Zoning Board of Appeals

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, June 8, 2022 at 7:00 p.m. at which time the Board of Appeals will consider the following: 1. The application of Marlon and Susan Portes for a Variance from Chapter 310-35 (front yard setback) of the Village Code, to construct a front porch at 6 Ardmore Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 22, Blk 5, Lot 5A. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. The application of Jordan and Nicole Dubbs for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 12 Stonewall Lane, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 21, Blk. 1, Lots 26, 27 and 41. 5. The application of Daniel and Mallorie Corcoran for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 21 Griffen Avenue, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 24, Blk. 1, Lots 4A.1A. 6. The application of Jared and Jordana Worman for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 49 Sheldrake Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 17, Blk. 1, Lot 101. 7. The application of Reema and Lakesh Rao for a variance from Chapter 310-35 (front yard setback) of the Village Code, to construct a front porch at 15 Crossway, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 22, Blk. 20, Lot 8. 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/ZBA6-8 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 May 24, 2022. Gregory Cutler, AICP, Village Planner. ****** 1. The application of Marlon and Susan Portes for a Variance from Chapter 310-35 (front yard setback) of the Village Code, to 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. The proposal is to add an open roofed porch. The existing entrance to the house is 30 feet to the property line, proposed deck is 4 feet so 26-foot setback total. Porch would be about 28 inches off the ground, so not a very substantial structure. Mr. Portes has 13 letters of support from neighbors. The house is small in lot coverage and FAR, especially given the size of the property. Mr. Portes indicated they are not seeking to make substantial expansions even though they could, given the space. The porch would support neighborly interactions which is why it has received neighbor support. A 4 foot expansion feels like the lowest the client was willing to go, because an entryway that is any narrower would be awkward. Like almost every variance, it is self-created, but he believes the benefit is immense. Ms. Cooper asked how this situation is unique. If the Board allows this, then won’t everyone request a variance that will allow them to build closer to the front of the lot? Mr. Mustacato reiterated that the house occupies less of the lot than the average and that this addition is popular among his clients’ neighbors. Ms. Cooper asked what the final depth of the porch would be and why there is a minimum width of 4 feet that would be enjoyable for the client. Mr. Mustacato responded that the depth is 8 foot 6 inches so very comfortable for seating, minus the columns and railing it is about 7.5 feet. Existing front entrance just out from living room wall, so the 4-foot extension would only leave about 3 feet of space at the doorway. He explains that overall, 4 feet is the minimal amount of space to stand on the front porch if one is seeking protection from the elements. Ms. Millen asked how long the Portes family has been living in the home. Mr. Mustacato did not know but guessed that his first project with the family was 15 years ago. His clients like the neighborhood and wish to stay, but they find that their house is tired and are looking to upgrade it. The Chair invited one of the clients, Marlon Portes to speak. Mr. Portes was not in the audience.  The Chair explained that this case received a split vote when it came before the board previously, though at that time there had not been a full Board. He stated that there is now a full Board to vote on this case. He wished to reiterate his concerns from the previous meeting. The Chair was concerned that the code allows a portico that is 2 feet wider than the front door, which is what almost every neighboring house have that have been built up to the lot line like this one. This is extending the entire length of the house, unlike what the portico would do. Houses in this area that do have porches have their porches are built back from the lot line so that the porch is at the setback. There does not seem to be a reason to change this rule that has existed for 50 years, particularly since this house has a porch in the back. The Chair asked if there have been any changes to the plan since the previous meeting, to which Mr. Mustacato responded no. Mr. Mustacato noted that the original plan had included a 5- foot-wide porch and had since been reduced to its current 4-foot design. He added that he is seeking a variance and not seeking to change the law. He emphasized that the porch is small. The Chair asked if there was anyone else who wished to be heard with respect to this application. No subsequent persons desiring to be heard, the Chair ended the discussion on the application. ****** 2. 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 has been adjourned at the request of the applicant. ****** 3. 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. For this application, there was a recusal from Mr. Lichtenstein, and the alternate, Meredith Kent stepped in. Miguel Sostre was present. This application had been held over from a previous meeting. There had been no concerns about the pool location, including setbacks, water management, and lot coverage, but there were questions about development and the relationship between a fence and a wall on the left side of the property. Mr. Sostre has already demolished the gravel driveway on the left side of the property. They are turning a new driveway across the front of the property, and he is tying it into the existing parking court in the back of the house. He is keeping the fence at the property line. Mr. Sostre would like to demolish a one-foot-high wall on the left-hand side that consists of a loose pile of rocks, which lies on neighbors’ side of the property line. He proposes raising the current fence to 6 feet to avoid a stepping condition. The Chair commented that there had been one more question from the last presentation about which of the trees on the property would count towards screening. He presented an assumption that Mr. Sostre’s plans show all new plantings. Mr. Sostre responded that the existing plantings at the perimeter have grown wild. He intends to screen in around the perimeter, but it might require replacing some greenery while keeping the rest. Application Eilon Amidor spoke. Mr. Amidor stated that he intends to leave the trees around the perimeter. The Chair commented that the Board usually requests a complete landscaping plan before issuing the pool permit. Mr. Amidor stated that it is integrated into the pool plan. Mr. Sostre noted that the plan includes the existing landscape plan. Mr. Amidor added that it shows the trees that he intends to plant. Mr. Sostre admitted that with the current plan, there will not be enough screening, as the plan involves keeping some of the stubby and sparse trees that are currently there. Ms. Cooper questioned whether Mr. Sostre and Mr. Amidor read the resolution from the previous meeting, which invited them to return under the condition that they bring an accurate landscaping plan, that includes existing and proposed evergreen plantings and species, along with a series of other materials. Mr. Sostre pointed out that his plan contains the current evergreen plantings on the property. Mr. Amidor stated that the property is already screened in and that he is adding an additional 175 trees to the screening. He claimed that if this does not meet the code for screening, he does not know what would. He stated that anyone who visits the site would see that he cannot see the neighbors and the neighbors cannot see him. Ms. Millen asked about the proposed gate and fence. She asked Mr. Sostre to show her how the pool and the property are closed off for safety purposes. Mr. Sostre responded that they had originally proposed a fence that would cross the driveway, but they changed the plan after concluding that the design was impractical. They adopted a new plan to run the fence along the back of the property and then between the driveway and the house in the front, until it reaches the edge of the house. The other end of the fence would also meet the house. They originally wanted to fence in the whole property, and it was difficult because of the trees around the perimeter. Ms. Cooper asked to see where it says fence on the diagram. She stated that the drawing is skeletal, and she would like labeling. Mr. Sostre stated that they would use code-compliant black chain link fences. Raising the fence in some places to prevent the step condition as required by code.  Mr. Meiselman stated that typically diagrams show what would be pre-existing and what would be new, but he understands that Mr. Sostre would have difficulty differentiating at this stage. Mr. Sostre agreed and added that he would be willing to fill every gap in the screening once he could assess which trees would remain and which would go. He did not think it would be helpful to commit to adding specific patches of trees now. He would be willing to screen 100% of the property with Dark American arborvitae, but he did not think that was necessary given the existing opaque screening. Mr. Meiselman asked whether this meant that the 175 trees might not be an accurate estimate. Mr. Sostre said he might not need all 175 trees, but he reiterated that he would be willing to screen the whole property if necessary. Mr. Sostre stated that he believed he addressed questions about the fence and development, but that in this case, the best way to address this would be to see what is necessary. The Chair asked whether the pool house is part of this application. Mr. Sostre explained that he added it to the drawing to show the relationship between things on the property but that the Board is only responsible for proving a resolution on the pool. The Chair asked about the screening along the driveway. Mr. Sostre pointed to screening along the driveway on the plan, but he offered to add more. He stated that he would not be able to get a Certificate of Occupancy without proper screening. The Chair stated that the Board does not sign off on promises. Ms. Cooper added that the Board gave a specific request to Mr. Sostre last month to return with a better landscaping plan. She added that the applicant did not meet that demand, and there are several unexplained gaps in the screening shown on the plan. Mr. Sostre returned that he would return the following meeting. Mr. Amidor asked if it would suffice if he screened the entire left side of the property. Mr. Sostre commented that that side is already screened. Mr. Amidor offered to screen it in with new trees if it would appease the Board. He noted that Mr. Meiselman was the only Board member who has been on site to assess the property. The Chair responded that all Board members have visited the site. Ms. Cooper noted that last time there was an issue visiting this site. She added that she feels she was clear last month about the conditions for return, and those were not met during this follow-up presentation. She reiterated that for the landscape plan, the Board would only accept a specific plan, not the promise of one. Mr. Amidor offered again to screen the left side if they requested that he do so. Ms. Cooper responded that he should instead submit plans for approval. Mr. Amidor asserted that his plans are very good and that they should suffice. He asked the Board to vote on his offer to add a line of trees on the left side, and he believed that should be sufficient for the Board. Ms. Millen stated that she saw the ample screening, but she thought the plan presented at the meeting showed sparse screening. If Mr. Amidor extended the screening down to the driveway, it would likely comply with code, but this is not obvious from the plan. Mr. Amidor stated that he is not planning on cutting existing trees. Ms. Millen asked where all the existing trees are. Mr. Amidor stated that they are absent from the plan because they are deciduous, so they will not have leaves in the winter. The evergreen trees he has proposed adding to the screening would screen year-round. Mr. Sostre confirmed that the trees on the plan were not representative of the total trees on the property, only those that meet the caliber to count towards screening. Ms. Millen responded that given the size of the property. Mr. Amidor stated that the requirement is 6 inches DBH and above and many of the plantings do not meet that. Ms. Cooper asked about the fence on the lefthand side. Mr. Amidor responded that the current retaining wall on the perimeter is barely a wall and just marks the lot lines. He decided to add a 6-foot fence to meet the Village code. He expressed intent to ask the neighbors if he can clean up the small stone wall and place the fence. The Chair asked for confirmation that the reason for a 6-foot fence is so that even if someone stood on the 1-foot wall, the fence is still 5 feet and, therefore, would still meet regulations. Mr. Amidor confirmed. The Chair asked for confirmation that the fence would ultimately be 5 feet on the neighbor’s side and 6 feet on Mr. Amidor’s side. Mr. Amidor confirmed. The Chair asked the Board if this would be permissible. Mr. Cutler stated that since this fence would be in a sideyard, it cannot exceed than 5 feet. The Chair asked if that means there is no fence that could work. He asked if a 5-foot fence with 4 feet on the neighbor’s side and 5 feet on Mr. Amidor’s side would work. Mr. Diodati said yes, the state minimum is 4 feet for a pool enclosure fence, even though Scarsdale has a 5-foot minimum. The Chair asked if Mr. Amidor could avoid the problem with the retaining wall if the fence was set further back from the wall. Ms. Cooper stated that that is what she thought Mr. Amidor was proposing. Mr. Amidor responded that he proposed moving the fence back originally, but when he determined that the wall was just a pile of rocks, he changed his mind and decided that it should be closer to the rocks. The Chair informed Mr. Amidor that he would need a variance for a 6-foot-high side yard fence. Mr. Amidor disagreed and said that he believes that it is permissible to build a 6-foot fence if it is over 50 feet from the street. Mr. Cutler clarified that this applies to rear yards, not side yards. He continued by asking Mr. Diodati if a 5-foot fence would be compliant if the retaining wall of rocks is less than a foot high. Mr. Diodati said yes. Mr. Diodati said that if it is just loose rubble that is one thing, but there is a consistent retaining wall at a consistent elevation that a kid could climb and then climb over the fence and then that’s different. Mr. Amidor said that it is not consistent and that it was dry stock that probably fell apart with neglect that was used to delineate the property line. Mr. Sostre agreed. Ms. Cooper asked about another request from the previous meeting: Mr. Amidor had to show 2-foot contour lines on the plan. Mr. Amidor noted that it was to show the steepness of the property, though it is pretty level. He showed that his wider contours lines mean that the property is not so steep. The Chair countered that he spotted about 6 contour line, which each show an elevation change of two feet, so he is guessing that there is a difference of about 12 feet of elevation between the house and the property lines. Mr. Sostre clarified that the house sits at 278 feet and at a distance of about 60 feet from the house, the elevation drops by only 4 feet. The area at the corner is almost flat. The Chair thanked Mr. Sostre for the addition of the contour lines. Mr. Sostre stated that he plans to modify the contours for the pool, so that it is flat at 276 feet. Around the area of the pool, the original contours would be maintained. Mr. Amidor stated that he has stormwater mitigation, which is documented on a SWEC he submitted. He has storage for water from the pool and the pool house; he is taking care of his own water.  The Chair asked if there was anyone else who wished to be heard with respect to this application. Jeewon Park, 13 Richbell Road, she is a neighbor on the Southwest side of 69 Morris. She felt better that the Board members mentioned issues with the trees. When Mr. Park looked at the map with the trees, she noticed that three massive spruce trees were missing from the top left part of the property. The Chair asked if she is sure that those trees are on Mr. Amidor’s property. Mr. Amidor explained that the survey was done by a licensed surveyor, so if the trees are not on the survey, then they must not be on his property. Mr. Sostre pointed out three trees in the top left corner and asked Ms. Park if they could be the trees she mentioned. Upon a closer look they were not spruces. She responded that she did not see them and that they are 5-6 feet wide. She asked that those spruce trees be kept, as they are very mature and provide great screening. She was confused that she could not find them on the map. Ms. Cooper suggested that the trees are not on Mr. Amidor’s property. Ms. Park says that they are not on her property and that they seem to be within his Mr. Amidor's property lines. She asked if anyone from 11 Richbell was present to confirm that the trees were not on their property. Mr. Amidor stated that he had no plans to cut down the spruces if it is determined that they are on his property. Ms. Park stated that it would be helpful if there was a master map that would explain the result of what the foliage would look like. She wanted to know what would be kept and what would go. Ms. Park stated that she preferred a 5-foot fence over a 6-foot fence, as she believed that it is more consistent with the fencing in the area, including her own. Ms. Park agreed that the stone wall is hardly a consistent wall and is, in some place, just a single stone that continues the wall. She speculated that some sections of the stone wall may go as high as 2 feet. She stated that she removed the section of this same wall that crossed her own property to build an estate fence. She suggested that other residents are also concerned about the final plan for this property, as it seemed like the potential changes that could extend beyond adding a pool. Ms. Cooped asked to verify a quote from Ms. Park about a master landscaping plan. Ms. Cooper echoed Ms. Park’s interest in the landscaping plans. Ms. Park added that she would like to be informed about any other development changes in addition to the landscaping changes. Mr. Amidor stated that he wants a 5-foot fence too, but he must negotiate with his neighbors about the wall. He expressed confusion about how his current landscaping plan was insufficient and stated that he does not have a master development plan. He stated that the Board’s role is to approve only the pool plan. The Chair agreed. Mr. Pozin noted that Mr. Sostre had switched the screen to a plan that the Board had not yet been shown in this presentation and remarked that the original trees appeared to be present on this plan. Mr. Sostre responded that this version of the plan is not any more helpful than the previous ones he had shown. Ms. Cooper asked if this plan is in the file, to which Mr. Amidor responded that he had sent the file, along with extra plans for the plantings, pool house, and stormwater management system, to Mr. Cutler. Ms. Cooper asked whether removing the house would render the fence, which counts part of the house as fencing, incompliant. The Chair stated that the staff would decide whether the pool plan would continue to be accurate. Since it is a flag lot, they will have to go before the Planning Board now, but they would have to go again if they made any changes to the house. Ms. Cooper clarified that the current plan specifically states that the fence would be attached to the house. The Chair said yes, and if that changes, staff would review the change to decide if it is substantial enough to go before a Board. Mr. Amidor again offered to seek approval with the condition that he add screening on the left side of the property. Mr. Cutler noted that both plans shown had the same file name, so the second was never uploaded to the Dropbox. He offered to upload it. The Chair asked if there was anyone else who wished to be heard with respect to this application. No subsequent persons desiring to be heard, the Chair ended the discussion on the application. ****** 4. The application of Jordan and Nicole Dubbs for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 12 Stonewall Lane, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 21, Blk. 1, Lots 26, 27 and 41. Rosalia Sanni, a landscape designer, was present. Ms. Sanni stated that the property in question is almost entirely in Mamaroneck, save for a section in the rear. She stated that there is an existing pool house and when they were building the pool house in 2019, they got a permit for the pool as well, but they let it go and have since redesigned the pool. The plan shows the location with all the proper zoning setbacks for the pool and the equipment. There is an existing tennis court. The new fence will circle the property, the pool, and the tennis court but would differ in each section to reflect the code for each type of fence. This fence would tie into the house and would, at one point, wrap around a small brook. The pool, equipment, and tennis sections of the fences would be constructed of aluminum. The tennis court fence would also be pool code. The outward facing fencing would be constructed of aluminum and would have matching iron gates, which would all be pool code, 5 feet tall. At the property line, she would shift gears and have a chain link fence. She intends to change the tennis fence to a chain link fence that is 5 feet tall at its lowest height (higher at the side). There is a retaining wall by the pool equipment, which has resulted in a plan for a 6-foot-high wall on the side with the retaining wall and a 5-foot-high wall for the other stretches. She showed the planting plan. She stated that she has chosen to enclose the whole property with screening rather than just the pool. There is a 5-foot-high Japanese Holly hedge around the fence. There are Green Giant Arborvitae along the left edge of the property by the house. There is a mix of staggered Norway Spruces, Japanese Cryptomeria, and Green Giant Arborvitae on the left side before the house. Behind the tennis court fence, she proposed more Green Giant Arborvitae, and she states that there is just enough space for Green Giant Arborvitae between the tennis court and the right-side property lines. On the right side by the brook, she would resume the mix of Norway Spruces, Japanese Cryptomeria, and Green Giant Arborvitae. The variety already extends on the right side up from the brook to the house. There are woods at the rear of the property. The Chair noted that in a picture the architect provided of foliage at the front right of the property, it appears that it is possible to see through the evergreens at a height of five feet, which violates policy. He admitted that the plantings are right but that the screening degree is insufficient, adding that to receive a Certificate of Occupancy, the screening would need to be sufficient at the time of assessment. He appreciated that plan showed no gaps in the screening, but based on the picture, there would need to be more filled in. He questioned whether there are enough plants on the planting plant to screen sufficiently. The Chair questioned whether the woods at the rear of the property consist of evergreen trees and noted that deciduous trees would not count towards screening, even if they formed a densely wooded area. This would apply if the wooded area were part of another property. The applicant could request a screening waiver from that property’s owner. The Green Giant Arborvitae at the tennis court appear to fulfill the screening requirement anyway. The Chair asked the staff if information like lot coverage for properties in two municipalities is calculated separately for the section of the property in Scarsdale and for the section in the other municipality. Mr. Cutler responded that each section must abide by the codes of its municipality. The Chair asked whether structures on the Scarsdale side of the property comply with lot coverage. Mr. Cutler said yes. The Chair asked if the entire site is treated as one property. Mr. Cutler noted that a condition of the last approval process for this property was that the owners pursue a subdivision to merge the two properties. Ms. Cooper noted that a neighbor wrote a letter asking to confirm that all plantings sit on the applicants’ property rather than the neighbor’s property. Ms. Sanni responded that she believes the neighbor was referring to the section of the property where there is between 3-3.5 feet between the tennis court and the property line on the right. She added that the letter should also reference a conversation, wherein the neighbor discussed his own plantings in the area and requested that the applicants contain their planting project within their property. Ms. Sanni clarified that, since the tennis court fence will be removed for replacement, landscapers would be able to enter the site from the tennis court to complete the project. This would eliminate risk to the neighbor’s plantings. She added that the smaller trees will grow tightly within property lines and that the chosen trees are the smallest compliant plantings that deer would not eat. In response to the Chair’s question about screening from the woods, Ms. Sanni stated that the pool house sits at a higher elevation than the wooded area, so she believes that the Green Giant Arborvitae would provide sufficient screening. She placed them away from the shade so that they could grow better. Ms. Sanni noted that the trees in the picture were in fact undersized. She suggested that the Board consider the included chart of tree widths for the proposed mix of evergreen trees along the edge of the property. She noted that she intentionally chose wider trees so that they would provide more coverage. She offered to add more plants if necessary. The Chair comment that existing screening seems too sparse. Ms. Sanni showed that the part that she intends to rely on is not in the picture. She gave the example of two closely planted Japanese Hollies as her standard. Mr. Lichtenstein asked whether the application is for the pool or for merging tax lots. Mr. Cutler responded that it is for the pool only but that he recommends including merging tax lots as a condition of pool approval. Mr. Pozin would have to approve this condition, but the applicants would go before the Planning Board to request that the lots be merged. Mr. Meiselman asked to confirm that she proposed replacing the tennis court fence. She confirmed and added that the current fence is in poor condition. She would replace the fence with a chain link fence that is pool code on the right side. Mr. Meiselman noted that the Board is responsible for approving changes to tennis courts and asked the staff whether this change could necessitate Board approval. Mr. Cutler said that in-kind replacements are acceptable without approval, but if the applicants intend to remove fencing that was grandfathered in with an excessive height, then they would lose the ability to exceed the height maximum with the new fence. Mr. Meiselman asked Ms. Sanni if the replacement would be in-kind. She said she believes so, and it would be the same height at 10 feet tall. Ms. Cooper comments that this response did not clarify whether 10 feet aligns with the code. Mr. Cutler said he would review the code for the tennis court fence height maximum. He also explained that there might be a way to repair the fence without replacing it even if the code requires a height of less than 10 feet. Mr. Diodati added that he would have to review the code and plans from the time that the fence was installed. Ms. Cooper asked to clarify whether the Board was being asked to approve the 10-foot fence during this meeting. Mr. Cutler said no. The Chair pointed out that they may be approving part of the fence, since the plan shows the use of the tennis court fence as part of the pool fence. He asked for the height of the section intended for use as pool fencing, to which Ms. Sanni responded 5 feet. She explained that the 5 feet of pool code fencing refers to the first 5 feet of a taller fence, as the lower section would have a pool code mesh layer, while the upper section beyond the first 5 feet would lack the pool-code material and serve exclusively as tennis court fencing. Ms. Cooper asked to confirm that the Board is not approving a tennis court fence. Mr. Cutler said no, and if this fence was non-compliant, the applicant would need to request a variance regardless. The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to be heard with respect to this application. Tal Levitt spoke on behalf of her parents Barrie and Eliza Levitt, the next-door neighbor whose attorney submitted the letter mentioned earlier. They requested the addition of three conditions to the approval of this plan. The last two, about landscaping and planting, where discussed earlier in the conversation. They had also requested that the fence be staked prior to its construction so that she and her family can assess the proposed dimensions. Levitt explained that the applicants have agreed to these conditions, but she wants to have it formally included in the approval to prevent misunderstandings going forward. The Chair stated that the Board does not usual include such conditions in its resolution, but given that both parties agree, the Board will take them into consideration. Jake Levitt, Tal’s brother, directed attention back to the stretch where there is only 3-3.5 feet between the tennis court and the property line on the right. He stated that the applicants had considered moving the tennis court away from the property line. He expressed concern that the area is too small for the proposed plantings. Ms. Sanni did not believe the tennis court location was up for discussion. Ms. Levitt asked if the Board would review the letter during the deliberation process. Ido Stern, the owner of the 6 Crosby Circle, which contains the woods behind 12 Stonewall Lane, spoke. He explained that back when the applicants were building their house, there was a landscaping plan which included screening along the wooded area. He said that nothing from that landscaping plan was executed. He asked whether screening across the rear lot line in the wooded area would happen. He said that the applicants reassured him in a recent conversation that they would complete screening. He said he will be content if he can be sure it will happen. Ms. Sanni reassured Mr. Stern that the applicants would follow through with their promise to screen the rear of the property as they have already begun adding plantings. She speculated that the applicants had not executed their original landscaping plan, because did not move forward with their plan to build a pool at the time. The Chair asked if there was anyone else who wished to be heard with respect to this application. No subsequent persons desiring to be heard, the Chair ended the discussion on the application. ****** 5. The application of Daniel and Mallorie Corcoran for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 21 Griffen Avenue, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 24, Blk. 1, Lots 4A.1A. Ms. Sanni, a landscape designer, was present. Her clients have a newly built home, and they want to build a swimming pool. Currently, the area behind the house is a long empty lawn. She wanted to put the pool in the backyard with the equipment behind the garage. She would regrade the property, which she showed in the engineering plan. It is currently a gradual slope all the way down, but she intends to create a level area for the pool. The level area would be a few steps down from a new patio. She her plans showed that the pool would meet all setbacks. She had a zoning chart for the pool and equipment. She added that her clients intend to add a deck and possible a pergola but that she is not at this meeting to discuss those additions. She would fence in the entire back of the property and tie it into the house on both sides to comply with pool code. The fence would aluminum fencing with matching iron gates. It would be 5 feet tall. There would be a chain link fence for the property line. On her plan, this is shown with little circles for aluminum and little squares for chain link. There are some existing Green Giant Arborvitae but not enough to fully screen. She would add 14–16-foot Green Giant Arborvitae on the side property lines. At the rear, she would line the property with 16-18-foot Norway Spruces. Closer to the house and around the pool equipment, she would use 5-6-foot Japanese Holly hedges. The Chair commented that when he visited the site, he noticed gaps in areas where Ms. Sanni wanted to rely on existing trees for screening. He thought she would have to add more trees than she accounted for in the plan. Ms. Sanni maintained that the screening is compliant for the stretches of pre-existing trees she plans to keep. The Chair asked if a row of evergreens at the rear of the property belong to her clients. He added that only trees on her client’s property would count towards screening. He noted that the property behind her clients’ property has a pool but improper screening. Ms. Cooper noted that the staff notes spotted insufficient screening on the Northeast property line. She notes that Ms. Sanni was expected to submit revised plans eliminating that gap, but she did not. She responded that all the darkened stretches are going to have new plants. Current plants from the rear line would be transplanted to the sides to make room for the Norway Spruces. The Chair asked if there was anyone else who wished to be heard with respect to this application. No subsequent persons desiring to be heard, the Chair ended the discussion on the application. 6. The application of Jared and Jordana Worman for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 49 Sheldrake Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 17, Blk. 1, Lot 101. Stanley Wong, an architect, was present. He showed that the pool equipment was approved for an area on the lefthand side of the property in January of 2022. He wanted to move the pool equipment as far to the righthand side of the property as setback rules would allow. The Chair asked if this change would involve any changes to the screening, to which Mr. Wong responded that he would keep the approved landscape plan from before. The Chair asked if there is 5 feet of screening in the area where the pool equipment would be placed. Mr. Wong said, yes, he is sewing Skip Laurels around the fencing there. Mr. Meiselman asked why the applicants want the change. Mr. Wong explained that as his clients complete the construction of their home, they realize that some choices were illogical. In this case, the pool equipment was originally placed in an inconvenient location. Jessica Lattman, the neighbor to the left of the property at 41 Sheldrake Road, stated that she had had issues with her neighbors on the construction of their house. She stated that she has been in contact with Mr. Diodati and Mr. Goessl. She stated that there is a stop work order at the back of the property, because there was an unapproved 4-foot retaining wall being constructed at the property line. Dr. Lattman cited a conversation she had with Ms. Worman, during which she discussed how the workers constructing the wall had cut back Dr. Lattman’s shrubbery and small trees to build this wall at the edge of Ms. Worman’s property. Dr. Lattman had concerns about the roots of a large cedar, which span the shared property line. She stated that this is her first neighbor conflict in 21 years of living in Scarsdale. She had gone to Mr. Diodati and Mr. Goessl about the wall, and they had issued a stop work order. She noticed a 2-foot retaining wall with a 5-foot accommodation for the roots of just the cedar tree on the plans presented at this meeting. She had an arborist survey the site, and he recommended a minimum 10-foot setback between the base of the tree and the wall to accommodate the root system and protect the tree. She inquired about the status of the wall and asked for clarifications as to what has been approved for that wall. She asked for information about the 4-foot raise in the grade, which depended on the 4- foot retaining wall, which would have been backfilled with dirt. She had concerns about screening, since the lack of any screening means she can see their construction site, and about construction noises. Dr. Lattman enlisted a sound engineer to understand which noises would contaminate her property from construction on her raised pool area. Dr. Lattman is a musician who uses her home as her studio. Her studio is at the property line, and the construction has been disruptive to her workspace. She has concerns about how the noise level with the raised grade would affect her. She wishes to install a soundproof fence at her own property line. Mr. Diodati stated that the Board approved a plan with a 4.5 wall in January with regrading and recontouring. He and Mr. Goessl are working with the applicants to reduce the wall from 4.5 to 2 feet. The elevation of the pool and pool deck were approved by the Board back in January. This application is only to move pool equipment. He offered to talk outside of the meeting about her other requests. Dr. Lattman responded that she did not know where else to voice her concerns about the retaining wall, root accommodation, and construction noise. Mr. Diodati said that both the applicant and Dr. Lattman’s arborists agreed to this arrangement previously. He emphasized that these concerns are beyond the scope of the Board. Dr. Lattman requested a public forum for these issues. She felt that more attention had been given to the details of other applications. Mr. Diodati stated that the only feature up for the debate among her concerns is the elevation of the retaining wall, and even that is only up for discussion outside of the meeting. He added that the pool equipment is being moved away from her property. Dr. Lattman believed the wall had not been approved because of the trees. She asked why there was a stop work order on the retaining wall. Mr. Diodati explained that the applicants had failed to submit an updated stormwater plan to the Village engineer’s office for compliance with stormwater and regrading. This failure brought up the issue of tree roots, which led to him asking the applicants and Dr. Lattman to have arborists analyze whether there is a disturbance the tree roots near the proposed wall and determine the best care option for the tree. Dr. Lattman stated that input from the arborist was not reflected in the new plan, since the applicants’ arborist requested 5 feet of space and hers requested 10 feet of space. Mr. Diodati stated that he believed the arborists had come to an agreement at 5 feet. Dr. Lattman insisted that they had not. Mr. Pozin stated that none of this was relevant to Board’s role in this application. He suggested that her protests have impacted the stop work order but that they are not relevant to the Board at this time. He reiterated that the Board is only interested in the location of the pool equipment. Dr. Lattman stated that she would show up to voice her concerns about neighborly communication every time these applicants go before a Board for this property. The Chair asked if there was anyone else who wished to be heard with respect to this application. No subsequent persons desiring to be heard, the Chair ended the discussion on the application. 7. The application of Reema and Lakesh Rao for a variance from Chapter 310-35 (front yard setback) of the Village Code, to construct a front porch at 15 Crossway, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 22, Blk. 20, Lot 8. Arnold Wile, an architect, was present. Dr. Wile displayed the front of the existing house and explained that the applicants wish to add a porch to the right of the door. It would be as wide as the front door, which is oriented to the side, and would have a roof. Ultimately the porch is as small as he could make it, but there is a small encroachment into the side yard, which has led them to request a variance. Ms. Cooper asked to clarify whether it was a front or side yard setback violation, as she had noticed in the staff notes that the encroachment was in the front yard. Mr. Wile stated that it would be the front yard setback. Ms. Cooper asked to confirm that the encroachment into the setback would be 9 inches. Mr. Wile confirmed that it would be 9 inches at the most. Ms. Cooper asked if this was because of the skew of the house, to which Mr. Wile responded yes. Ms. Cooper asked for the depth of the proposed porch. Mr. Wile said 4.5 feet. Ms. Cooper asked whether the porch would line up with the edge of the house, referring the small additional width on the wall containing the front doorway. She stated that when she visited the site earlier, the staking made it seem like the porch would reach the edge of the house. Mr. Wile stated that he would not go past the house line. Ms. Cooper said that the stake appeared to be at the edge of the house line. Mr. Wile said that the two main criteria for this porch are the width of the door and the aesthetic design of the house, which could only be satisfied with the 4.5-foot design. Ms. Cooper asked for the dimensions of the encroachment. Mr. Wile estimated about 2 square feet, so very time. Ms. Cooper asked if a tree that appears to be in the way that would be removed. Mr. Wile stated that there is no tree in the way of building the porch. There would be a tree directly in front of the porch, and he does not know if the applicants would decide to remove that tree later. Ms. Cooper confirmed with Mr. Wile that the tree would not need to be removed to construct the porch. The Chair asked if there was anyone else who wished to be heard with respect to this application. No subsequent persons desiring to be heard, the Chair ended the discussion on the application. ******  CASE #21 OF 2022 1. 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 310-35, to construct a porch at 6 Ardmore 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-4 (7,500 sq. ft.) zoning district, is shown in the Assessor’s records as .15 acres and 6,600 sq. ft. on the lot coverage form; and WHEREAS: The property is improved with a home built in 1920; and WHEREAS: Chapter 310-35 regulates the front yard setback in Residence A zoning districts; and WHEREAS: The proposed porch will be 25 feet from the front yard lot line, where 30 feet is required, representing 5 feet or a 16.6% 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 Marlon and Susan Portes, Case #21 of 2022, for a front yard set back variance from Chapter 310-35, to construct a porch at 6 Ardmore Road, as shown on the Site Plan labeled 5322, 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. It is noted that there are two other porches in the immediate neighborhood. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by another feasible method.  3. The requested variance is substantial, but the applicant has made efforts to minimize the size to the smallest functional size, while also reducing the size of the variance request. 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 on balance this does not preclude the granting of the variance. Motion: Ms. Cooper Second: Mr. Lichtenstein Aye Nay Abstain Absent Mr. Watiker X Ms. Cooper X Mr. Lichtenstein X Mr. Meiselman X Ms. Millen X ******  CASE #27 OF 2022 2. 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 July 20, 2022 meeting at the request of the applicant. Motion: Mr. Meiselman Second: Ms. Millen Aye Nay Abstain Absent Mr. Watiker X Ms. Cooper X Mr. Lichtenstein X Mr. Meiselman X Ms. Millen X ******  CASE #32 OF 2022 4. Jordan and Nicole Dubbs 12 Stonewall Lane Sec. 21 Blk. 1 Lot 26.27.41 Special Use Permit to construct a swimming pool The Board considered the application Jordan and Nicole Dubbs, Case #32 of 2022, for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 12 Stonewall Lane, and, upon motion duly made and seconded, held the matter over to the July 20, 2022 meeting pending receipt of the following: 1. Clarification of the screening near the wooded area behind the tennis court. 2. A more robust planting plan that meets the Board of Appeals policy regarding the density of screening. Motion: Mr. Lichtenstein Second: Ms. Millen Aye Nay Abstain Absent Mr. Watiker X Ms. Cooper X Ms. Kent X Mr. Meiselman X Ms. Millen X ******  CASE #33 OF 2022 5. Daniel and Mallorie Corcoran 21 Griffen Avenue Sec. 21 Blk. 1, Lot 4A.1A Special Use Permit to construct a swimming pool The Board considered the application of Daniel and Mallorie Corcoran, Case #33 of 2022, for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 21 Griffen Ave, and, upon motion duly made and seconded, unanimously adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS: The Board has considered the subject application pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act and Chapter 152 of the Village Code; now therefore be it RESOLVED: That after careful examination 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 1.61 acres; and WHEREAS: The lot is the result of a subdivision approved in 2016; and WHEREAS: The original house, built in 1974 was demolished and a new house was completed in in 2018; and WHEREAS: Chapter 310-88(A) of the Village Code authorizes the Board of Appeals to consider Special Use Permits for the construction of swimming pools; and WHEREAS: The plans show the 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 Daniel and Mallorie Corcoran, Case #33 of 2022, for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 21 Griffen Ave, as shown on the Proposed Pool Enclosure Planting Plan dated revised May 9, 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. 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 ******  CASE #8 OF 2022 6. Jared and Jordana Worman 49 Sheldrake Road Sec. 17 Blk. 1, Lot 101 Special Use Permit to relocate swimming pool equipment pad The Board considered the application of Jared and Jordana Worman, Case #8 of 2022, for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to move the pool equipment at 49 Sheldrake 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 acre and 43,947 sq. ft. on the lot coverage form; and WHEREAS: The property received approval from CHP to demolish the existing house in November 2018, and received BAR approval for the construction of a new home in January 2021; and WHEREAS: The applicant received a Special Use Permit to construct a swimming pool in January, 2022, and is now proposing to relocate the pool equipment; 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 Jared and Jordana Worman, Case #8 of 2022, for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to move the pool equipment at 49 Sheldrake Road, as shown on the Site Plan dated revised May 27, 2022, be approved subject to the same conditions outlined in the January 12, 2022 resolution. Motion: Mr. Lichtenstein Second: Mr. Meiselman Aye Nay Abstain Absent Mr. Watiker X Ms. Cooper X Mr. Lichtenstein X Mr. Meiselman X Ms. Millen X ******  CASE #34 OF 2022 7. Lokesh and Reema Rao 15 Crossway Sec. 22 Blk. 20, Lot 8 Front yard setback variance The Board considered the application of Lokesh and Reema Rao, Case #34 of 2022, for a front yard setback variance from Chapter 310-35, to construct a porch at 15 Crossway, 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 .22 acres; and WHEREAS: The property is improved with a home built in 1950; and WHEREAS: Chapter 310-35 regulates the front yard setback in Residence A zoning districts; and WHEREAS: The proposed porch will be 29.25 feet from the rear yard lot line, where 30 feet is required, representing .75 feet or a 2.5% 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 of Lokesh and Reema Rao, Case #34 of 2022, for a front yard setback variance from Chapter 310-35, to construct a porch at 15 Crossway, as shown on the Site Plan dated February 24, 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. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by another feasible method.  3. The requested variance is not substantial at 2.5%. 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 on balance this does not preclude the granting of the variance. Motion: Mr. Meiselman Second: Ms. Millen Aye Nay Abstain Absent Mr. Watiker X Ms. Cooper X Mr. Lichtenstein X Mr. Meiselman X Ms. Millen X ******  The Chair announced that the next meeting of the Board of Appeals would be held on Wednesday, July 20, 2022, at 7 p.m. ****** The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. ****** __________________ Greg Cutler Village Planner