99
Board of Appeals – 05/14/08
BOARD OF APPEALS
RUTHERFORD HALL
VILLAGE HALL
SCARSDALE, NY
May 14, 2008
A regular meeting of the Board of Appeals of the Village of Scarsdale was held in the
Rutherford Hall in the Village Hall on Wednesday, May 14, 2008, at 8:00 p.m.
Those members present were Seth Ross, Chair, Harold Porosoff and Allan Shapiro.
Also present were Counsel Richard Gardella, Building Inspector/Village Engineer Nunzio
Pietrosanti, Village Planner Elizabeth Marrinan and Secretary to the Planner, Janet Annacone.
William Kay and Rosanne Underweiser were absent.
*****
The Chair announced that the application of Deborah and Yoram Cohen for a variance
from Chapter 310-22 of the Village Code in order to construct an addition that would exceed
the maximum permitted building coverage at 7 Dolma Road, identified on the Village tax map
as Sec. 18, Blk. 1, Lot 13B, would be held over at the request of the applicants’
representative.
*****
The Chair announced that the application of Ilyse and Lyndon Tretter for a Special
Use Permit to construct a swimming pool at 15A Richbell Road, identified on the Village tax
map as Sec. 14, Blk. 5, Lot 25B, would be held over at the request of the applicants’
representative.
*****
The Chair announced that the application of Cheryl and Joel Breitkopf for variances
from Chapter 310-22 and 310-67 of the Village Code to construct an addition which would
exceed the maximum permitted lot coverage and expand the existing nonconforming building
coverage on this property located in a Flood Plain at 24 Ogden Road, identified on the Village
tax map as Sec. 4, Blk. 3, Lot 341, has been withdrawn at the request of the applicants’
representative.
*****
The Chair said please allow me to take a few moments of your time to explain the
Board's procedures. We hear each application in the order in which it is noticed -- we hear
first from the applicant and then from any persons speaking in favor of or in opposition to the
application.
After all of the evening's hearings, the Board will deliberate. Deliberations are open
to the public. You are free to leave at the conclusion of your hearing or to stay for the
deliberations. Some applicants choose to leave once their hearings have been concluded,
while others choose to remain here. Should you decide to leave before the Board's
deliberations you may obtain the Board's decision by calling Janet Annacone at Village Hall
Board of Appeals – 05/14/08
100
tomorrow. Ms. Annacone can be reached at 722-1131. Whether you stay or go has no bearing
on the Board's deliberations or decision.
At the conclusion of deliberations on each application, the Board attempts to reach a
consensus. For an application to be granted, at least 3 of the Board's five members must vote
in favor of that application. The Board's decision is memorialized in a written resolution. The
resolutions are filed at Village Hall and are available to the public.
This evening we have only three members of the Board in attendance. An application
still requires three positive votes to pass, however. If you wish, therefore, to postpone your
hearing until the next meeting of the Board, you may do so.
*****
The reading of the following legal notice was waived by unanimous vote of the Board.
LEGAL NOTICE
PUBLIC HEARING
BOARD OF APPEALS
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 on Wednesday, May 14, 2008, at
8:00 p.m. at which time and place the Board of Appeals will consider the following:
1. The application of Gail and Leon Behar for a Special Use Permit to construct of a
swimming pool and a variance from Chapter 158 of the Village Code to construct a wall at 8
Brittany Close, identified on the tax map as Sec. 23, Blk. 1, Lot 4D.
2. The application of Saba and Suhail Shaikh for a variance from Chapter 310-70 of the
Village Code to legalize a parking area in the front yard at 70 Griffen Avenue, identified on
the Village tax map as Sec. 24, Blk. 1, Lot 22.
3. The application of Susan and Elliot Rose for a variance from Chapter 310-7S of the
Village Code to legalize the installation of a generator in the side yard at 15 Richbell Road,
identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 14, Blk. 5, Lot 25.
4. The application of Dr. Jessica Lattman and David Rosenberg for an amendment to the
Special Use Permit approved for the construction of a swimming pool to relocate the pool
enclosure fence at 41 Sheldrake Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 17, Blk. 1,
Lot 41.
5. The application of Deborah and Yoram Cohen for a variance from Chapter 310-22 of the
Village Code in order to construct an addition that would exceed the maximum permitted
building coverage at 7 Dolma Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 18, Blk. 1, Lot
13B.
Board of Appeals – 05/14/08
101
6. The application of Ilyse and Lyndon Tretter for a Special Use Permit to construct a
swimming pool at 15A Richbell Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 14, Blk. 5,
Lot 25B.
7. The application of Lauren and Craig Nossel for a Special Use Permit to construct a
swimming pool at 40 Park Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 16, Blk. 3, Lot 6A.
8. The application of Merle and Stephen Denelsky for a variance from Chapter 310-23 of the
Village Code in order to pave a gravel driveway which would exceed the maximum permitted
lot coverage on this wetlands controlled lot at 131 Cushman Road, identified on the Village
tax map as Sec. 16, Blk. 4, Lot 10.
9. The application of Sixty Crane Holdings, Ltd. to appeal the determination of the Building
Inspector and for an interpretation of the Zoning Code regarding Chapters 310-14, 310-20
through 23 of the Village Code regarding the calculation of lot area coverage for the
construction of a new house on a new lot adjacent to 60 Crane Road, to be shown on the
Village tax map as Sec. 3, Blk. 1, Lot 2C.
10. The application of Angela and Yong Kim for variances from Chapters 310-22 and 310-67
of the Village Code to construct an addition that would exceed maximum permitted lot
coverage at 30 Stonewall Lane, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 21, Blk. 1, Lot 35.
11. The application of Scarsdale Congregational Church for an extension of the temporary
Special Use Permit to allow parking for the tenants of 7 Popham Road in a portion of the
church’s parking lot at 2 Heathcote Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 13, Blk. 1,
Lot 1.
12. The application of Lisa and Ira Hasson for a Special Use Permit to construct a swimming
pool at 35 Sage Terrace, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 5, Blk. 12, Lot 7.
13. The application of Roohi and Iqbal Saleem for a variance from Chapter 310-22 of the
Village Code to construct an addition which would exceed the maximum permitted building
coverage at 15 Windsor Lane, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 7, Blk. 1, Lot 208.
14. The application of Cheryl and Joel Breitkopf for variances from Chapter 310-22 and 31067 of the Village Code to construct an addition which would exceed the maximum permitted
lot coverage and expand the existing nonconforming building coverage on this property
located in a Flood Plain at 24 Ogden Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 4, Blk. 3,
Lot 341.
Copies of the above applications are on file in the Office of the Building Department and may
be viewed by interested parties at any time during usual business hours. By Order of the
Board of Appeals, Scarsdale, New York, dated April 29, 2008.
Elizabeth Marrinan, AICP, Village Planner.
******
Board of Appeals – 05/14/08
102
CASE #1 OF 2008
1. The Chair declared the hearing open on the application of Gail and Leon Behar for a
Special Use Permit to construct of a swimming pool and a variance from Chapter 158 of the
Village Code to construct a wall at 8 Brittany Close, identified on the tax map as Sec. 23, Blk.
1, Lot 4D.
The Chair said the first application to be heard is that of Gail and Leon Behar and
asked the applicants or their representatives to step forward and identify themselves.
Leon Behar, applicant, Carol Kurth, architect, were present.
Ms. Kurth said the house is located in Scarsdale Manor. They need a Special Use
Permit for the swimming pool and a variance for the portion of the wall, three and one-half or
four feet long that is two and one-half feet higher than permitted. This is an architectural
concept for a softening effect and to provide safety for the pool. She presented pictures of
historical precedents of similar situations with garden walls with this typical treatment which
are very beautiful versus an abrupt line. If they had designed a buttress to the house it would
have been permitted; however, the wall which is the same needs a variance. They have been
before the board multiple times without a full Board. They are a little concerned and
requested a possible poll of the Board to get a sense. The Chair said this is the hearing
portion and deliberations are part of the feedback.
Mr. Behar said Scarsdale Manor is part of a cul-de-sac designed by Ms. Kurth. His
house is equal to the neighborhood. Modifications are not in his best interest but done for the
Board. Any further compromises would affect the integrity of the project. He is hoping for
approval. He said the neighbors and Homeowners Association approve of the design.
The Chair asked if there was anyone else who wished to be heard with respect to this
application, either in favor or in opposition.
No other persons desiring to be heard, the Chair declared the hearing closed.
******
CASE #20 OF 2008
2. The Chair declared the hearing open on the application of Saba and Suhail Shaikh for a
variance from Chapter 310-70 of the Village Code to legalize a parking area in the front yard
at 70 Griffen Avenue, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 24, Blk. 1, Lot 22.
The Chair said the second application to be heard is that of Saba and Suhail Shaikh
and asked the applicants or their representatives to step forward and identify themselves.
Suhail Shaikh, applicant, was present.
Mr. Gardella recused himself.
Board of Appeals – 05/14/08
103
Mr. Shaikh said at the last meeting, the plans and survey were submitted which lacked
dimensions and trees. He provided the dimensions, lot coverage and additional landscaping.
He submitted photographs of the new plantings. The photographs are of the entrance, and at
an angle to the entrance from Mamaroneck Road to Weaver Street with existing trees. Once
the driveway is entered there is new landscaping. The other angle shows the landscaping.
Mr. Shapiro said he looked at the dimensions of the parking apron which is 27’9”. He
asked if they were going to park three cars in the area. Mr. Shaikh said they intended a turn
around, originally a semicircle but because of the retaining wall on the left hand side they did
this. Their guests do use it as a parking area but they do not. Mr. Shapiro said that parking
area with 9’ stalls is a very large turning area located only 16’ or 17’ from the property line.
Mr. Shaikh said the 70’, originally approved dimension was designed for the tree. He said the
history behind that was discussed at the last meeting.
Mr. Shapiro said there are several discrepancies from their approved plans. Mr.
Shaikh said in the original application it was 70’ from the front property line to protect a tree.
The tree midway fell down during a storm. He submitted a new plan to the Village to allow
the different use of the space. He said this is partially his mistake and it is the first
construction project on his part. Mr. Pietrosanti said as it was shown on the originally
approved plan with a 70’ setback. Mr. Shaikh said the original plan design went right in front
of the steps without a walkway.
Mr. Porosoff said he understands why the bottom portion needs to be wider for a three
point turn. He asked why they need width at the top (closest to the house) which is not
necessary for a three point turn. He said they do not need that space at the top to be wider
than necessary. Mr. Shaikh said the 27’9” width is for an easier turn around with the retaining
wall. He said there is no magic to the 27’9” number and it was not intended for parking bays
or a parking area.
The Chair asked if there was anyone else who wished to be heard with respect to this
application, either in favor or in opposition.
No other persons desiring to be heard, the Chair declared the hearing closed.
******
CASE #18 OF 2008
3. The Chair declared the hearing open on the application of Susan and Elliot Rose for a
variance from Chapter 310-7S of the Village Code to legalize the installation of a generator in
the side yard at 15 Richbell Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 14, Blk. 5, Lot 25.
The Chair said the third application to be heard is that of Susan and Elliot Rose and
asked the applicants or their representatives to step forward and identify themselves.
Susan and Elliot Rose, applicants, and Frank Castellano, electrician, were present.
Dr. Rose said the generator was installed in June 2007 following three blackouts and
his wife’s prolonged illness which required IV medication to be given by flashlight. He said
Board of Appeals – 05/14/08
104
there is a large open field as Richbell Road curves around. He is much further from his
neighbors’ house in the rear. He submitted photographs of the generator located in the
southwestern portion of his house near the HVAC unit and of the neighboring house.
He said the survey was done by a landscape architect showing they are within in the
setback limits. The sound engineer’s report recommends shrubbery should be added to help
meet the noise requirement. Their electrician and plumber filed for permits.
He said placement of the generator in the rear of the property would be much more
intrusive to the neighbors. He is trying to comply with the Village’s Code. He apologized for
the necessity of the installation of the generator in the side yard.
The Chair asked if there was anyone else who wished to be heard with respect to this
application, either in favor or in opposition.
No other persons desiring to be heard, the Chair declared the hearing closed.
******
CASE #21 OF 2008
4. The Chair declared the hearing open on the application of Dr. Jessica Lattman and David
Rosenberg for an amendment to the Special Use Permit approved for the construction of a
swimming pool to relocate the pool enclosure fence at 41 Sheldrake Road, identified on the
Village tax map as Sec. 17, Blk. 1, Lot 41.
The Chair said the fourth application to be heard is that of Dr. Jessica Lattman and
David Rosenberg and asked the applicants or their representatives to step forward and
identify themselves.
Rivi Oren, landscape architect, was present.
Ms. Oren said the original application specified a safety fence around the property line
that tied into the house at two locations. After the tragic summer with the loss of a child the
parents requested the fence be moved in for additional safety concerns.
Mr. Shapiro asked if he could review the drawing Ms. Oren presented. There was a
discussion at the dais regarding walls and the proposed fence location.
The Chair asked if there was anyone else who wished to be heard with respect to this
application, either in favor or in opposition.
No other persons desiring to be heard, the Chair declared the hearing closed.
******
Board of Appeals – 05/14/08
105
CASE #24 OF 2008
5. The Chair declared the hearing open on the application of Lauren and Craig Nossel for a
Special Use Permit to construct a swimming pool at 40 Park Road, identified on the Village
tax map as Sec. 16, Blk. 3, Lot 6A.
The Chair said the fifth application to be heard is that of Lauren and Craig Nossel and
asked the applicants or their representatives to step forward and identify themselves.
Lauren Nossel, applicant, and James Doyle, landscape architect, were present.
Mr. Doyle said they submitted the pool design plans. Plan L7-1A indicates the
locations of the pool enclosure fence and pool equipment and Plan L8-1 shows the details of
the fence and gates.
Mr. Shapiro asked him to describe to the Board the fence location and type. Mr.
Doyle said the fence goes from both sides of the house. It will be a decorative type on the
west side to the property line and then a welded wire fence as per the detail drawing. They
added plantings as shown on the plans to help hide the fence.
The Chair said the Board has drawings of the welded wire fence and asked if there
was any better representation. Mr. Doyle said it is shown on Plan L8-1. The Chair said there
is a 1” by 1” space with wire width shown. There was a discussion at the dais. Mr. Doyle
noted the double gate locations.
Mr. Porosoff questioned the landscaping and tree locations versus the wire fence. He
said they are protecting the homeowners’ view versus providing screening for the neighbors.
Mr. Doyle said they screened from the owner but in the rear and on both sides there is a lot of
natural vegetation. Mr. Porosoff said he was concerned about the screening on the right hand
side with the house close by. Mr. Doyle said the existing vegetation on that side is quite
heavy.
Mr. Shapiro said the house on the right corner is very close to the edge of the fence
line. Mrs. Nossel said that house is on the market. She has noticed the owner is frequently
abroad.
The Chair asked if there was anyone else who wished to be heard with respect to this
application, either in favor or in opposition.
No other persons desiring to be heard, the Chair declared the hearing closed.
******
CASE #25 OF 2008
6. The Chair declared the hearing open on the application of Merle and Stephen Denelsky
for a variance from Chapter 310-23 of the Village Code in order to pave a gravel driveway
which would exceed the maximum permitted lot coverage on this wetlands controlled lot at
131 Cushman Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 16, Blk. 4, Lot 10.
Board of Appeals – 05/14/08
106
The Chair said the sixth application to be heard is that of Merle and Stephen
Denelsky and asked the applicants or their representatives to step forward and identify
themselves.
Merle and Stephen Denelsky, applicants, and Anthony Minichetti, architect, were
present.
Mr. Minichetti said in the past they had approval for an addition to their home. Now
they are requesting a variance to pave the entire sloped driveway versus the previously
approved portions. They have problems plowing it and with runoff to the trench drains which
are being compromised and clogged. Mr. Denelsky said the garbage truck and his car get
stuck in the driveway even after it is plowed.
Mr. Shapiro said this property is wetlands controlled. Ms. Marrinan said it is adjacent
to the wetlands on the 80 Garden Road site in the rear. It is also a critical site identified by
Dvirka and Bartilucci under the Village-wide Drainage Study. It is part of the drainage basin
to the Sheldrake River and does tend to flood.
Mr. Shapiro said the back apron is extraordinarily large and asked if it could be cut in
half and still allow for the cars to move back and forth. Mrs. Denelsky said originally it was a
blacktop area. Mr. Denelsky said the garage comes out of the house and they need a
turnaround area. Mr. Minichetti said they need a full radius of the turnaround area to drive
directly into the garage. Mr. Denelsky said they need a three point turn area to get around and
into the garage. Mr. Shapiro asked if there were any diagrams done of the car movements.
He said he is very concerned about the amount of pavement illustrated on the drawings.
Mr. Denelsky said they are not technically wetlands. Ms. Marrinan said they are
within 100 feet of the wetlands.
Mr. Porosoff said he looked at the driveway today and understands some blacktop
may be necessary but not the entire flat area. Mr. Minichetti said it is sloped. Mr. Porosoff
said it is pretty modest. Mr. Minichetti said the biggest problem is with maintenance, snow
plows, drainage and gravel rushing down the slope.
Mr. Shapiro said they are proposing 5,433 sq. ft. of lot coverage where 3,637 sq. ft. is
permitted or a requested variance of 48 percent.
Mr. Porosoff asked if they looked at any other options to help without involving so
much impervious surfaces. Mr. Minichetti said they considered cobblestone walkways. They
could change 458 sq. ft. to oil and stone sub straight base allowable as pervious with a slight
cover of gravel above.
Mr. Pietrosanti said under the SWEC there is no differentiation between gravel and
pavement. He would need a section detail to see if it could be deemed equal to gravel versus
an essentially asphalt pavement. He is leaning towards it being not pervious.
The Chair asked if there was anyone else who wished to be heard with respect to this
application, either in favor or in opposition.
Board of Appeals – 05/14/08
107
No other persons desiring to be heard, the Chair declared the hearing closed.
******
CASE #26 OF 2008
7. The Chair declared the hearing open on the application of Sixty Crane Holdings, Ltd. to
appeal the determination of the Building Inspector and for an interpretation of the Zoning
Code regarding Chapters 310-14, 310-20 through 23 of the Village Code regarding the
calculation of lot area coverage for the construction of a new house on a new lot adjacent to
60 Crane Road, to be shown on the Village tax map as Sec. 3, Blk. 1, Lot 2C.
The Chair said the seventh application to be heard is that of Sixty Crane Holdings,
Ltd. and asked the applicants or their representatives to step forward and identify themselves.
Robert Cromwell, applicant, and Paul Jason, attorney, were present.
Mr. Jason read from his Statement in Support which was included in this application.
It covered the background, discussion and summary of this appeal application. He said when
they submitted their application to the Building Department, Mr. Viola and Mr. Pietrosanti
stated his documents were incomplete and required additional information using the area of a
quadrilateral calculating the maximum permitted lot area. He said the problem with Section
310-14(B) of the Village Code is that that section doesn’t talk about lot coverage. He said
this is like a police officer with the wrong section of the law and this determination should be
voided. He asked if that was enough information or if he should proceed. The Chair said he
thinks Mr. Jason would have to proceed.
Mr. Jason said they researched the real reason for the Board of Trustees passing of the
1983 lot dimension law which was to regulate the shapes of the lots. Two years later the
Board of Trustees adopted the coverage laws in 1985. They were an intelligent group with
great deliberation and honest intent. Their words were clear and simple with rational
meanings. He said in 1983 they wanted to be unambiguous when they defined lot area; it is
the total lot area, clear and simple. He said you are not able to interpret this any other way to
make sense.
He said his curiosity was piqued by the staff notes. “In practice, the Village has
interpreted the code to base building and lot coverage on the area falling within the
quadrilateral and excluded both the lot area and the impervious surfaces which fall outside the
quadrilateral from the calculations.” He said the code doesn’t say that. Since what point in
time was this done. He said the Board of Trustees adopted laws in 1983 and 1985 and the
Planning Board was intelligent also in those days.
He wanted to review eight or nine subdivisions but they were difficult to find. The
staff came up with three; one was not pertinent but two were.
First was Case #25 of 1985, for 400 Mamaroneck Road. The Planning Board
approved this subdivision on January 22, 1986, only nine months after the lot coverage
section of the law was adopted. The subdivision map was filed with the county clerk. The
rear lot has a long stem which may be called a flag lot. There lot may not be but was
Board of Appeals – 05/14/08
108
approved in 2007. The size of the lot was 36,000 sq. ft. but the area falling within the
quadrilateral was 30,000 sq. ft. The lot coverage number submitted in 1983 and used for the
calculations was not the square footage of the quadrilateral but the number of the entire lot
area. He thinks the Planning Board knew the new code just adopted.
Second, in 1987 another two lot subdivision with Richbell and Lakin Road. One lot
has a long stem like theirs in the rear. The filed map showed 67,898.7 sq. ft. but the
quadrilateral area had a differential of 14,000 sq. ft. less. The application of Fran Klingsberg
for a Special Use Permit for a swimming pool and a terrace used 67,898.7 sq. ft. on the lot
coverage form which was the same number on the subdivision map which was accepted by
the Planning Board. One year later she came back for a basket ball court and the lot coverage
form was based on 67,898.7 sq. ft. as per the subdivision map. Either the Planning Board
along with the Village Engineer didn’t know what they were doing or the new total lot area
meant total lot area. He is not sure exactly when the Village interpreted it otherwise. He
believes there are several other applications from 1990, 1991 and 1992 which he suspects they
did the same. The Chair asked if it was done or did he suspect it was done. Mr. Jason said he
suspects it was done but it takes a long time to pull the files. He said Mr. Gardella and he
were around then. Mr. Gardella said Mr. Jason gives him credit to a better memory.
Mr. Jason asked they need to roll back a highly prejudicial interpretation of the code
that was never intended. It is an illogical conclusion that presents undesirable results. It
makes no sense. They should treat everyone the same and every piece of property should be
treated the same.
The Chair asked the staff to describe the basis of the Village’s interpretation. Mr.
Pietrosanti said regarding the paragraph Mr. Jason quoted on building and lot coverage, that
his predecessors in the Engineering Department and Building Department along with Ms.
Marrinan took the conservative approach of the lot coverage definition to be based on the area
of the quadrilateral. There is no definition of lot area in the code that states the total area of
the lot. This was the prior practice when he took over. He has no knowledge of the 1987 to
1990 applications referenced. Ms. Marrinan said they have been interpreting the code this
way for the last ten years. Mr. Pietrosanti said this approach is taken in irregular lots.
Mr. Jason said this concept is being put to test. If it excludes the entire access area it
will have a negative impact. But, they do have the ability to build an accessory structure in
the access area. These are very oddly shaped lots but are not prohibited from development.
The lot area coverage in the code is equal to a percentage of the total area of the lot; very
simple.
Mr. Porosoff said the definition in the code is of the gross lot area. Mr. Jason said the
language of the quadrilateral was deliberately left out the 1985 section of the code. They
didn’t want to include the gross area.
The Chair asked if there was anyone else who wished to be heard with respect to this
application, either in favor or in opposition.
Mr. Elliot Rosen, 14 Rochambeau Road, said he is a neighbor. Two days ago tree
clearance started. He asked if it is legal considering they have an appeal before this Board.
Board of Appeals – 05/14/08
109
Ms. Marrinan said the clearance on the improved lot and is as-of-right and on the new lot as
approved on the subdivision.
She said, speaking of the subdivision, the process went on for several months. On the
plat was a zoning chart and it was based on the area of the quadrilateral. She said she is not
sure what was changed with the Board of Architectural Review application.
Mr. Jason said he has questioned this interpretation of the code over several years and
properties. They used it for the subdivision plat but felt it was not the correct interpretation.
The needed to use the area of the quadrilateral for the subdivision or they would not be able to
proceed. Finally, he has a client who is willing to bring this question to a head. The Chair
asked why this was not done then. Mr. Jason said they need to meet the setbacks for the
house.
Ms. Marrinan said the lot coverage calculations are required by the Planning Board
and must be presented to include the maximum building coverage and lot coverage based on a
quadrilateral.
Mr. Cromwell said they were told they could not make a submission unless they used
the area of the quadrilateral. He said no house or impervious surfaces were designed at that
point and it was not an issue under the subdivision requirements. He said the met the
quadrilateral test for the subdivision with street frontage and average width of the lot. There
is no house design required at that point under the subdivision application. Now they have a
real plan for real houses and driveways so it now becomes an issue.
Mr. Gardella said he doesn’t agree. The lot coverage calculations are part of the
subdivision approval and review process. He said it was an issue there.
Mr. Jason said “respectfully noted.” It is an issue that this Board needs to address. If a
subdivision application is not able to proceed, they would have to go before the Board of
Appeals to come to grips with it. He is urging they come to grips now. They are still bound
by the other requirements.
Ms. Marrinan asked, if they submitted the calculations using the quadrilateral and
excluding the lot area and coverage on the “stem” of the property. Mr. Jason said in total
covering they are a shade less than 500 sq. ft. Ms. Marrinan said the staff notes requested this
be done for comparison purposes. Mr. Jason asked a design interpretation; can have a garage
structure on the main portion of the lot versus the leg?
Mrs. Carolyn Mehta, 12 Rochambeau Road, said Mr. Cromwell put in a driveway and
curb cut prior to an approval. She has read the code as a real estate agent and felt it applied to
lollipop or lots at the end of the stem. She said two mistakes don’t count. She urged the
Board to uphold the Building Inspector’s determination.
Mr. Rosen said Mr. Cromwell misrepresented to the seller. There is an uproar and
upset among the neighbors and the Board of Architectural Review. He urged the Board of
Appeals to think long and hard. He asked them to consider the community uproar of a project
that was fishy from the beginning and continues to be so.
Board of Appeals – 05/14/08
110
Mr. Joseph Moscowitz, 131 Popham Road, said he feels the same way. This was
shoved down their throats and is too big. A full size fence needs to be put up prior to
development, not only cloth. Ms. Marrinan said a chain link fence is a condition prior to the
issuance of a building permit. It is not required for tree removal. A construction fence was
required to protect his house and the historic house. She said the Planning Board didn’t
envision the tree removal being done so early. Mr. Moscowitz asked why it was allowed.
Mr. Pietrosanti said was conditioned on the Building Permit. Ms. Marrinan said felling trees
doesn’t require obtaining a Building Permit. Mr. Moscowitz said they are huge trees and
bonnets and the fence needs to be put up. Ms. Marrinan said we could investigate this matter
further.
Mrs. Barbara Moscowitz, 131 Popham Road, said the driveway went in prior to the
subdivision of a flag lot. Ms. Marrinan said the driveway is a separate application for a curb
cut. As the subdivision developed and emerged the new lot does have the required 70 foot
frontage and is allowed one curb cut.
No other persons desiring to be heard, the Chair declared the hearing closed.
******
CASE #27 OF 2008
8. The Chair declared the hearing open on the application of Angela and Yong Kim for
variances from Chapters 310-22 and 310-67 of the Village Code to construct an addition that
would exceed maximum permitted lot coverage at 30 Stonewall Lane, identified on the
Village tax map as Sec. 21, Blk. 1, Lot 35.
The Chair said the eighth application to be heard is that of Angela and Yong Kim and
asked the applicants or their representatives to step forward and identify themselves.
Angela and Yong Kim, applicants, and Silvio Luca, architect, were present.
Mr. Luca said they are requesting a variance for non-conforming impervious
coverage. The front portion of this property is in Mamaroneck and is not included in the
calculations. They are removing the existing driveway and converting it to gravel and
asphalt pavement. This is a one story addition. They are adding a second level. The
bluestone terrace patio will be removed and replaced with an addition to the home as well.
The Chair asked if the entire lot was within Scarsdale, would they still need a
variance. Mr. Luca said yes; they are 800 sq. ft. over.
Ms. Marrinan said they are requesting a 16 percent variance. Mr. Luca said it all the
applicants’ property were in Scarsdale they would only need a 14 percent variance. They
removed the asphalt driveway and pavement to the rear trying to reduce the size of the
variance needed. He said the zoning changed over the years. The swimming pool and tennis
court were done in 1983.
Board of Appeals – 05/14/08
111
The Chair said some asphalt is being replaced with gravel. He asked if any is just
being removed and not replaced. There was a discussion at the dais regarding the driveway
removal and replacement to grass, etc.
Mr. Porosoff asked about shed removal. Mr. Luca said both of the sheds will stay.
The Chair asked if there was anyone else who wished to be heard with respect to this
application, either in favor or in opposition.
No other persons desiring to be heard, the Chair declared the hearing closed.
******
CASE #28 OF 2008
9. The Chair declared the hearing open on the application of the Scarsdale Congregational
Church for an extension of the temporary Special Use Permit to allow parking for the tenants
of 7 Popham Road in a portion of the church’s parking lot at 2 Heathcote Road, identified on
the Village tax map as Sec. 13, Blk. 1, Lot 1.
The Chair said the ninth application to be heard is that of the Scarsdale
Congregational Church and asked the applicants or their representatives to step forward and
identify themselves.
Christine Lee, applicant, was present.
Ms. Lee thanked the Board for approving a Special Use Permit two years ago. It was
a godsend. Now they have another interested party and would like to extend the Special Use
Permit which is expiring in July. This deal is tied into the Ginsburg Development project in
the Village.
Ms. Marrinan said the proposed user is a tenant of the 7 Popham Road, not Christie
Place. Ms. Lee said they need a place to park until the Christie Place garage becomes
available.
The Chair asked the period of the extension. Ms. Lee said one year is being requested.
The Chair asked if there would be any negative impacts. Ms. Marrinan said one
neighbor originally was very concerned. She has checked with the Manager’s Office and
there have been no complaints. One or two neighbors came in to view the application but
there were no written concerns. Ms. Lee said one neighbor had concerns regarding parking
their son’s car there; but she no complaint. They have no complaints with Ginsburg regarding
traffic, cleanliness or additional noise and they are hoping for the same.
Mr. Shapiro said there has been no significant impact to the traffic of the local streets.
Ms. Lee said they used Drake Road for ingress and egress. They used it to avoid the corner.
Mr. Gardella asked about signage. Ms. Lee said only for the parking.
Mr. Pietrosanti asked about the striping. Ms. Lee said the lot has been striped.
Board of Appeals – 05/14/08
112
The Chair asked if there was anyone else who wished to be heard with respect to this
application, either in favor or in opposition.
No other persons desiring to be heard, the Chair declared the hearing closed.
******
CASE #29 OF 2008
10. The Chair declared the hearing open on the application of Lisa and Ira Hasson for a
Special Use Permit to construct a swimming pool at 35 Sage Terrace, identified on the Village
tax map as Sec. 5, Blk. 12, Lot 7.
The Chair said the tenth application to be heard is that of Lisa and Ira Hasson and
asked the applicants or their representatives to step forward and identify themselves.
Frank Giuliano, landscape architect, was present.
Mr. Giuliano said when he walked the property there was quite mature screening since
the site was graded and screened for the pool except on the school side. The plans show
additional screening and additional spruces towards the school. The existing screening is over
the five foot requirement per code.
The Chair said he believed they received a copy of the e-mail from David Siegel at 33
Sage Terrace regarding the screening on his property is not adequate screening of the
Hasson’s property. Mr. Giuliano said if there is not enough screening on the Hasson’s
property after the official survey is done, they will provide it.
The Chair asked if there was anyone else who wished to be heard with respect to this
application, either in favor or in opposition.
No other persons desiring to be heard, the Chair declared the hearing closed.
******
CASE #30 OF 2008
11. The Chair declared the hearing open on the application of Roohi and Iqbal Saleem for a
variance from Chapter 310-22 of the Village Code to construct an addition which would
exceed the maximum permitted building coverage at 15 Windsor Lane, identified on the
Village tax map as Sec. 7, Blk. 1, Lot 208.
The Chair said the eleventh application to be heard is that of Roohi and Iqbal Saleem
and asked the applicants or their representatives to step forward and identify themselves.
Iqbal Saleem, applicants, and Leonard Brandes, architect, were present.
Mr. Brandes said this is the first of over 60 projects in Scarsdale regarding a
quadrilateral. The property is wide open and is not a flag lot. This is an open property.
Board of Appeals – 05/14/08
113
They need a small variance of 280 sq. ft. or less than 10 percent. They are under on the FAR
and reduced the coverage. This is a very large lot.
Mr. Shapiro asked what is driving the 10 percent variance request. Mr. Brandes said
they would like and addition to the rear. The total lot area is 12,699 sq. ft. but they are only
allowed to use the area in the quadrilateral of 10,378 sq. ft. in the calculations. The FAR
uses the entire lot and they are under.
Mr. Shapiro asked about the green shaded areas on the board shown. Mr. Brandes
said it represented area excluded from the quadrilateral. Mr. Shapiro said even though the
existing garage is within the green. Mr. Brandes said it is an old two story house. The first
level is down eight feet to the house. This is an unusual property.
Mr. Shapiro asked if the yellow determines the size of the quadrilateral versus the
total lot. Mr. Brandes said for flag lots it makes sense with a long 15 foot driveway. Under a
large open lot it makes no sense. Mr. Shapiro said the illustration was good.
The Chair asked if there was anyone else who wished to be heard with respect to this
application, either in favor or in opposition.
No other persons desiring to be heard, the Chair declared the hearing closed.
******
Board of Appeals – 05/14/08
114
CASE #1 OF 2008
1.
Gail and Leon Behar
8 Brittany Close
Section 23, Block 1, Lot 4D
Special Use Permit to construct of a swimming pool and a variance to construct a wall
The Board considered the application of Gail and Leon Behar, Case #1 of 2008, 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) (10) and therefore not
subject to further environmental consideration under said regulations; and
WHEREAS: The property is one of twelve lots created by the subdivision of the “Winston
Estate” in 1999 and is in the A-1 (1 acre) zoning district; and
WHEREAS: The lot, as a result of the approved cluster subdivision, is 29,056 sq. ft.; and
WHEREAS: The subdivision approval and subsequent site plan approval restricted the
construction of a house to 50’ from the rear property line, adjacent to the
Quaker Ridge Golf Course and the house was completed in 2007; and
WHEREAS: The Planning Board approved a site plan for the swimming pool, pursuant to
Chapter 77 of the Village Code, at its 12/19/07 meeting; and
WHEREAS: Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code gives the Board of Appeals the authority
to grant special use permits for swimming pools and permits the Board to
establish regulations regarding swimming pools; and
WHEREAS: The plans show the proposed construction of a swimming pool and associated
fencing, terraces, walls and landscaping; and
WHEREAS: The location of the pool appears to meet the required setbacks and conforms to
the lot coverage requirements; and
WHEREAS: the Board of Appeals considered the application at its January 16, 2008,
February 13, 2008, March 12, 2008 and April 9, 2008 meetings; and
WHEREAS: During the course of the review the applicant revised the plans to address
concerns about tree removal, the height of the proposed pool enclosure fence,
Board of Appeals – 05/14/08
115
the storm water management system design and the Homeowners
Association’s regulations; and
WHEREAS: The Board of Appeals requires a five foot high pool enclosure fence and the
applicant proposes a wall that exceeds that height in two limited areas: one
three foot wide area where the wall meets the house and the second, a six foot
wide portion where there is an arch over a gate leading to the yard; and
WHEREAS: The Board members have visited the site and are familiar with 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; now therefore be it
RESOLVED: The application of Gail and Leon Behar for a variance from Chapter 158 of the
Village Code to construct a wall at 8 Brittany Close, as shown on Plans SP-2
revised March 20, 2008 be approved based on the following findings:
RESOLVED:
1.
The requested variance will not create an undesirable change in the
character of the neighborhood as the wall was designed with the entire
subdivision in mind and was reviewed and supported by the Homeowners
Association.
2.
The benefit sought, namely a smooth architectural transition from the
house to the wall cannot be achieved by another method other than a
variance.
3.
The requested variance, for 2’6” for a distance of 1’5”, then for 1’ for a
distance of 1’7” and then 3’6” requested for a distance of 6’ for the arch
over the gate, is not substantial and in fact, the applicant submitted revised
plans which reduced the variance request to this level.
4.
The requested variance will not have an adverse effect on the
environment and will help the wall blend into the architecture of the
neighborhood; and be it further
The application of Gail and Leon Behar for a Special Use Permit to construct
a swimming pool at 8 Brittany Close, as shown on L-1, L-2 and C-101 revised
February 25, 2008 be approved conditioned on the following:
1.
Pursuant to the February 12, 2008 memorandum from the Village
Naturalist and as required by the Planning Board in its approval of the Site
Plan, a tree bond of $10,000 shall be posted to ensure the preservation of
trees #305, #307, #308 and #309. Tree #306 is shown to be removed. The
tree bond shall be kept for a period of two growing seasons from the
issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy.
Board of Appeals – 05/14/08
116
2.
A Storm Water Management and Erosion Control Permit will be
required.
3.
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.
4.
Evergreen screening, 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 be installed and maintained on the applicant's
property as long as said pool is in existence.
5.
The fence and wall shall be constructed as shown on the plans
presented to the Board.
6.
A 24-hour filter circulating system shall be installed and maintained
above ground, and said filter (and heater, if any) shall be enclosed with a
fence 5' feet in height with a self-closing and self-latching gate and
landscaped screening.
7.
Lighting of the pool and adjacent premises shall be limited to
underwater lighting.
8.
Drainage and sanitary facilities, conforming to the requirements of the
Scarsdale Village Code, shall be installed and maintained. Measures must
be taken to insure 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.
9.
The use of the swimming pool shall be limited to the occupants of the
principal building and their guests.
10.
Any necessary removal of rock shall be by methods other than
blasting.
11.
Methods and plans for tree conservation and preservation shall be
submitted as a part of the application for a Storm Water Management and
Erosion Control permit. The soil erosion control and tree protection
measures shall be in place prior to the issuance of a Building Permit.
12.
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 and
fencing and the as-built lot coverage.
Board of Appeals – 05/14/08
117
13.
The swimming pool shall be completed within 18 months and shall not
be used prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
14.
The Certificate of Occupancy shall not be issued until the applicant
complies with all conditions set down by the Board.
15.
Failure to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy within a period of 18
months from the date of this resolution shall cause said resolution to
become null and void.
******
Board of Appeals – 05/14/08
118
CASE #20 OF 2008
2.
Saba and Suhail Shaikh
70 Griffen Avenue
Section 24, Block 1, Lot 22
Variance to legalize a parking area in the front yard
The Board considered the application of Saba and Suhail Shaikh, Case #20 of 2008,
and, upon motion duly made and seconded, held the application over to a future meeting
pending receipt and review of the following:
1.
2.
Plans showing additional landscaping alternatives
Plans that reduce the size of the requested variance with the potential removal
of a portion of the turn-around area.
******
Board of Appeals – 05/14/08
119
CASE #18 OF 2008
3.
Susan and Elliot Rose
15 Richbell Road
Section 14, Block 5, Lot 25
Variance to legalize the installation of a generator in the side yard
The Board considered the application of Susan and Elliot Rose, Case #18 of 2008,
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 a minor accessory structure is a Type II action pursuant to 6
NYCRR 617.5(c) (10) and therefore not subject to further environmental
consideration under said regulations; and
WHEREAS: The property is in the A-1 (1 acre.) zoning district and is listed in the
Assessor’s records as 1.59 acres and is a result of a subdivision approved in
1978; and
WHEREAS: The property is improved with a house built in 1922 and a pool built in 1967;
and
WHEREAS: Chapter 310-7(S) (2) of the Village Code states that generators must be placed
in the principal or accessory building or in an underground facility constructed
purposely to house a generator or in the rear yard of any property located
behind the house and shall be set back 20 feet from the rear and side yard
property lines; and
WHEREAS: The plans and application materials show the location of the generator which
was installed in the side yard without the benefit of a building permit; and
WHEREAS: The applicant submitted a layout plan of the generator which shows the
generator is located 20’4” from the side property line; and
WHEREAS: The applicant stated the side yard location was preferable as it least impacted
the adjacent properties; and
WHEREAS: The Board members have visited the site and are familiar with the application;
and
Board of Appeals – 05/14/08
120
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; now therefore be it
RESOLVED: The application of Susan and Elliot Rose for a variance from Chapter 310-7S
of the Village Code to legalize the installation of a generator in the side yard
at 15 Richbell Road, as shown on the Generator Layout Plan dated March 27,
2008 be approved based on the following findings and conditions:
1.
The requested variance will not produce an undesirable change in the
character of the neighborhood as the applicant will need to demonstrate
the generator meets the requirements of the Village Code regarding noise
and landscaped screening.
2.
The benefit sought, namely the installation of an emergency back-up
generator, could be achieved by relocating the generator into a conforming
location; however, due to the configuration of the lot and the location of
the houses on the adjacent lots, the side yard location will, in fact, have
less of an impact on the neighboring properties.
3.
The requested variance will not have an adverse effect on the physical
or environmental conditions of the neighborhood as it will need to meet
the Village Code requirements regarding noise and landscaped screening.
4.
5.
The generator should be screened with evergreen landscaping.
A Certified survey should be filed prior to the issuance of a Certificate
of Occupancy and must confirm that the generator conforms to the
20’setback requirement.
******
Board of Appeals – 05/14/08
121
CASE #21 OF 2008
4.
Dr. Jessica Lattman and David Rosenberg
41 Sheldrake Road
Section 17, Block 1, Lot 41
Amendment to the Special Use Permit approved for the construction of a swimming
pool to relocate the pool enclosure fence
The Board considered the application of Dr. Jessica Lattman and David Rosenberg,
Case #21 of 2008, 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) (10) and therefore not
subject to further environmental consideration under said regulations; and
WHEREAS: The property is located in the A-1 (1 acre) zoning district and is listed in the
Assessor’s records as 1.0 acres and on the lot coverage form as 43,877 sq. ft.;
and
WHEREAS:
The house was built in 1953 with a major renovation and additions done in
2001 – 2005; and
WHEREAS: The Board of Appeals approved a Special use permit for the swimming pool at
its September 19, 2007 meeting and the pool is currently under construction;
and
WHEREAS: Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code gives the Board of Appeals the authority
to grant special use permits for swimming pools; and
WHEREAS: The plans show the proposed relocation of the pool fence from the property
line to a location more closely surrounding the pool; and
WHEREAS: The Board members have visited the site and are familiar with the application;
now therefore be it
RESOLVED: The application of Dr. Jessica Lattman and David Rosenberg for an
amendment to the Special Use Permit approved for the construction of a
swimming pool to relocate the pool enclosure fence at 41 Sheldrake Road, as
shown on Plans L-1 through L-6 dated March 17, 2008 be approved
conditioned on the following:
Board of Appeals – 05/14/08
1.
122
All conditions included in the September 19, 2007 Board of Appeals
resolution remain in full force and effect.
******
Board of Appeals – 05/14/08
123
CASE #22 OF 2008
5.
Deborah and Yoram Cohen
7 Dolma Road
Section 18, Block 1, Lot 13B
Variance in order to construct an addition that would exceed the maximum permitted
building coverage
The Chair noted that the application of Deborah and Yoram Cohen, Case #22 of 2008,
would be held over to a future meeting at the request of the applicants’ representative.
******
Board of Appeals – 05/14/08
124
CASE #23 OF 2008
6.
Ilyse and Lyndon Tretter
15A Richbell Road
Section 14, Block 5, Lot 25B
Special Use Permit to construct a swimming pool
The Chair noted that the application of Ilyse and Lyndon Tretter, Case #23 of 2008,
would be held over to a future meeting at the request of the applicants.
******
Board of Appeals – 05/14/08
125
CASE #24 OF 2008
7.
Lauren and Craig Nossel
40 Park Road
Section 16, Block 3, Lot 6A
Special Use Permit to construct a swimming pool
The Board considered the application of Lauren and Craig Nossel, Case #24 of 2008,
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) (10) and therefore not
subject to further environmental consideration under said regulations; and
WHEREAS: The property is located in the A-1 (1 acre) zoning district and is listed in the
Assessor’s records as 2.44 acres and on the lot coverage form as 106,257 sq.
ft.; and
WHEREAS: The original house was built in 1926; however the Committee on Historic
Preservation approved the demolition and a new house is currently under
construction; and
WHEREAS: Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code gives the Board of Appeals the authority
to grant special use permits for swimming pools; and
WHEREAS: The plans show the proposed construction of a swimming pool which appears
to meet the Board’s setback requirements, a terrace and associated landscaping
and fencing; and
WHEREAS: The Board members have visited the site and are familiar with the application;
now therefore be it
RESOLVED: The application of Lauren and Craig Nossel for a Special Use Permit to
construct a swimming pool at 40 Park Road, as shown on Plans L-2.0 and L3.0 revised March 31, 2008 be approved conditioned on the following:
1. The proposed “Pool Code Welded Wire Fencing” is not approved as
the perimeter fencing. Pre-approved styles include the Jerith wrought
iron fence or black or green chain link fence and one should be
substituted for the welded wire fencing. In addition, the “Pool Code
Board of Appeals – 05/14/08
126
Wrought Iron Fence” as shown on Plan L-7.1a should have a two inch
separation between pickets, not three inches as shown.
2. A Storm Water Management and Erosion Control Permit will be
required.
3. 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 selfclosing 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.
4. Evergreen screening, 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 be installed and maintained
on the applicant's property as long as said pool is in existence.
5. A 24-hour filter circulating system shall be installed and maintained
above ground, and said filter (and heater, if any) shall be enclosed with
a fence 5' feet in height with a self-closing and self-latching gate and
landscaped screening.
6. Lighting of the pool and adjacent premises shall be limited to
underwater lighting.
7. Drainage and sanitary facilities, conforming to the requirements of the
Scarsdale Village Code, shall be installed and maintained. Measures
must be taken to insure 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.
8. The use of the swimming pool shall be limited to the occupants of the
principal building and their guests.
9. Any necessary removal of rock shall be by methods other than
blasting.
10. Methods and plans for tree conservation and preservation shall be
submitted as a part of the application for a Storm Water Management
and Erosion Control permit. The soil erosion control and tree
protection measures shall be in place prior to the issuance of a
Building Permit.
11. The applicant shall submit an "as built" survey and certified lot
coverage form to the Building Inspector prior to the issuance of a
Board of Appeals – 05/14/08
127
Certificate of Occupancy, showing the final location of the pool and
fencing and the as-built lot coverage.
12. The swimming pool shall be completed within 18 months and shall not
be used prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
13. The Certificate of Occupancy shall not be issued until the applicant
complies with all conditions set down by the Board.
14. Failure to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy within a period of 18
months from the date of this resolution shall cause said resolution to
become null and void.
******
Board of Appeals – 05/14/08
128
CASE #25 OF 2008
8.
Merle and Stephen Denelsky
131 Cushman Road
Section 16, Block 4, Lot 10
Variance in order to pave a gravel driveway which would exceed the maximum
permitted lot coverage on this wetlands controlled lot
The Board considered the application of Merle and Stephen Denelsky, Case #25 of
2008, and, upon motion duly made and seconded, held the application over pending receipt
and review of the following:
1.
Alternative plans that would reduce the amount of the variance request,
particularly given the property’s location in a sensitive sub-drainage basin
and its proximity to wetlands to the rear.
******
Board of Appeals – 05/14/08
129
CASE #26 OF 2008
9.
Sixty Crane Holdings, Ltd.
60 Crane Road
Section 3, Block 1, Lot 2C
Appeal the determination of the Building Inspector and for an interpretation of the
Zoning Code regarding Chapters 310-14, 310-20 through 23 of the Village Code
regarding the calculation of lot area coverage for the construction of a new house on a
new lot adjacent to 60 Crane Road
The Board considered the application of Sixty Crane Holdings, Ltd., Case #26 of
2008, and, upon motion duly made and seconded, held the application over to a future
meeting pending receipt and review of the following:
1.
The applicant should address the timeliness of the application.
2.
The applicant should submit the comparative lot coverage calculations
that are based on the total lot area and based on the lot area within an
inscribed quadrilateral.
3.
The applicant should supply copies of the examples, mentioned at the
meeting, of two subdivisions approved in the late 1980’s.
******
Board of Appeals – 05/14/08
130
CASE #27 OF 2008
10.
Angela and Yong Kim
30 Stonewall Lane
Section 21, Block 1, Lot 35
Variances to construct an addition that would exceed maximum permitted lot coverage
The Board considered the application of Angela and Yong Kim, Case #27 of 2008,
and, upon motion duly made and seconded, held the application over pending receipt and
review of the following:
1.
The applicant should present alternative plans that reduce the size of
the variance request.
2.
The applicant should submit lot coverage calculations that include the
area of the lot within the Town of Mamaroneck in the total lot area, for
comparison purposes.
******
Board of Appeals – 05/14/08
131
CASE #28 OF 2008
11.
Scarsdale Congregational Church
2 Heathcote Road
Section 13, Block 1, Lot 1
An extension of the temporary Special Use Permit to allow parking for the tenants of 7
Popham Road in a portion of the church’s parking lot
The Board considered the application of the Scarsdale Congregational Church, Case
#28 of 2008, 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, a
minor temporary use of land having negligible or no permanent impact on the
environment is a Type II action pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617.5(c) (15) and
therefore not subject to further environmental consideration under said
regulations; and
WHEREAS:
The property, the parking lot located across the street from the Congregational
Church on Heathcote Road, is in the A-1 (1 acre) zoning district and is listed in
the Assessor’s records as 2.66 acres; and
WHEREAS:
Chapter 310-88 of the Village code authorizes the Zoning Board of Appeals to
grant temporary and conditional special use permits for a period of two years
or less for uses and buildings which, but for such permission, would not
comply with the requirements of this chapter; and
WHEREAS: The Church is seeking permission to continue the Special Use Permit approved
by the Board of Appeals on July 26, 2006 to provide parking on the back
section of the parking lot for construction workers and commuters displaced by
the Christie Place development; and
WHEREAS: The Church has developed a tentative agreement with F & R Popham, the
owners of 7 Popham Road, to provide 20 spaces initially and up to 50 spaces
ultimately, for employee and client parking for new tenants of the office space
there; and
WHEREAS: The tenant would provide shuttle service between their building and the
Church parking lot; and
Board of Appeals – 05/14/08
132
WHEREAS: The arrangement is scheduled to begin in June and end once the Christie Place
parking garage is opened, providing additional parking options in the Village
Center; and
WHEREAS: The Board members have visited the site and are familiar with the application;
now therefore be it
RESOLVED: The application of Scarsdale Congregational Church for an extension of the
temporary Special Use Permit to allow parking for the tenants of 7 Popham
Road in a portion of the church’s parking lot at 2 Heathcote Road, as shown on
the materials submitted with the application be approved for a period of one
year.
******
Board of Appeals – 05/14/08
133
CASE #29 OF 2008
12.
Lisa and Ira Hasson
35 Sage Terrace
Section 5, Block 12, Lot 7
Special Use Permit to construct a swimming pool
The Board considered the application of Lisa and Ira Hasson, Case #29 of 2008, 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) (10) and therefore not
subject to further environmental consideration under said regulations; and
WHEREAS: The property is located in the A-3 (10,000 sq. ft.) zoning district and is listed in
the Assessor’s records as .42 acres and 18,730 sq. ft.; and
WHEREAS: The house was built in 1924 with additions and alterations made since then;
and
WHEREAS: Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code gives the Board of Appeals the authority
to grant special use permits for swimming pools; and
WHEREAS: The plans show the proposed construction of a swimming pool which appears
to meet the Board’s setback requirements, a terrace and associated landscaping
and fencing; and
WHEREAS: The Board members have visited the site and are familiar with the application;
now therefore be it
RESOLVED: The application of Lisa and Ira Hasson for a Special Use Permit to construct a
swimming pool at 35 Sage Terrace, as shown on the Proposed Pool Site Plan
dated April 16, 2008 be approved conditioned on the following:
1.
The required evergreen landscaping should be planted on the subject
property and not be dependent on the landscaping on the adjacent property
to the south. The applicant should stake the property line to determine the
location of the existing screening and shall supplement this screening if
necessary on the subject property.
Board of Appeals – 05/14/08
134
2.
A Storm Water Management and Erosion Control Permit will be
required.
3.
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.
4.
The fence and/or wall shall be constructed as shown on the plans
presented to the Board.
5.
Evergreen screening, 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 be installed and maintained on the applicant's
property as long as said pool is in existence.
6.
A 24-hour filter circulating system shall be installed and maintained
above ground, and said filter (and heater, if any) shall be enclosed with a
fence 5' feet in height with a self-closing and self-latching gate and
landscaped screening.
7.
Lighting of the pool and adjacent premises shall be limited to
underwater lighting.
8.
Drainage and sanitary facilities, conforming to the requirements of the
Scarsdale Village Code, shall be installed and maintained. Measures must
be taken to insure 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.
9.
The use of the swimming pool shall be limited to the occupants of the
principal building and their guests.
10.
Any necessary removal of rock shall be by methods other than
blasting.
11.
Methods and plans for tree conservation and preservation shall be
submitted as a part of the application for a Storm Water Management and
Erosion Control permit. The soil erosion control and tree protection
measures shall be in place prior to the issuance of a Building Permit.
12.
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 and
fencing and the as-built lot coverage.
Board of Appeals – 05/14/08
135
13.
The swimming pool shall be completed within 18 months and shall not
be used prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
14.
The Certificate of Occupancy shall not be issued until the applicant
complies with all conditions set down by the Board.
15.
Failure to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy within a period of 18
months from the date of this resolution shall cause said resolution to
become null and void.
******
Board of Appeals – 05/14/08
136
CASE #30 OF 2008
13.
Roohi and Iqbal Saleem
15 Windsor Lane
Section 7, Block 1, Lot 208
Variance to construct an addition which would exceed the maximum permitted
building coverage
The Board considered the application of Roohi and Iqbal Saleem, Case #30 of 2008,
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
proposed addition to a single family house as well as the request for a variance,
is a Type II action pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617.5(c) (9, 12) and therefore not
subject to further environmental consideration under said regulations; and
WHEREAS: The property is located in the A-3 (10,000 sq. ft.) zoning district and is listed in
the Assessor’s records as .29 acres and 12,669 sq. ft. and is improved with a
house built in 1950 with additions and alterations made since then; and
WHEREAS:
In 1949 the Board of Appeals granted a rear yard setback variance due to the
unusual configuration of the lot; and
WHEREAS: Chapter 310-22 of the Village Code regulates building coverage based on lot
area; and
WHEREAS: Chapter 310-14B of the Village Code states that “… no part of a lot shall be
included in calculating the required lot area except such part as falls within
either an inscribed quadrilateral, no part of which has less that 1/3 of the
minimum required lot width, or an inscribed circle…”; and
WHEREAS: The plans show the proposed construction of an addition on the first floor with
a second story addition over a portion of the new and existing first story,
extending toward the White Plains Road side of the property; and
WHEREAS: The zoning table shows the original building and lot coverage calculations
based on the total lot area and based on the “area within a quadrilateral” which
effectively reduces the lot area from 12,669 sq. ft. to 10,378 sq. ft.; and
WHEREAS: The building footprint is shown as 2,817 sq. ft. where 2,545 sq. ft. is permitted
for a requested variance of 272 sq. ft. or 10%; and
Board of Appeals – 05/14/08
137
WHEREAS: The Board members have visited the site and are familiar with 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; now therefore be it
RESOLVED: The application of Roohi and Iqbal Saleem for a variance from Chapter 310-22
of the Village Code to construct an addition which would exceed the maximum
permitted building coverage based on the lot area within the quadrilateral at 15
Windsor Lane, as shown on the Site Plan dated April 2008 be approved based
on the following findings:
1.
The requested variance will not create an undesirable change in the
character of the neighborhood as the proposed addition will have a
deminimus impact on the adjacent properties.
2.
The benefit sought, namely additional living space cannot be achieved
by another feasible method other than the area variance due to the unusual
configuration of the lot.
3.
The requested variance will not have an adverse effect on the
environmental conditions in the neighborhood.
******
Board of Appeals – 05/14/08
138
CASE #31 OF 2008
14.
Cheryl and Joel Breitkopf
24 Ogden Road
Section 4, Block 3, Lot 341
Variances to construct an addition which would exceed the maximum permitted lot
coverage and expand the existing nonconforming building coverage on this property
located in a Flood Plain
The Chair noted the application of Cheryl and Joel Breitkopf, Case #31 of 2008, has
been withdrawn.
******
Board of Appeals – 05/14/08
139
The Chair announced that the next meeting of the Board of Appeals would be held on
Wednesday, June 11, 2008, at 8 p.m.
******
The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m.
******
Janet Annacone
Secretary to the Board