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 in Rutherford Hall in Village Hall, 1001 Post Road, Scarsdale NY 10583, on Wednesday, October 12, at 7:00 p.m. at which time and place the Board of Appeals will consider the following: 1. The application of Margot Dempsey and Daniel De Boer for a variance from Chapter 158 to install a six-foot-high fence at 11 Weaver St, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 18, Blk. 5, Lot 61. 2. The application of Howard and Anne Katzenberg for a variance from Chapter 310-22 (lot coverage), to construct an addition at 66 Park Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 16, Blk. 3, Lot 8B. 3. The application of Francisco Faraco and Margarita Farkass for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 7 Seneca Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 17, Blk. 1, Lot 327. 4. The application of Paula Tomisaki for a variance from Chapter 310-7S (Generator requirements), to legalize the location of a generator encroaching on the side yard setback at 8 Deerfield Lane, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 21, Blk. 1, Lot 5A. 5. The application Steven and Debra Singer for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310- 88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 8 Dunham Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 13, Blk. 4, Lot 60. 6. The application Angela Retelny for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 1 Obry Drive, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 13, Blk. 1, Lot 19. 7. The application Giorgio Pradi for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 35 Birchall Drive, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 18, Blk. 1, Lot 66. 8. The application of AG Declaration of Trust for variances from Chapter 310-102 (FAR) and 310-51 (side yard setback) to construct an addition at 25 Haverford Avenue, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 23, Blk. 1, Lot 48. 9. The application of Joseph and Susan Mauro for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to relocate a pool equipment pad at 30 Murray Hill Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 14, Blk. 5, Lot 32. 10. The application of Longying Zhao for a variance from Chapter 310-102 (FAR) and 310-22 (lot coverage) to construct an addition at 68 Church Lane, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 4, Blk. 4, Lot 359. 11. The application of Michael and Anne Moretti for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 10 Pinecrest Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 13, Blk. 4, Lot 48. 12. The application of Brite Ave Development Corp. for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 7 White Birch Lane, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 24, Blk. 1, Lot 83. 13. The application of Edward Choo for a variance from 310-51 (side yard setback) to construct a deck at 144 Boulevard, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 8, Blk. 16, Lot 4. Copies of the above applications may be viewed by interested parties at this Dropbox link: https://tinyurl.com/ZBA-10-12-22 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 September 27, 2022. Gregory Cutler, AICP, Village Planner. ****** 1. The application of Margot Dempsey and Daniel De Boer for a variance from Chapter 158 to install a six-foot-high fence at 11 Weaver St, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 18, Blk. 5, Lot 61. Daniel De Boer, the resident, was present. Mr. De Boer explained that the Board had previously requested that he reduce the length of the 6-foot fences down to 32 feet in the front and 16 feet on side by the driveway. The resubmission reflects a 50% reduction. He explained that these are the minimum lengths needed reduce sound from the road. Ms. Cooper asked Mr. De Boer to explain why 32 feet is necessary for sound barrier on one side and only 16 feet on the other. Mr. De Boer responded that since sound does not travel directionally, to reduce sound pollution, he would need a barrier that has a radius of more than 120 degrees from point the source of the sound. He added that the sound comes from the Heathcote bypass and from Scarsdale Volunteer Ambulance Corps across the way. Ms. Cooper asked whether these measurements were the bare minimum length that would help achieve his noise reduction goal. Mr. De Boer responded that sound does not travel from a single point, so the entire length would be necessary.  Mr. Lichtenstein asked if Mr. De Boer conducted any sound testing for data on noise levels before and after erection of a fence. Mr. De Boer responded that he relied on general data about fences and noise but did not conduct a test on his property. Mr. Lichtenstein asked for data about the reduction in sound. Mr. De Boer responded that there are mixed theories about the exact reduction, but most sources predict a 6-10 decibel reduction, which equates to a 90% reduction in sound. Chair confirmed that Mr. De Boer did not conduct his own test. Mr. De Boer responded no, but he based his predictions on literature. Mr. Lichtenstein asked if the fence would be placed inside of the property’s screening. Mr. De Boer agreed, but the shrubbery is sparse. He noted that shrubbery would not block sound, and that he needs an impermeable barrier in addition. Ms. Millen observed that the property slopes up toward the house and noted that this slope explains why he would want a 6-foot fence rather than a 4-foot fence. Ms. Millen asked if the elevation of the property would lower the impact of the sound barrier. Mr. De Boer stated that the sound pollution is proximate to the location of the proposed fence, so the fence would still create a barrier. He added that there is a garden at the street level, and the fence would help with sound pollution in garden. The Chair said that during the previous meeting, there were three votes in favor of the front fence but not enough votes to approve the side fence. The Chair asked if he would accept approval for only the front not the side. De Boer explained that he is applying for both, but, if necessary, he would accept approval for only the front. He reiterated that he wants approval for both the front and sides, but he would accept the Board’s decision. Mr. Meiselman stated has doubts Mr. De Boer would successfully reduce sound. Mr. Meiselman asked if Mr. De Boer would amend his plan to make both side fences 16 feet, rather than extending one side fence to 32 feet. Mr. De Boer responded that given the topography and plantings in the area, the side with the proposed 32-foot fence requires more coverage. Thus, he strongly prefers 32 feet, but as he stated earlier, he would respect the Board’s decision. He added that 16 feet would be preferable to no fence. 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 Howard and Anne Katzenberg for a variance from Chapter 310-22 (lot coverage), to construct an addition at 66 Park Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 16, Blk. 3, Lot 8B has been adjourned at the request of the applicant. This application was held over as the applicant investigated a question about the presence of Wetlands, which would inform the necessity of appearing before the Board.  ****** 3. The application of Francisco Faraco and Margarita Farkass for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 7 Seneca Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 17, Blk. 1, Lot 327 has been adjourned at the request of the applicant. ****** 4. The application of Paula Tomisaki for a variance from Chapter 310-7S (Generator requirements), to legalize the location of a generator encroaching on the side yard setback at 8 Deerfield Lane, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 21, Blk. 1, Lot 5A has been adjourned at the request of the applicant. ****** 5. The application Steven and Debra Singer for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 8 Dunham Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 13, Blk. 4, Lot 60. Rivi Oren, an architect, was present. She proposed a pool on her client’s property, which is only about half acre. She stated that the house is centered on property, and there is only one compliant location for the pool. The 18 by 40-foot pool would be up against the corner of the setback line on right side. The pool would abut a covered porch. She left minimal space for lounge chaises because the property is already developed with a patio and kitchen in the back. She would fence along property lines on the right and rear and then cut across back corner to the left side. There would be a double gate. This fencing and gate layout is intended to make the property seem more integrated. There is screening, but there are a few gaps that she would need to fill. She proposed adding 5-foot hollies in front of sparse spots. Lot coverage posed difficulty, so she proposed removing the asphalt driveway and replace it with permeable gravel. The pool equipment would be located in a little niche next to the generator and would be screened from the corner of the house to the other corner by the gate. She would use an aluminum fence for aesthetics and for the consideration of the neighbors. The Chair pointed out that in the right-hand corner of the drawing, the plants do not appear to be touching. He asked if his interpretation of the plan accurate or whether the screening is as continuous as she promised. Ms. Oren said that there would be no gaps. She said that there are currently pines that are not 100% opaque, but she plans to plant hollies to fill gaps. The Chair asked if all the plants utilized for screening are on the applicant’s property. Ms. Oren yes.  Mr. Lichtenstein asked if there is a variance request involved. Ms. Oren no. Ms. Cooper inquired as to which side is the front of the house, as she struggled to determine where one would enter the house. She followed up this question by asking whether the pool equipment would be placed in the front yard. Ms. Oren explained that the front of the house is rounded so it is confusing, but she does not believe that the niche for the pool equipment is officially in the front yard. Mr. Cutler clarified that any land behind the closest part of house to the lot line is considered a side yard. Ms. Cooper asked if that means the niche is in a side yard, to which Mr. Cutler responded yes. Ms. Cooper commented that a stone wall has screening shrubbery and asked whether the property extends beyond the stone wall. Ms. Oren agreed. She said the fence there is mostly hidden from the neighbor, but the property is not totally flat and there are some irregularities. Ms. Cooper asked whether existing shrubbery around wall belongs to the applicants. Ms. Oren agreed. Ms. Cooper asked if Ms. Oren was only proposing trees down the side of the property. She questioned if there are enough existing trees. Ms. Oren stated that she added more trees than necessary to the plan. She maintained that the existing screening was good enough in some places. Ms. Cooper asked whether the existing trees are evergreens. Steven Singer, one of the applicants, spoke. He stated that the existing trees do not thin out seasonally and are quite substantial. Ms. Cooper stated that she was at the property and took pictures. She was especially concerned about the area that was closest to the pool. Ms. Oren responded that she added a second row of hollies on the plan so that every gap would have a new shrub. She added that if she did not propose adding hollies to an area, then it must be dense enough already. Ms. Cooper stated that if the Board disagrees that they are dense, Ms. Oren would have to add more trees. Ms. Oren and applicant agreed. Ms. Cooper expressed concern that the pool would be up against setback lines and added that she did not want the applicants to come back for a variance if the pool ends up crossing the setback during construction. Ms. Oren stated that she would leave 6 extra inches on all sides to ensure she does not accidentally cross the setback lines. She expressed that she wants to maximize space but not to the extent of incompliance. Ms. Millen asked whether Ms. Oren considered any other locations for the pool. Ms. Oren said there were no other options. Mr. Diodati asked whether there are windows near the boiler heating element for the pool. Mr. Singer stated that there are no windows in that area. Mr. Diodati reminded him that he would need a 5-foot gap between the pool heater and the window. 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 Angela Retelny for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 1 Obry Drive, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 13, Blk. 1, Lot 19. Rivi Oren, an architect, was present. Ms. Oren explained that her client’s property is over an acre in size. The existing house is Mediterranean style. The applicants had been debating renovating it to a different style, but after attending the Committee for Historic Preservation they decided to make smaller renovations. There are spaces for cooking, dining, and lounging, in the outside space. There are 8 steps from that area down to the location of the proposed pool and cabana. She added that there is a space to sit in the shade, a television, bathroom, and fridge. The pool would be separated from the large lawn with a garden. Her client has a corner lot, so there is a 50-foot setback requirement. She explained that the existing pool is currently leaking, so she is designing a new 20 by 44 foot pool for the center of the terrace, rather than fixing the old pool. Due to coverage concerns she would place the desired spa inside of pool and not in separate area as originally intended. She concluded that setbacks would not be a problem. There are two entrances to property: one on Obry Drive and one Drake Road. She intends to keep both entrances. She would move the entrance on Obry Drive so that the entrance does not show the garage, but instead the lawn and garden. The new fence would start at the corner of the house and go around the garage, down the Obry Drive side, across to a secondary garage, to the other part of the house and then past the Women’s Club. There will be a lot of vegetation added to the existing plantings. Her plans do not exceed the lot coverage maximum. The Obry Drive entrance must remain mostly the same because it is along a state road, but she would widen it, change the columns, and add a gate. The Chair confirmed with Ms. Oren that the application is not for a site plan review and is just for a pool. Ms. Cooper asked Ms. Oren to differentiate between existing and proposed plantings. Ms. Oren stated that she submitted another page which details the landscape and plantings. Mr. Lichtenstein asked whether everything in green on the displayed plan would be new. Ms. Oren explained that most of the deciduous plantings on the property are in the front. She explained that she would add new plants on side by the gates and then along the rear. She had difficulty placing new taller trees along the Women’s Club side, because there are already big trees there. Instead, she would plant shorter shrubs that still comply with screening requirements. Ms. Cooper asked whether the applicant would remove trees. Ms. Oren responded yes, and there is list of condemned trees on second page. Ms. Cooper asked why they would remove the trees. Ms. Oren responded that she would need to clear trees to make space for the driveway. 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 Giorgio Pradi for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 35 Birchall Drive, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 18, Blk. 1, Lot 66. John Iannacito, an architect, was present. He was requesting a special use permit to add a 20 by 40 foot in-ground pool in rear yard. This project would involve the removal of an existing nonconforming pool. The proposed pool would meet zoning setbacks and this plan would reduce coverage by 702 square ft. He will submit a plan to add drywall for the impervious surfaces around pool. The Chair stated that he appreciates the lot coverage reduction. He expressed concern that Mr. Iannacito’s landscaping plan was not at the level of detail the Board would typically expect to ensure that there would be no gaps in the screening. He asked if there another plan that better represents plantings. Mr. Iannacito no, but here are pictures. He added that he would add as many plantings as necessary. The Chair noted that when he visited the site, he noticed gaps. Mr. Iannacito responded that he would fill those and depend on the plants already there on the property where possible. The Chair felt that it was unclear how the standard would be met, adding that it is currently possible to see between the evergreens. The Chair stated that the Board’s standard is complete opacity by the day the applicants acquire their CO for the pool. He concluded that the Board requires a more robust screening plan. Mr. Meiselman said he agreed. Mr. Iannacito asked if the Board could point out the gaps that he should fill in. The Chair responded that he cannot design Mr. Iannacito’s planting plan for him. Mr. Iannacito confirmed that the trees would need to be 5 feet tall. The Chair reiterated his request that Mr. Iannacito return with a full planting plan, especially if he intends to use a combination of old and new trees for screening. Mr. Iannacito asked whether the applicant would need to hire a landscape architect. The Chair responded that he cannot advise on this matter but that clients have been able to meet this requirement in the past without hiring one. The recommended that Mr. Iannacito asked that the application be held over during the presentation, rather than allowing the application to reach deliberations. The Chair asked if other Board members had questions. Mr. Lichtenstein expressed that he had same reaction as the Chair upon reviewing the limited planting plan. He asked whether the fencing was pre-existing. Mr. Iannacito responded that he would add aluminum fencing, but the existing wood fencing would remain. He offered to add the fencing to the new plantings plan for the next Board meeting. The Chair stated that he would need reassurance that the wood fence would be sustainable, because would does not hold up as well as plastic or aluminum. He needs info about lifetime and quality of the wood fence. Mr. Iannacito stated that the wood fence has been there for a while because existing pool but can replace all fencing with aluminum. Ms. Cooper asked whether the existing fence has gaps between the wood panels. Mr. Iannacito offered to replace the wood fencing and add more trees.  Mr. Iannacito offered to return for the next meeting. The Chair asked if Mr. Iannacito would like to voluntarily hold over the application, to which Mr. Iannacito agreed. Ms. Gamils reminded the Chair to open the conversation up to the public before voting on the hold over. The Chair obliged and, since no one wished to comment, the Board agreed to hold over the application. 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. ****** 8. The application of AG Declaration of Trust for variances from Chapter 310-102 (FAR) and 310-51 (side yard setback) to construct an addition at 25 Haverford Avenue, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 23, Blk. 1, Lot 48. Justin Minieri, an architect, was present. Mr. Minieri was seeking two variances on behalf of the applicants. He described the existing house as a 2.5 story brick home with a quirky layout. The applicants have 4 young children, which he notes has made the layout especially stressful. The house has 4 bedrooms on the 2nd floor, but one is very small and lacks a closet. The proposed expansion would involve adding bedrooms to accommodate the size of the family. Currently, there is a small, awkward kitchen in the first-floor front area. The family is frustrated that the current kitchen lacks access to the background and a view to the backyard, so that the applicants can supervise their children during outside playtime. The applicants want a more functional kitchen in the rear of the house. The other variance would involve modifying an existing non-conforming setback for the garage. The current garage violates the setback and, although it is attached to the house, there is no entrance to house from the garage and no mudroom. The garage is not large enough to fit two cars. The proposed plan would involve increasing the width of garage to 22.5 feet to make room for two cars comfortably. The right side of the garage is encroaching on the 50-foot setback requirement by 4 feet and would encroach further by 1.6 feet with the expansion of the living area. The final encroachment into the setback would be 6 feet into the side yard. He argued that bringing the garage forward would result in better flow between the house and garage. He explained that the garage is driving the expansion, as there is a driveway that cannot be moved on the right side. He explained that moving the garage to the left would disrupt access to the house. He argued that expanding just 1.6 feet would allow for a two-car garage. The neighborhood has many 2 story homes, and some houses have rooms over the garage. The plans propose building a room over the garage, which would not be unusual for the neighborhood. He explained that since the existing house is non-conforming, so there is limited flexibility for an expansion. In this case, it would be a self-created variance, as all variances are, but it would meet needs and create a functional home without disrupting neighborhood. Mr. Minieri directed the Board’s attention to the applicant, Ian Guttman, for a statement about the impact on the neighborhood. Mr. Guttman explained that his wife, Ms. Guttman, grew up on the same block as that of their current home. Her parents and synagogue are within walking distance. They have two children in a local school and many friends on the block. Mr. Guttman established a sentimental connection to the road. He explained that their house is a 3-bedroom original, which worked when they had only 3 kids, but has grown tight now that they have 4. He argued that they need to expand, as it is not tenable to live in the house as it stands. He echoed Mr. Minieri’s points about the need for a better kitchen and a garage that can hold two minivans. He added that he emailed their neighbors, and most were very supportive. The house was built in the 1940s. He noted that the proposed plan would also involve building a small bedroom on the first floor, where his aging parents could stay when they visit. The Chair commented that he is concerned about both the 400 square feet total and the proposed setback encroachment. He stated that it was clear to him that the garage concern is substantial because there is a need for two cars. The Chair asked if the project would result in a 6-bedroom house, even if one is small. Mr. Minieri said yes, five upstairs and one downstairs. The Chair stated that it would be hard to ask for a house that large on a lot that small. Ms. Cooper asked whether the setback for the garage involves a continuing non-conformity or an additional non-conformity. Mr. Minieri answered that it is both, as the existing garage encroaches 4 feet and this would add 1.6 feet, resulting in 6-foot encroachment. Ms. Cooper asked whether the project could be modified to work within the existing 4-foot non-conformity. Mr. Minieri responded that the applicants would have to choose between keeping the garage as it is or cutting into the house to expand the garage. Ms. Cooper asked whether the added 1.6 feet would make a difference between one car and two cars. Mr. Minieri explained that as it exists, the garage is 20 feet wide. He is proposing to expand it to 22.5 feet, just enough to add a second car. The Chair agreed, stating that the new width would be just barely enough for two cars. Ms. Cooper suggested that Mr. Minieri maintain the current nonconformity so it could be a continuation, rather than a further encroachment. Mr. Minieri responded that he would have to go back to the drawing board to re-design the expansion, but he would work with this condition if needed. Mr. Guttman stated that it is unusual for a 6-person family to have a one-car garage. Ms. Cooper responded that she does not believe that a one-car garage is unusual for Scarsdale. She added that this request could be a slippery slope if it resulted in an onslaught of requests for two-car garage expansions as a right. Mr. Minieri asked for the Board’s opinion on whether a two-car garage is a reasonable demand and whether he would receive approval for the continuation of the current variance or an additional encroachment into the setback. Ms. Cooper stated that she cannot answer those questions. She asked what the applicants would do if they do not receive approval for the additional encroachment into setback. Mr. Minieri stated that he could reduce parts of the plan and redraw to reduce variance. Ms. Millen stated that she appreciates the Guttmans’ goal of accommodating a growing family in a sentimental location but that the Board cannot write variances to everyone who asks. She asked whether there is flexibility to shave down the variance in certain spots. She asked about the length of the current encroachment into the setback. Mr. Minieri explained that the length of the 4-foot encroachment is 20 feet. Ms. Millen stated that doubling length of the non- conformity is a big ask, and she would recommend reducing variance. Mr. Minieri offered to come back with some options and measurements for options with a reduced variance, but he would still try not to compromise on the applicants’ needs. The Chair thanked Mr. Minieri for submitting detailed drawings and recommended that, when he returns with new plans, he shows what the expansion would look like in the new form to the extent that he can. Thomas Mukamal, the owner of 19 Haverford Avenue and the Guttman’ next door neighbor, stated that he shares the property line that is closest to the Guttmans’ garage. He is friendly with Guttmans but feels that this proposal has put him in difficult position. He understands that they have needs as a growing family but realized that the project would require increasing the variance, which made him unhappy. He argued that the Guttmans’ gain would be at his own expense, as any expansion to their home would bring the outmost wall of their home closer to his property. He feels that they are already close enough to his property that there is limited privacy. He wonders if, alternatively, there are ways to push the extension in a direction that is not his house, perhaps to the back of their property. He stated that while the garage seems to be stuck in its location, the addition over the garage feels excessive. He stated that he saved for 10 years to buy his house and worries that this will decrease the value and enjoyability of his property. He explains that due to a lack of light on the other side of his house, there is dead moss and nothing grows. He worries that adding a second story over the garage and bringing it closer to his house would result in him losing light and, therefore, greenery on this side of his house. He does not see why he should be put in this position. The Chair asked whether Mr. Mukamal’s house is compliant with setbacks and FAR. Mr. Mukamal stated that he thinks so. The Chair said this would have probably been disclosed to him upon purchase. Mr. Mukamal stated that he thinks the Guttmans should have known about the limitations for growth within their property when they bought the house. Mr. Lichtenstein inquired as to which part of Mr. Mukamal’s house would be proximate to the expansion. Mr. Mukamal responded that it would be his living room and a second-floor bedroom. He added that the Guttman’s over-garage expansion would line up with the second floor of his house. Mr. Guttman stated that his home predates Mr. Mukamal’s home and that he had a survey of his property conducted before purchasing, which did not result in any disclosure of the existing non-compliance. He noted that all the landscaping in the area between his house and Mr. Mukamal’s house is his own. Mr. Guttman argued that after the expansion, his home would be nearly identical to Mr. Mukamal’s home in its design. The Chair stated that the Board does not usually receive landscaping plan for a variance like this, but if Mr. Guttman thinks landscaping is a relevant factor, then he can submit one. He added that the Board would not necessarily rely on the landscaping plan in its deliberation, but it could help. Mr. Minieri offered to submit photos that he had taken. The Chair responded that he is referring to a proper plan, and photos would be insufficient. Ms. Cooper asked if Mr. Minieri had a landscaping plan? Mr. Minieri said he would attain one.  The Chair stated that the Board of Appeals has a different function than that of the Board of Architectural Review, but he appreciated that Mr. Minieri submitted documentation for FAR and such. Mr. Minieri asked whether the Board would recommend that he request to adjourn and return for the next meeting. The Chair explained that he would not recommend this idea, as he believes the deliberative phase might be informative. He added that if the Board chose to hold over the application, which is likely, the deliberation would lead to valuable pointers for the next iteration of this plan. He stated that the Board would at worst hold over the application but not deny it at this stage. The Chair explained that the last time Mr. Minieri presented this application, he needed to return with more supplies, but this time he has something substantial enough for deliberation. 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. ****** 9. The application of Joseph and Susan Mauro for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to relocate a pool equipment pad at 30 Murray Hill Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 14, Blk. 5, Lot 32. Sarah Finch, from Alisburg architects, was present. She stated that she had only received staff notes yesterday and provided physical copies of updated plans to each Board member. She explained that there is an existing approved plan for the placement of pool equipment in the middle of backyard of her client’s property. The pool was built on the property before it was subdivided, but now that the property is smaller, they are doing subsequent work to modify fencing and driveway to the new lot layout. There were approved permits for those items, but they were not filed with this Board. The pool equipment was originally slated to be next to landscaping walls and a pond, but both have been scrapped for the new renovations. If the applicants placed the pool equipment in its approved location, then it would disrupt the children’s outdoor playspace. She plans to move the pool equipment to the corner, just within setback lines. The existing screening is robust. There are some gaps because of construction, but they will replace or add trees as required after construction. They want to maintain as many of the current plantings as possible. She explained that Board members who visited the site in advance of the meeting would have noticed that it is a mess currently. She noted that the applicants would still be open to noting a potential inspection at a later point.  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. ****** 10. The application of Longying Zhao for a variance from Chapter 310-102 (FAR) and 310- 22 (lot coverage) to construct an addition at 68 Church Lane, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 4, Blk. 4, Lot 359 has been adjourned at the request of the applicant. ****** 11. The application of Michael and Anne Moretti for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 10 Pinecrest Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 13, Blk. 4, Lot 48. Sid Schlomann, architect, was present. The applicants were requesting an in-ground 25 by 35 foot lap pool in rear yard. It would be compliant with setbacks, with at least 30 feet of space on all sides. They planned to place the pool equipment 20 feet from the left property line. Mr. Schlomann noted that there is a patio between the house and the location of the proposed pool. They would line the left, right, and rear property lines with new Green Giant arborvitae, except for some existing arborvitae on the right side. The plans included a 5-foot-tall aluminum fences with self-closing gates. They would be altering a portion or all of the driveway with a permeable paver to reduce lot coverage enough to keep it below the maximum. Josset David, the owner of 13 Brookline Road, stated that he was happy for applicants to have a pool, but he is worried about downward slope from Pinecrest Road to Brookline Road. He has already had water issues, and he wanted to be sure that if applicants are taking away permeable space from backyard and moving it higher up at driveway, that there is stormwater mitigation that will prevent water from flowing into his property. Mr. Diodati stated that if the plan calls for regrading and/or recontouring, then the applicants would need to engage the services of a professional engineer to make a plan that works for all parties. Everyone, including the village engineer, would have to coordinate. The village engineer would have the final say on what is needed. Mr. Cutler for the width of the pool. Sid said 9 feet, so while they would disturb more than 500 square feet of land, the total coverage of the pool would be fewer than 500 square feet. The Chair stated that the Board accepts testimonies in this area, but it is not the expert on drainage, and the applicants would need to work out drainage with the village staff. Mr. David added that he is in support of the pool and is only worried about water drainage. 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. ****** 12. The application of Brite Ave Development Corp. for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 7 White Birch Lane, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 24, Blk. 1, Lot 83. Daniel Sherman, a landscape architect, was present. Mr. Sherman presented an application for a 20 by 40 foot pool in the yard. It would meet setback requirements at 32 feet in back and 30 on the sides. There would be a compliant chain link fence for most of the fencing except for aluminum fencing on the right side. He would add hedges with hydrangeas to ensure wrap-around screening. The pool filter would be in the basement of the pool accessory building, so that it is not exposed. The Chair asked whether the applicants would be depending on the pool accessory building for fencing? Mr. Sherman said no, the fencing requirement is fulfilled through fences located elsewhere on the property. Mr. Sherman added that the pool accessory building would only be used for screening the pool equipment. Mr. Diodati asked whether the pool equipment in the basement of the accessory building has ventilation. Mr. Sherman said yes. Mr. Diodati asked that Mr. Sherman note the ventilation for the pool equipment on his technical drawing, because problematic ventilation has been a problem previously. 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. ****** 13. The application of Edward Choo for a variance from 310-51 (side yard setback) to construct a deck at 144 Boulevard, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 8, Blk. 16, Lot 4.  Edward Choo, the applicant, was present. Edward Choo stated that he has lived in the house with his family since 1959. He wanted a rear deck that does not encroach on the side setback. He explained that there is an existing non- conforming platform at the base of the stairs leading to the side door to the kitchen. He wanted to extend the existing non-conforming deck to connect to new compliant deck on the outside of the kitchen wall. He considered other options, but he does not want the deck to impact the rooms inside of the house. The kitchen is built with cabinets and counters that are up against the wall of the new deck. He concluded that he is presenting plans that represent the most practical way to connect the new deck to his house. The application requested a 1.5-foot variance. Mr. Diaz, a designer, was present. The Chair asked whether the deck would be elevated. Mr. Diaz said yes, 10 feet off the ground at the grade below the deck. He added that there is a lower platform at the base of the stairs that is about 4 feet from the grade. The lower platform is closest to the property line. The house’s skewed orientation results in less setback space in the back than in the front. The Chair asked whether the proposed width of the stairs is wider than existing width. Mr. Diaz responded no, they would remain 3 feet, 4 inches. He explained that the Choos want railings on both sides of the staircase, and the walkable portion of each stair would need to be at least 3 feet wide. The Chair confirmed with Mr. Diaz that it is access to the deck but not the deck itself that would require a variance. Mr. Lichtenstein asked whether only one corner of the deck would encroach on the setback line. Mr. Diaz said yes because the house is skewed. The orientation of the deck would cause only one corner to cross the setback line. Ms. Cooper asked whether the wraparound section is the narrowest it can be to fulfill its intended function. Mr. Diaz stated that he considered other options, but the house is small. He stated that the kitchen is very small, with counters against the wall, and there is a dining room with a bay window from just a couple years ago on the other side. The bay window is over the original garage door, which is not in use. If someone wanted to use the garage, then it would best if the deck was built above the garage. Mr. Diaz concluded that these factors influenced his decision to apply for the expansion of the existing non-conforming platform to connect to the new deck. He would be extending the non-conforming platform by 6 feet, but it would only encroach past the setback line by 1.5 feet. Ms. Cooper asked close the proposed deck would be to the neighbor’s property line. Mr. Diaz responded that there would be 8.5 feet to the neighbor’s property. Mr. Choo stated that the difference would be about a foot and a half closer to neighbor’s yard. 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.  ****** The Chair announced that the next meeting of the Board of Appeals would be held on Wednesday, November 9, 2022, at 7 p.m. ****** CASE #36 OF 2022 1. Margot Dempsey and Daniel De Boer 11 Weaver Street Sec. 18 Blk. 5 Lot 61 Variance to construct a 6 foot high fence The Board considered the application of Margot Dempsey and Daniel De Boer, Case #36 of 2022, for a variance from Chapter 158, to construct a six foot high solid privacy fence at 11 Weaver Street, and, upon motion duly made and seconded, approved 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 granting of an area variance is a type II action pursuant to NYCRR 617.5 (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 .51 acres; and WHEREAS: The property is improved with a home built in 1926; and WHEREAS: The property is located directly in front of the entrance to the Heathcote Bypass and traffic queues up at the light resulting in elevated honking and engine noise; and WHEREAS: The property is also located near the Scarsdale Volunteer Ambulance Corp WHEREAS: Chapter 158 regulates the maximum height of fences for residence A districts; and WHEREAS: The applicant is seeking to construct6 foot high solid fence where 4 feet is the maximum permitted, representing a 2 foot variance or 33%; and WHEREAS: The applicant has reduced the size of the variance by limiting the length of the 6 foot high fence along the side yards to 32 feet on the northern side and 16 feet on the southern side; and WHEREAS: The Board members have visited the site and are familiar with the materials in the application; and WHEREAS: The Board members considered the criteria for granting area variances pursuant to New York State Village Law Section 7-712 (b) and conducted the appropriate balancing test as required therein, weighing the benefit to the applicant against the detriment to the neighborhood or the community; now therefore be it RESOLVED: That the application Margot Dempsey and Daniel De Boer, Case #36 of 2022, for a variance from Chapter 158, to construct a six foot high solid privacy fence at 11 Weaver Street, be approved based on the following findings: 1. The requested variance will not create an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. 2. The benefit sought, mitigating noise from the roadway, Heathcote Bypass and EMS facility, is not achievable by other methods. 3. The requested variance is substantial. 4. The requested variance will not have an adverse physical or environmental impact on the neighborhood. 5. The hardship is a result of outside factors, including the fact that the Heathcote Bypass entrance and light is directly in front of the property and the Scarsdale Volunteer Ambulance Corp is nearby. 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 ******  CASE #39 OF 2022 2. Howard and Annie Katzenberg 66 Park Road Sec. 16 Blk. 3 Lot 9B Lot Coverage Variance to construct an addition The Board considered the application of Howard and Annie Katzenberg Case #39 of 2022, for a variance from Chapter 310-102, to construct an addition at 66 Park Road, and, upon motion duly made and seconded, unanimously held the matter over to the November 9, 2022 at the request of the applicant. Motion: Ms. Cooper Second: Mr. Meiselman Aye Nay Abstain Absent Mr. Watiker X Ms. Cooper X Mr. Lichtenstein X Mr. Meiselman X Ms. Millen X ******  CASE #41 OF 2022 3. Margarita Farkass and Francisco Faraco 7 Seneca Road Sec. 17 Blk. 1 Lot 327 Special Use Permit to construct a swimming pool The Board considered the application of Margarita Farkass and Francisco Faraco, Case #41 of 2022, for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 7 Seneca Road, and, upon motion duly made and seconded, unanimously held the matter over to the November 9, 2022 meeting at the request of the applicant. Motion: Mr. Meiselman Second: Ms. Cooper Aye Nay Abstain Absent Mr. Watiker X Ms. Cooper X Mr. Lichtenstein X Mr. Meiselman X Ms. Millen X ******  CASE #46 OF 2022 4. Paula Tomisaki 8 Deerfield Lane Sec. 21 Blk. 1, Lot 5A Variance side yard generator setback The Board considered the application of Paula Tomisaki, Case #45 of 2022, for a variance from Chapter 310-7S to place a generator in the generator setback at 8 Deerfield Lane, and, upon motion duly made and seconded, unanimously held the matter over to the November 9, 2022 meeting at the request of the applicant. 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 ******  CASE #51 OF 2022 5. Steven and Debra Singer 8 Dunham Road Sec. 13 Blk. 4 Lot 60 Special Use Permit to construct a swimming pool The Board considered the application of Steven and Debra Singer, Case #51 of 2022, for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 8 Dunham 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-3 (10,000 sq. ft.) zoning district, is shown in the Assessor’s records as .27 acres; and WHEREAS: The property is improved with a home built in 1927 with significant improvements and an addition in 2006; 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 Steven and Debra Singer, Case #47 of 2022, for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 8 Dunham Road, as shown on sheet L-2 dated revised September 15, 2022, be approved based on the following findings and conditions: 1. The proposed swimming pool is consistent with the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community. 2. There shall be installed and maintained on the lot upon which the pool is located, and completely enclosing the pool, a fence or wall not less than 5 feet in height, with all gates and doors equipped with self-closing and self-latching devices designed to keep and capable of keeping such gates and doors securely closed at all times when not in actual use. The fence shall be constructed as represented to the Board at the meeting and on the approved plans. 3. Evergreen screening shall be planted as represented on the plans but in any event, at a minimum of 5 feet in height, and spaced so as to completely screen the pool from the view of all persons occupying adjoining properties and from the street, subject to the approval of the Building Inspector, shall assure that these features be installed and maintained on the applicant's property as long as said pool is in existence. 4. A 24-hour filter circulating system shall be installed and maintained as represented on the plans. 5. Lighting of the pool and adjacent premises shall be limited to underwater lighting. 6. Drainage and sanitary facilities, conforming to the requirements of the Scarsdale Village Code, shall be installed and maintained. Measures must be taken to ensure that water containing chemicals, such as acids or detergents resulting from lowering the water level of the pool or from pool cleaning, will be pumped directly into the sanitary sewer system, and not drained onto any land or into any stream or storm drain. 7. The use of the swimming pool shall be limited to the occupants of the principal building and their guests. 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: Mr. Lichtenstein Aye Nay Abstain Absent Mr. Watiker X Ms. Cooper X Mr. Lichtenstein X Mr. Meiselman X Ms. Millen X ******  CASE #53 OF 2022 6. Gary and Angela Retelny 1 Obry Road Sec. 13 Blk. 1 Lot 19 Special Use Permit to construct a swimming pool The Board considered the application of Gary and Angela Retelny, Case #53 of 2022, for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 1 Obry 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 1.48 acres; and WHEREAS: The property is improved with a home built in 1915; and WHEREAS: The applicant received BAR approval in January 2022 for an addition/alteration; 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 Gary and Angela Retelny, Case #53 of 2022, for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 1 Obry Road, as shown on sheet L-2 dated revised September 15, 2022, be approved based on the following findings and conditions: 1. The proposed swimming pool is consistent with the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community. 2. There shall be installed and maintained on the lot upon which the pool is located, and completely enclosing the pool, a fence or wall not less than 5 feet in height, with all gates and doors equipped with self-closing and self-latching devices designed to keep and capable of keeping such gates and doors securely closed at all times when not in actual use. The fence shall be constructed as represented to the Board at the meeting and on the approved plans. 3. Evergreen screening shall be planted as represented on the plans but in any event, at a minimum of 5 feet in height, and spaced so as to completely screen the pool from the view of all persons occupying adjoining properties and from the street, subject to the approval of the Building Inspector, shall assure that these features be installed and maintained on the applicant's property as long as said pool is in existence. 4. A 24-hour filter circulating system shall be installed and maintained as represented on the plans. 5. Lighting of the pool and adjacent premises shall be limited to underwater lighting. 6. Drainage and sanitary facilities, conforming to the requirements of the Scarsdale Village Code, shall be installed and maintained. Measures must be taken to ensure that water containing chemicals, such as acids or detergents resulting from lowering the water level of the pool or from pool cleaning, will be pumped directly into the sanitary sewer system, and not drained onto any land or into any stream or storm drain. 7. The use of the swimming pool shall be limited to the occupants of the principal building and their guests. 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: 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 #54 OF 2022 7. Giorgio Pradi 35 Birchall Drive Sec. 24 Blk. 1 Lot 83 Special Use Permit to construct a swimming pool The Board considered the application of Giorgio Pradi, Case #54 of 2022, for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 35 Birchall Drive, upon motion duly made and seconded, unanimously held the matter over to the November 9, 2022 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 ******  CASE #55 OF 2022 8. Alyssa and Ian Guttman 25 Haverford Avenue Sec. 23 Blk. 1 Lot 48 FAR and side yard setback variance requests The Board considered the application of Alyssa and Ian Guttman, Case #55 of 2022, for variances from Chapters 310-, to construct a swimming pool at 35 Birchall Drive, upon motion duly made and seconded, unanimously held the matter over to the November 9, 2022 pending receipt of the following: 1. To consider eliminating or significantly reducing the side yard setback variance request. 2. To eliminating or significantly consider the FAR variance request. Motion: Ms. Cooper Second: Mr. Meiselman Aye Nay Abstain Absent Mr. Watiker X Ms. Cooper X Mr. Lichtenstein X Mr. Meiselman X Ms. Millen X ****** CASE #56 OF 2022 9. Joseph and Susan Mauro 30 Murray Hill Road Sec. 14 Blk. 5 Lot 32 Special Use Permit to construct a swimming pool The Board considered the application of Joseph and Susan Mauro, Case #56 of 2022, for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 30 Murray Hill 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 .91 acres; and WHEREAS: The property is improved with a home built in 1929 with an addition in 2022; and WHEREAS: The property has an existing pool constructed in 1998; and WHEREAS: The applicant now seeks to move the pool equipment pad closer to the northwestern corner of the property; 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 Joseph and Susan Mauro, Case #56 of 2022, for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 30 Murray Hill Road, as shown on sheet T1 dated revised August 23, 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: Mr. Lichtenstein Aye Nay Abstain Absent Mr. Watiker X Ms. Cooper X Mr. Lichtenstein X Mr. Meiselman X Ms. Millen X ****** CASE #57 OF 2022 10. Longying Zhao & Qi Li 68 Church Lane Sec. 4 Blk. 4 Lot 359 Special Use Permit to construct a swimming pool The Board considered the application of Longying Zhao & Qi Li, Case #57 of 2022, for variances from Chapter 310-102 and 310-22 to construct an addition at 68 Church Lane, upon motion duly made and seconded, unanimously held the matter over to the November 9, 2022 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 ******  CASE #58 OF 2022 11. Michael and Anne Moretti 10 Pinecrest Road Sec. 13 Blk. 4 Lot 48 Special Use Permit to construct a swimming pool The Board considered the application of Michael and Anne Moretti, Case #58 of 2022, for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 10 Pinecrest 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-3 (10,000 sq. ft.) zoning district, is shown in the Assessor’s records as .31 acres; and WHEREAS: The property is improved with a home built in 1951 with an addition in 2006; 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 Michael and Anne Moretti, Case #58 of 2022, for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 10 Pinecrest Road, as shown on sheet A-101.00 dated August 29, 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: Mr. Lichtenstein Second: Ms. Cooper Aye Nay Abstain Absent Mr. Watiker X Ms. Cooper X Mr. Lichtenstein X Mr. Meiselman X Ms. Millen X ******  CASE #59 OF 2022 12. Brite Avenue Development Corporation 7 White Birch Lane Sec. 24 Blk. 1 Lot 83 Special Use Permit to construct a swimming pool The Board considered the application of Brite Avenue Development Corporation, Case #59 of 2022, for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 7 White Birch Lane, and, upon motion duly made and seconded, unanimously adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS: The Board has considered the subject application pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act and Chapter 152 of the Village Code; now therefore be it RESOLVED: That after careful examination of the site and evaluation of the information submitted with the application, the Board determined that such application, the construction of minor accessory structures (such as driveways, fences or pools) is a Type II action pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617.5(c) (12) and no further environmental review is required pursuant to said regulations; and WHEREAS: The property, located in the A-2 (20,000 sq. ft.) zoning district, is shown in the Assessor’s records as 1 acre; and WHEREAS: The property received CHP approval to demolish the original 1950s house and received BAR approval in March 2022 to construct a new house; 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 Brite Avenue Development Corporation, Case #59 of 2022, for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code, to construct a swimming pool at 7 White Birch Lane, as shown on the Site Plan dated September 16, 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: 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 #60 OF 2022 13. Edward Choo 144 Boulevard Sec. 8 Blk. 16 Lot 4 Side yard setback variance to construct a deck The Board considered the application of Edward Choo, Case #60 of 2022, for a variance from Chapter 310-51, to construct at deck at 144 Boulevard, 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 construction or expansion of a single family residence is a Type II action as is the granting of an area variance pursuant to NYCRR 617.5(9, 12) and no further environmental review is required pursuant to said regulations; and WHEREAS: property, located in the A-5 (5,000 sq. ft.) zoning district, is shown in the Assessor’s records as .13 acres and 8,250 sq. ft. on the lot coverage form; and WHEREAS: Chapter 310-51 regulates the side yard setback in residence districts; and WHEREAS: The applicants proposed side yard setback is 8.9 ft where 10 ft is required, representing a 1.1 ft variance or 11%; and WHEREAS: The Board members have visited the site and are familiar with the materials in the application; and WHEREAS: The Board members considered the criteria for granting area variances pursuant to New York State Village Law Section 7-712 (b) and conducted the appropriate balancing test as required therein, weighing the benefit to the applicant against the detriment to the neighborhood or the community; now therefore be it RESOLVED: That the application Edward Choo, Case #60 of 2022, for a variance from Chapter 310-51, to construct at deck at 144 Boulevard in accordance with the submitted plan, be approved based on the following findings: 1. The requested variance will not create an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. 2. The benefit sought is achievable by other methods as there is no other feasible location to place ingress and egress that could access the proposed deck.  3. The requested variance is not substantial, and the length of the encroachment is de minimis. 4. The requested variance will not have an adverse physical or environmental impact on the neighborhood. 5. The alleged hardship is self-created. However, the encroachment is necessary to access the proposed deck. Motion: Mr. Lichtenstein Second: Ms. Millen Aye Nay Abstain Absent Mr. Watiker X Ms. Cooper X Mr. Lichtenstein X Mr. Meiselman X Ms. Millen X ****** The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. ****** __________________ Greg Cutler Village Planner