must be a minimum screening of 5 feet in height with no gaps between the trees. Mr. Alfonzo- Larrain has acknowledged the requirement. The Chair has acknowledged that there has been correspondence from a member of the public related to this 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. CASE #30 of 2022 7. The application of Cooper Lots LLC for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 2 Cooper Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 14, Blk. 2, Lot 9.10C. Abigail Adams, Landscape Architect, was present. Ms. Adams said the Applicant is seeking a special use permit for a 20 foot by 40 foot in ground pool. The pool will be screened with a 5-foot planting at the perimeter of the pool deck as well as at the perimeter of the property. The screening does include significant evergreen trees. The site development plan includes a stormwater retention plan that captures the overland flow and runoff related to impervious surface coverage. The pool is within required setback lines. Board of Appeals May 11, 2022 167 The Chair asked if the Applicant was relying on the pool-approximate screening for the pool or is it a combination of pool-approximate and perimeter planting. Ms. Adams said the majority of the screening is happening around the pool, the perimeter is additional. The Chair asked to clarify the location of pool fencing. Ms. Adams said the fencing is at the back yard, moves to the perimeter, then connects back to the house to enclose the pool area. The Chair asked how tall the retaining wall is. Ms. Adams said the retaining wall is 3 feet high and then is lower as it moves toward the house. The Chair asked what the space is between the retaining wall and the fence. Ms. Adams said at the closest part, it is approximately 8 feet from the fence. Ms. Cooper said some trees noted in the planting schedule are less than 5 feet in height and asked if those trees are being relied upon for screening. Ms. Adams said no, those trees are decorative. Ms. Millen asked for an explanation of what is occurring at the rear of the property. Ms. Adams explained the rear of the property slopes. The plan is to remove the previous pool, create a nicely sloped lawn, and this requires a retaining wall of 5 to 6 feet. Ms. Cooper asked if the grading is permitted under the Village Code. Mr. Diodati said it is permitted but needs to be checked with stormwater management via the Village Engineer’s office and the retaining wall should be included when presenting to the Board of Architectural Review. Ms. Adams said that all the grading and stormwater management has been included in other applications and is permitted. 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 #31 of 2022 8. The application of Eilon Amidor for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 69 Morris Lane, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 14, Blk. 5, Lot 26. Miguel Sostre, Architect, and Eilon Amidor, Contractor, was present. Mr. Sostre said the Applicant is proposing a pool located within the required setbacks and code regulations. The lot is a flag lot and, therefore used the quadrangle is used to determine lot coverage. New screening is proposed around the perimeter of the property as well as a pool fence. Board of Appeals May 11, 2022 168 The Chair asked what plant materials are being used around the perimeter. Mr. Sostre said that approximately 125 Green Giants will be used. The house will screen the pool from one side. Ms. Millen asked what the plan is for fencing the pool. The pool fence runs around the perimeter of the property and crosses the driveway with a gate. The gate will always be closed. The Chair asked for the status of the pool house. Mr. Sostre said the pool house was put on the application prematurely. Mr. Sostre must go to the Board of Architectural Review, Engineering, and Planning Board for the pool house. Ms. Millen asked what the lot coverage is. Mr. Amidor said impervious surface calculations have been submitted. The driveway will be gravel, which does not count toward impervious surfaces. The Applicant has excess available coverage according to current calculations. Mr. Diodati said a pool barrier is running across a driveway and asked to confirm that the driveway gate is self-closing and self-latching. Any changes to the fence would have to go back to the Zoning Board. Mr. Sostre said yes, the gate will be self-closing and self-latching and it is understood that if there are any changes, the Applicant will have to return to the Board. Mr. Cutler noted a resident brought up that there is a retaining wall along the side property line that would require spacing between the retaining wall and the fence. Mr. Sostre said yes, he understands a 5 foot separation would be required and any changes in the fence would require a return to the Board. Mr. Sostre and Mr. Amidor agreed that the fence will be moved 5 feet away from the retaining wall no matter the height of the retaining wall. Lauren Breslow, homeowner of 11 Richbell Road, lives nearby on a flag lot. Ms. Breslow said the back yard of 69 Morris Lane abuts the front yard of 11 Richbell Road, and her front door faces the proposed pool. Ms. Breslow said the area is currently characterized as a relatively rustic area, heavily wooded with shrubs and weeds. Ms. Breslow is concerned about a chain-link fence being constructed in her front yard and asked whether an estate fence, which is in line with the character of the neighborhood, could be required similar to the existing fence at 13 Richbell Road. The Chair said it is not customary to require a particular kind of fence, but the Applicant could do it on their own accord. Chain-link is a preferred type of fence for pools because greenery can grow into the fence. Ms. Breslow invites the Board to her home to see her perspective. Ms. Breslow said she is concerned that the proposal only includes Green Giant as the screening plant because it is inconsistent with the rural and native plant character of the neighborhood. Ms. Breslow said a variety of plant types would be more aligned with the character of the neighborhood. Board of Appeals May 11, 2022 169 The Chair asked if there was a page in the record that shows the orientation of Ms. Breslow’s home in relation to 69 Morris Lane. Mr. Cutler showed a parcel map with building outlines. Ms. Millen asked for a description of the driveway at 11 Richbell Road. Ms. Breslow said that her driveway comes up the narrow part of her property, cuts across the front of her home providing a turnaround circle at her front door and veers toward the back of her home to a detached garage. Ms. Millen asked what the size of the 11 Richbell Road property is. Ms. Breslow said her property is 2.33 acres. The Chair said that the 69 Morris Lane lot line is far from Ms. Breslow’s front door in relation to other lots in the Village of Scarsdale. Mr. Amidor said that there is an existing pool in the back yard of an adjacent property that faces the front yard of 11 Richbell Road. Mr. Amidor said that the plan is to save as many existing trees as possible and plant where there are gaps. Ms. Breslow reiterated Ms. Cooper’s comments that the plan should be resubmitted with a revised fencing plan. Ms. Breslow asked if this was the venue to discuss elevation and flooding. Mr. Diodati said she can discuss stormwater management with the Village Engineer’s office when the stormwater management plan is submitted. The Chair said that elevation can be discussed with the Board in relation to pool code regulations such as screening and setback. Mr. Amidor said he instructed his engineer to build the capacity of the stormwater management system to accommodate the entire site and comply with New York State code. Dan Martin, homeowner of 13 Richbell Road, asked whether the pool was 40 feet or 50 feet since one document in the Application folder shows a 50-foot pool. Mr. Amidor said the pool is proposed to be 40 feet. Mr. Martin asked how tall the Green Giants would be at the time of planting. The Chair said that planted screening must be at least 5 feet in height at the time of planting. Mr. Sostre said the plants would be 5 to 6 feet in height when planted and said that the trees would grow as permitted by the existing tree canopy. Mr. Martin said he is pleased that existing trees will remain and said that the pool is at a higher point compared to his property at 13 Richbell Road. Mr. Martin asked if the plan is to excavate the pool area. Mr. Amidor said the plan is to cut and fill. The Chair asked if there was a plan showing contour lines. Mr. Amidor said such a plan would be submitted to the Village Engineer during stormwater management approval, but he does not agree with Mr. Martin’s characterization of the site’s elevation. Mr. Martin said there is much undetermined at this point, and he expects many more changes down the line. The Chair asked what the Planning Board’s role is with respect to flag lots. Mr. Cutler said the Planning Board has site plan review authority with respect to access, ingress, egress, but not typical site plan review. Mr. Amidor said there are no plans within the next year to make any changes to the house, just build the pool and the pool house. Board of Appeals May 11, 2022 170 Jeewon Park, 13 Richbell Road and spouse of Dan Martin, said Morris Lane is at a higher elevation than Richbell Road and there were significant water issues from a storm last September. Ms. Park said it would be helpful to know exactly what the plan is for the trees since the existing trees are so diverse and represent old growth. In addition, it would be helpful to know more about future grading due to the Village’s ongoing issues with stormwater. Ms. Park asked whether the landscaped screening could be maintained if the fence were to be established between the trees and the property. Ms. Park and Mr. Amidor agreed to meet face-to-face to discuss existing trees. 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 May 11, 2022 171 CASE #21 OF 2022 2. 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. A motion was made and seconded to approve the Application, however the motion failed to pass by a vote of 2-2. Upon motion duly made and seconded, the board held the matter over to the June 8, 2022 meeting to provide the applicant the opportunity to have the full board deliberate on the matter. Motion: Ms. Cooper Second: Mr. Millen Aye Nay Abstain Absent Mr. Watiker X Ms. Cooper X Mr. Lichtenstein X Mr. Meiselman X Ms. Millen X ****** Board of Appeals May 11, 2022 172 CASE #23 OF 2022 3. Benjamin and Casey Hogan 32 Donnellan Road Sec. 5 Blk. 3 Lot 31 Rear yard setback variances The Board considered the application of Benjamin and Casey Hogan, Case #23 of 2022, for variances from Chapter 310-43 (rear yard setback) to construct a mudroom addition in the rear yard at 32 Donnellan 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, 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-3 (10,000 sq. ft.) zoning district, is shown in the Assessor’s records as .1 acres and 5,526 sq. ft. on the lot coverage form; and WHEREAS: The property is improved with a home built in 1923; and WHEREAS: Chapter 310-43 regulates the rear yard setback in Residence A zoning districts; and WHEREAS: The proposed mudroom will be 23 feet from the rear yard lot line, where 25 feet is required, representing 2 feet or an 8% 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 Benjamin and Casey Hogan, Case #23 of 2022, for variances from Chapter 310-43 (rear yard setback) to construct a mudroom addition in the rear yard at 32 Donnellan Road, as shown on the Site Plan dated revised May 4, 2022, be approved based on the following findings: 1. The requested variance will not create an undesirable change in the Board of Appeals May 11, 2022 173 character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The mudroom is in the rear of the property and is not visible from the street. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by another feasible method. The applicant is seeking to solve a flooding problem by filling the driveway and closing off the former garage and the mudroom compensates for the lost functionality of the garage space. 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. The project will also include stormwater management which may be beneficial to the environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 5. The requested variance is not self-created as the applicant has been subjected to severe flooding events and is attempting to make the property safe while maintaining certain functionality. Motion: Ms. Millen 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 May 11, 2022 174 CASE #27 OF 2022 4. 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 June 8, 2022 meeting at the request of the applicant. 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 May 11, 2022 175 CASE #28 OF 2022 5. Eric and Dana Korsten 52 Paddington Road Sec. 4 Blk. 1 Lot 633 Side on corner 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, 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-2a (15,000 sq. ft.) zoning district, is shown in the Assessor’s records as .28 acres and 12,197 sq. ft. on the lot coverage form; and WHEREAS: The property is improved with a home built in 1995; and WHEREAS: Chapter 310-53 regulates the side on corner setback in Residence A zoning districts; and WHEREAS: The proposed addition will be 22.7 feet from the side lot line, where 30 feet is required, representing 7.3 feet or an 24.3% 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 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, as shown on the Site Plan dated revised March 1, 2022, be approved based on the following findings: 1. The requested variance will not create an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The Board of Appeals May 11, 2022 176 addition is modestly sized and there is adequate screening. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by another feasible method. The applicant has a hardship that requires a first floor bedroom which is not feasible to construct in any other way. 3. The requested variance is substantial but the property is already encroaching on the side yard. 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 not self-created. The applicant is experiencing a hardship that is not self-created. Motion: Mr. Lichtenstein 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 May 11, 2022 177 CASE #29 OF 2022 6. Steven and Maria Salzinger 50 Greendale Road Sec. 15 Blk. 5, Lot 2 Special Use Permit to construct a swimming pool The Board considered the application of Steven and Maria Salzinger, Case #29 of 2022, for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 50 Greendale 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 .85 acres and 33,451 sq. ft. on the lot coverage form; and WHEREAS: The property is improved with a home completed in 1956 with additions in 1966 and 1980; 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 RESOLVED: That the application of Steven and Maria Salzinger, Case #29 of 2022, for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to Board of Appeals May 11, 2022 178 construct a swimming pool at 50 Greendale Road, as shown on the Site Plan dated revised May 4, 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. 10. The applicant shall submit an "as built" survey and certified lot coverage form to the Building Inspector prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Board of Appeals May 11, 2022 179 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: Ms. Millen 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 May 11, 2022 180 CASE #30 OF 2022 7. Cooper Lots LLC 2 Cooper Road Sec. 14 Blk. 3, Lot 9.10C Special Use Permit to construct a swimming pool The Board considered the application of Cooper Lots LLC, Case #30 of 2022, for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 2 Cooper 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-1 (1 acre) zoning district, is shown in the Assessor’s records as 1.16 acres and 50,480 sq. ft. on the lot coverage form; and WHEREAS: The property is presently vacant and is the result of a three lot subdivision approval 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 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 Cooper Lots LLC, Case #30 of 2022, for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 2 Cooper Road, as shown on the Planting Plan dated revised Board of Appeals May 11, 2022 181 March 28, 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. 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. Board of Appeals May 11, 2022 182 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. Lichtenstein Second: Ms. Miller Aye Nay Abstain Absent Mr. Watiker X Ms. Cooper X Mr. Lichtenstein X Mr. Meiselman X Ms. Millen X ****** Board of Appeals May 11, 2022 183 CASE #31 OF 2022 8. Eilon Amidor (Contract Vendee) 69 Morris Lane Sec. 4 Blk. 1 Lot 633 Special Use Permit to construct a swimming pool The Board considered the application of Eilon Amidor, Case #31 of 2022, for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 69 Morris Lane, and, upon motion duly made and seconded, held the matter over to the June 8, 2022 meeting pending receipt of the following: 1. Submission of an accurate landscape plan that includes existing evergreen plantings and species as well as proposed evergreen plantings and species. 2. Details about the fence location relative to the retaining wall. 3. A revised plan that demonstrates the proposed new location of the driveway. 4. A revised plan that includes two-foot contour lines. 5. Details on the type of fencing proposed. 6. If applicable, details of the proposed gate that crosses over the driveway. Motion: Ms. Cooper Second: Ms. Millen Aye Nay Abstain Absent Mr. Watiker X Ms. Cooper X Ms. Kent X Mr. Meiselman X Ms. Millen X Board of Appeals May 11, 2022 184 ****** The Chair announced that the next meeting of the Board of Appeals would be held on Wednesday, June 8, 2022, at 7 p.m. ****** The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m. ****** __________________ Greg Cutler Village Planner